Nirodbaran

Talks with Sri Aurobindo

Volume 1

10 December 1938 – 14 January 1941

15 October 1940

Nirodbaran: Have you read Gandhi’s article? He says there is nothing much to choose between British rule and Nazism.

Sri Aurobindo: Yes, I have read it. Let him be under the Nazis and then he will realise the difference.

Purani: Amarnath Jha has given a speech in South India. He says that this is not the time for non-violence. One can make a righteous war. Non-violence very often is a cloak for cowardice.

Sri Aurobindo: Cowardice? One can’t say that. Non-violent resistance can’t be cowardice. You can say that non-violence may lead to cowardice on the pretext of non-resistance.

Purani: Yes, simply out of fear of resistance people will take up an attitude of non-violence. That was why a prominent leader of Congress once said in a speech, “I prefer non-violence but if you can’t accept it, at least don’t sit quiet in times of trouble or danger. Do something.” To this Gandhi took objection.

Sri Aurobindo: Why? He has said that himself many times.

Satyendra: Yes, only now he has taken an absolute stand.

Sri Aurobindo: My only objection is that he wants to use non-violence as a ramrod; it is not practicable under present circumstances. Individual Satyagraha may be possible because some individuals have reached that stage of evolution but as a wholesale mass movement it is not practicable. He muddles the whole thing by bringing it into politics. As a prophet of non-violence, he can practise it as a movement of ethical affirmation, a demand of the soul.

Satyendra: Yes, if he had led some such sort of movement with people who could strictly follow him, there would have been nothing to say. From that viewpoint, his retirement from politics after the Poona affair was the right move.

Sri Aurobindo: Yes, it was the right thing.

Satyendra: But people drag him in, foist on him the leadership of the country.

Nirodbaran: But doesn’t Gandhi himself have the idea of saving India politically too? Then why should we blame others or can we say that the leadership has been foisted on him?

Sri Aurobindo: Oh, not only saving India but the whole world. The leadership was foisted on him as people were feeling helpless without his guidance.

Satyendra: That is why I blame these people more. Why don’t they take the leadership?

Purani: I think C.R. could have done something with the Viceroy if it had been left to him.

Satyendra: Why doesn’t he do it then? He got his opportunity after the Poona affair.

Sri Aurobindo: Yes, but he is not the leader and he couldn’t go to see the Viceroy as the leader.

Satyendra: He can stand against Gandhiji and lead the movement.

Sri Aurobindo: Yes. But Gandhi’s hold is too strong for him. Moreover, when these people are face to face with difficulties they feel themselves weak. Unlike the revolutionaries they have not got the strength to start a movement and lead it. C.R. could have made some compromise with the Viceroy except for the fact that the Viceroy isn’t a man for compromise. He is, as Gandhi says, unbending; he meets you with fixed decisions. Otherwise Amery’s first speech went much farther; it was quite clear in what was said. But because of the Viceroy and the officials it came to nothing.

Nirodbaran: Now Irwin could be sent as Viceroy.

Sri Aurobindo: Yes, he has the instinct for peace. Lothian or some other Labour member would have been the best. Lothian has a liberal mind.

Satyendra: It is the officials mostly that stand in the way.

Nirodbaran: That is why some suggested that Amery should pay a personal visit.

Sri Aurobindo: That won’t be of any use. Amery is not the man. Of course one has to take account of Indian officials for any advancement unless one is so strong as to do something over the heads of these people.

Purani: It seems there is disagreement in the Working Committee about the procedure. Some don’t agree with Gandhi in wanting to inform the Government of their move beforehand. But Gandhi wants to keep them informed.

Sri Aurobindo: He wants to assert the right of free speech. And according to his ideal of Satyagraha he is quite right. His followers take it up as a political move.

Satyendra: Yes, that is the trouble. Their standpoints and outlooks are quite different. Somehow I understand Gandhiji in these principles for which he stands. The only thing, as we said, is that he should have kept himself apart from politics.

Purani: Another trouble with Gandhi is that he says that no man can be perfect unless the society around him is perfect.

Sri Aurobindo: In that case, like Amitabha Buddha refusing to go to Nirvana till all have attained it, he will have to wait till eternity for perfection! (Laughter)

Satyendra: He thinks his life is bound up with the national life, so he can’t sever himself from the nation.

Sri Aurobindo: Yes, his life is bound up but the national life is not bound up with him – that is the trouble. Hence wholesale non-violence is not possible. He should have gone to Denmark when they wanted to adopt non-violence, though their non-violence was for a different reason, because they saw that a small army is of no use against greater powers.

Satyendra: Gandhiji’s non-violence is of course of a different type. You offer resistance non-violently and the enemy may pass over your dead body!

Sri Aurobindo: Somebody in England gave the same suggestion. Hitler will regret that nobody accepted it.

Purani: Japan declares she will help the Axis in case of reverses.

Sri Aurobindo: By telegrams?

This Japan-China war seems to be interminable; each claims big successes and yet it comes to nothing. The same with the other war.

Purani: Yes, only air raids!

Nandalal Bose’s picture of Durga in the Puja number of the Hindustan Standard was shown to Sri Aurobindo.

Sri Aurobindo: It seems to be post-Ajanta decorative style. Lion stylised, peacock in front of the lion, Kartik humorous.

Evening

Purani: Gandhara art is supposed to be a mixture of Greek and Indian art. More of Greek influence than Indian.

Sri Aurobindo: What Gandhara representations I have seen seem to me to be spoiled by Central Asian influence and then bungled by Indian. It is more Central Asian than Greek – it is an imitation of Greece without its mastery, as is the case with all imitation.