Sri Aurobindo
Letters on Himself and the Ashram
The Complete Works of Sri Aurobindo. Volume 35
Remarks on Public Figures in India
Subhas Chandra Bose [7]
Sarojini Naidu’s daughter Padmaja told me today that when Subhas issued his manifesto from Europe to the effect that he and Jawaharlal were great friends and at one on every point, he actually had been scheming from Europe to bring J. down in the public eye. I could not believe this, I told her point blank. She averred it was absolutely true. I am very pained to hear it. For though I feel there is not a little exaggeration in this business, I fear there may be substance of truth somewhere in this dirty story.



 I would certainly not 
hang anybody on the testimony of Padmaja: she has too much of a delight in 
scandal-mongering of the worst kind; but I suppose she would not cite Jawaharlal 
as a witness if there were nothing in it. The question is: how much 
exaggeration? I am afraid it is not at all impossible that Subhas should say one 
thing to Jawaharlal and quite another to somebody else. Politics is like that, a 
dirty and corrupting business full of “policy”, “strategy”, “tactics”, 
“diplomacy”: in other words, lying, tricking, manoeuvring of all kinds. A few 
escape the corruption but most don’t. It has after all always been a trade or 
art of Kautilya from the beginning, and to touch it and not be corrupted is far 
from easy. For it is a field in which people fix their eyes on the thing to be 
achieved and soon become careless about the character of the means, while 
ambition, ego and self-interest come pouring in to aid the process. Human nature 
is prone enough to crookedness as it is, but here the ordinary restraints put 
upon it fail to be at all effective. That however is general: in a particular 
case one can’t pronounce without knowing the circumstances more at first hand or 
before having seen the documents cited.
I would certainly not 
hang anybody on the testimony of Padmaja: she has too much of a delight in 
scandal-mongering of the worst kind; but I suppose she would not cite Jawaharlal 
as a witness if there were nothing in it. The question is: how much 
exaggeration? I am afraid it is not at all impossible that Subhas should say one 
thing to Jawaharlal and quite another to somebody else. Politics is like that, a 
dirty and corrupting business full of “policy”, “strategy”, “tactics”, 
“diplomacy”: in other words, lying, tricking, manoeuvring of all kinds. A few 
escape the corruption but most don’t. It has after all always been a trade or 
art of Kautilya from the beginning, and to touch it and not be corrupted is far 
from easy. For it is a field in which people fix their eyes on the thing to be 
achieved and soon become careless about the character of the means, while 
ambition, ego and self-interest come pouring in to aid the process. Human nature 
is prone enough to crookedness as it is, but here the ordinary restraints put 
upon it fail to be at all effective. That however is general: in a particular 
case one can’t pronounce without knowing the circumstances more at first hand or 
before having seen the documents cited.
20 October 1936