the attention of the National body. Nonplussed, the Congress leaders resorted to their usual tactics. The President threatened to resign the presidential post if Mr. Tilak persisted in the matter. Not liking to bring matters to a head, Mr. Tilak withdrew his proposition. At the Satara Provincial Conference, (May 1900) Mr. Tilak again sought to move the following resolution:—
"That this Conference desires to place on record its deep sense of regret that during the last few years, the Government of Bombay should have been pleased to adopt a retrograde policy of repression and distrust, as evidenced by Press prosecutions, arrests and imprisonments of persons without trial, widening of the powers of the Police . . . and it earnestly prays for a speedy return to the Policy of Progress . . . which had characterised the best traditions of British Rule in India."
Here, too, the President, Mr. Gokuldas K. Parekh, perhaps remembering how most of the leaders of Bombay had been associated with the Sandhurst Memorial movement sought to suppress the Resolution by threatening to resign his post. The opposition at last was reconciled on one condition. The resolution, though not formally moved, was recorded in the proceedings of the Conference. This was surely creditable to Mr. Tilak whose party commanded an overwhelming majority. Out of 180 delegates, as many as 124 had sided with Mr. Tilak and had signed the requisition sent to the President of the Conference.
It will thus be seen that self-interest, timidity "policy" induced most of the Congress leaders to forget their duties and responsibilities to the people
