Srinivasa Sastri and Annie Besant – II

Srinivasa Sastri and Annie Besant-II

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 Kenya had broken his heart and health. Mrs. Besant framed, in con­sultation with her associates, a Swaraj Constitution for India. This Constitution was put forward before a National Conference in Delhi, convened among others by the Rt. Hon’ble Srinivasa Sastri, Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru, Sir P. S. Sivaswami Aiyar and others, with Mrs. Besant as Secretary. This Conference outlined the essentials of a Constitution for a self-governing Dominion of India within the Commonwealth.

A National Convention was established in 1924 by the initia­tive of Mrs. Besant and it appointed a deputation to go to England consisting of Mrs. Besant, Sastri, Lady Emily Lutyens, Munshi lswar Saran and some others. Sastri arrived in England with Mrs. Besant in May 1924, and together they addressed many meetings, had many interviews with important cabinet ministers, M. Ps. and public men and women. Mrs. Besant and Sastri were the leading members of a delegation which presented to the India Office a demand for Dominion Home Rule for India. Sastri made a most impressive, ten-minutes speech of very high praise to Mrs. Besant at a big demonstration held in Queen’s Hall on 23rd July, 1924 in London to celebrate the Golden Jubilee of Mrs. Besant’s public service. Mr. Ramsay MacDonald, Lord Haldane, Philip Snowden, Lord Baden-Powell and several distin­guished members of the Fabian Society were there to pay their tributes. Writing on 17th July 1924 to Mr. Vaze of the Servants of India Society, Sastri wrote:

“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 Himalayas. Sastri who had a rational approach to all things, in spite of his deep and rich inheritance of the spiritual heritage of India, stood away from such supra-mundane attitudes and adopted the motto “Prove all things, hold fast to that which is true.” An incident which occurred in 1915 is revealing. Gandhi, the Hero of the South African India Struggle and the prophet of Satyagraha, visited Madras in that year. There was a most enthusiastic welcome to him from the citizens of Madras. Mrs. Besant went to the railway station to join with the large group that received him. She also met him and invited him to visit the Theosophical Society in Adyar and be her guest, which he did on the 27th April 1915. Sastri was present at the reception. Recalling this occasion, he said:

“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 Madras was there, and his wife too. We had a wonderful gathering. It was a sight for the gods to see Mrs. Besant, robed as though she was 30 years old, come and take a place as the principal reciter. We did not know of it till then. When she said, “I am going to recite this poem”, we were taken by surprise. No note in her hand, no book near her, and we could see nobody acting as prompter. But, mind you, she recited the whole of that poem without a pause, without one moment of hesitation, word coming after word, line following line, and filling your ears and hearts at the same time, with the power of true stirring poetry. It was a song of patriotism. She felt some­how with Mr. Gandhi before her and hundreds of other people that if she could recite this poem and if there could be one seed of true patriotism cast in a psychological moment, not directly but with time in her favour, there would be some good result following. It was a wonderful performance. I never can forget it however long I live. Her voice was strong. It was full, and she threw so much energy, so much rendering of the heart into what she was saying that you heard every word, you understood every sentence, and you felt every throb of emotion. This was, mind you, when she was in her ’Sixties.”

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, to the city of Madras, in spite of G. A. Natesan’s and Sastri’s persuasions to stay on. Writing to Mr. D. V. Gundappa on 17, September, 1923, Sastri writes:

“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 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 ward 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 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.