--

It is needless to make further researches as to the killing
of Afzul Khan. Let us even assume that Shivaji deliberately
planned and executed the murder. Was the act good or
evil? This question cannot be answered from the standpoint
of the Penal Code or of the laws of Manu or according
to the principles of morality laid down in the systems of the
West or of the East. The laws which bind society are for
common folk like you and me. No one seeks to trace the
genealogy of a Rishi or to fasten guilt upon a Maharaj. Great
men are above the common principles of morality. Such
principles do not reach to the pedestal of a great man. Did
Shivaji commit a sin in killing Afzul Khan? The answer to
this question can be found in the Mahabharata itself. The
Divine Krishna teaching in the Gita tells us we may kill
even our teachers and our kinsmen, and no blame attaches
if we are not actuated by selfish desires. Shivaji did nothing
from a desire to fill his own belly. It was in a praiseworthy
object that he murdered Afzul Khan for the good of others.
If thieves enter our house and we have not strength to drive
them out, should we not without hesitation shut them in,
and burn them alive? God has conferred on the _mlencchas_
(foreigners) no grant of Hindustan inscribed on imperishable
brass. Shivaji strove to drive them forth out of the land of
his birth, but he was guiltless of the sin of covetousness.
Do not circumscribe your vision like frogs in a well. Rise
above the Penal Code into the rarefied atmosphere of the
sacred Bhaghavad Gita and consider the action of great men.

In the reflected blaze of this apotheosis of Shivaji, Tilak stood forth
as the appointed leader of the "nation." He was the triumphant champion
of Hindu orthodoxy, the high-priest of Ganesh, the inspired prophet of a
new "nationalism," which in the name of Shivaji would cast out the hated
_mlencchas_ and restore the glories of Mahratta history. The Government
feared him, for people could put no other construction on the official
confirmation of his election when he was returned in 1895 as a member of
the Bombay Legislative Council--above all, when inside the Council-room
he continued with the same audacity and the same impunity his campaign
of calumny and insult. His activity was unceasing. He disdained none of
the arts which make for popularity. His house was always open to thos