Life of Sri Aurobindo

Appendix 11: Hemchandra Kanungo’s Work - A Criticism

(Hemchandra Kanungo, Banglay Biplav Prachesta (Calcutta: Manabbandhu Kanungo, 1928).)

1) In this book Hemchandra Kanungo certainly has repeated himself endlessly on orthodoxy, religion, spirituality and caste.

2) As a document it is unreliable; there is neither exactness in dating, nor impartiality, nor an impersonal approach. It is based on a partial view of the movement and is therefore not a true picture because it is not the whole picture.

3) In his blind anger against Barin and his prejudice against Sri Aurobindo he forgets that there were other organisations parallel to those run by these leaders and they did not fare better, — they did not succeed, i.e., they could not bring about the intended revolution and Hemchandra must know they had no ' spirituality to hamper their work or success.

It was reserved for Mr. Hemchandra Kanungo to announce that the revolution could not succeed, that India could not progress because of the caste system. We know very well the evils of the caste system and its responsibility for many social and economic ills of India. But it was for Mr. Hemchandra to tell us that a revolutionary secret society in Bengal failed because of the caste system, religion and spirituality.

Evidently Mr. Hemchandra holds India's religion and spirituality in contempt. He even complains of Swami Vivekananda's inspiring the Indian youths with pride in their past glory and achievements. He is welcome to his own opinion but I am afraid his generalisations are too sweeping to need any detailed refutation. He does not seem to grant any practical ground for religious experience and spiritual discipline. To him Chaitanya and Ramakrishna seem to have not only lived in vain but harmed India by inculcating the truth of religions and spiritual experience. Mr. Hemchandra does not know any difference between orthodoxy and spirituality. To him even Sri Aurobindo is orthodox; and. Sanatan Dharma to Hemchandra means only injunctions of Brahminical Smritis which outrage his sense of social justice.

He conveniently forgets, first, that the Smritis are not being followed today in practice, secondly, that Brahmo Samaj, Arya Samaj, and the Congress and many other all-India organisations have been trying to carry into practice many social reforms, and thirdly, that Mahatma Gandhi has done more as a single leader than many organisations for the uplift of the untouchables. But there is a saying, "none so blind as those that will not see." To call Sri Ramakrishna orthodox is also more than an innovation for he practised not only Hinduism but tried Islam and Christianity too. He came to the conclusion that all religions, if followed sincerely as paths for the realisation of God, lead ultimately to the same experience. This is not "Hindu Godami", by any stretch of imagination. Nor can the definition of Eternal Dharma' – sanatoria dharma – given by Sri Aurobindo in his Uttarpara speech be dubbed orthodox by anyone except the purblind.

The author holds religion responsible for the failure of the revolutionary movement! He even asserts that religion is of no help in the regeneration of India. If he wants to maintain thereby that politics should be secular to suit modern conditions of humanity we should all agree. But it is not true as an axiom of political science which Mr. Hemchandra seems to proclaim. The Maratha Empire which was brought into existence by Shivaji owed its origin to religious inspiration. So was Sikhism responsible for the power of the Khalsa in the Punjab. All students of world history will certainly remember how the Islamic political power that spread over Asia, Africa and Europe owed its inspiration to religion.

Mr. Hemchandra is very discursive; instead of giving us a matter-of-fact narration of the secret society organisation, he breaks off into sermons on how the work should have been done, how the leaders should have led and the followers followed! It is a pity Mr. Hemchandra is not being listened to by those to whom he addressed his sermons. Thus the narrative suffers from the same defects from which all the other accounts of the revolutionary workers suffer, by concentrating on a very narrow portion of a vast background, the whole of which was not known to any of them. Thus when each describes, discusses and generalises on the basis of his own experience about the whole movement, naturally most of the labour seems wasted. We have to remember that the organisation was a secret one and it is not correct to expect that each one would be and must be told everything. This is not only not possible but absolutely undesirable if a secret movement is justified and necessary. To say naively, as Mr. Hemchandra does, that the whole country should have been given a clear conception of the shape of things that would follow a successful revolution, is, in my opinion, only too childish, and would be putting the cart before the horse. Let Mr. Hemchandra remember that the French Revolution did not give the French people the ghost of an idea as to what exactly was to follow the revolution, and that the Italian Revolution was no more clear about its shape before it succeeded. These things a living nation goes on learning and achieving at the same time. What did the Americans know about the Federal Court when they declared war against England?

I will show where and how Mr. Hemchandra is incorrect and unreliable and where he contradicts himself.

1) He attributes the Bhawani Mandir scheme to Barin.

2) He asserts that spiritual discipline was imposed on members of the revolutionary party, which obviously is not true. It is also surprising to find that Barin was anxious to have him in the organisation after his return from Europe. Why should he be anxious if spirituality was the necessary qualification?

Where is the proof that people who wanted to join the secret society were compelled to practise meditation? That he was admitted shows there was no compulsion.

3) If some of the members of the secret society like Devavrata, Barin etc. had a spiritual tendency and if they practised meditation, how could any objection be taken to it? Men like Barin, Devarata and Ullas were free to follow their own bent.

4) Hemchandra is not correct in reporting his meeting with "C" Babu, i.e., Charu Chandra Dutt, after his return from Europe. I had occasion to meet Mr. Dutt on this point and I can say on his authority that Hemchandra Kanungo's report is far from accurate.

5) His account of the differences between Barin and Jatin Banerji is not reliable. Firstly, he could not have known everything because he had been only recently recruited at Midnapore and the whole incident took place at Calcutta. The work was in a very early stage, and Hemchandra could only have heard reports in circulation afterwards. He did not have the impartial attitude necessary to come to a correct decision.

6) Hemchandra's explanation about the working of plague regulations at Poona is very poor. It shows he does not know the real reasons behind the action of the Chapekar brothers.

(Mr. Girijashanker while writing Sri Aurobindo's biography has relied on these very undependable sources and he has not only erred in regard to facts, but has even accepted the personal opinions of others as impartial judgments on mere events and has, in my opinion, very often gone off the track.)

7) It was up to Hemchandra to give the lead if he found the other leaders were not up to the mark. What about those leaders he does not speak about? No one put up the worship of P. Mitra and other leaders of the Anushilan Samity? The story of their work does not figure at all in Hemchandra's work. Why did that branch with its thousands of members not succeed? Whereas this one lead by Barin and Sri Aurobindo was small in size; it had only fifty members. Hemchandra is not right in saying that the work of Barin constituted the whole of the revolutionary movement.

In any great national movement there is certainly a chance that the leaders may so act that the movement, although having all the chances of success, might come to nothing. But there is another alternative also which Hemchandra has not even noticed – that the nation may not be capable of more than it achieves at a certain stage of its development. Let Hemchandra imagine or consider Bengal as she was before 1900 and let him then measure the change that has been brought about by political events and by leadership.

One would not think of taking Mr. Hemchandra's book seriously and criticising it. But we find that Mr. Girijashanker in his so-called biography of Sri Aurobindo states Hemchandra's uncontradicted conclusions as authentic.

8) It is strange that Mr. Hemchandra, who writes so much against religion in the book, was not averse to using religious symbols while he was actually in the revolutionary movement.

The Alipore Bomb Trial⁷⁸ says that witness No. 82, Debdas Karan, deposed that Medini Bandhava, a Midnapore paper, had the crest of the lion and the unicorn. This crest was "changed to the Jagaddhatri Goddess. Change was due to Hemchandra Das"! Note also that Alipore Exhibit No. 876 is a letter from Hemchandra to Debdas. So, it was not only Sri Aurobindo and other leaders who introduced Hindu symbols, it was also Mr.Hemchandra Kanungo!