Both of them have been worshippers of their own cons- cience. But they have never, Hke the Moderate leaders, emphasied their disagreement with the people. Both have considered leadership to be the capacity to interpret and appreciate the national sentiment and to conduct it in the most constructive channels. But there has been one difference. During the last thiry years, Mr. Tilak, with unerring astuteness, not only understood the will of the people, but had the elasticity to interpret it in action, with the result, that his leadership was continuous. With regard to Mr. Gandhi, though his hands have always been on the pulse of the people, and though he has been uniformly in sympathy and general agreement with his countrymen on the political issues, still he has not always cared to lead them. When the whole of India was astir and aglow with enthusiasm under the banner of Mrs. Besant and Mr. Tilak, Mr. Gandhi, carried away by his chivalrous regard for the difficulties of John Bull, was comparatively silent, though fully sympathetic. I am sure, if to-morrow the way to the national freedom is to lie through the Reformed Councils, Mr. Gandhi would disdain to go there and would very likely retire to his Ashram at Sabarmati. On the other hand, Mr, Tilak would have been in the Councils at the head of the militant Congressmen fighting every inch of the ground with his ready, resourceful and astute brain. In fact, the intellectual and moral leadership of Mr. Tilak had immense possibilities. Born three hundred years ago,, he would have been the Shivajee of the Mahratta people ; Mr. Gandhi would have contented himself with becoming a Ramdas. Born a hundred years hence.
