land while demanding our rights. What then is the difference? ... Already the Government has restricted our liberty of speech. It is suicidal, therefore, to emphasise our political differences. . . . Let us not keep aloof from each other by creating false doubts and differences .... (Kesari July 4th 1899).
Apparently the appeal fell on deaf ears: for nine years later, we find history repeating itself! An open rupture, a bomb outrage and a policy of terrible repression! Shall India never learn the evils of disunion?
At a metting organised at Poona to do honour to Mr. (now Hon. Mr.) R, P. Paranjpye on his return from Cambridge, poor Mr. Tilak was not even invited! The organisers of the meeting were more anxious to obtain the recognition and patronage of the Government!
This, however, was only a straw, though indicative of the direction, in which the wind was blowing. Various such instances can be quoted. When Lord Sandhurst was about to retire (1900 Feb.), the usual question of a public address and a pubhc memorial was discussed. Dr. Bhalchandra and Mr. (Dr. Sir) Chandavarkar led the movement. Mr. (Sir) Dinshaw Wacha and Mr. (Hon. Sir) Chimanlal Setalwad were strongly against it, but seeing the attitude of their master, the Lion of Bombay, they had to yield. Ranade was diplomatic. He took no part in the controversy. He pleased himself and Lord Sandhurst by a garden-party. This demoralisation in the public life of the Presidency intensely pained Mr. Tilak. Nothing surprised him more than the attitude of Sir (then Mr.) Pherozeshah who had strongly opposed such a movement when Sir Richard Temple and Lord Harris were
