|
Archival Notes VISITORS IN PONDICHERRY
Limitations of space make it impossible for this instalment of Archival Notes to be more than a simple commentary on the documents published in this issue. It will be recalled that Sri Aurobindo was placed under police surveillance a few days after his arrival in Pondicherry in April 1910. The surveillance continued for more, than twenty-five years. During this period agents of the Madras office of the Criminal Investigation Department (C.I.D.) gathered as much information as they could on any person who came to visit Sri Aurobindo. If the visitor was a native of British India, or of a state that recognised the suzerainty of Britain, he soon found himself in an unenviable position. To associate with a suspected terrorist leader was to invite similar suspicions of oneself. The visitor would be kept under observation throughout his stay in Pondicherry. Once his identity was learned, the authorities in his place of residence would be informed. Unhappy consequences often followed, as they did for Mr. D. L. Purohit, whose career was ruined because he paid a brief visit to Sri Aurobindo in 1912. Purohit and Sri Aurobindo had both been professors at the Baroda College. Purohit taught Philosophy, Sri Aurobindo, English. The two were not particularly intimate, but the faculty of the College was small, and their paths must often have crossed. When Sri Aurobindo was appointed Vice-Principal in 1904, he became Purohit's nominal superior. A year and a half later Sri Aurobindo left Baroda, and his relations with Purohit ceased. Then, on 23 July 1912, his old colleague called on him in Pondicherry. Purohit was collecting information on religious institutions in India. After speaking to several persons in Madras, he took the train south to the capital of French India. Purohit later explained that he decided to do this because he wanted to see how religious organisations functioned under French law. His long and detailed presentation of this alibi in Document 4c does not carry much conviction. Still less believable was his denial of having had any intention to visit Sri Aurobindo. His cock-and-bull story explaining how the meeting came about must have made those who scrutinised it smile. Purohit certainly knew that Sri Aurobindo was in Pondicherry; he certainly called on him deliberately; but just as certainly his visit was not part of a revolutionary conspiracy. It was, as A. B. Purani later wrote (Document 5), simply a "courtesy call" on an old acquaintance. Purohit did show Sri Aurobindo the questionnaire he sent to those he wished to interview (Document 4d). His notes on the meeting (Document 4e) show that Sri Aurobindo spoke frankly with him. Sri Aurobindo's remarks as recorded by Purohit tally in many respects with his own account of his current sadhana in Record of Yoga. Sri Aurobindo seems to have considered his discussion with Purohit to be of minor importance. He did not mention it in the Record, even though he did make a brief entry on the day of the meeting. (He occasionally made note of similar meetings in the journal.) But if Sri Aurobindo gave no importance to Purohit's visit, the British police did. After Purohit left Pondicherry, the Madras C.I.D. informed the British political agent or "Resident" in the princely state of Baroda that the professor had been engaging in suspicious activities. The local British Police Commissioner informed the Prime Minister of Baroda (Document 4a), who demanded an explanation from Purohit (Document 4b). It was a bad time for a problem affecting the relations of Baroda and the British Government to crop up. The previous December the Maharaja of Baroda, Sayajirao Gaekwar, had given grave offense to the Government of India. At the Darbar or Royal Audience in Delhi, the Maharaja had turned his back on the exalted person of George V. The British considered this a deliberate act of insolence on the part of a prince whose loyalty had long been suspect. Much correspondence had to pass between Baroda and Delhi before the slight was forgiven. The Purohit case followed too closely on the heels of the Darbar scandal to be treated lightly. Purohit's removal was demanded, and on 26 November 1912 he was obliged to submit his resignation (Document 4f). This sad tale had a happy ending. After leaving the College, Purohit became a lawyer, and soon was earning more at this profession than he ever had as a professor. The British Raj was able to put as much pressure as it liked on the government of a subordinate state like Baroda. More diplomacy had to be used when the object of its unfriendly attention was the citizen of an independent country. Alexandra David-Neel has become famous as the first Western woman to enter the forbidden city of Lhasa. Before going to Tibet, the adventurous Frenchwoman spent several months touring India. Informed by her friends Paul and Mirra Richard that a remarkable yogin was living in Pondicherry, she came to the French enclave in November 1911. After passing an uncomfortable night in the city, and spending the next morning viewing its unimpressive sights, she met Sri Aurobindo in his rented house on Rue St. Louis ("Raghavan House").1 Mme David-Neel described this meeting in a letter written to her husband a few days afterwards (Document 1). Another account written many years later and first published in 1951 (Document 2) still communicates vividly her impressions of the encounter. Mme David-Neel was not in the least concerned with Indian politics. Her interest in meeting Sri Aurobindo was, as she herself said, purely philosophical. But to the British police, anyone who called on the notorious Aurobindo Ghose laid himself open to the worst sort of suspicions. The head of the Madras office of the C.I.D. thought it necessary to question the lady when she re-entered British India. Taking her nationality, her sex, and her cultured background into consideration, he did everything he could to make the interview as painless as possible. His report of their meeting preceded Mme David-Neel to Calcutta, which was then still the seat of the Government of India. In the course of her discussions with British officials in the capital, the topic of Aurobindo Ghose inevitably came up (Document 2, letter of 14 February). Mme David-Neel not only spoke her mind to the private secretary of the Viceroy, but wrote to the Viceroy himself. Lord Hardinge's polite reply of 11 March 1912 (Document 3) laid the matter to rest at last. The name of the same Viceroy appears in a very different context elsewhere in this issue. On 23 December 1912, Hardinge was grievously injured by a bomb during
1 The visit must have taken place on 23, 24 or 25 November. Mme David-Neel wrote a letter from Tiruchchirappalli on the twenty-second in which she stated that she intended to depart for Pondicherry that evening. She spent a night in Pondicherry before meeting Sri Aurobindo. The letter in which she first described the meeting was dated "Adyar-Madras, 27 November 1911." She went to Adyar the day following her arrival in Madras, which thus took place at the latest on 26 November, but possibly as early as the twenty-fourth. A whole day would have been set aside for the trip from Pondicherry to Madras. his ceremonial entry into the new capital of Delhi. The bomb was made and thrown by revolutionaries connected with Sri Aurobindo's spiritual and political disciple Motilal Roy. A short while later Sri Aurobindo wrote a letter to Motilal in which, according to Motilal's disciple Arunchandra Dutt, Sri Aurobindo referred to this attempt. In this undated letter (written probably early in January 1913) Sri Aurobindo wrote: "About Tantric yoga; your experiment in the smashana was a daring one, — but it seems to have been efficiently & skilfully carried out, & the success is highly gratifying."2 Dutt writes that "smashana" (burning ground) was a code word for Delhi.3 It is certain that in Sri Aurobindo's correspondence with Motilal, "Tantric Yoga" stood for revolutionary activity. There is no reason to disbelieve Dutt's claim that the experiment" referred to in the letter was the Delhi bombing. A certain type of human intelligence, however, may have a hard time reconciling Sri Aurobindo's remark with the many solicitous references he made in Record of Yoga to the injured Viceroy's condition. Certain entries, e.g. that of 15 January, show that Sri Aurobindo used his spiritual will (Aishwarya) to promote the healing of Hardinge's wounds. The contradiction between the two attitudes is of course only superficial. This is not a matter that the historian of external events need concern himself with, but it may be suggested that Sri Aurobindo could well have approved of the attempted assassination as a matter of political expediency, while deprecating it from an occult or spiritual point of view. Sri Aurobindo was unquestionably a leader of the revolutionary movement until 1908. After his release from Alipore jail in 1909, he remained in touch with the secret societies of Bengal, and was considered by the active leaders to be the head of the revolutionary organisation. Even after his coming to Pondicherry, Sri Aurobindo, by his own account, "for some years . . . kept up some private communication with the revolutionary forces he had led, through one or two individuals".4 These individuals were Motilal Roy and his associates. But Sri Aurobindo soon came to feel that European-style revolutionary activity was counterproductive. Even before the attempt on the Viceroy's life, he wrote to his Pondicherry friend Parthasarathi5 that he considered terrorism to be the "only enemy" of the Indian National Movement, something that had to be got rid of before "truth will have a chance".6 A year or two later Sri Aurobindo asked Motilal to stop all revolutionary activity.7
2 A slightly edited version of the text of this letter is printed in Sri Aurobindo, Supplement (1972), pp. 428-30. 3 Sri Aurobindo, Light to Super light. With explanatory notes by Sree Arun Chandra Dutt. Calcutta: Prabartak Publishers, 1972, p. 50. 4 Sri Aurobindo, On Himself (1972), p. 37. 5 This man, the brother of the well-known Tamil revolutionary Srinivasachari, is referred to once or twice in the extracts from the Record published in this issue. 6 Archives and Research, vol. 1, no. 2 (December 1977), p. 84. 7 Sri Aurobindo, Supplement, p. 458ff. In this letter revolutionary activity is referred to as "Tantrik Kriya". |