62 SOCIAL SCIENTIST said objective he banked upon the Indian masses rather than on the British conscience as he had no faith in the British whom he considered responsible for many ills that besetted the nation. Achievement of objective rather than purity of means was primary for him. Therefore, use of religion in politics, concessions to the Muslim League, and declaration about Shivaji to be possibly a Muslim were no sacrilegious acts for him. Further, Tilak, as the author points out, stood for the promotion of (a) 'Swadeshism and development of Indian Industries by all recognized methods including state subsidies and protective tariff.... (b) national unity by such means as the establishment of a lingua franca for all India; betterment of relations between followers of different religions, and especially the strengthening of the Hindu-Muslim Entente . . . (c) free and compulsory education without distinction of sex and special contributions and increased grant—in aid from state funds to Municipalities and Local Boards to carry out this object immediately,' .... etc. His manifesto written for the Congress Democratic Party which he had formed in 1920 was 'borrowed* heavily in the matter of constitutional reforms, as the author claims, from the 'last testament* of Cokhale. The author, thus, has presented almost all the events and views related with Tilak and Gokhale alongwith that of Naoroji, Ranade and Gandhi. However, while discussing the events and views, he has neglected one major aspect of the period, i.e., the discussion on the class-setting of the Indian society in the given period. He nowhere analysis the social roles and the conditions of peasantry, industrial proletariat, urban middle classes, bourgeoisie, etc. Neither does he analyse the multifaceted linkages of the Congress with that of the Indian classes nor does he analyses specifically, the identification of Tilak with the peasantry, proletariat and lower middle classes, and of Gokhale with that of Indian elite. In short, he has nowhere given the economic picture of the Indian society and its linkages with politics. His arguments at many places are tautological and the facts presented are repetitive. Lastly, the book has numerous printing errors. However, inspite of these drawbacks the book is of importance and its publication timely as it elucidates the views of builders of modern Indian in the period of communalism and economic liberalisation against which they fought and dedicated their lives. HIMANSHU ROY Dept. of Political Science, A.R.S.D College, Delhi University, New Delhi 110021