In 1916, G.K Chesterton gave the following interview to an Indian journalist, Harendranath Maitra, (author of 'Hinduism- the World Ideal' to which Chesterton wrote the introduction) which was published in the NYT.
It was a rainy afternoon when I went to see G. K. Chesterton at the country house where this great English writer dreams and writes the drama of the world. The very appearance of the man showed me that there was something uncommon about him- uncommon in the sense that he is beyond all commonplace. I was shown into the study. A delight-ful wood fire was burning on the hearth and the room had about it a soothing and wholly charming air of restful antiquity. But I had hardly sat down when Mr. Chesterton entered. We shook hands. There is certainly nothing ordinary about his appearance. His face is that of a thinker. His eyes are deeply penetrating, but his smile is full of sympathy and affection. I said to myself: "He is what we call in India a real sanvasín, one who has found the heart of things, with the simplicity that belongs to real greatness—a mystic living in the world."
Sanyasis renounce family ties. Chesterton was a married man. One could say he was a mahatma or jivanmukta or something of that sort.
The genuineness of his laughter is infectious, and takes an Indian into the atmosphere of his own country, where one often meets men of the mystical temperament who have the child-heart at the centre of their wisdom.
Chesterton was marvellously witty. But he could be very profound. A Hindu would think 'The Man who was Thursday' is Advaitic. A Muslim might think it represented Sufi Tawhid.
Mr. Chesterton is that dignified, honest, straightforward individual man that any nation may be proud of. He is a unique man with a unique face and a unique smile. His continual struggle with his eyeglasses, which seemed to be constantly wanting to come off, humor- ously suggested to my mind the many difficulties encountered by a nature like his in adapting itself to the manifold petty conventions of "civilization." For he is a thinker, a thinker of an icono- clastic type. He is a rebel, in fact, but his rebellion is always constructive. He wants to see a new Britain, and along with it a new world.
As did G.B. Shaw. Sadly, the new world was fucking horrible.
"The time has come," said Mr. Chester- ton, without waiting for a formal ques- tion from me, “when India and her people must be presented to the world at large in a truer light, and I respect the brave Indian soldiers who have brought about a very much stronger feeling of solidarity between England and India.
Gandhi was trying to recruit Indian soldiers for the British Army. He was a great admirer of Chesterton.
This war is going to bring about a wonderful imperial solidarity, that is, a greater feeling of brotherhood between the different races and nations within the British Empire.
This a war between Imperial cousins. It spelled the end of multi-ethnic Empires. Sadly, it also meant ethnic cleansing or civil war- as in Ireland.
Each race or nation must not lose her own individual existence; on the contrary, she must be intensely nationalistic and be represented as a nation in the councils of the empire.
The Brits had made the settler colonies self-administering and self-garrisoning. Could this be extended to non-settler colonies? No. But few colonies could defend themselves. The British Navy would remain vital into the 1950s. Indeed, India had a British admiral till 1958.
India must be thoroughly Indian.
It already was. British officials were required to know at least one vernacular and one classical Indian language.
She must develop her very strong national characteristics.
i.e. being so utterly shit that a commercial enterprise from a distant island could take over the whole country and create a greater Empire than Akbar or Aurangazeb.
This is the only imperialism through which Britain can maintain her influence as a world power. "I think we can do this, because on the whole we have understood the feelings of people. I do not say that we are blameless, but Britain has progressed with the times. British people are fond of liberty, and this principle they try to maintain wherever they step in. We are not very logical. More logical people would have been fanatical. "Germany would never have been able to understand India. For instance, if Germany had ruled in India she would undoubtedly have exasperated the people by imposing her so-called superior culture in regard to everything.
They would have committed genocide.
They would have made a mess of the religious question. Germany would probably have taken sides with the Mohammedans or with the Hindus, to the exclusion of the others. But the way in which India has gathered to the side of Britain shows that British policy in India has not been vindictive; rather that Britain, with all her faults, has tried to respect the sentiments of the people.
That sentiment was love of money. The British Raj was successful because it turned a profit.
"The great note of the moment is the real feeling about 'civilization.' The Prussians have very little thought of civilization. The Prussian is that man who does not know where he comes from.
Around this time Thomas Mann was saying that Germans weren't part of Western Civilization. It had its own culture which was authoritarian.
He loves to despise the real art and life of other nations. That is why he has destroyed Rheims Cathedral, and said that he would build something of his own.
That was propaganda. At the time, it was widely believed.
He does it like a schoolboy. It is common sense that the Prussian lacks. The alliance against Prussia is a very real thing. India has come forward so nobly in this war, not because of any sort of pressure on the part of the Government, but spontaneously and magnanimously. All old civilizations are of this type our Russian alliance is due to this. India saw very quickly, because of her intuitive faculties, the reality in this war, and therefore sided with the Allies. The Prussian is a person who believes intensely that it is only his own existence that is really necessary to the world; therefore he prepares to do what he likes, regardless of others; therefore he vulgarly knocks down what is beautiful and says that he will replace it by something better of his own. That is why all old civilizations are against him.
Austria-Hungary was pretty old.
'I have great faith in India. When I look back to prehistoric times I see that glorious ancient land of the Hindus com- ing forth from a mighty past, mysterious and mystical, yet supremely natural and speaking a great message to the ma- terialistic civilization of the world today. India's men and women of the past have held a great light to the world, and I believe that the Indians of the present generation are also the true bearers of that light." "Do you not think," I interrupted, "that India should be given her own destiny?" Yes, I do firmly believe that, only I do not know just in what way it ought to happen. I thoroughly believe in the principle of representative government. The government ought to be controlled by the people. The government ought to be controlled in the way she likes. But who are the real representatives of a people? That is a great question. In Ireland it is the priests who are the real representatives of the people, who know them and understand their wants. I think, more or less, that is also the case in India.
Irish priests were well educated. Indian priests were often illiterate. Still, Chesterton was right to think it would be religious symbols, not some modern political ideology, which would enable Indian political parties to mobilize the masses.
I fear the men who receive titles from the Government, and are ambitious to make names for themselves, are not the real representatives of the¨ people;
Sadly those who really represented the people were as stupid and ignorant as them.
they are afraid to speak the truth for their country, their mouths are closed. But the priests, who do really think with the people who are brothers and cousins of the populace-they know the people better than those who are far away from them. The people can only be represent- ed through some institution, and the re- ligious institutions appear to be the best vehicles in India. "I certainly hope that in all imperial matters India will be fully represented, represented, let me say again emphati- cally, by the real representatives of the people, the real preservers of Indian cul- ture and ideals. In peace, as in war, India's opinion ought to be represented in the settlement of imperial questions, not through government machinery, but through the people's institutions. "I was very much disappointed to hear of the South African trouble, but it was, I believe, due to a class of people who failed to understand India, and bet- ter feeling is now prevailing. Lord Har- dinge did understand, and showed true vision and statesmanship by letting the people of India see that the Viceroy was with them. <i 'India has no representatives in Par- liament, but she has her representatives on the battlefield. This is a new ro- manticism. Britain can never forget this debt. She will remember it for her own sake. 6. • This is a bad time for politicians, but a very good time for everybody else. Now we have an opportunity of coming face to face with a great many human realities. There is practically no party system; it has been broken off by the war; there is no longer room for a capitalistic Gov- ernment. The nation itself is going to be predominant, and India's cause, now that they know something about it, will re- ceive a sympathetic hearing from the British people." "But do you think, for instance, that Englishmen are willing to be thus treat- ed equally with Indians?" 16 Certainly! India must be governed by Indians for Indians. And I cannot be- lieve that the inheritors of so great a past would make bad administrators. On the contrary, they are great administra- tors; in fact, they are superior in many ways. 64 The King and the people of India ought to be one at heart. It would be a great thing for King George to spend a little time in India and go about among the people incognito-like the Sultan Haroun al Raschid in the ‘Arabian Nights.'
The King would have to apply boot polish to his face to pass for a native.
The Viceroy of India should do the same. The Kings of Scotland used to do this in the Middle Ages, but they usually had a love affair of some sort mixed up with it, I believe; for instance, Robert Bruce was very much liked by his people for going about among them in disguise. "The romance of chivalry which is be- ing exhibited today by the Indian Princes and their people will have a tremendous effect in bringing India and Britain into closer touch. War is inglorious, but there may be a great romance and glory of war, too. I always picture an Indian soldier as the steel-clad Rajput warrior who fought for honor and glory in the old days. The Hindu ideals of warfare are the highest that have ever been known, and not only the men but the women, too, fought with these ideals. India has had not one but many Joans of Arc." Here we were interrupted by Mrs. Chesterton, who came into the room to ask us to have tea. A little later Mr. Chesterton had to go to his study to fin- ish some pressing work. As he was leav- ing us he said to Mrs. Chesterton: "What light are you going to give me?" She suggested a shaded lamp, but he said: "Oh, no! I should like candles candles like those that are ever burning in the Temple at Jerusalem! " Then, after shaking hands with me a his own heart-felt manner, he passed into his candle-lit sanctum.
No comments:
Post a Comment