Our Light and Delight

12

The Most Difficult Year

I have already written about the crucial year 1955 and recounted how the Mother saved my sister-in-law Mina from the consequences of a terrible accident. Now I may put on record a peculiar situation which arose apropos of the talk the Mother had given about that year at the Playground on December 31, 1954. The situation is partly connected with a much-publicised interview the journalist Chamanlal had with the Mother in February the same year.¹

Chamanlal reported, among other things, the Mother as saying that 1957 would be a very significant year. India would start playing a glorious spiritual role in the world — and two features of great importance would be: (1) the complete dissolution of Pakistan by inner dislocation, (2) the serious possibility of a World War owing to America and Russia falling out over India. The Mother, according to chamanlal, quoted Sri Aurobindo as having predicted these features.

When she had concluded her talk on 12 January 1955, a few questions were put to her by one of the brightest students of our Education Centre: Manoj Dasgupta. He asked: "You have said that in 1955 the hostile forces will try to give a tremendous blow. If we prove incapable of getting the victory, will the transformation at which our Yoga aims be considerably retarded?" The Mother replied with a grave face: "It will be retarded for many centuries. It is just this retardation that the hostile forces are attempting to bring about. And in spiritual matters up to the present they have always succeeded in their delaying tactics. Always the result has been: "It will be done some other time.' And the other time may be hundreds of years later or even thousands of years.

¹ See Mother India, March 1954, pp. 1-3.

Page 115

---

Now again the same trick is being tried." Then Manoj obviously remembered Chamanlal's report of the Mother's statement: "Yes, I feel there is a serious possibility of a Russo-American war and if the war does come in spite of our efforts to stop it, our spiritual work will be finished." Prompted by his remembrance, Manoj asked: "Will the crisis of a possible World War which, in Chamanlal's interview with you, you have put in 1957 arrive in 1955 ahead of time or is it something quite other than the attack of the hostiles in the coming year?"

Hearing that she was said to have envisaged a World War in 1957, the Mother asserted twice in a firm loud tone: "Jamais de ma vie!" ("Never in my life!"). Everybody was amazed. Chamanlal's whole report had been declared by the Mother at the time as authentic. I recall Nolini bringing her written confirmation authorising Chamanlal to broadcast the interview in any way he liked. Here was a stunning contradiction: how were we to reconcile that thorough approval with this downright refusal to accept responsibility for one of the momentous items?

After the Playground sessions I walked to the Ashram in the company of Nolini and Amrita. I reminded them of what the Mother had clearly pronounced to be genuine reportage. Amrita's memory seemed very vague. When I turned to Nolini who had transmitted to us her pronouncement, he also appeared unable to recollect. "Was it like that?" he asked. "Most certainly," I answered. There was no further conversation. But the next morning I took to Nolini a copy of Chamanlal's interview and made him read the passage in question. There was no ambiguity now. So I requested him to bring the matter to the Mother's notice and ask for a clarification.

When he had seen the Mother as he daily did, I inquired if the issue had been raised. He said: "No." Evidently he did not wish to face the Mother with the glaring contradiction. I told Amrita that Nolini had not carried out the work I had proposed to him. Amrita remarked: "How can he dare to ask her anything after she had so forcibly said 'Jamais!' twice?"

What then was to be done? I used to be at times a little "pushy" with the Mother and she accepted this trait in me on several occasions while putting it down in no dubious

Page 116

---

manner on some others because of a wrong attitude on my side. I decided to write a frank letter, but with the right attitude so that the situation would be fully presented to her and yet no directly critical accent smacking of any uppishness would come into my words. My letter ran:

"I have adopted as a motto the words spoken by André once when, as a boy, he found your in-laws doubting you in something or other: 'Ma mére est la vérité!'¹ I, therefore, do not doubt at all that you never gave Chamanlal the year 1957 as the year of the crisis. But then how did the interview-report in which 1957 appears in such a role get authorised by you? Here is a passage in which not only you but also Sri Aurobindo is committed by words attributed to you:

The Year 1957 will be a very important year in Indian history, like 1757 and 1857. It will see the end of Pakistan and there are serious possibilities of a Russo-American was over India. Many politicians expected war in March 1950 and they came to Sri Aurobindo and told him about it. But Sri Aurobindo did not believe. Once when I asked him he definitely said. 'The crisis will only come in 1957.'

"How did you authorise this? The interview-report has gone far and wide, even to the State Department at Washington, as perfectly authentic. So perhaps it may be necessary to correct it?

"One explanation given for your passing as genuine the above statement is that occasionally you are in a tranced or absorbed condition when things are read to you and so you miss certain portions while believing that you have heard everything.

"As there is no rival explanation, we may say, as the scientists do, that this hypothesis holds the field — provided, of course, you, who are being hypothetised about, agree to it."

I took my letter to Nolini and told him: "I don't want you to get into any embarrassing position, but if you take a letter from me and simply read it out at my request, whatever

¹ "My mother is truth!"

Page 117

---

unpleasantness may come about will be directed at me. Will you kindly do this job on my behalf? It surely does need doing." He consented and the deed was, as Christopher Smart would have phrased it "determined, dared, and done".

Nolini brought no verbal or written reply. I thought the Mother might require some time to frame an answer and I might have to wait for a day or two. But actually she answered me the same evening at the playground. When my turn came to receive the usual quota of groundnuts from her hands, she held my fingers, looked up from her seated position and said with a smile: "The fellow has made a big confusion. Several things have been mixed up. But, since it has been said in that way, it may even come true, though we shall try to stop it."

Actually, in 1957, the U.S.A. and Communist China, which at that time was none else than Russia under a mask, came within an ace of armed conflict because of a bold yet necessary action by the former over the island of Quemoy between mainland China and Taiwan which was in the hand of Chiang Kaishek. The crisis was averted. India did not come into the picture at all.

As for Chamanlal's "big confusion" which escaped scrutiny when it was formulated, we may clear it with the help of some hints by the Mother. Her real stance may be summed up as follows. We may take her as saying:

"I did not speak of any crisis as coming in 1957. In Chamanlal's account several points that were separate have been run together. A three-stepped series of possibilities has got jumbled and the different steps fused. There is first the crisis coming before 1957: that is to say, in 1955, as I have told you. Then there is the clearing of the crisis: the victory. As a result of the victory, there is the beginning of a new period in 1957: that year marks the completion of what has gone and it ushers in a time in which India will have the splendid opportunity of being the Guru of the world. It is because of the decisive commencement of this glorious future in 1957 that 1957 is as important in India's history as in their own ways 1757, the year of the Battle of Plassey which brought India into British hands, and 1857, the date of the so-called Indian Mutiny against British domination. Now you

Page 118

---

have the correct sequence of the possibilities in front of you.

"A World War such as I have spoken of in the interview is not ruled out: its threat is part of the anticipated difficulties in 1955. This threat has not been put in 1957 by either Sri Aurobindo or myself. That wrong impression should be dispelled from the mind, no matter how things have been expressed in Chamanlal's report."

In fact, it is impossible for the Mother to have alluded to a global conflict in 1957, for she was expecting a great spiritual event in 1956 — the event which proved to be the manifestation of the Supermind's light, force and consciousness in the subtle-physical layer of the earth. In the wake of such a tremendous outburst of the Divine the possibility of a World War would be extremely meagre, if not even nil.

*

While in relation to both 1955 and 1957 about the topic of Chamanlal's interview, I may dwell a little on some other statements attributed in it to the Mother. These statements concern Pakistan as it was in 1954. The Mother is reported as saying: "When India was partitioned I asked Sri Aurobindo what he thought of the future of Pakistan. I asked him how long it would last. Without hestitation Sri Aurobindo said. 'Ten years.'" When Chamanlal, after discussing the menace of a World War, asked: "How will the dissolution of Pakistan come about if there is no war?", the Mother answered: "It may be by inner dislocation."

Unlike as with the subject of a World War, the Mother never denied having made the above pronouncements for 1957. But they have puzzled people a great deal in view of the apparent non-fulfilment of the prophecy ascribed to Sri Aurobindo. Inquiries came to Nolini in 1958 from all quarters and no definite reply went out. There was a general playing of variations on the theme the Mother herself had set immediately after the words about "inner dislocation". She had added: "Occult forces must not speak about how the things will happen." Now it was suggested that too much talk and publicity had been made and in consequence hostile forces had queered the pitch. One of those who were

Page 119

---

most worried was a pious old man named Acharya Abhaydev who was in sincere sympathy with Sri Aurobindo's work. On a visit to the Ashram he talked to Nolini and sent through him a question to the Mother about the "failure" of the prophecy. The Mother with that divine levity which always went hand in hand with divine gravity in all her acts answered: "Surely, the Divine, like everybody else, has a right to change His mind."

Poor Abhaydev scratched his head all the more. In desperation he presented himself one morning at my personal Mother-India office. This office was located in a large beautiful garden-environment which had led me to abbreviate the description of it as "Editor's den to the designation "E-den". The prelapsarian atmosphere had little effect on Abhaydev. His face, usually extra-emaciated, looked now super-sad, as if what oppressed him was not that Adam had fallen but there seemed to be a a Fall of God Himself. How could a prediction by Sri Aurobindo cited so emphatically by the Mother be confronted by a Pakistan appearing to stand quite solidly even though 1957 had passed? Was nothing to be said on behalf of the Divine Consciousness? Would nobody elucidate the situation and render the non-fulfilment more understandable in concrete terms?

When Abhaydev poured out to me his tale of woe, I startled him with the quiet affirmation: "I have an answer." He pleaded for a disclosure of it. I said: "I shall first have to put it before the Mother. If she approves of it and agrees to my showing it to you, I shall call you again to receive it." I typed out my view and sent it to the Mother through Nolini. Nolini conveyed to me the Mother's permission to acquaint Abhaydev, as well as any other inquirer, with it. No doubt, the ultimate occult key to phenomena is beyond our range, but a certain plausible pattern of outer movements suggestive of it on the world-stage can sometimes be traced if one looks keenly and closely with the aid of whatever light from within is available. What I saw may now be safely published after a substantial interval of years, in order to focus a strange historical phase in the context of Sri Aurobindo's vision as revealed in the chamanlal-interview. The exposition I submitted to the Mother was in brief, simple and straightforward terms:

Page 120

---

"It should be evident even to the most disappointed observer that during 1957, Pakistan passed through foundation-shaking vicissitudes. For, instead of politicians being at the helm, the military assumed power.

"To drive home the profound significance of the change-over, I shall cite the testimony of Pakistan's strongest supporter, the U.S.A.

"Owing to distrust of Russia, America had been doing her best from 1947 onward to build up Pakistan economically and militarily to stand up against any possible Soviet strategy. Americans had been seriously interested in the non-dissolution of Pakistan. But we get a bit of a shock when we read what the most widely circulated American weekly newsmagazine, Time, said on July 22, 1957, in a special article on Suhrawardy, who was then in power in Pakistan.

"Time (p. 10), called him in a headline 'A Confident Leader of a Chaotic Land'. In the course of its write-up, it commented: 'The nation is bedevilled by bad planning, corrupt bureaucracy, absentee landlordism, heavy defence spending.... Seasoned Western diplomats often wonder whether anyone can bring order out of Pakistan, even call Suhrawardy Pakistan's last chance.'

"On October 13, 1957, the 'confident leader' went out of office under a vote of No-confidence. Pakistan's 'last chance', according to 'seasoned Western diplomats', was gone. The already 'chaotic land' had no more hope of order and hence of an organic form of effective existence.

"On October 28, after Chundrigar became Prime Minister, Time (p. 26) again declared: 'Chundrigar promptly pledged Pakistan's continued loyalty to the anti-communist Baghdad and SEATO Pacts. But few observers in Karachi believed that his rickety coalition could muster the strength to deal with the nation's slide toward economic chaos. A reliable U.S. ally appeared to be getting weaker and, because of this weakness, less reliable.'

"Keep in mind the words 'chaos' and 'chaotic'. Can any others define the essence of dissolution better? To all intents and purposes, Pakistan dissolved and this it did in the last few months of 1957, ten years after Independence. The mere shell of it kept standing.

"The mere shell would itself have disappeared if India

Page 121

---

had played its part properly. On the strength of private information given to me by Surendra Mohan Ghosh, I can say that 'feelers' were sent out to India from Pakistan for some sort of overall arrangement which would undo the stark partition of 1947; but they were altogether discouraged. Had they been accepted, Sri Aurobindo's unhesitating prophecy would have come true in toto. Even as things are, we can assert that it came true in essence."

To round off the picture of what happened we must record a few events that occurred in the wake of 1957.

The grave disturbances to which Pakistan was subject are reflected not only in alert journalists. Time's reference to "diplomats" points us beyond them; and we discover that official America did sit up and take notice of the developments. The disturbances were so persistent in spite of efforts by the Army to stem them that even a year later there was keen self-questioning by members of the American Senate. Thus, the prominent Bombay daily, The Times of India (p. 5) of October 11, 1958, carried a report from New Delhi: "Senator Fulbright, known for the fellowships named after him, said here today that the large U.S. military aid to Pakistan was a 'mistake' and events had proved that it was a case of 'misjudgment' by American leaders who are new to business."

Two days earlier the same Bombay paper had reported on the moves made by the Pakistan Army after the collapse of the politicians. The moves had been initiated by Major-General Iskander Mirza who had now become President. The Times of India said (p. 1):

"The President's proclamation, running into 2,000 words, traced in detail the political events of the last few years and emphasized the chaos in national politics, the chronic instability in Karachi and the proven inability of successive regimes to solve the basic ills of the country. President Mirza concluded that the present constitution 'so full of dangerous compromises, is unworkable.' 'Pakistan will soon disintegrate internally if the inherent malaise is nor removed,' he stated.... To save Pakistan 'from complete disruption,' he decreed that the Constitution of March 23, 1956, would be abrogated, the Central and Provincial Governments would be dismissed with immediate effect and, until alternative

Page 122

---

arrangements were made, Pakistan would come under martial law."

On October 11, The Times of India (p.1) again quoted President Mirza's "own reluctant conviction over the past year that the country was headed for disaster through a 'bloody revolution from below.'" The Bombay paper went on to report General Ayub Khan, who was then the Chief Martial Law Administrator: "Talking about the take-over, he reiterated that the alternative to it was disintegration of the country."

Before the end of October, Ayub snatched the reins of government from Mirza. On October 31, The Times of India (p.1) cited him as saying "about his military regime that this was Pakistan's last chance to escape complete chaos."

Thus we have, in the course of 1958, two Presidents of Pakistan providing the very evidence we need. Not only do we hear of "chaos," "complete chaos," on the heels of events in 1957 — expressions echoing the judgment of expert American observation. We also hear of Pakistan about to "disintegrate internally" and needing to be saved from "complete disruption", Pakistan heading "over the past year for disaster," for "complete disintegration of the country." There we actually get synonyms for the Mother's words: "complete dissolution of Pakistan...by inner dislocation."

Conditions directed towards the fulfilment, to the exact letter, of Sri Aurobindo's prophecy as set forth by the Mother, materialised in 1957. What then prevented the fulfilment as if by a hair's breadth? At first glance, one might point to the strong hands of Iskander Mirza and Ayub Khan who, as it were, held the fragments of Pakistan together. But there are facts which demonstrate, first, that they could come upon the scene only because India did not rise to the occasion of those destructive conditions which would lead to reunion and, secondly, that even they were not sure — as we might guess from Senator Fulbright's hint — of holding by their own strength the country's fragments together and required an entente with India, the beginning of a reunion.

Let us glance at the revealing facts. When the Pakistani politicians found their country toppling, they made attempts — as we have already noted in short — to read the mind of the Indian Government on the idea of a loose federation. At

Page 123

---

the same time, perhaps partly inspired by a suspicion of these subtle antennae, rumours were afloat in Pakistan that India, in order to bring about an end to Partition, was at the bottom of the inner dislocation. Countering these rumours and keeping those antennae in view and representing Indian political thought in general, Nehru made the sweeping announcement that even if Pakistan were to ask for reunion he would refuse it. It is this wide-spread official attitude that stood in the way of the "dissolution" predicted in the interview.

Nehru's announcement was in the beginning of 1958. But a short time afterwards the "feelers" were no longer secret. Ayub, who had not yet superseded Mirza as president, paid an unexpected visit to Delhi and proposed joint defence for India and Pakistan. Here was the clearest sign of Pakistan's insufficiency and her call for a fresh start pointing towards ultimate reunion. The Aurobindonian prediction, so far as Pakistan herself was involved in fulfilling it, succeeded in entirety. But again the Indian Government failed to cooperate. It replied to Ayub in effect: "Joint defence against whom?" India in that period was doing "Bhai, bhai" to Red China and looking upon Soviet Russia as a close ally. If Soviet Russia was our dearest friend and Red China our beloved brother, we could militarily be in no danger at all. What other Power was there to pose a military threat to us? These were our only neighbours and they struck us as sure defenders rather than possible offenders. A joint defence pact with Pakistan might be construed by them as distrust on our part of their love for us. So the door was none-too-politely shut in Ayub's face in 1958. The next year (April-May 1959) the press was again astir with the same impasse. What 1957 had led to — namely, the break-up of Pakistan and the cry for reunion — was thus set at nought by the political myopia of our own country two decades ago. How could the great marriage, whose child would be a new world of the Spirit, take place if the bridegroom refused the bride?

A God-given opportunity went in vain. We may add that Pakistan's recovery, its wooing of Red China and the growth of the latter's subsequent menace to us followed our negative responses.

Page 124