A collection of articles by various authors to provide a counter to the vicious attack on Sri Aurobindo that came in the form of a distorted biography.
This book is a counter to the vicious attack on Sri Aurobindo’s spiritual stature that came in the form of a hostile biography of him by Peter Heehs entitled The Lives of Sri Aurobindo, published by Columbia University Press in 2008.
I quote below Heehs’s “corrected extract” on Sri Aurobindo’s riding test in the ICS examination:
In October, the ICS commissioners wrote Aurobindo asking him to fix a date to take his riding examination. He agreed to go on October 26, but did not turn up. An official then asked him to meet the riding instructor to make another appointment. He did not bother to see the man. Called to the office to explain, Aurobindo told a series of lies. (Lives, 30)
Where is the evidence of “the series of lies” Sri Aurobindo is supposed to have told when he was called to the office of the Civil Service Commission? Deliberately missing appointments or going late to them, not receiving letters and not promptly replying to them is evasive tactics which any lawyer would be familiar with; it is certainly not telling outright lies (see Appendix 1). You may not receive letters by staying away from your house and not acknowledging their receipt to the postman. You may go to a house without calling on the door and ringing the door bell. You may fail to keep an appointment by going so late that the other person walks away in exasperation. These are the kind of manoeuvres Sri Aurobindo adopted without resorting to open lying. Not that Sri Aurobindo could not have fibbed a couple of times, but why make such a big deal about it? These are laughable matters now that we know his intention was to fail in the ICS examinations without going against his father’s wishes. In fact, Heehs himself writes in a paragraph which follows the above quoted lines:
Aurobindo’s rejection from the I.C.S was much commented on during his lifetime and has been much analyzed since. Trying to clear up the controversy fifty years after the event,
Page 182
he wrote that he managed “by certain manoeuvres,” to “get himself disqualified for riding without himself rejecting the Service, which his family would not have allowed him to do.” This is consistent with his behavior in October and November 1892, in particular his failure to go to Charing Cross. He spent that afternoon, he explained on another occasion, “wandering in the streets of London to pass the time.” Returning home, he announced to Benoybhusan: “I am chucked.” Benoy proposed playing a game of cards. When Manmohan came in, he found his brothers thus engaged. Learning what had happened, he began to berate them for playing cards when such a calamity had happened. But it was not a calamity to Aurobindo, who was, he later wrote, “greatly relieved and overjoyed by his release from the I.C.S.” (Lives, 31-32)
The source of the above information is picked from Sri Aurobindo’s corrections and clarifications of statements made in biographies written on him during his lifetime:
Biographer: At the end of the period of probation, however, he did not choose to appear for the departmental Riding examination; a something within him had detained him in his room…
[The last phrase altered by Sri Aurobindo to:] prevented his arriving in time.
Sri Aurobindo: Nothing detained him in his room. He felt no call for the I.C.S and was seeking some way to escape from that bondage. By certain manoeuvres he managed to get himself disqualified for riding without himself rejecting the Service, which his family would not have allowed him to do.
* * *
Biographer: [According to Aurobindo’s sister Sarojini, Aurobindo was playing cards at his London residence when he was to have gone to appear for the writing examination.]
Sri Aurobindo: Sarojini’s memory is evidently mistaken. I was wandering in the streets of London to pass away time
Page 183
and not playing cards. At last when I went to the grounds I was too late. I came back home and told my elder brother, Benoybhusan, that I was chucked. He with a philosophic attitude proposed playing cards and so we [sat] down playing cards. [Manmohan] came [later] and on hearing about my being chucked began to shout at our playing cards when such a calamity had befallen [us].1
If the above information is agreed upon, why does Heehs nail down Sri Aurobindo’s guilt as if he were the senior examiner of the ICS Commission and not a biographer who has the advantage of hindsight? Or is it that Heehs poses himself as the senior examiner of Sri Aurobindo’s character and is bent on proving that he was a liar? There is actually a contradiction here in the presentation, which is Heehs’s usual writing style. First Sri Aurobindo is depicted as an outright liar; then he is excused on the basis of the intention behind. The next paragraph comes up again with another insinuation:
To these accounts dating from the 1940s must be added an earlier one that is less well known. Asked about his rejection by a newspaper reporter in 1909, Aurobindo replied candidly: “I failed in the final for the Civil Service… because I could not ride.” He added: “If I was not actually glad, I was certainly not disappointed because the Civil Service was barred to me. I have never been fond of constraint of any sort and I was really not sorry to forego the service.” This suggests that Aurobindo’s “manoeuvres” may have been less premeditated than they appear in his later accounts, but it supports his assertion that he had no desire to join the ICS. (Lives, 32)
What Heehs implies in the above paragraph is: (1) that not only Sri Aurobindo lied to the senior examiner of the Civil Service Commission but also to his disciples when he told them he had got himself disqualified “by certain manoeuvres”; (2) that he actually did not know how to ride a horse, so he would have failed the riding test even if he had appeared for it in time; (3) that he was actually covering up his inability to ride a horse with the explanation of manoeuvres; and finally (4) that there was no
Page 184
premeditation but rather helplessness which made Sri Aurobindo fail in the Civil Service Examination. More could be construed in this negative manner, but I would stop here and appeal to common sense and simple logic. If Sri Aurobindo was really serious about joining the Civil Service and enjoying the lucrative career of a Govt. official, why would he not have learnt horse-riding? The fact is that he was essentially unwilling to join the Civil Service. It is true he may not have had sufficient practice in riding to pass the test because he could not afford to pay for the riding lessons, which were costly in Cambridge. It could also be that he was not endowed with exceptional riding skills to learn from the few lessons that he could afford from his careless teacher, but all these factors come under the ambit of the overall reluctance he felt for joining the ICS. They were thus deliberately used by him as excuses than being the actual causes of his failure in the riding test. This can be inferred by the following remarks of Sri Aurobindo in the Evening Talks:
It was father’s fault that I failed in the riding test. He did not send money and the riding lessons at Cambridge then were rather costly. The teacher was also careless; so long as he got his money he simply left me with the horse and I was not particular. I tried riding again at Baroda with Madhav Rao but it was not successful. My failure was a great disappointment to my father because he had arranged everything for me through Sir Henry Cotton. A post was kept for me in the district of Arrah which was considered a fine place. All that came down like a wall.
(After a pause) I wonder what would have happened to me if I had joined the civil service. I think, they would have chucked me for laziness and arrears of work! (Laughter) 2
Thus Sri Aurobindo’s candid reply to the newspaper reporter, “I failed in the final for the Civil Service… because I could not ride,” does not contradict what he said about “certain manoeuvres” by which he got himself disqualified. Yes, he perhaps could not ride, but then he deliberately did not procure enough money (which he surely could have) from his brothers and friends to get enough training. He did not have money even to pay for his travel expenses,
Page 185
but he deliberately did not borrow the money in time and arrived late for his appointments. It is as if he put himself into a predicament without any willingness to come out of it. (See Appendix 2)
So what am I trying to prove if Sri Aurobindo’s manoeuvres were pre-meditated? Was he acting out of a yogic impulse? Certainly not! I quote from the Evening Talks:
Disciple: But why then did you appear in the ICS? Was it by some intuition that you did not come for the riding test?
Sri Aurobindo: Not at all. I knew nothing of yoga at that time. I appeared for ICS because my father wanted it and I was too young to understand. Later I found out what sort of work it is and I had disgust for administrative life and I had no interest in administrative work. My interest was in poetry and literature and study of languages and patriotic action.3
The motives behind the manoeuvres were “disgust for administrative life” and interest “in poetry and literature and study of languages and patriotic action”. The motives were not yogic, but neither were they ordinary. From this point of view, the manoeuvres were understandably human and the tactics of evasion he adopted in the given circumstances are excusable by normal standards of conduct. So why make such a big fuss about it? Sri Aurobindo was certainly not a yogi at this point of time, but neither was he an outright liar and a coward as Heehs is so eager to prove.
In the next paragraph, Heehs again wants to prove how Sri Aurobindo was wrong in partly attributing his failure in the ICS to having been black-marked by the authorities for delivering “revolutionary speeches” at Cambridge. This is what Sri Aurobindo wrote on himself in the third person:
It was in England while at Cambridge that he made revolutionary speeches at the meetings of the Indian Majlis which were recorded as a black mark against him by the India Office.4
Page 186
At the age of eleven Sri Aurobindo had already received strongly the impression that a period of general upheaval and great revolutionary changes was coming in the world and he himself was destined to play a part in it. His attention was now drawn to India and this feeling was soon canalised into the idea of the liberation of his own country. But the “firm decision” took full shape only towards the end of another four years. It had already been made when he went to Cambridge and as a member and for some time secretary of the Indian Majlis at Cambridge he delivered many revolutionary speeches which, as he afterwards learnt, had their part in determining the authorities to exclude him from the Indian Civil Service; the failure in the riding test was only the occasion, for in some other cases an opportunity was given for remedying this defect in India itself.5
How does Heehs present the same event? I quote below from the Lives:
When Aurobindo became famous as a revolutionary politician, many Britons assumed that it was his rejection from the ICS that “turned him against government.” This certainly was not so. His opposition to British rule took form long before he was rejected. Equally unfounded is the claim that his radical views contributed to his rejection. Aurobindo was once informed that the “revolutionary speeches” he made at Cambridge “were recorded as a black mark against him by the India Office” and “had their part in determining the authorities to exclude him from the Indian Civil Service.” There is no hint of any such black mark in the India Office correspondence. He was rejected simply because he did not pass the riding examination. He was not given another chance to pass because he did not follow instructions, keep appointments, or tell the truth. That said, it must be added that few men in Whitehall wanted “natives of India” to join the ICS. Less than a year after turning down Aurobindo’s petition, Lord Kimberley wrote: “It is indispensable that an adequate number of the members of the Civil Service shall always be Europeans.” Lord Lansdowne, the incumbent Viceroy, agreed with him on “the absolute necessity of keeping the government of this widespread Empire in European hands, if that Empire is to be maintained.” (Lives, 32)
Page 187
On what basis does Heehs say Sri Aurobindo was wrong that “his radical views contributed to his rejection” from the ICS? On not having found any papers related to it in the India Office correspondence? As if it would certainly have been recorded there, and as if all the papers would have survived. Read the next few sentences in which he proceeds with supreme confidence to show how Sri Aurobindo was mistaken about what he had heard, in spite of admitting that there was a bias towards Indians in the India Office. Actually, if there was a bias against Indians, there is all the more reason why Sri Aurobindo would have been right! Finally, Heehs puts on the gown of the Civil Service Commissioner and delivers his sentence in retrospect:
He [Sri Aurobindo] was not given another chance to pass because he did not follow instructions, keep appointments, or tell the truth. (Lives, 32)
Is this objective history or a fake historian too eager to prove the “defects of Sri Aurobindo’s character”? It is very likely the latter!
28 December 2008
Notes
Page 188
Appendix 16
CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, WESTMINSTER.
Case of Mr Arvinda A. Ghose
Memorandum by the Senior Examiner, Civil Service Commission respecting the Examination in Riding.
Ordered to be examined with the other probationers on August 9th. Did not attend. Sent medical certificate on August 11th to explain why. Was asked on 15th August to say when he would be ready to be examined. Question repeated on 30th August, as no answer had been received. Question repeated a third time on 17th October, answer requested by return of post. Answer received dated 18th October saying he would prefer the following Tuesday or Wednesday. Colonel Brough fixed the Wednesday (October 26th) at 12.30 at Woolwich. Ghose was ordered by letter on 22nd to attend at that time: the letter was sent to same address as that of 17th October. On 26th October, Colonel Brough wrote to say the candidate had not appeared. A messenger was sent to Ghose (same address) and asked to bring back an answer: the answer was that Ghose had not received the letter making the appointment. Ghose was directed to attend here in person on Monday 31st October at 12 noon. He came at 12.40 and repeated his statement that the letter above-mentioned had never reached him. I gave him a letter to Colonel Brough asking the latter to arrange with Ghose a date for his Examination and told Ghose to lose no time in going down to Woolwich and presenting the letter in person: to go down that afternoon if he had no other engagement. I also wrote a line to Colonel Brough telling him of this. Colonel Brough wrote on 5th November saying Ghose had never appeared, and returning the Marking Form supplied for this report. Colonel Brough added that he would prefer not to examine Ghose. After a note from me, he agreed however, to do so, if someone from this Office were present (Nov. 9th). Ghose ordered to call here at noon on the
Page 189
10th. He came at ten minutes to one. He explained (as also in his letter of the 9th instant received on 10th) that he had twice been to see Colonel Brough but had not found him. I asked him whether he went to the Office of the Riding Establishment. He said “No – to Colonel’s house” (this is close by). He posted the letter I gave him, to Colonel Brough, instead of leaving it for him. Colonel Brough has returned this letter to me, together with Ghose’s undated letter accompanying it. I then showed Ghose Colonel Brough’s latest letter fixing the 15th November for the Examination, and naming the train 2.22 from Charing Cross. I also copied this on a slip of paper, which I gave into Ghose’s hand, and told him to meet me, without fail, at 2.15 on the platform at Charing Cross Station. I explained to him that if he again failed us, the Commissioners would not be able to give another chance, as this state of things could not be allowed to continue. He took away the memorandum and also promised verbally to meet me on the following Tuesday the 15th November. I went there yesterday and kept a look-out, but no Ghose appeared. I went on to Woolwich by the 2.22 train, in case Ghose should be going from any other station or by a different train. But he was not at the Riding Establishment. Colonel Brough and I waited from 20 minutes to half an hour, and then I returned. While waiting at Charing Cross station, I had sent a message to Mr Bonar, saying the candidate had not yet appeared and asking him to send a messenger round to his house to enquire. Mr Bonar did this, sending also a note to ask Ghose to go down to Woolwich and be examined. The messenger brought word that Ghose was out and was not expected till 6 p.m.
Colonel Brough’s servant says no one called as Ghose had asserted: he would have noticed an Indian gentleman—none such had appeared at Colonel Brough’s house on any of the days named.
16th November 1982
Page 190
CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION,
17th November 1892
Sir,
With reference to Mr Lockhart’s letter of the 24th August last,
I am directed by the Civil Service Commissioners to acquaint you for the information of the Secretary of State for India in Council, that although several opportunities have been offered to Mr A. A. Ghose of attending for examination in Riding, with a view to proving himself qualified in that respect, he has repeatedly failed to attend at the time appointed, and that the Commissioners are consequently unable to certify that he is qualified to be appointed to the Civil Service of India.
I have the honour to be, Sir,
Your obedient servant, John Hennell
The Under Secretary of State, India Office
Appendix 27
Sri Aurobindo’s Letter to the Secretary of State for India
To
The Right Hon the Earl of Kimberley Secretary of State for India.
6 Burlington Rd Bayswater W
Monday. Nov. 21. 1892 May it please your Lordship
I was selected as a probationer for the Indian Civil Service in 1890, and after the two years probation required have been rejected on the ground that I failed to attend the Examination in Riding.
Page 191
I humbly petition your Lordship that a farther consideration may, if possible, be given to my case.
I admit that the Commissioners have been very indulgent to me in the matter, and that my conduct has been as would naturally lead them to suppose me negligent of their instructions; but I hope your Lordship will allow me to lay before you certain circumstances that may tend to extenuate it.
I was sent over to England, when seven years of age, with my two elder brothers and for the last eight years we have been thrown on our own resources without any English friend to help or advise us. Our father, Dr. K. D. Ghose of Khulna, has been unable to provide the three of us with sufficient for the most necessary wants, and we have long been in an embarrassed position.
It was owing to want of money that I was unable always to report cases in London at the times required by the Commissioners, and to supply myself with sufficiently constant practice in Riding. At the last I was thrown wholly on borrowed resources and even these were exhausted.
It was owing to difficulty in procuring the necessary money, that I was late at my appointment on Tuesday Nov 15. I admit that I did not observe the exact terms of the appointment; however I went on to Woolwich by the next train, but found that the Examiner had gone back to London.
If your Lordship should grant me another chance, an English gentleman, Mr. Cotton, (editor of the Academy) of 107 Abingdon Road, Kensington. W. has undertaken that want of money shall not prevent me from fulfilling the exact instructions of the Commissioners.
If your Lordship should obtain this for me, it will be the object of my life to remember it in the faithful performance of my duties in the Civil Service of India.
I am
Your Lordship’s obedient servant Aravinda. Acroyd. Ghose
Page 192
Share your feedback. Help us improve. Or ask a question.