RADHAKRISHNAN AS A PHILANDERER


Dr Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan, the great scholar and philosopher-saint (whose birth anniversary on September 5, is celebrated as The Teacher’s Day throughout India) was also a philanderer having a string of affairs according to his son Sarvepalli Gopal.

Gopal has dwelt upon this aspect of his father’s personality in his book ‘Radhakrishnan, A Biography’. According to him his father began to show an interest in other women from the mid twenties when his intellectual and public life widened and he started traveling continuously far away from home. He says: “The affair with the neighbor’s wife (in Mysore) was to set the pattern for the long series of involvements of which this was the first. As time passed they formed a fairly constant undercurrent to the decorum of his outward life. But self-indulgence carried with it no emotional investment; he showed his mistresses consideration and, while the relationship lasted, was generous with time, support and money; but he never gave them even the semblance of love. He looked, in these marginal and temporary attachment of senses, for no intellectual partnership; all the women whom he accepted in his life were of superficial mind, some enjoyed dubious reputations and many were dominating and hysterical…..One’s wonder at how Radhakrishnan could have endured such women is tempered by the knowledge that, having embarked on these affairs, he ended them at the first opportunity, though such an opportunity was often long in coming. The company of women, of which he was a compulsive seeker, was like gossip and light reading, an agreeable way of passing the time in the intervals of concentrated work and thought…These affairs diversified but did not disorganize his life. They did not deflect him from his serious purposes…various women helped to keep him youthful…”

While doing serious academic work at Oxford he wrote to his friend Shyama Prasad Mukherjee on April 17, 1930: “I am most unhappy here, feeling absolutely homesick. A lonely love-starved life is not worth much and one who is being mistaken for a religious man has to be more cautious in his behavior. So I am looking homewards and living up to my reputation here!” But his son maintains that even in England the former President had two liaisons; one with an admiring girl training to be a teacher in Manchester and another with the wife of an Indian official in London.

The philosopher’s extra-marital adventures naturally hurt his wife, Sivakamu, a distant cousin, whom he married when she was ten. She was deeply wounded, especially by her husband’s “mistress from the forties, a hard, bitchy woman of jarring and aggressive gracelessness who was determined to flaunt to the world her place in Radhakrishnan’s life". Her marriage if not broken, was certainly fractured but like an ideal Hindu wife she remained completely devoted to her husband.

Radhakrishnan certainly did not practice what he preached. For instance in Calcutta in December 1942, with his mistress seated in the front row he waxed eloquent on the virtues of a faithful, monogamous marriage. Although he laid down the highest standards of human conduct he failed to reach them himself.

RAJENDRA PRASAD VOLUNTARILY REDUCED HIS SALARY

Dr Rajendra Prasad, the first President of India had voluntarily reduced his salary although he was hard- pressed for money.

In 1951, he reduced his salary from Rs 10000 to Rs 5000 and again in 1957 from Rs 5000 to Rs 2500. Even in those days it was a rare feat which has not been repeated by anyone holding such a high till date.

The President knew full well the implications of his action. In a letter written to a member of his staff Gyanwati Darbar, on July 17, 1960, he says: “…..It was all so easy and looked nice and sounded very patriotic to announce the voluntary cut. But the difficulty arises now when I have to frame a budget within what I shall get after deducting the taxes. A great part of expenses is for the education of my grandchildren. People may say that I am not under obligation and it is for the parents of the children to meet the expenses of their education. But I have so long been meeting the expenses and it is difficult for me to think that the parents will be able to meet the expenses without discomfort and inconvenience. But there is no help. Education is very expensive now and it is becoming more and more difficult for all middle class people to meet them. Why should I consider it necessary to be unlike others of my class and group and not be content with what others have to be content with. That is reason—but life is more than reason—there is sentiment also.”

In another letter to her he observes: “….I have not been able to save any mentionable amount for my old age (he was in his late seventies at that time) and will have to depend on such pension as may be allowed to me. Why is it that that is the position now? It is true I have to look after a great part of the family and also to meet largely the expenses of education of the children and the marriage of the girls, still I should not think of this at this stage in my life.”

However, even this noble gesture made by the late President was misconstrued by some people who described it as a part of his strategy to remain in office for the third consecutive term.

BALRAJ SAHNI LEARNT ACTING THE HARD WAY


Balraj Sahni had to undergo a lot of pain and trauma before he emerged as a veteran actor in the Bollywood. After arriving in Mumbai in 1944 he got his first break as an actor in a film called ‘Justice’ produced by Phani Majumdar. He recounts the treatment meted out to him by the film heroine Sneh Lata: “During the shot, she would converse with me but she would not look at me; she had her eyes on the camera all the time. All the time during the shot, she made me feel as though I was suffering from some foul disease, and that she must keep me at a distance.”

About this experience he later wrote: “I had thought that there were no walls of ‘high’ and ‘low’ in the film world. How sadly mistaken I was! In the film industry there were walls at every step. In the other spheres of social life, these walls may be made of brick and mortar, but in the world of Hindi film these walls are made of granite.”

He did not take to acting easily and the torment which he had to suffer while developing his ability as an actor was terrible. In his own words: “Going before the camera appeared to me to be like going before the gallows. I would try hard to compose myself. Sometimes the rehearsals too would go off all right. Everyone would encourage me. But right in the middle of the shot, something would go wrong, and I would feel every limb in my body going stiff; my tongue going down my gullet. Thereafter, one retake would follow another. I would feel as though everyone standing around me was staring at me. I would try hard not to think about it but to concentrate on the role and my performance, but everything would go out of focus, and I would feel as though the doors of the art of acting had been closed on me for ever and ever.”

This situation persisted for quite sometime and left him in low spirits. He describes his condition while making of another film: “I was in bad shape when ‘Hum Log’ went on the sets….The fear of the camera, which had always been oppressive like a ‘mountain on my chest’, became unbearable. Anwar Hussain was playing with me. On seeing him act, my self-confidence would desert me, and I would lose my nerve altogether. Not to talk of shots, I could not even rehearse properly. My situation can be understood by the fact that at one time, when I came out of the studio for a breath of fresh air and lay down on a bench, I wetted my pants.”

While shooting for the same film, one day he felt that he had not acted well even in a single shot. On reaching home when he saw his wife, he started crying and banged his head against a wall saying "I can never become an actor, never.”

Things continued like this for sometime. Then during the shooting of ‘Do Bigha Zameen’ he stumbled upon the real art of acting. He says: “A basic rule of acting had come my way suddenly, not from any book but from life itself. The more completely the actor identifies himself with the role he has to play, the more successful he will be. When Arjun in the Mahabharata was going to shoot his arrow, he fixed his gaze only at the eye of the bird, which was his aim…”

When this understanding dawned upon Balraj Sahni he started giving sterling performances. Among his best films are ‘Garm Coat’, ‘Do Bigha Zameen’, ‘Aulad’, ‘Kabuliwala’, ‘Waqt’, ‘Ek Phool Do Mali’, and ‘Garm Hawa’. In all these films he merged his identity with that of the character he was portraying and in the process was established as an actor in the Bombay film-industry.

INDIRA’S FAMILY WAS OPPOSED TO HER MARRIAGE

Indira Gandhi’s marriage to Feroze Gandhi was not liked by the Nehru family. Jawahar Lal Nehru’s Special Assistant, MO Mathai, has mentioned this fact in his book Reminiscences of the Nehru Age. According to him: “All members of the Nehru family were also against the marriage. Neither they nor Nehru could reconcile themselves to the idea of Indira marrying the son of a local liquor and provision merchant. And, what was worse, the boy was not qualified to enter any worthwhile profession and earn a livelihood.”

Indira too has spoken about opposition to her marriage in her autobiographical writing My Truth.She says: “In marrying him (Feroze) I was breaking age-old traditions. It was an intercommunity and interreligion marriage. And it did raise a storm……There is no doubt that many people, including my own family, were very upset.”

Mathai also mentions an interesting fact about Indira’s marriage. Her marriage he says was performed according to Vedic rites in 1942. At that time an intercaste and interreligious marriage under Vedic rites was not valid in law. “To be legal, it had to be a civil marriage. So, strictly under the law, Indira was only a ‘concubine’ and her children are ‘bastards’.”

(The above photo shows Indira's marriage being solemnised at the Anand Bhawan, the ancestral house of the Nehrus)

MUGHAL HISTORIAN PRAISED SHIVAJI

Praise from an enemy is considered to be the highest form of praise. Shivaji, the Maratha king, has been both eulogized and reviled by Khafi Khan, the official historian of his greatest enemy and adversary, Mughal emperor Aurangzeb.

In his historical work, Muntakhab-ul-Lubab, Khafi Khan has used various epithets for Shivaji including “a scheming rascal,” “an entrepreneur of rapine”, “a tyrant” and “a mere robber chief, equal in treachery and finesse only to the devil.”However he has also showered praise on his bete noire. He writes: "But he (Shivaji) made it a rule that whenever his followers went plundering, they should do no harm to the mosques, the Book of God, or the women of anyone. Whenever a copy of the sacred Quran came into his hands he treated it with respect and gave it to some of his Mussalman followers. When the women of any Hindu or Muhammadan were taken prisoner by his men, he watched over them until their relations came with a suitable ransom to buy their liberty.”

He writes in another place: “Shivaji had always striven to maintain the honor of the people in his territories…..and was careful to maintain the honor of women and children of Muhammadans when they fell into his hands. His injunctions upon this point were very strict, and anyone who disobeyed them received punishment.”

When Shivaji died in 1680, the same historian observed without mincing words “Kafir ba jahannam raft” or the infidel went to hell.

RARE FACTS ABOUT NETAJI

“I have been longing to write to you for some time past — but you can easily understand how difficult it was to write to you about my feelings……Not a single day passes that I do not think of you. You are with me all the time. I cannot possibly think of anybody else in this world. I am anxious to know about your thoughts. Please write to me…”

This is the portion of a letter written by Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose to his lover Emilie Schenkl, an Austrian lady whom he met in Vienna in June 1934 during his forced exile. They developed a close relationship and secretly married on December 26, 1937.They kept their relationship and marriage a closely guarded secret. Their daughter Anita was born in Vienna on November 29, 1942.

Between 1934 and 1943, when he finally disappeared, both Netaji and Emilie exchanged a number of letters which have been preserved for posterity. He repeats in a series of letters that he thinks of Emilie day and night. Apart form declaring his love for her he also offers her some sane advice. For instance in a letter dated March 30, 1936 he says: “Just one thing more before I close this long letter. For your life, never pray for any selfish object or aim. Always pray for what is good for humanity----for what is good for all time----for what is good in the eyes of God. Pray in a nishkama way.”

In the same letter he chides Emilie for being a little indiscreet: “…The difficulty with you is that you never think before acting. You must now cultivate the habit of always thinking before you do anything. Think thrice before you act. If you do this, you will seldom make any mistakes.”

Before starting on his dangerous submarine journey from Berlin he revealed to his elder brother Sarat Chandra Bose, the existence of his wife and child. On February 8, 1943 he wrote to him: “I am again embarking on the path of danger, but this time towards home. I do not know whether I shall see the end of this road……I have married here and have a daughter. In my absence please show them the love you have given me all my life.” (The letter was in Bengali)

Netaji’s love for Emilie Schenkl is perhaps the least known aspect of his many-sided personality. It is unfortunate that Netaji never finished his autobiography which he began writing in Badgastein, Austria, in December 1937. Had he been able to do so we would have got more details about his personal life.

(The above photograph is of Emilie Schenkl and Anita, Netaji's wife and daughter)

WHEN JAWAHAR LAL WAS CHIDED FOR BEING EXTRAVAGANT

Motilal Nehru was not only a loving and indulgent father but also a strict disciplinarian who could chide his son if he felt the need to do so.

Jawahar Lal was at that time studying in London and had developed extravagant habits trying to ape some of his rich English friends who were scions of aristocratic families. His requests for money became more frequent and insistent and sometimes his father would receive a cable with only one word written on it: “Money”.

After sometime Moltilal lost patience and gave his son a piece of his mind the immediate provocation being the loss of 40 pounds by young Nehru to a friend. On May 30, 1912, he wrote to his son, “…there are many fathers in the world who are more indulgent than I am, but however indulgent I may be, I am not the man to stand nonsense….. the idea of throwing away 40 pounds in the way you did, does not commend itself to me….I am afraid that you have managed to fall in with a set of people, not always desirable for the son of a father of my means….You cannot imagine how grieved I am to say all this but things have come to a pass when I must cry halt.”Motilal went on ask his son to render an account of the money spent by him during the preceding six months.

The letter suitably chastened Jawahar but he seemed irritated by the demand to furnish details of his expenditure. He wrote back to his father: “…..Your last letter pained and surprised me very much. I am fully aware of the fact that I have lately spent too much money and have not given attention to my studies, which I should or might have given…..As for the 40 pounds, I could not very well refuse. I suffered enough for my folly later on; I was driven to such straits that for the first time in my life I had to pawn my watch…”

“You ask me to send you an account of expenditure….May I know if I am supposed to keep you informed of every penny I spend on a bus fare or a stamp? Either you trust me or you do not. If you do, then surely no accounts are necessary. If you do not, then the accounts I send you are not to be relied upon. To me the very idea of furnishing accounts is anathema …….. I am not desirous of staying in England or anywhere else under these conditions. I think it will be best for me to return home at once…….”

However immediately after dashing off his caustic letter Motilal felt contrite and hastened to make up with his son. The incident was soon forgotten.
(The above photo is of young Jawahar Lal in England)

JINNAH LOVED TO EAT PORK

Mohammed Ali Jinnah, the founder of the Islamic state of Pakistan, loved to eat pork but did it on the sly.This has been testified to by his junior in the Bombay High Court, MC Chagla, in his memoirs, ‘Roses In December’. Chagla, also a Muslim, became Chief Justice of Bombay High Court and later Judge International Court of Justice at the Hague.

He says: “There is one story which I must relate about Jinnah’s election, ……... Jinnah and I were at the Town Hall, where one of the two polling stations was located.…… There was a lunch interval between one and two in the afternoon. Just before one o’clock Mrs Jinnah drove up to the Town Hall in Jinnah’s luxurious limousine, stepped out with a tiffin basket, and coming up the steps of Town Hall, said to Jinnah: “J”!- that is how she called him-“guess what I have brought for you for lunch.” Jinnah answered: “How should I know?” and she replied: I have brought you some lovely ham sandwiches.” Jinnah, startled, exclaimed: “My God! What have you done? Do you want me to lose my election? Do you realise I am standing for a Muslim separate electorate seat, and if my voters were to learn that I am going to eat ham sandwiches for lunch, do you think I have a ghost of a chance of being elected?”

"At this, Mrs Jinnah’s face fell. She quickly took back the tiffin basket, ran down the steps, and drove away."

After this Jinnah took Chagla to a restaurant and ordered “two cups of coffee, a plate of pastry and a plate of pork sausages.”

Jinnah’s marriage was quite unconventional according to prevailing standards. In 1917, when he turned 40, Jinnah fell in love with Ruttenbai, or Ruttie, the 17 year-old daughter of one of Bombay’s eminent Parsis, Sir Dinshaw Petit. They had met in the home of the Petits, where Jinnah occasionally dined, and also in Poona and in the hill station of Darjeeling. When he learned that his daughter and Jinnah wanted to marry each other, Sir Dinshaw took out an injunction that prevented Jinnah from seeing her.

Jinnah and Ruttie waited a year; in April 1918, when she was eighteen she embraced Islam and they were married. Sir Dinshaw never forgave his daughter and never saw her again. Even when she died he refused to attend the funeral or see the body.

Unfortunately the marriage was doomed from the start. In temperament they were poles apart. Jinnah was wholly engrossed with law and politics and had little time for his wife. Ruttie, naturally as a young woman, was fond of life and of the frivolities of youth. They gradually drifted from each other.

Early in 1928 Ruttie moved from her house to a room in the Taj Mahal hotel. The same year she died while her separated husband was not in town.

(The above photoghaph is of Ruttie Jinnah)

THE OTHER SIDE OF GANDHI

If Mahatma Gandhi’s grandson, Rajmohan Gandhi is to be believed his grandfather had a romantic relationship with a Bengali woman, Rabindranath Tagore’s niece, that at one time even threatened his marriage. This revelation has been made by him in his book Mohandas:A True Story of a Man, His People and an Empire. The lady in question, Sarladevi, was a married woman, 47 years of age, having a teenage son. Her husband, Rambhuj Dutt Chaudhri, was an Arya Samajist who belonged to Lahore. The affair was at its peak between January and May 1920, and raised many eyebrows. Gandhi’s son Devdas and some others including C R Rajgopalachari, questioned this relationship and asked him to consider its consequences.

Gandhi finally terminated the affair with a letter to the lady saying, “I have been analysing my love for you. I have reached a definition of spiritual(marriage). It is a partnership between two persons of the opposite sex where the physical is totally absent. It is therefore possible between brother and sister, father and daughter. It is possible only between two brahmacharis in thought , word and deed….

“Have we that exquisite purity, that perfect coincidence, that perfect merging, that identity of ideals, the self-forgetfulness, that fixity of purpose, that trustfulness? For me I can answer plainly that it is only an aspiration. I am unworthy of that companionship with you…”

It is surprising that Gandhi has not mentioned this episode of his life in his autobiography which was published in 1927. In his exceptionally frank autobiography ‘My Experiments With Truth’, the Mahatma has even spoken about his visit to a prostitute and his ill-treatment at her hands. In the chapter ‘A Tragedy’ he mentions the incident: “My friend once took me to a brothel. He sent me in with necessary instructions. It was all prearranged.The bill had already been paid. I went into the jaws of sin, but God in His infinite mercy protected me against myself. I was almost struck blind and dumb in this den of vice. I sat near the woman on her bed, but I was tongue-tied. She naturally lost patience with me, and showed me the door, with abuses and insults. I then felt as though my manhood had been injured, and wished to sink into the ground for shame.”

Charges of immorality had been leveled against Gandhi by a paper devoted to ‘the organization of Hindus’. Initially he ignored these charges but later repudiated these in his journal, ‘The Harijan’ of November 4, 1939. According to Gandhi his vilification began with his active campaign against untouchability. He wrote: “Some Sanatanists who used to help me and befriend me broke with me and began a campaign of vilification. Later, a very high placed Englishman joined the chorus. He picked out my freedom with women and showed up my ‘saintliness’ as sinfulness. In this chorus there were also one or two well-known Indians.”

He further said: “If I were sexually attracted towards women, I have courage enough, even at this time of life, to become a polygamist. I do not believe in free love---- secret or open. Free love I have looked upon as dog’s love. Secret love is besides cowardly.”

Ultimately the Mahatma prevailed over his critics who were trying to blacken his name.

(The above photograph is of Sarladevi)