SRI AUROBINDO'S INTERVIEW OF 15 AUGUST 1908

On pages 114 and 115 we reproduce the transcript of an interview given by Sri Aurobindo to a correspondent of the Anglo-Indian evening newspaper Empire on 15 August 1908. This day was doubly significant: first it was Sri Aurobindo's thirty-sixth birthday, secondly it was the last day on which evidence was admitted in the magistrate's enquiry that preceded the Alipore Bomb Trial. Sri Aurobindo once remarked in a letter: "15th August is usually a turning point or a notable day for me personally either in sadhana or life." (Supplement, p. 433) In the Empire interview he made the same point, mentioning important events that had taken place on his two previous birthdays as well as a significant happening in the courtroom that day. This was the announcement by the magistrate, Mr Leonard Birley, that he intended to commit the accused on a charge of "waging war against the King" and in addition would charge Sri Aurobindo's brother Barindra Kumar Ghose for abetment of murder as well. Birley's announcement was doubtless important, but the really significant event of the day escaped the notice of everyone in court. On the 14th pleaders for Sailendranath and Dindayal Bose had applied to cross-examine some of the witnesses, including the approver Narendra Nath Goswami. After some consideration Birley rejected the petition, saying that he did not wish to hold the accused before trial any longer. (Bande Mataram 15 August 1908). On the 15th the two defense pleaders renewed their application. It was at this point that Birley passed his order saying that he already had a prima facie case against the accused and intended to commit them: there was therefore no reason for the witnesses to be cross-examined before him, as they would be cross-examined in the Sessions court. This may have seemed a reasonable ruling, but it was, as a government file (IOR J&R 4494/1908) makes clear, contrary to the law. Birley's apparently trivial mistake took on enormous significance when the approver was assassinated two weeks later. Had no application to cross-examine been made it is likely that Goswami's deposition would have been used against the accused. It was Birley's refusal to permit cross-examination that made this testimony inadmissible as evidence. The outcome of the trial, Sri Aurobindo's verdict of not guilty included, might have been different if the magistrate had been more careful on 15 August 1908.

Page-128