have thought it prudent to remain aloof from the festival. The Moderates too, were afraid to co-operate with Mr. Tilak. In spite of these circumstances, the Shivaji festival has become a permanent feature of the pubHc life of Maharashtra; at times it has been celebrated even beyond the bounds of the Bombay Presidency,—in Bengal and in Japan. It will ever remain a permanent source of inspiration to the people.
Up to 1893, inspite of acute Social Reform controversies, there was no split among the Congressmen. But the outbtrcak of the Hindu-Mahomedan riots created an unfortunate breach. Mr. Tilak was the first to assert that the riots were the direct outcome of the divide-and-rule policy, which a section of the officials had inaugurated. Anxious to fasten the responsibility on others, the Anglo-Indians and some of the officials threw the blame on the movement of cow-protection, with which they had persuaded themselves that Mr. Tilak was associated. With the possible exception of Sir Pherozeshah Mehta and the Hon. Mr. Rahimtulla Sayani, most of the Bombay politicians, later known by the unenviable title of Moderates, meekly gulped down this pill. They chafed at Mr. Tilak for having blurted out the truth. They had not the courage even of refuting the connection which was sedulously sought to be established between the riots and the cow-protection Societies, though, a few months later, even the Government of Bombay 'hesitated to accept' the view. The unpleasantness engendered in the course of these controversies, was aggravated by the Congress controversies at Poona (1895). To top this all came the dissensions in the Poona Sarvajanik Sabha, where
