the Congress pavilion. If responsible leaders like Hume could give vent to such thoughtless remarks, can we blame Sardar Balasaheb Natu for having given such an undue importance to the site of the Social Conference?
Mr. Tilak's attitude regarding the dispute about the Social Conference was perfectly reasonable. As early as July 23rd, 1895, he openly declared in the Kesari that those who made the holding or not holding of the Social Conference in the Congress Mandap the condition of their financial support to the Congress were not the friends of the Congress. He proposed that the dispute should be decided by the Congress itself or by the Reception Committee. A better solution of this question could not be imagined and yet the cry was kept up that Mr. Tilak was supporting the extreme wing of the orthodox party headed by Sardar Natu! A side-light on the sincerity of this cry is thrown by the fact that some of the Reformers (e.g. Kashinathpant Natu, Keshavrao Patvardhan) refused to contribute to the Congress fund unless positively assured that the Social Conference would be held in the Congress pavilion.
Another cry in the same game of anyhow discrediting Mr. Tilak was that his attention to the Congress work was perfunctory. People were "shocked" to find that the pavilion was not ready in September. Mr. Tilak reminded them it could be done only after the rainy season was over. "What about chairs" said they. Mr. Tilak told them that though the chairs bore the brand of "Australian chairs" still they could always be had in Bombay at a week's notice. "And the volunteers"? Well, the volunteers were not required before the middle of December; still, written complaints were
