Musings on the Life & Times of Chinnaswamy Subramania Bharathi Narasimhan Vijayaraghavan 22

Musings on the Life & Times of Chinnaswamy Subramania Bharathi
Narasimhan Vijayaraghavan
22

The Swaraj movement spirit was all pervasive, not only in Bharathi’s writings and speeches. There were many authors who wrote ‘pamphlets’ espousing the cause vigorously. It spread across the Madras Presidency. Before we get back the ‘Swaraj Day’ celebrations without the requisite licence/permission from Police/local administration, let us take a detour on Bharathi’s pamphlet of the times. It captured the ‘animated animal spirits unleashed by the Swaraj virus’ as a commentator called it. Well we go back to the good doctor Dr. Venkataraman again.

An attack on the English education was made in the fifth pamphlet in Tamil entitled
‘Kanavu’, which means ‘Dream’ written by C. Subramania Bharathi, printed at the Saraswathi Press in Pondicherry in 1910. It came to the notice of S.H. Slater, the Under Secretary to the Government of Madras. Bharathi being known for his strong views on political issues and the government had a watchful eye on his journalistic activities at Pondicherry. This particular pamphlet was frontal attack on the type of English education imparted to the Indians.

Bharathi regarded the English education as worthless. Further, Bharathi averred that Indians are not cut out for such education. It is like: “sending the cub of a lion to eat grass and persuading a Brahmin boy to pursuer the trade of selling flesh…..” Bharathi blamed his father for making him to learn such a worthless education.

Further, he quotes that: “….. to acquire worthless learning which produces much misery and is disgusting to the Aryans a learning which is resorted to by such men as menial servants who, regarding their bread alone as important, sell their lives and was set upon the learning of these low men”.
Bharathi’s assessment of the English education is evident from his following observation: “After studying mathematics for twelfth year, they (students) are unable to ascertain the position of star in the dark sky.

Though they may study thousands of beautiful poems, they cannot perceive the deep meaning of the poet. They will talk incoherently of trade and wealth, but they have not heard of the loss of wealth in the country in which they live. They will mention the names of thousand…. Sastras, but all to no purpose”.

Bharathi entertained the firm view that those who were subjected to western education did not know anything about native poets, scientists, philosophers and rulers of the land. He wrote: “….. Those who resort to the schools where English is taught know nothing of the poets Kamban and Kalidasa, the philosopher Sankara, the kings Pandya, Chola and Ashoka, and the triumphant hero Sivaji who overthrew the tyrannical rule of the mlechchhas (foreigners)”. These observations of Bharathi suggest that sound knowledge could not be acquired from English learning alone. And our fascination for all things English may spelt doom to our original thinking like masters in the past.

Further, Bharathi said with remorse that: “The stupid education acquired at the great cost from persons of dull understanding is not worth a cloud of earth… what I shall do? Why I have been in this, land of misery? … My father lost all his vast riches by the insidiousness of the hunas (Europens)….”. Thus, he undoubtedly considered the English education as worthless and not useful to the Indians. This pamphlet was found in Madurai, Tinnevely and Trichy districts. V.Raghvaacharulu, the official Tamil translator forwards the objectionable passages of the pamphlet to the Under Secretary to the government for proscription.

The Government of Madras therefore proscribed Kanavu, under section12 (1) of the Indian Press Act, 1910 on 11th October 1911.
‘One Sixth’s Share’ of Bharathi
Bharathi’s another attempt was critical towards the religious policy adopted by the
British administrators. His short story in Tamil entitled Arilorupangu (one sixth’s sahre), printed at Saraswathi Press, Pondicherry in 1910 met with similar fate. He criticized vehemently the Christians for giving wrong conception of the Hindu philosophy: “All the Rishis of the land of Bharatha from Vedic times up to this day are fools who know nothing; all the pieties cherished by Arjuna, Kalidasa, Shivaji, Kabir Das and all the other personages who proceeded and succeeded them till yesterday in the land of Bharatha, are base and barbarous superstitions…” While proving that it was a folly to have faith in the Hindu religion and Hindu civilization, he tended to create an impression in the minds of the youth that Christianity which he praised was also a “superstition and curious creature”

Bharathi, the author of the story denounced the British attitude towards rituals connected with Hinduism. He also referred to the deplorable condition of Indian and stated that bachelors of the country also had the capacity to salvage the situation. Bharathi asserted thus: “Wanted men of spiritual knowledge, wanted heroes, who do not desire for themselves the pleasures of the world. This swadeshism is not a mere secular affair; it is religious faith. Those who embrace it should possess such rare qualities as vigour, spirit and an active devotion to possess such rare qualities as vigour, spirit and an active devotion to duty”. Further, he called upon the Indians to have union to get liberty. He wrote thus: “liberty will come on its own accord if union and strength are established among the people”.

He contented that the land which was once ruled by Lord Ramachandra got transformed in to hell. Bharathi wrote thus: “Right! The land which was ruled by Lord Ramachandra looked as if the celestial world had been transformed in to hell! What benefit will my Motherland derive from you? Arise and come, let us see. How long will you slumber thus and meet with ruin? Ah! Sinful nation, sinful nation… what can be done? It is a curse, a curse, a curse affecting our nation. It is not completely over yet.”

Thus, Arilorupongu appealed to the youth to arise and do their duty to the Mother country. The Government of Madras found the contents of the tract highly seditious and recommended for proscription. The tract was banned by the British on 11th October 1911.

How to bring about the National Unity … ?
The seventh pamphlet is in Tamil entitled Indiarkalil Jatiyajakkiyam Ennanam
untakam (How to bring about the National unity of the Indians?). It is written by C. Subramania Bharathi and printed at Saraswathi press in Pondicherry. This also came under the scrutiny of the British who pointed out that the land of Bharatha was conquered by the invaders not by their valour or in a just way but by their fraudulent means. Bharathi remarked that: “every foreign nation who invaded India conquered the kingdom only through deceit and several kinds of fraud, by creating difference among the Indians and with the help of a few among them, who were traitors to their country and to their brethren; not one of them acquired even a foot of land by means of valour and in a just way… that frauds were committed by the English men, in acquiring dominions in the Madras Presidency and other parts of India.

The pamphlet highlighted the policy of ‘Divide and Rule’ by the British which powered to be the root cause of all the troubles in India. Bharathi wanted the people of the land not to get carried away by certain false promises given by the British but laid stress on the unity of the Indians. He remarked that: “….let not our people break their heads over the false privileges, resembling the illusory and deceptive enchantress in the story, and let them combine and make proper effort to remove their slavery”.

Thus, Bharathi called upon the Hindus and Muhammedans that they should never forget the fact that they are all the children of the same mother and should live amicably with our mutual hatred. T.Raghvacharulu, the Tamil translator found above passages objectionable and sent it to C.Napier, the Advocate General for getting his opinion. C. Napier, in his opinion, said that the pamphlet created a tendency to bring in hatred of contempt of the government established by law in British India and ordered to size the pamphlets. Hence, the pamphlet was declared forfeited on 30th March 1912 under section12, sub-section (1) of the Press Act, 1910.

The Swadeshi Press and political literature thus heroically encountered the dictatorial measures and actions of the British Government. The repressive attitude of the government was denounced unequivocally in these political literatures, published during the course of the Swadeshi movement i.e., from 1910to1912. The tone of these literatures was highly revolutionary in character. They focused much on the efficacy of militant nationalism . Every aspect of the Swadeshi Movement as perceived by the grass root nationalist was revealed in these pamphlets. They were circulated among the Militant Nationalists of Madras Presidency between 1910 and 1912. The appeals made by these Swadeshi literatures were practically applied by Vanchi Iyer on 17th June 1911, by assassinating Robert William D.Ashe, the Collector of Tinnevely district at Maniyatchi Railway station. Knowing all these political developments, how can we say that “Madras Benighted?”. The Madras Presidency’s involvement in the Swadeshi movement has been recently unearthed and still more researches should be carried out by the young researchers, to answer the question raised by the modern Historians that “Madras Benighted?”.

Now, we may get a feel of the ‘ Swaraj spirit’ invading Madras Presidency too. It has always been felt, and possibly true that people in the South have not felt the impact of foreign invasion or Wars or even the Internal Emergency of 1975 vintage. Of course, we have had the Tippu Sultan r pulpits or Srirangam Utsava Perumal being ferried away to safety against invaders. Yet, it has always been accepted that impact on South has been comparatively far less. And therefore the ‘Swaraj Spirit’ was also rather subdued. Chellamma Bharathi did not agree.

( Author is practising advocate in the Madras High Court)