India’s freedom became a topic on US campuses, thanks in part to a Sri Lankan philosopher

When Bruce Dickson, a British bureaucrat who had served in South Africa, attended lectures on India at the University of Illinois in 1910, he was shocked by the way the professors portrayed British colonization of the subcontinent.

“I have twice heard it said that 'the Indians were our cousins,' and on another occasion 'that there were more Indians starving in India than people in the United States,'” Dickson wrote in a letter to India's foreign minister in London. “This last fact is not refuted, and if it were, the average American would still believe it.”

The bureaucrat said there were “many Hindus” enrolled in American universities who were “bitterly opposed [the] British rule in India” and missed no opportunity “to win the sympathy of the Americans against our work there”.

In American universities, where debate was encouraged, Dickson might have considered arguing against the pro-Indian independence supporters, but fear that more influential American academics might side with the Indian students led the bureaucrat to complain to higher-ups in London instead.

“If such statements are made by the professors of these universities, it is no wonder that their students [make] even wilder statements,” added Dickson. “Such questions as when England will stop exploiting India's resources were constantly put to me.”

Since most of the articles about India in the American press were written by British correspondents, people like Dickson took it upon themselves to find out how academics formed pro-India opinions. His search led him to a pamphlet entitled The deeper meaning of the fight written by Colombo-born philosopher and scholar Ananda Coomaraswamy and donated to the University of Illinois Library by an Indian student.

Call for freedom

Coomaraswamy was born in 1877 to a Tamil father and an English mother and grew up in Britain. By his early 30s, he had acquired expertise in geology and botany, as well as Indian art and languages, Hinduism and Buddhism.

He is a revered public figure in Sri Lanka, which has named one of the main thoroughfares in the heart of Colombo after him. Coomaraswamy, who spent most of his life in Britain and the United States, helped to build a bridge between Eastern and Western thought by writing books on Buddhism and Hinduism and by introducing the West to Ceylonese (Sri Lankan) and Indian art.

His pamphlet published in 1907 shows that he consciously identified himself as an Indian.

“The difficulties which have been pointed out in connection with the idea of ​​self-government in India undoubtedly exist,” wrote Coomaraswamy. “But the growing national feeling among us will certainly unite us to such an extent as to make the management of our own affairs possible.”

Coomaraswamy spoke out against Indian rule and wrote, “The gap between English and Indian is widening every day in India.” He condemned the concept of empires and promoted Indian nationalism. “We believe that loyalty to us is loyalty to the idea of ​​an Indian nation free politically, economically and spiritually. That is to say, we believe in India for the Indians. But if we do so, it is not only because we want our own India for ourselves, but because we believe that every nation has its own part to play in the long history of human progress, and that nations which are not free to develop their own individuality and character are also unable to make the contribution to the totality of human culture which the world has a right to expect of them.”

He argued that it was not in Britain's best interests to have an empire. “For it seems to us that the master is not really freer than the slave, that England herself is not free so long as the burden of great dominion hangs on her shoulders,” Coomaraswamy said. “So long as England's ideal rests on the acquisition of dominion over others, she can neither be free nor really great.”

While admitting that “difficulties line the path of Indian nationhood,” Coomaraswamy said, “The only thing that seems strange to us is the joy with which the English insist on it, as if the possibility of an Indian nation, conscious of its past and guided by hope for the future, was in itself an evil thing.” He added, “Why not rejoice at the birth of a nation, or rather at its youth? For to all men is given the gift, and to all is given the glory.”

He said the Indians had neither a “deep-rooted and ineradicable hatred” of the English, nor the kind of bitterness toward England that the Irish felt.

India: One Nation

In the pamphlet, Coomaraswamy attacks the notion that the Indian nation is a construct that emerged as a result of the British Empire.

In the chapter India: One Nation he wrote: “I have pointed out above that most English people welcome anything which shows that India never was and never can be a united people. This attitude is perhaps more to be regretted from the English point of view than from the Indian one, as it prevents those who hold it from understanding the course of events and so contributing to their proper development.”

Coomaraswamy was convinced of the existence and legitimacy of the Indian nation. “We ourselves are conscious of the fundamental unity that unites us and fear that once that unity is realized (it need not be created) we shall be relatively indifferent whether its existence is recognized elsewhere or not,” he said.

The scholar insisted that India fulfilled the requirements to be considered a nation, adding that there were “two essential things” – a “geographical unity” and a “common historical development or culture”. “These two things India possesses in abundance, besides many smaller uniformities which strengthen the historical tradition. The fact of geographical unity is clearly evident on the map and is, I think, never disputed. The recognition of social unity is at least as obvious to the student of Indian culture.”

Coomaraswamy argued for considering Ceylon as part of India, arguing that each province made a necessary contribution to the completion of the Indian nation. “Take Ceylon, for example (whose population is now the most denationalised in all India). Can we consider India complete without Ceylon?” he asked. “Ceylon is unique as the home of Pali literature and southern Buddhism, and has a continuous chronicle which is invaluable in verifying some of the more uncertain dates of Indian chronology.”

He said Ceylon had preserved some of the customs of ancient India. “Sinhala art, Sinhala religion and the structure of Sinhala society give us the most vivid picture of certain aspects of early Hindu culture which are unlikely to be found so perfectly reproduced in any other part of modern India.”

The booklet ended with statements of faith in the form of affirmations such as “I believe in India so that the Indian people may live and die for it” and an English translation by Vande Mataram.

British Fear

While it was easy for the British to ban any literature they considered seditious in India, the situation was quite different in the United States. Dickson's letter to London testified to growing concern about the power of Coomaraswamy's little book.

“There are a few English people here – both students and staff – who are extremely embarrassed by such statements – but they are completely powerless to do or say anything, as their statements would not be taken seriously because they are English – and therefore biased,” Dickson wrote.

The bureaucrat found that the pamphlet had been given to the university library by HM Gangulee, a student from Barisal (now Bangladesh) who was completing his degree in agriculture. “The facts presented here may be of interest to you – in view of the disloyalty that is currently rampant in parts of Bengal and other provinces,” said Dickson.

An official from the London India Office responded to Dickson and informed him that the Indian Secretary of State, Viscount Morley, was aware of this “agitation.” “To counteract the influence” of Coomaraswamy's writings on the United States, London would supply its embassy in Washington DC and the consulates in New York and San Francisco with official publications on the British administration of India, the official said. These would refute “false allegations detrimental to British rule,” the official said.

A little over a decade after his pamphlet made waves in American universities, Coomaraswamy moved to the United States. In America, he wrote books on Indian and Asian art, culture and philosophy while working as a curator at the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston. He died a few weeks after India's independence in 1947. Given what he wrote in his 1907 pamphlet, the partition of the country cannot have made him a happy man.

Ajay Kamalakaran is a writer based primarily in Mumbai. His Twitter handle is @ajaykamalakaran.