him in the eyes of his educated countrymen. The attempt partially succeeded. For though outside the Bombay Presidency, these disputes failed create any impression still in Maharashtra the estrangement between the Reformers and the Orthodox party became complete; and what is more important, the Bombay leaders who had taken very little part in the Social questions of the day were considerably influenced by the controversies owing to their association with the Reformers at Poona. Here then was sown the seed of that misunderstanding between the Lion of Bombay and the Lion of Poona, which unfortunately was destined to bear fruit at Surat in 1907. And all this could have been avoided by a single tactful and timely move on the part of Ranade.
In conclusion, we may note one or two incidents in the life of the Congress which have a direct bearing on the present narrative. We have already seen that in the 2nd Congress at Calcutta, the Grand Old Man of India, keenly aware of the danger of mixing up Social Reform with Politics, declared the former as lying outside the scope of the Congress. Not that he did not favour Social Reform, but he was particular about the unity of Congressmen. The third Congress under the Presidency of the late Mr. Badruddin Tyabji did not pass a resolution in favour of Cow protection, simply to conciliate Mahomedan opinion, in spite of the fact that the President himself and all the delegates were in favour of protecting cows. If then the third Congress could leave out one important resolution—a question of principle — for the sake of unity, could not Ranade have tried
