unsupported by evidence and having no foundation in facts should never have been propounded. According to Mr. Paranjpye, Mr. Tilak had two unpardonable faults. He never learned the simple lesson that two persons could differ on some points while agreeing on many others; and worse still, Mr. Tilak was such a masterful personality that he could never work with an equal. The inevitable consequence followed. Mr. Tilak, unable to tolerate differences of opinions in his colleagues became more and more overbearing in his dealings with them; and jealousy completed the breach thus created by intolerance.
Is there any shred of truth in these accusations? Have they been supported by any evidence, real or imaginary? The answer is no. That Mr. Tilak held strong views on many important problems of the day is well-known; but that differences in opinions created the breach in the D. E. Society has yet to be established; and that Mr. Tilak allowed these differences so to over-power him as to influence his conduct with those interested in the work of the Society is indeed a large assumption. Why, we can enunciate just the contrary proposition and undertake to prove it from manifold instances on record. Unlike Messrs Apte and Agarkar—his principal opponents in the Society— Mr. Tilak was essentially a man of action; and being a man of action he never hesitated to co-operate even with his opponents. Times without number, Mr. Tilak had occasion to crosss words with Dr. Bhandarkar; but in the picketing campaign of 1908, Dr. Bhandarkar was his friend and ally. Times without number, Mr. Tilak had occasions to condemn the public conduct of Dr. Bhatavdekar;
