THE TRIAL OF SOCRATES

A  WIDE  CANVAS

THE TRIAL OF SOCRATES

Philosophers live philosophy

The trial and the last days of Socrates are moving. They exert a strong civilising influence on any serious student of life and letters. Any one can talk philosophy, but that does not make one a philosopher. A philosopher has to LIVE philosophy. That is what Socrates did. That is why we study his life and words.

The unexamined life is not worth living for a human being.
"Socrates": licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 via Wikimedia commons.

The trial and the last days are covered in several dialogues of Plato and we must study them to gain true understanding. I will present here some extracts from the work of Xenophon.He was not a philosopher like Plato and hence his account is more down to earth. He was not present at the trial, but he relies on the record of  Hermogenes who was. He constantly assures us of their accuracy. Besides, his account tallies in all essential respects with that of Plato, though lacking his philosophical flourish.  In several areas Xenophon gives his reasoning about why Socrates did the things he did, whereas Plato merely confines himself to recording what Socrates said. Scholars say that since Socrates did not keep any notes or follow a prepared speech, the high philosophical tone that we observe in Plato's dialogues might be reflection of his own philosophical position. 

Xenophon,Greek historian. 439- 354 BC
He was also a student of Socrates,like Plato.

Socrates charged
The charges brought against Socrates were:

Not recognising the gods recognised by the State, and introducing new gods; and corrupting the youth.

(This does not mean that the charge of corruption was  related to not recognising the old gods. These were two separate charges.)

It is necessary to understand the nature of the first charge in the context of the then Athenian society.  The foundation of Athenian law was  "Nomos", which can be translated as custom, tradition, law, convention, etc. This could be codified as law, or present strong in the collective memory and common belief and behaviour of the society. Recognising- ie worshipping  and honouring the gods was an essential aspect of the society. It meant not only that the common festivals and public sacrifices and celebrations had to be properly observed, in which citizens had to participate, but the gods had to be properly honoured and worshipped by individuals.  And this was considered an important duty of the citizens. Anyone violating  or disrupting it was thus failing in his civic duties. That someone has a particular philosophy or belief did not seem to have mattered, so long as the religious obligation was fulfilled.

Socrates refuted both charges strongly.

Xenophon gives many examples from the day to day conversations of Socrates to show how he was always talking from a sense of noble conduct born of a high sense and standard of self-discipline. Once talking to Aristodemus who said that the gods were too magnificent to need our worship, Socrates said:

Now, God was not content with merely caring for the body; what is far more important, he also endowed man with mind in its higher form. What other animal, in the first place, has a mind that is aware of the existence of the gods, who have set in order the greatest beauty on the grandest scale? What kind of creatures except man worships the gods?

Isn't it quite evident to you that compared with other creatures, men live like gods, naturally supreme both in body and in mind?

....how can you think that the gods have no concern for you? Can't you see that the most enduring  and wise of human things- States and nations- are the most devout, and that the most intelligent times of life are the ones which are the most full of regard for the gods?

 get into your head that your own mind , which is inside you,controls your body as it wills; and in the same way you must believe that the intelligence which is in the universe disposes all things just as it pleases.

He thus impressed on Aristodemus the necessity of honouring the gods. Xenophon  records that  with such  a teaching, he made his associates refrain from irreverent, wrong and discreditable actions not only in public but even when they were alone " for the simple reason that they had made up their minds that none of their actions could ever escape  the knowledge of the gods". Thus, the fear of the gods was instilled in them, which became the basis of self-discipline.

Socrates said addressing  Antiphon:

you identify happiness with luxury and extravagance, but I have always thought that to need nothing is divine, and to need as little as possible is the nearest approach to the divine, and that what is divine is best, and what is nearest to the divine is the next best.

A man who sells his favours for  a price to anyone who wants them is called a catamite;.... those who sell wisdom at a price to anyone who wants it are called sophists; but if anyone, by imparting any edifying knowledge ...makes a friend of one whom he knows to be naturally gifted, we consider that he is behaving as a truly  good citizen should behave....And in company with good friends, I open and read from beginning to end the books in which the wise men of past times have written down and bequeathed to us their treasures.

The Trial and Defence

These are the kinds of conversations Socrates  used to have with friends throughout his life. So when the trial came, and he had to defend himself, he said that 'his whole life had been a preparation for his defence'! Asked to explain how, he said:

Because I have consistently done no wrong. and this, I think is the finest preparation for a defence.

Socrates claimed that twice he prepared to make a defence, but the divine opposed him! He said (mentioning one of his accusers):

Meletus himself could, if he had chosen, have seen me sacrificing during the communal festivals and at the public altars. As for my claim that a divine voice comes to me and communicates what I must do, how in claiming this am I introducing new deities? Those who rely on bird-calls and the utterances of men are, I suppose, receiving guidance from voices. Can there be any doubt that thunder has a voice or that it is an omen of the greatest significance?... whereas others state that it is birds and utterances and  chance meetings and oracles which forewarn them, I call it divine. I think that in using this description I am being more accurate and more devout than those who ascribe the power of the gods to birds.

Do you know anyone who is less of a slave to bodily desires than I am?

Do you know anyone more free, since I accept no gratuities  or payment from anyone?

Could you possibly regard anyone as more upright than  the man who is so in tune with his immediate circumstances that he has no need of anything extraneous?

 .....while others acquire their shop-bought luxuries at  high price, I arrange for greater, mental luxuries  at no cost at all.

... tell me of anyone who has stopped worshipping the gods because of me, or who has substituted arrogance for humility, or extravagance for economy, or drunkenness for moderate drinking, or flabbiness for exercise, or who has given to any base indulgence because of me?

Here, Xenophon gives a bit of his own reasoning . He says that though Socrates was neither irreligious nor unfair towards others, still he did not believe that he should beg for his life, as he felt that his time had come! Socrates also felt that to propose a counter-penalty (lesser punishment) would amount to admission of his guilt. When friends urged him to escape, he refused saying whether they knew of any place which was free from death!

Socrates summed up his defence thus:

it has not been proved that I committed any of the crimes mentioned in the indictment. It has not been shown that I sacrifice to any new deities or swear by them, or recognise other deities instead of Zeus  and Hera  and their divine companions. How could I corrupt the young by making endurance and economy second nature to them?  

the shame falls not on me but on those who condemned me.

Thus, throughout the trial, Socrates was defiant, though defending himself. He was arguing his case, but was not apologetic. He was certain he was not wrong and there was no need to seek any favour by way of pleading for lesser penalty. Above all, he had a sense of being guided by the divine force, and he submitted to it without hesitation. He had probably an intimation of his end and so he did not want to defy or  seek to dodge the divine will.## 

Xenophon feels that this strong stand of Socrates was arrogance, which annoyed the jurors and  thus Socrates forced them to condemn him! Xenophon ends his account of the trial  with these words:

When I consider how wise the man was, and how high-minded, I am bound to remember him, and when I remember him, I am bound to admire him.

Well, Xenophon could not know that not only he but the entire civilised world was bound to remember Socrates, and by remembering him, honour him for two thousand five hundred years!

(Quotations here are from the edition by Robin Waterfield of Xenophon: Conversations of Socrates. Penguin Classics,1990. Robin Waterfield's translations are, I have found, the best and his introductions are full of helpful insights.)

Another view of Xenophon. 



Human affairs and Divine Voice

## Is it possible that some one got such divine guidance, when charged with a serious offence, not to prepare his own defence? Is such a claim credible?


Let us leave all theory and 

speculation aside.It has actually happened. In 1908, Sri Aurobindo was implicated in the Alipore Bomb case, and was lodged in the Alipore Jail. The case was going on in the court.One day, the earlier counsel went, and C.R.Das came in his place , started  arguing the case. Sri Aurobindo used to follow the arguments keenly, take notes and pass them on to Das. Then the Divine voice intervened. This is how Sri Aurobindo himself described it:

When the trial opened in  the Sessions Court, I began to write many instructions for my Counsel as to what was false in the evidence against me and on what points the witness might be cross-examined. Then something happened which I had not expected. The arrangements which had been made for my defence were suddenly changed and another counsel stood there to defend me......Srijut Chittaranjan Das.When I saw him, I was satisfied, but I still thought it necessary to write instructions. Then all that was put away, and I heard the message from within, "This is the man who will save you....Put aside these papers.It is not you who will instruct him. I will instruct him." From that time I did not of myself speak a word to my Counsel....with what result you know. I knew all along what HE meant for me, for I heard it again and again, always I listened to the voice within: " I am guiding, therefore fear not."

Sri Aurobindo, Uttarpara Speech. Delivered on 30 May,1909. Published on 1 June 1909.Sri Aurobindo was acquitted by the English Judge.


Wisemen and the world

Socrates's trial raises an important question, relevant even today. Can a man of knowledge or wisdom afford to conduct his public life in such a way as to defy the customs and traditions of the society, or even give such an impression? To day it is common for our 'intellectuals' and  progressive politicians to ridicule the people for their religious practices, while they themselves are introducing new practices in many fields.  The Indian tradition is also like the Greek: society depends on some basic customs and practices.These are all not enacted by the State and  enforced by its power. While there could be people who by their education or other attainments could pass the stage where they need such customs for their own personal edification or satisfaction, there are many others who have not attained such a state  who need them. But the example of the top few could unsettle the minds of the common man, and undermine the society's cohesion. The Gita says clearly in this regard:

Yad yadacharati sreshta:
tattadeve taro jana:
Sa yat pramaanam kurutae 
loka:tat anuvartate                                      3.21

Whatever the superior person does, that is followed by others. What he demonstrates by action, that people follow.

Na mae parthasthi kartavyam
trishu lokeshu kinchana.
Naanavaaptam avaaptavyam
varta eva cha karmani                                 3.22

O Partha! I have no duty , there is nothing I have not gained, there is nothing I have to gain in all the three worlds. Yet I continue in Karma.

Yadi aham na varteyam
jaatu karmani atindrata:
Mama vartamanuvartantae
manushyaa: partha sarvasha:                     3.23

 O Partha! If  ever I did not continue in Karma without relaxation, men would in every way follow in My wake!

Saktaa: karmani avidvaamso
yataa kurvanti bharata
Kuryaat vidvaams tatha  asakta:
chikirshu: lokasangraham.                          3.25

As the unwise perform karma out of attachment, so should the wise one act, but without attachment, desirous of the welfare (Lokasangraham- social cohesion, integrity of the society) of the world.

Prakrutaer guna sammoodha:
sajjante guna karmasu:
Taan krutsnavido mandaan
krtsnavinna vichaala aet.                          3.29

Men of perfect knowledge should not unsettle the understanding of the people of dull wit and imperfect knowledge, who deluded by the gunas of prakriti attach themselves to the functions of the gunas.

There can be no clearer exposition of the importance of the wise people setting a good example by their action in following the common practices, even while not needing them personally, as these are meant for the common people.This is said in the Gita in the context of explaining the 'Yajnas' which were the ancient, eternal bonds between man and the 'devas' (gods) for their mutual benefit. Society should not discontinue them.

 Today, not only the intellectuals, atheists, 'progressive' etc elements are discouraging people from performing their religious duties; even some of the new age gurus are advocating abandonment of traditional practices and adoption of new ones. We can appreciate if the ancient Athenian society felt that Socrates was perhaps setting a bad example by speaking against the gods. 

But Socrates did no such thing. Socrates was not irreligious, or disrespectful of the gods. His teaching did not involve social religion but private ethics- virtue. Socrates was teaching people to adopt virtuous conduct as the foundation of worldly happiness and other worldly rewards. He did not criticise the religion of the land, or their traditional practices. He only wanted them to even exceed the 'nomos'- the customary standards or practices, not abandon them. When people were in difficulties which they could not solve with their intellect, he even advised them to seek divination! He even warned people against too much research into astronomy , as he said that it was not possible for man to know everything, and they should not be eager to learn things which the gods had not chosen to reveal, as they could not please the gods thereby!

Xenophon records an instance when Socrates found his eldest son Lamprocles  getting angry with his mother. He asked him whether he knew of people being called ungrateful and why. The boy replied that he knew and that was because they had not returned a kindness received. Was ingratitude then wrong? Yes, it was wrong, said the boy. He led the boy by further questioning to admit that it was wrong to be ungrateful even to an enemy. Was not ingratitude unmitigated injustice? Yes, agreed the boy. Then, the greater the favour received without gratitude, greater the injustice? Yes, said the boy.

Well, said Socrates: who enjoys greater benefits than children from their parents? Their parents have brought them into existence, taught them all the good things, and to see beauty . They  undergo lot of suffering, face many hardships and incur many sacrifices. He tells Lamprocles that the mother is constantly praying to the gods for blessings on the son, and undertaking vows on his account.Yet he says the mother is difficult to put up with! He tells him: "if you can't bear a mother like her, you can't bear what is good for you". He advises him to pray to the gods for forgiveness for the disregard shown to the mother!

When he found two bothers quarrelling, he would tell them that 'brothers were intended by God to be more helpful to each other than hands or feet or even eyes ". Thus in every situation of life, he was teaching basic morality , courtesy, gratitude,- all the basic virtues and reminding people about God  and virtuous conduct.

Socrates and Athens: the bond

Socrates was not a social reformer, as that category is understood. He was a moral reformer. He wanted people to lead a virtuous life, not merely follow the traditional customs.He wanted them to base such conduct on wisdom which they could themselves discover. Their conviction should exceed the conventions. He felt it was his divine mission to teach this to Athens. He said at his trial:

I was attached to this city by the god- though it seems a ridiculous thing to say- as upon a great and noble horse which was sluggish because of its size and needed to be stirred by a kind of gadfly. It is to fulfill some such function that I believe the god has placed me in this city. (Tr.G.M.A.Grube)

So his love for Athens was not merely because of his civic affections- it was his divine charge. That explains why he refused to escape, when his friends suggested it. More than civic duty, or moral obligation,  ( which he certainly respected),he was fulfilling a divine command that he felt he had.

Spiritual but not religious?

There are many today who call themselves 'spiritual but not religious'. They are sincere in wanting to lead a 'virtuous' life, but do not feel like following an organised religion, or observe its rites and rituals, or even accept its dogma. Socrates has shown us how one could be traditional in religion, and yet free in spirit, devoted to a life of wisdom and virtue!

In this sense, he strongly reminds us of the Upanishadic seers or Masters. They have sprung from the tradition, but have outgrown the need for the early forms and practices. But they do not decry them on this account but show how they could be given a different meaning , thereby enlarging their scope and reach! This is what we see perfected in the Gita- ancient terms like yajna, karma, yoga, jnana,sankhya etc are taken up and given new significance! This way, one could be religious, and yet spiritual!

 

Why exactly such a charge that he was dishonouring the gods was brought against Socrates is intriguing.There is a view that Socrates held some unpopular views on political matters- for instance, he was considered pro-Spartan in his sympathies, and did not favour the democratic polity-  and that he was really tried for those views. But the way he met the charge, and met his end puts the seal on the noblest of lives that the West has seen.

The tallest figure in Western civilisation.
By Joanbanjo (Own work)CC BY-SA 3.0 creative commons via Wikimedia commons.


NOTE:

Our knowledge of Socrates is derived entirely from the West. Western scholars always look at things through their prejudiced glasses. They dispute facts when known, and theorise and guess, when they do not know. Unfortunately, not many Indian scholars ( I mean scholars who have studied our systems, not Indians following the Westerners) have studied Socrates and Plato from our perspective. When one comes to Socrates or Plato with knowledge of our own tradition, one is struck by the strong similarities in many areas, though may be not a complete identity.. But this is a subject waiting to be studied. In the meantime, we should take the work of Western scholars with a generous pinch of salt.  There is huge scholarship, but very little real understanding.For, when it comes to philosophy, trust the West to muck it up! Ancient Athens killed Socrates. Modern West has mutilated and murdered philosophy-considered as the pursuit of wisdom..

Plato deals with  the trial and last days of Socrates in four of his dialogues. But that deserves separate coverage.

Those who are interested in detailed study of why Socrates was put to death will find Robin Waterfield's book: Why Socrates Died (W.W.Norton&Co,2009) rewarding. Even more detailed is : The Hemlock Cup by Bettany Hughes (Alfred A.Knopf,2010). It reveals to us the Athens as it was, as it shaped Socrates and as it was in turn affected by Socrates.This is a tremendous book.

OUR INTELLECTUAL BANKRUPTCY-1

A WIDE CANVAS

OUR INTELLECTUAL BANKRUPTCY-1

The Western tradition traces its intellectual history from Classical Greece. When the rise of Christianity obscured this tradition, Europe entered the 'dark ages'. Its intellectual life was revived after the recovery or rediscovery of its Classical foundations during what is called the Renaissance.(14th to 17th centuries.)

 The spirit of free enquiry that it engendered, out of the clutches of church dogma, led to Enlightenment, scientific advancement and great intellectual ferment. The US joined this movement rather late, after its Independence, but it soon assumed the leadership due to force of circumstances.

India rivalled and excelled ancient Greece in the splendour of thought and intellectual inquiry. The range and depth of its philosophical enterprise are still unrivalled. India was also an economic power, contributing about 30% of the world GDP in the Christian era, up to mid 18th century, when together with China it dominated the world economy. India was not traditionally poor, as idiots and vested interests make it out to be. India had never known an official church, had never curtailed free thought and inquiry and had never known any dark age. Except during the modern period!

Just when the the American colonies threw away the yoke of colonial rule (1776), India was enslaved by a mere English trading company (battle of Plassey,1757) and eventually became England's greatest colony- the brightest jewel in the crown! But, in 1836 a new educational system was introduced which sought to kill our genius and has nearly succeeded in it.In the last two centuries, India has lost its intellectual vitality and any trace of originality. It has become an imitator in everything.It was in 1776 that Adam Smith wrote his monumental Wealth of Nations and chartered a course for the economic domination of England. Ironically that is also the time our own economic damnation began, signalled by the famines in Bengal,(1769-1773) soon after the company took over the administration! It caused the death of 10 million Indians, mainly in the areas covered by the Company administration, and it was even reported that there were not enough people left to bury the dead.[ Is it a mere coincidence- that the British rule inaugurated the era of famines in India, and one such famine, in the same Bengal in 1943 signalled the end of the British rule in India? See 'Churchill's Secret War' by Madhusree Mukerjee for details.)

I will just give two examples. Once our people took to English education, it did not take them long to be affected by the ideas of democracy, liberty, revolution which were then current. Some clever civil servants sensed this and to humour the Indians, they created the Indian National Congress to enable the English educated Indian gas bags to air their imitated ideas and petition and pray for token participation in the process of administration. Real national leaders saw this tamasha, and demanded full freedom 'Swaraj' and raised the cry Vande Mataram! Sri Lokamanya Tilak and Sri Aurobindo were the real leaders then- in the first decade of the 20th Century. The British govt was alarmed, unleashed brutal repressive measures, sent Tilak to Mandalay and kept him there for 6 years (1908 to 1914). It kept Sri Aurobindo in solitary confinement in Alipore jail for a year, implicating him in a false case. Tilak's health broke down, and after his release, he had mellowed, diluted his earlier nationalist fervour,and he passed away in 1920. Sri Aurobindo was freed by the British court, the charges against him not proven. But he had had  Yogic realisations  and soon left politics and left British India and settled down in Pondicherry in April,1910.He remained there till his Samadhi in December,1950. He did not yield to calls to return to active politics, once by Gandhi himself, firm in his conviction that Indian freedom was a given and that his work lay elsewhere.

 During the short period he was in active politics (1903-1910), Sri Aurobindo was a terror and even the Viceroy acknowledged that he was the greatest danger to the empire. It was simply because of the intellectual vigour of his writing, which the best of British brains could neither match nor answer! They only sought to silence him, by hook or crook. The originality and daring of his writing is breathtaking. His political writings have been brought together in a huge volume titled "Bande Mataram" and no student of Indian affairs can call himself truly educated unless he has read this. And any one who reads this will realise that all subsequent Indian effort is like the squealing of rats, against the roar of a royal lion. It is entirely fitting that India became free on 15th August, the birthday of Sri Aurobindo, the original leader of true Swaraj!

But alas! All our originality ended with Sri Aurobindo.Gandhi entered the scene, and a period of imitation began. He spoke initially of 'Hind Swaraj' but soon settled for routine political agitation. His non-cooperation movement was actually borrowed from Sri Aurobindo's 'Passive Resistance', but Gandhi claimed moral authority from Thoreau's Civil Disobedience. But Gandhi did not fully succeed in this- he abandoned most of his agitations in the middle. Sri Aurobindo had called for "Swaraj"- complete Independence, and not dominion status in 1905, but it took Gandhi another 25 years to accept it! Swadeshi and  Boycott of British goods was again Sri Aurobindo's device, adopted by Gandhi in the guise of Swadeshi. Sri Aurobindo had thought of 'national education', and Gandhi had his own quixotic version of 'nai talim' later on. Sri Aurobindo had also spoken about settling disputes without resort to British courts. And uplift of the downtrodden was an important aspect of his national programme. Gandhi adopted all these, without openly acknowledging the role of Sri Aurobindo- an act of intellectual dishonesty. With the arrival of Gandhi on the scene and the ascent of his anointed heir Nehru, all intellectual originality in Indian public affairs ended. Nehru simply continued from where the British had left. And when he did something different, as in economic planning, it was in imitation of Soviet Russia! Gandhi's one and only original contribution had been in respect of the economy- the revival of the economy- but it was effectively buried by his self-chosen heir, Jawaharlal Nehru!

Sri Aurobindo

Sri Aurobindo presides, while Lokmanya Tilak delivers his speech- Surat, 1907.
Tilak and Sri Aurobindo broke up the Surat Congress, demanding bolder nationalist approach.
Photo from  Sri Aurobindo Ashram sources. Acknowledged with thanks.

Our imitative mentality did not end here. When the American colonies had become Independent, and made a Declaration of Independence, this was a document containing an original vision, of momentous spiritual import, though no ordinary sectarian religious sentiment. Thomas Jefferson, on the recommendation of John Adams, drafted the Declaration and included this fantastic sentence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Historians have called this the 'best known sentence in the English language'. While the colonies declared their Independence from colonial rule, they also declared a moral standard for their own governance! It is so thrilling to any one who takes time to reflect on the true import of these golden words.

 Thomas Jefferson

The portable lap-desk on which he drafted the Declaration! This was his own invention.
Both images from Wikimedia, Public Domain.

But what did we do when we started drafting a Constitution for us? All those who were involved were products of English education, long exposed to colonial ideas and methods, soaked in the spirit of British jurisprudence and practices, and often their admirers, and were unconsciously guided by that spirit. Like a committee inventing a horse, they went about borrowing from every where. Perhaps the only piece of originality is the word Bharat that they used to designate India! The Constitution contains an unresolved conflict between the President and Chief Executive, it contains innumerable points of friction between the Centre and the States, it has no solid stand on fundamental rights, it has no enforceable vision (the Directive Principles are not enforceable). Above all, it has imposed Hindi imperialism on all non-Hindi speaking people and made them second-class citizens by birth! It is already losing shape, having lost its soul by several sinister amendments.

Just think about the monumental stupidity! India has been one of the greatest civilisations, having had a continuous existence of more than 5000 years in record, while all others like Greece and Rome, ended up in Museums and ruins. We had village republics functioning in complete autonomy centuries before Christ, which even the emperor Asoka could not ignore or bypass. India withstood many invasions, and  nearly a 1000 years of Muslim onslaught, but did not become Muslim- only one such example in the whole world in 1300 years. Yet our worthies could find not a single idea from the native soil for our constitution! It is as if Chanakya and Manu, Vyasa and Valmiki, Kalidasa and Tiruvalluvar had not existed at all!  What shining example of collective educated unwisdom! The Indian Constitution is a prime example of a product of dull,uninspired, mercenary clerical minds, not capable of any intellectual effort beyond imitation. 

  

TIME-SPIRIT AT WORK?

A WIDE CANVAS

TIME-SPIRIT AT WORK ?

Keen students of history or literature, if they stand aside and reflect on what they read will notice how the over-all ideas of the writers or leading personalities of the times converge on some themes. It is as if they are all part of an orchestra, being directed by an unseen conductor, with an unseen baton! We may perhaps call it the time spirit.

In English literature, this has long been perceived and the different themes and ages named and labelled: Middle ages, Elizabethan Age, Romantic Age, Victorian Age, Modern Age, Post-modern, etc. While some of the differences are real ( eg.Classical as against Romantic), some seem to be merely semantic fashion ( Structuralism, Deconstruction, etc.) The modern tendency is to stress any difference for the sake of it,exalt it and celebrate it as a cult, and build a power-structure round it- be it academic, or bureaucratic.

But in history, the subtle change in ideas or approaches goes largely unnoticed. Our historians divide the whole into periods according to their convenience, which often can be arbitrary. For independent students, somethings can be striking. And such things are  mainly related to individuals.

Winston Churchill is an outstanding example. He was active in politics and public affairs for half a century.He had a dramatic escape in South Africa during the Boer Wars. In politics after the First World war, he became the Chancellor of the Exchequer during 1924-29 and returned England to the gold standard at the pre-war parity- an act of unimaginable economic unwisdom! It led to a period of great economic distress for England. He was in the political wilderness in the 30s but this was the period in which he kept warning England and USA about the dangers from Nazi Germany. He was taken as a war-monger, and consistently ignored. But Germany started the Second World War ( even as it had started the First) on 3 September 1939. PM Neville Chamberlain stood discredited, and Churchill was made PM on 10 May 1940. He resisted the ideas of surrender, galvanised the nation and led England to a magnificent triumph.  But in the general election in 1945, his party was defeated and he had to sit in the Opposition! He became PM again in 1951.

Churchill making his famous V sign ten days after taking over as PM. Public Domain via Wikimedia Commons.

In this life, we see how the Time Spirit played with him. In the spell as Chancellor, he was acting as the arch-conservative, keen on restoring England to its past glory and chose the the return to gold standard at pre-war parity as his instrument- a monumental blunder. But as PM, he was an instrument in the hands of the Time Spirit, resisting the gravest evil force the world had seen, in the form of Hitler. Later, he had misgivings about Stalin too, but by that time, the US had become the real power, and Roosevelt did not listen to him. The Time-Spirit would not let Churchill remain silent.  No longer the PM, invited to the US by president Truman, Churchill delivered his historic "Iron Curtain" speech on 5 March 1946:

Nobody knows what Soviet Russia and its Communist international organization intends to do in the immediate future, or what are the limits, if any, to their expansive and proselytizing  tendencies........

From Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic, an iron curtain has descended  across the continent. Behind that line lie all the capitals of the ancient states of central and eastern Europe: Warsaw, Berlin, Prague, Vienna, Budapest, Belgrade, Bucharest, Sofia. all these famous cities  and populations around them lie in the Soviet sphere and all are subject in one form or another, not only to Soviet influence but to a very high and increasing measure of control from Moscow.

In the complacent glow of the post-war peace that the West was enjoying, and weary of any more war, the US and the West ignored Churchill, while Stalin promptly called him war monger! Yet within a year, Stalin repudiated the agreement reached at Yalta  in February 1945 and went ahead to build up his East European empire, which the US was unable to stop. (But Churchill had also made a slip: he did not fully trust Stalin, but somehow yielded at Yalta.. He had hoped that he was not making a mistake, unlike Chamberlain who made a mistake in trusting Hitler. But this was Churchill's mistake.)

Churchill, Franklin Roosevelt and Stalin at Yalta: Feb, 1945
Public Domain, Wikimedia Commons.

It took nearly half a century for the countries of Eastern and Central Europe to come out of the Soviet orbit, when the USSR itself disintegrated. But those countries have not yet recovered economically and fully regained their former poise. Meanwhile, the world has also come to realise that Stalin was far more cruel, and had killed more people than even Hitler. Hitler killed about 6 million Jews in the Holocaust; Stalin is said to have killed from 20 million to 60 million civilians in different stages!

I am inclined to think that today the West is committing the same mistake in underestimating the menace from Islamic forces. US is coming closer to Iran , like Chamberlain did with respect to Hitler. There is no outstanding figure in the West like Churchill today, though independent scholars are warning about the danger from Islamic forces. The Western leaders are seeing and believing a non-existent difference between Islam as such, and its militant form- which Muslims themselves do not believe in! They are appeasing the Muslims, in country after country. We do not know how the Time-Spirit is operating now!

In India we have seen other aspects of the Time Spirit. While Gandhiji was fighting for freedom, Dr.Ambedkar was supporting the British govt. Gandhiji and his associates were arrested  and put in prison in August 1942, while Dr.Ambedkar joined the Viceroy's council! Yet in Independent India, it is his followers who wield power and his pictures are seen along with those of Gandhiji in public places! In Tamil Nadu, E.V.Ramasway Naicker, the leader of the Dravidian party cabled  Attlee on 3 July 1947 that  they should create a Dravidanadu for the Muslims and Dravidians of Madras! Yet, it is his followers who have been ruling Tamil Nad for the last 40 years, and the self-styled Indian National Congress is courting one or the other Dravidian faction for its survival!

Pandit Nehru was anointed his heir by Gandhiji himself. Yet, Nehru did not take up even a single programme or idea of Gandhiji for implementation! He had opted for the Soviet model, and was now increasingly surrounded by leftists of different hues.All true Gandhians left him, but they operated individually. The power structure and party machinery so changed after Independence that communal considerations weighed in governance, while economic policies became more and more authoritarian and Statist. Only Rajaji was able to see the danger it posed for our democracy and economy and he raised the banner of revolt against the Permit-Licence- Quota Raj! Yet , he went without mass support. He formed the 'creative minority'. It took 30 more years, a near total economic collapse on the external account and a temporary break from the hold of the Nehru dynasty for the Govt to make a shift in policy, introducing the so-called Liberalisation! It is more than 20 years since, but we are still talking about it! The more it is said to change, the more it looks like the old dispensation!

Rajaji as Governor General with Sardar Baldev Singh, India's defence minister and the Service Chiefs, 1948. 
The former Governor General became the guardian-general of our democracy, anticipating the dangers of rising statism- so menacingly realised during the Emergency, 5 years after his passing!

During the freedom movement, all our leaders were inspired by our National ideals. Tilak talked of Swaraj,  they raised slogans of Vande Mataram, treating the country as the Divine Mother. This was the slogan dominating our nation before Gandhiji came. It reached its crescendo during and after the Bengal partition of 1905, and reverberated throughout the country. But  the colonial govt.unleashed savage repression , leaders like Tilak were imprisoned at Mandalay, Sri Aurobindo was kept in solitary confinement at Alipore jail for a year from May, 1908 to 1909 and in 4 short years, the complexion of the country changed. A deathly silence descended on the nation.

 Lokamanya Balgangadhar Tilak who taught us: "Swaraj is my birthright and I shall have it".



Coming out of the jail, Sri Aurobindo did not miss the spirit of the times. He said in his Uttarpara speech on 30 May 1909 :

It is I this time who have spent one year in seclusion, and now that I come out I find all changed. One (Tilak) who always sat by my side and was associated in my work is a prisoner in Burma; another (Lala Lajpat Rai) is in the north rotting in detention.

When I went to jail the whole country was alive with the cry of Bande Mataram, alive with the hope of a nation,the hope of millions of men who have risen out of degradation. When I came out of jail I listened for that cry, but there was instead a silence. A hush had fallen on the country and men seemed bewildered; for instead of God's bright heaven full of the vision of the future that had been before us, there seemed to be overhead a leaden sky from which human thunders and lightnings rained.......But one thing I knew, that as it was the Almighty Power of God which had raised that cry, that hope, so it was the same power which had sent down that silence. He who was in the shouting and the movement was also in the pause and the hush. He has sent it upon us, so that the nation might draw back for a moment and look into itself and know His will. 

Sri Aurobindo. 
Public Domain via Wikimedia Commons.

Will any of our present day politicians - who deserves to be called a 'leader'?- think of or utter the word God  or Almighty Power in respect of the nation? Will they utter in public Vande Mataram or even Jai Hind? All those shameless people who enjoy the fruits of the labours and sacrifice of those giants? They can only think of what next to borrow or imitate or import from America or elsewhere. .

As we see the nation in the grip of empty slogans and vain promises, amidst local and petty issues, swayed by every passing fancy, we wonder where the Time-Spirit is leading us!

NOTE:

Indians today have no idea of the role played by Sri Aurobindo, as the Nehru dynasty and leftist historians who dominated our politics and academics have tried to whitewash the part played by him, before the arrival of Gandhi on the scene. Curiously, Gandhiji himself did not openly acknowledge how much he had borrowed from Sri Aurobindo- especially where he was successful! 

But the British govt had the sense to assess the importance of Sri Aurobindo. His role and the govt's attempt to get him implicated falsely in the Alipore Bomb Case were discussed in the House of Commons and the Viceroy, Lord Minto wrote to Morley, Secretary of State, on 14 April, 1910:

I have been somewhat exercised by the questions in the House of Commons about Aurobindo Ghose. He is the most dangerous man we have to deal with at present and he has great influence with the student class.

He repeated this again, on 26 May 1910:

As to the celebrated Arabindo,........I can only repeat.. that he is the most dangerous man we now have to reckon with....and has an unfortunate influence with the student class, and Indians who know him well have told me he is quite beyond redemption.

Two years earlier, on 19 May 1908, when an earlier attempt to implicate Sri Aurobindo had failed, Sir Andrew Fraser, Lt.Governor of Bengal wrote to the Viceroy in a confidential note reviewing Sri Aurobindo's life  that it had been a "deplorable blunder" of the authorities to have excluded him from the I.C.S.


2. In the 19th century and early 20th century,  Hinduism was under attack from various sides: Macaulay's minions, Missionaries, Modern reformers of various hues, politicians, etc. It was the great men of Bengal who rose to the occasion and caused a Renaissance  to save Hinduism: Sri Ramakrishna, Swami Vivekananda, Sri Aurobindo, Rabindranath Tagore. After Independece, it was Bengal which took the lead in denigrating Hinduism and disowning its own great sons: the leftist govt in West Bengal blatantly rewrote history to belittle Hindus and glorify Muslims! Even today, it is these 'eminent' Bengali troupe consisting of people like Ramachandra Guha, Amartya Sen etc who are virulent anti-Hindus ! See how the Time-Spirit is playing! We recall the old saying that nectar and poison came out of the churning of the same ocean! (though here the sequence seems to have changed)