cracy to take advantage of the psychological moment offered by the Poona murderers (1897) and launch on a policy of widespread repression in the Presidency. Immediately after resuming (4th July 1899) the editorship of the Kesari, after his one year's incarceration, Mr. Tilak made a powerful appeal to the 'Moderates':—
"When, two years back, the political school of Moderation sprang into existence, we had presaged as much. Some of our critics had blamed us for our pessimism, but our prophesy was fully borne out .... However, let bygones be bygones. Let us turn over a new leaf now. We find that owing to the disorders due to the plague and to the angry attitude of the Government, all our movements have come to a standstill. If we mean to revive them, our first duty is to close up our ranks. Like the crows of the fable, we, each of us, call ourselves peacocks. Only our opponents are crows! But there is the eagle of the Bureaucracy in the sky, bent on confounding us, crows, peacocks and all. Should not the experience of the last two years make us wiser? There are some papers who pride themselves on their moderation, because they have not been prosecuted in 1897. But is it necessary for us to say why and how they escaped scot-free? They should at least look to the Gile's circular before satisfying themselves of their innocence. Both the political parties are agreed as to the rights we want to get from the rulers. Both are agreed as to the need of demanding these rights from the Government and of educating the people to make such demands. If this is so, where is the room for "Moderation" and "Extremism"? None of us ever dreams of breaking or transgressing the laws of the
