His ideal of a Social Reformer was a Buddha, a Kabir or a Tukaram. The leader of the Social Reform movement must essentially be a man of peace. He must be a lover of Indian civilisation and culture and must proceed to reform society with due respect for the traditions of the society itself. He must not only be of our society but must live in it. He must be bold enough to break those bonds that have outlived their utility; but at the same time he must be calm enough not to harm his cause by abusive language. He must be a "stalwart Puritan man, battling for the right, trustful but not elated, serious but not dejected." He should make his way through misunderstandings, opposition and persecution by sheer force of truth, love and courage.
But the Social Reform movement of Mr. Tilak's youthful days did not conform to this ideal. It was essentially a child of the Western civilisation; it had its origin in callous disregard of the past. It ignored the study of the fundamental basis of Indian Society. It was not discriminating. It was largely imitative. It sought to copy Western life and institutions. The leaders were weak, halting and inconsistent; the followers had nothing in them but sound and fury. Sustained enthusiasm and sterling sacrifice were woefully at a discount. It was a movement which claimed, first priority to and later on equal status with the political movement and sought radically to reconstruct our society without taking note of the traditions of the past or the insufficient materials available in the present. Such an artificial and indiscriminating movement, launched by a handful of fanatics simultaneously
