(Continued from last fortnight)

Writing about Agni, and other Poems, Translations and Essays, Prof. P. Mahadevan (of Madras Christian College, Pachaiyappa’s College and Principal of Madura College) says in his book Subramania Bharati Patriot and Poet (1957):

“One section of the volume contains a collection of ‘Thoughts’, presumably culled from his note-books or diaries. Some of them are gnomic in their pregnant brevity; others are epigrams, while sententiae abound. ‘He who writes for others affects... He is a slave who receives favours... He sells himself who asks... If you want to die soon, talk about yourself... Where there is a will there is a way / But, oh, where is the way to Will?’

“Agni reveals Bharati’s mastery over the English language, in which there is a rare combination of purity of style, mature poise of thought, and familiarity with the classics, both ancient and modern.

“The most notable part is his observations about the Ashe murder. Writing in the essay ‘Ashe Murder Case’, he says, ‘Collector Mr. Ashe of Tinnevelly who was travelling with none but his wife in his company, was taking a pleasure trip to Kodaikanal, a famous sanatorium situated in the adjacent district of Madura... (His killing was) an outrage to the Hindu religion, for the murdered man had his wife by his side. They were young and to all appearances a loving couple. They were having a pleasure trip in each other’s company. A scene like that would very profoundly appeal to the heart of the devout Hindu’.”

It can be seen that he did not approve of extremism. However, this incident made the life of the people like Bharati, V.V.S Iyer and other Indians in Pondicherry miserable. Bharati writes, “The British Indian Police force, calling its lodge a ‘Mahal’ (palace), behaved like an army of occupation and was allowed to do so by the Pondicherry administration for various reasons. Firstly, of course, the entente cordiale was in full swing – we are speaking of the period between 1910-1914.”

Bharati’s prowess in English writing can be seen from his writings in The Hindu. In a letter to the paper written as early as December 27, 1904, Bharati defended Sankaran Nair’s views on social reforms and said, “The intelligent and well-intentioned critic, Mr. Plainspeaker, who discussed in Saturday’s Hindu, the memorable pronouncement of Mr. Sankaran Nair’s on the necessity of Social Reform for bringing about political regeneration, has been a little misguided by those treacherous things, viz. words. Mr. Plainspeaker waxed indignant at hearing of those great principles of equality and brotherhood upon which the British Government is based.

“I understand, and respect the feelings of Mr. Plainspeaker, aye, even as I respect the indignant feelings of the downtrodden when he hears that Hinduism proclaims (I quote Mr. Plainspeaker) the ‘one-ness of life’ and the ‘brother-hood of man.’

“ ‘Talk of the one-ness of life, the brother-hood of man,’ exclaims he, ‘when yonder Brahman, who would bow low to an Englishman as if to a god, believes that my very shadow would pollute him.’

“I entirely agree with Mr. Plainspeaker in his righteous protest against British-Indian regulations.

“But all this does not in the least affect Mr. Sankaran Nair’s position. What the eminent social reformer means to say is simply this: There can be no political emancipation without the feeling of nationality. There can be no feeling of nationality where the caste system is prevalent or, rather, say (as some hyper-critical men want us to believe) that the caste system is present in all human communities where the jati system is prevalent, the wonderful system which makes a philanthropist inferior to a Brahmin go-between.

“Is it doubted in any quarter that, in England, a cobbler-boy with necessary merit finds his path clear to the Premiership?

“And is it not treason in India to believe that a Sudra (not to speak of Panchama) with an unparalleled knowledge of Sanskrit scripture and with exceptional goodness and piety can ever aspire to the seat of Sringeri?

“Why will people be so wilfully blind? Why do they refuse to find any difference between a mountain and a molehill? Where is Great Britain and, alas! where is India?

“The National Congress, I readily concede, has some of India’s best sons in its ranks and its aspirations are of the worthiest.

“But does anybody seriously believe that a man who, in his stony heart, condemns a babe widow to perpetual misery might be worthy to be placed at the helm of a rising people? Impossible. ‘I do not think India will ever be called – and she ought not to be called – into the Councils of the Empire until we show we have fully and frankly accepted those great principles of equality and brother-hood upon which the British Government is based. The principles are utterly repugnant to the caste-system as understood and practised among us.’ So said Mr. Sankaran Nair, and his words are worthy to be written in golden letters.

“Without social reform our political reform is a dream, a myth, for social slaves can never really understand political liberty. And unless and until our Social Conferences prove a success our National Congress is nothing but glare and dust.” He concludes and signs the letter as C. SUBRAMANIA BHARATI of the Madras Social Reform Association.

He wrote (from Pondy on September 4, 1914, as the Great War gets underway), “He (Tilak) has given all our thoughts, ideas and aspirations in a nutshell; we want Home Rule, we advocate no violence. We shall always adopt peaceful and legal methods to achieve our object. In peacetime we shall be uncompromising critics of England’s mistakes. But when trouble comes, we shall unhesitatingly stand by her and if necessary defend her against her enemies. And to those who may thoughtlessly persecute us in England’s name we shall say, ‘Oh! Ye of little wisdom. It may be in your power to temporarily injure us in petty ways. But you can never crush us. For we are lovers of humanity and servants of God; the children of righteousness and the peace that shall endure for ever’.”

When G. Subramania Aiyer was seriously ill, Bharati (still in Pondicherry) wrote in The Hindu (December 1914), “There is hope for Madras for she has still some veteran leaders of the calibre of Mr. Subramania Aiyer. Mr. Aiyer is a patriot of the orthodox type, midway between the fanatic and the funk. For the last three decades and more this man has been unceasingly thinking and writing about this country, her wrongs and hopes. The dazzling brilliance of genius Mr. Aiyer certainly has not. The gods have not bestowed on him any of those shining, semi-divine mental gifts. But they have mercifully withheld from his composition the cheap and deceitful flashes so painfully common among us in these latter days – the spurious, multi-coloured and short flames of the political dilettante and charlatan. He is not a star, nor a meteor, nor ignis fautuu. He is the unfailing sacrificial fire; a modest beacon light over troubled waters of Indian politics...”

(Concluded)