accepting a European professor helped to widen the breach. Mr. Tilak steadfastly tried to remain loyal to the original ideals while others were equally determined to give way to circumstances. Finding the situation hopeless, Mr. Tilak took leave (June 1889) for one term with the object of ultimately withdrawing from the body. A compromise was then effected on the question of outside work, salaries and internal relations and then Mr. Tilak rejoined the school. But like previous arrangements, this too proved nothing more than a paper arrangement. So for the peace and harmony of the institution he loved most, Mr. Tilak, after a very painful struggle severed his connection from the D. E. Society (Dec. 1890).
When Mr. Tilak has detailed these reasons in his memorable resignation, when the records of the D. E. Society bear witness to the incessant struggles between his lofty idealism and the continued efforts of some of his colleagues to improve their financial position at the cost of the great principle of self-sacrifice, is it not rather strange that those v/ho, though not eye-witnesses to the events culminating in Mr. Tilak's resignation have at least ready access to the documents of the Society, should have come forward to anyhow discredit Mr. Tilak in the eyes of the general public? The Hon. Mr. Paranjpye, in one of his gratuitous attacks on Mr. Tilak has attempted to discover the causes of Mr. Tilak's disagreement with his colleagues. But he has not a word to say about the sordid considerations and disputes which disfigured the Society's Proceedings Book for a number of years. All these controversies he conveniently ignores and rushes to his own pet theories which.
