Srinivasa Sastri
and Annie Besant-II
Prof. T. N. JAGADISAN
1924 witnessed a fresh struggle for
constitutional advances and renewed efforts at unifying the political parties
towards a common goal. Mrs. Besant took a leading
part in these endeavours. She counted upon Sastri’s influential support which he gave readily, though
the betrayal in 1923 of the British Government over equality of citizenship
for Indians domiciled in
A National Convention was established in 1924
by the initiative of Mrs. Besant and it appointed a
deputation to go to
“On the 23rd I have to speak at a
celebration. Mrs. Besant completes 50 years of public
service. I will not grudge praise –
why should I?”
Recalling this meeting in his speech on Mrs. Besant in October 1943, Sastri
said:
“The most remarkable feature of the gathering
was that upon the platform, with intent to speak, there were about twenty
people, each representing one activity in which he or she had been associated
in the very early days with Dr. Besant. When the
meeting was over and you remembered the speeches, strictly bearing upon issues
in question, you noticed that they were all so diverse. The tributes made it
clear that Dr. Besant had devoted herself and her
early life to work of a diversified character in many departments, for many
purposes in greatly varying circumstances and conditions, and that wherever
she laboured she left a mark which those associated
with her could never afterwards forget.”
It is of the deepest interest to study,
though briefly, the nuances of the relative relationship in which Sastri stood to Besant and Gandhi
and also to note the attitude of Gandhi and Besant to
each other. Sastri, though he had his vital
differences with Gandhi, regarded him as a Colossus among men by virtue of a
blameless character, exalted idealism and saintly asceticism. He regarded Mrs. Besant too as a Titan among human beings. There was a
romantic bond of friendship and brotherhood between Gandhi and Sastri, the like of which is almost impossible to meet
among people who differed so widely and fundamentally in politics. Mrs. Besant’s attitude to Sastri was
one of deep affection as that of a mother and admiration for his intellectual
gifts and brilliant statesmanship. Sastri stood in
good relationship with both of them. So both Gandhi and Besant
wrote and spoke intimately to Sastri of the other. In
a letter, dated 18 March, 1920, he told Sastri of the
invitation of Mrs. Besant to join the All-India Home
Rule League, and of his reply:
“I have told them at my time of life and with
views firmly formed on several matters, I could only join an organization to
affect its policy and not be affected by it. This does not mean that I would
not keep or that I do not have an open mind to receive new light. I simply wish
to emphasise the fact that any new light will have to
be specially dazzling in order to entrance me.”
If Gandhi was a man of definite views, so was
Mrs. Besant. They never hit it off, though each had a
deep respect for the other. If Gandhi heard his “inner voice”, Mrs. Besant heard the “marching orders” from her Guru in the
astral body, dwelling in the
“When Mrs. Besant
was much past the prime of life she still had so much vigour,
her mind worked so clearly, that we were all struck one night by the marvellous way in which she was reciting a patriotic poem
written by James Russell Lowell. I think it was 700 to 1000 lines that she
recited. It was after dinner. She had asked Mr. Gandhi to be her guest that
day. Half
Sastri’s account leaves out a curious episode.
Gandhi, far from being impressed by the great efforts taken by Mrs. Besant to entertain and honour
him, was repelled by the splendour of the occasion and
what he deemed to be the inappropriate luxury of the surroundings of the
Theosophical Society. He left unceremoniously, that very night, back to the
city of
“Mrs. Besant and
Gandhi have each in a different way, enslaved our people’s minds, made them superstitious and feminine. With a vast amount of
good to their credit, they have done this great disservice; and one sometimes
wonders whether it was worthwhile. But the scales come down decisively on the
good side, I think. And they strongly dislike each other.
Once, do you know the episode? Gandhi was
invited to stay at Adyar and reluctantly stayed
overnight. At a reception after dinner, Mrs. Besant
appeared with blazing jewels and in beautiful silk. The ascetic was shocked and
left unceremoniously next morning! (Actually the same night.)
I have heard each strongly disapproving the
other. Did each recognise a quack in the other? There
is much in Gandhi which a penetrating student of human nature must classify as
conscious subtlety or jesuitry as Mr. Gokhale used to call it, not for fun, but in sober
earnest.”
It fell to Sastri’s
lot to differ often from his dearest and most respected friends. In 1924, there
was an outbreak of anarchical activity in Bengal, and Government took fright
and at the instance of Lord Lytton, the Governor of
Bengal, the Viceroy passed the Bengal Ordinance, which in the opinion of Sastri was in some respects worse than the Rowlatt Act. Mrs. Besant approved
of the Bengal Ordinance of November 1924, while Sastri
opposed it and wrote a spirited article in the Servant of India which
brought him a chorus of approval from Congress and Swarajist
circles. Sastri explained his position to Mrs. Besant in a long letter, which is quoted below:
Bangalore City,
November 4, 1924.
Dear friend,
I feel I owe it to you to convey my feeling
that on the recent Bengal events our views diverge. The Ordinance promulgated
by the Viceroy and about to be embodied as a piece of permanent legislation in
Bengal is in reality the Rowlatt legislation just as
it was introduced in the old Imperial Legislative Council and before it was
amended in the select committee. You remember how every non-official member of
the time, nominated as well as elected, voted against the measure and how even
several officials declared privately to us that they would have voted on our
side if they had been free. This Rowlatt Act is
really the origin of most of our political troubles today; and we have all said
it times without number. To say a good word for the Ordinance now is a violent
break with the past.
Poor Lord Lytton is
in a sad plight. He is faced with an acute situation. Extraordinary legislation
is unavoidable. It need not, however, be so drastic as it is. To get hold of a
person without warrant and lock him up somewhere without intending ever to
bring him to trial is the negation of citizenship. It is impossible to give
such a power to the Indian Executive. They have again and again shown a complete
lack of self-restraint and callousness to public opinion. Provided a cloak of
legality can be thrown over their actions they do not mind how far they go. You
yourself can recall a few dozen cases of extreme hardship and even cruelty not
many years ago, for which, notwithstanding most earnest exertions, you were not
able to obtain much relief.
Reading and Lytton
are personally nice and charming gentlemen. Unfortunately the bureaucracy is so
strong and the Government of India, in England and in India, is such a pitiless
machine that even good-natured potentates are powerless for good. They may
delay; they may mitigate; but these achievements would be altogether too small
in comparison with the tremendous evil which they sanction. And poor fellows,
even these small achievements must be kept secret; and they cannot get credit
for them. No doubt it is more their misfortune than their fault. But however
gently we deal with them, it is impossible, so I feel it, to uphold them in
their public action.
You will forgive me one candid observation.
It gives me no pleasure to make it. The chances of the Unity Conference which
you are about to convene in the third week of this month are greatly diminished
by what you have written in New India on this topic. Perhaps, you knew
the cost and made up your mind to pay it. Personally I feel that a blunder has
been made and has deprived us of the fruit of much labour
and anxiety.
Let me sum up in a few sentences the big
things you have done for making united action possible. On landing in Bombay,
you began to write and speak about unity, interviewed Gandhi and half-consented
to spin. Sapru and I and others did not like this
last item, and we all hoped that somehow or other it would never be brought
into operation. Besides you have now adopted the expression “Round Table
Conference” although at one time we quarrelled with
its implications. The National Convention, which was to be all-comprehensive
and afford room even for the Swarajist who was
pledged to wrecking the Reforms, became one of the several organisations
which ought to send delegates to another body which would draft the Indian
Constitution. Instead of the legislatures being in the centre
of the picture as we had originally intended, a select assortment of a century
of leading men, selected by a score of eminent persons, is to arrive at
momentous decisions in the name of India. This great change in the programme which, in my judgement,
cannot but prejudicially affect the moral authority of its work, was adopted in
Delhi (as you told me) at the instance of Messrs Nehru and Das.
I do not make complaint. I have indeed no
right to do so. Not being in touch with you, I cannot expect to know of each
move in time. Still in their totality now, these moves towards united action
form such a great change that I doubt that I should have approved it if I had
known. Nevertheless, believe me, my anxiety for united action was so great
that I cheerfully acquiesced in your recent attempt and hoped with all my heart
that your sacrifices and your exertions would bring about the end we have so
much at heart. You can, therefore, imagine how much I grieve that our views on
the present Bengal situation should threaten the edifice of unity which you
were building up. I recognise not only their
sincerity – forgive my seeming impertinence – but from one point of view, their justness. I likewise appreciate the
tact and delicacy with which you have expressed them. I trust they will not be
lost on the Bengal Swarajists. Still, in view of my
part in the agitation of the Rowlatt Bill, I do not
find it possible now to countenance a mere reproduction of it and it is painful
to me to have to take a line different from yours on this occasion. Believe me,
I will not allow it to mar the cordiality of our fellowship.”
With sincerest regards as ever,
Yours affectionately
Y. S. SRINIVASA SASTRI
To this letter, Mrs. Besant
wrote a detailed reply, explaining her position.
Adyar,
5th November, 1924
Dear friend,
I am grieved by your letter, but it can’t be
helped. It is part of my job to stand against secret conspiracy, and I am
taking exactly the same ground that I took in 1915 and when the Rowlatt Bill was passed. That Bill made a person liable to
arrest if he had in his pocket a revolutionary leaflet, and was a continuation
of the Defence of India Act after the war was over.
This Ordinance is very carefully guarded and the crimes given in the schedules
on 65, 34, 12 are all definite crimes. The Legislative Council made the Rowlatt Bill apply only to revolutionaries and both Gandhi
and I agreed that there was then nothing in it we could disregard. So he broke
other laws instead, as a pretext.
Surely you are mistaken in saying that a man
may be locked up without even bringing him to trial. Within a month, at
longest, the evidence must be laid before two Judges (Sessions) of 5 years
experience and in writing on the Ordinance this morning (before I had your
letter) I pointed out that the accused should be present.
Probably the R. T. Conference will not, take
place, at least I have had no answer from Das, Nehru & Co. But that does
not touch our Convention. It was distinctly agreed that there was to be no
interference with other organisations. I propose to
call the Convention in December, before the party organisations
meet and I am trying to get in the reports of the Committee. Our Convention is
composed of past and present members of Councils almost entirely. We shall draw
our Bill and if the others won’t come and help, they can stay out. Our Bill
will go to the Committee as promised, but I wanted others to join.
As ever
ANNIE BESANT.
Sastri again wrote in reply to Mrs. Besant.
Bangalore,
November 6, 1924.
Dear friend,
If I write again on
the Viceroy’s Ordinance, it is only to clear up two points on which no
misunderstanding need arise.
It is true Gandhi did not select the Rowlatt Act for civil disobedience. He could not have
selected it, for then he should have made up his mind to conspire and
participate in revolutionary crime. But he started his Satyagraha campaign
against it, all the same with consequences that have not yet ceased. We
discountenanced his Satyagraha, but did not yield to him in our detestation of
the Act or the vigour of our denunciation.
The preventive part of the Ordinance is
better than the corresponding part of the Rowlatt Act
in one particular–the omission of Sections 124 A arid 153 A. Lord Chelmsford’s Government were on this point guilty of a
degree of perversity which was not understandable, for these sections had not
been suggested even by the Rowlatt Committee. But in
another respect the original Act was better – it limited detention
and other action to one year in the first instance and two years in any case.
I am not wrong in saying that, under the
Ordinance, detention without trial may be indefinite as to time. No time limit
is made to the orders (including internment, externment
and imprisonment) under Section 12. The fifteen days and the month that you
refer to are in respect of the detention made by an officer, without previous
orders from the Local Government, under Section 14 – a very different matter.
Even these periods are in great excess of the power given to police officers in
ordinary cases.
Nor can the reference of the case with
Government’s records and the detenu’s answers, if
furnished by him, to the study and report of two persons of judicial experience
be described by any stretch of language as a trial. Government is not bound to
accept the opinion of these persons, any more than these persons are bound to
hear the detenu or, his pleader, or even record their
reasons for their opinion, or communicate their opinions or their reasons to
the detenu. Under the Rowlatt
Act the provision was not better in substance, but the investigating authority
was composed better and more explicit facilities were provided on the detenu’s behalf for the obtaining of information.
Yours very sincerely,
V. S. SRINIVASAN
Sastri’s
health broke down seriously towards the end of 1924 and Mrs. Besant wrote to him a letter of tender solicitude for his
health.
Madras,
December 8, 1924.
My dear Srinivasan,
I am grieved to hear that you are not doing
well. Please do not come to the National Convention at the smallest risk to
your most valuable health. We all know that you would come, if you could. As
soon as I have the Draft Bill printed I will send it to you for comments, etc.
We shall have another meeting at Delhi when the Indian legislature is sitting,
and then, if you take care of yourself, we shall have the great help of your
presence.
With affectionate regards.
As ever,
ANNIE BESANT
Again she wrote from Madras on December 10,
1924.
MY dear Srinivasan,
Thanks for your letter. Though we shall all
and I particularly miss you much, I am yet glad that you would not risk the
journey. I will send you on Tej Bahadur’s
and Siva Rao’s Draft Bill. It is useful to have it as
a basis for discussion. Also, I will send you our Franchises Report, now being
printed off.
I do not propose to make any alteration in
our proceedings because of the Bombay Conference Committee. I will help them as
much as I can, but will go steadily on with our own work. I entirely agree with what you say on the
matter. I think our next meeting should be in Delhi when the Legislature is
sitting, unless we find at Bombay that an immediate meeting is necessary.
Take care of yourself, dear friend,
With affectionate, regards,
ANNIE BESANT
Sastri’s health so deteriorated and the condition of
his heart gave room for anxiety that on the advice of doctors he resigned from
the Indian Legislative Council. There was a chrous of
regret combined with hopes and prayers for Sastri’s
full recovery and early return to public life. Mrs. Besant
wrote an affectionate letter.
Government House,
Calcutta, June 15, 1925
My dear Srinivasan,
I have been so rushed to get through in time
that I have not been able to write to you. I am very grieved that you cannot go
to Delhi, but it would be madness to take the risk and as Simla
is also barred, I think you do right to resign. But my hope is that the
complete rest will give you back to India and to us for the coming years. A
good deal of this year will go in for preliminaries and useless squabbles,
while the Swaraj party transforms itself. C. R. Das
is very ill and in a precarious state.
Opinions are divided on my letter regarding
revival of old Congress. Unless the Liberal leaders take it up, I shall do
nothing, as the National Convention will carry on steadily whatever happens,
But the Liberals, although pledged, do very little in that.
I leave here tonight
for Benares and go on thence to Delhi on the 23rd. My
Delhi address is C/o Lady Emily Lutyens, Architects’ Camp, Raisina,
Delhi.
Sapru says that the 13th to 20th February “may”
suit him for Convention. So I am issuing out notices for February 14. It is
difficult for me to be so long away, but the time and cost of journeys backward
and forward between Madras and Delhi are prohibitive.
Yours with affectionate regards,
ANNIE BESANT
Mrs. Besant was a
kind hostess whose liberality knew no bounds. Sastri
experienced her tender hospitality when Mrs. Besant
lodged him in one of her beautiful cottages in the shady vicinity of the river Adyar and nursed him back to health. I have heard Sastri speak of Mrs. Besant’s
solicitude for his comfort, concern for his health and how she used to bring
him every morning punctually at 6 o’clock hot coffee which she herself had
prepared. She gently knocked at the door and said “Srinivasa,
here is your cup of coffee”, and made enquiries if he had a restful night. Sastri described to me the way she prepared a heavy
decoction and made coffee with only a few drops put in the milk.
Sastri had the opportunity of meeting George Bernard Shaw and hearing his
wonderful praise of Annie Besant. Recalling his
meeting with G. B. Shaw, Sastri said:
“Once in South Africa I had the singular good
luck to have as my fellow-guest no less a person than George Bernard Shaw. He
told me at the luncheon that he had known Dr. Besant
in her early youth, and he testified to two qualities of hers which we were
afterwards to know at every turn in this country. He said she was a woman of
tremendous energy, she was capable of bearing the burden of three men, and she
worked day and night without intermission and all on a very high level of
efficiency. It was marvellous to hear such testimony
from George Bernard Shaw. He said more to me. He said of her oratory that even
in the early days it was nearly as perfect as we knew it to be in this country
when she had practised the art for a great many
years. He singled out the qualities of simplicity and directness and also of
the most perfect clarity of expression.”
In closing this study of the relationship of Sastri to Mrs. Besant, I would
like the readers to remember that they both ranked among the noblest of human
beings and that they both achieved peaks of greatness and, above all, they both
wrought for the Freedom of India and at the same time for the emancipation of
mankind. Both of them were seen and heard in the great councils of the world
and parliaments of men. They have a lasting message for humanity. They belong
not only to the galaxy of the Founders of India’s Freedom but to the
everlasting race of humanists who allure mankind ahead to peace and harmony.