SCIY.Org Archives

Sraddhalu Ranade's email posted on the SAICE forum Sept   25, 2008.

Writ Petition filed on November 26, 2008, before the High Court of   Orissa, Cuttack, by lawyers representing “Mrs. Gitanjali JB”.

that Sri Aurobindo does not   hold integrity as a person,

that he was morally of   loose character,

that his claims to   spiritual powers are questionable and irrelevant,

that his spirituality   emerges from a streak of inherited madness,

that there is nothing new   in any of his contributions, spiritual or otherwise,

that his poetry is   expressive of sexual frustration, and its style outdated,

that his relationship with   the Mother is of a romantic nature.

p. 3

that Sri Aurobindo does not   hold integrity as a person,

that he was morally of   loose character,

that his claims to   spiritual powers are questionable and irrelevant,

that his spirituality   emerges from a streak of inherited madness,

that there is nothing new   in any of his contributions, spiritual or otherwise,

that his poetry is   expressive of sexual frustration, and its style outdated,

that his relationship with   the Mother is of a romantic nature.

The kinds of deceptions   consistently utilised throughout the book include:

a) deliberately concealing   the much larger body of information contrary to his defamatory thesis;

b) presenting as quotations   what are Peter’s own speculations;

c) deliberate   misrepresentation and distortion of context;

d) defamation of Sri   Aurobindo’s character by use of innuendo, speculation, exaggeration and   outright falsehood;

e) bias to quote   extensively from people who question Sri Aurobindo’s credibility and sanity;   outright rejection of any person or quotation offering appreciation or praise   of Sri Aurobindo

f) preferring speculation   against Sri Aurobindo’s own affirmations to the contrary;

g) crude application of   Freudian analysis to Sri Aurobindo and the Mother.

p. 3-4

The kinds of deceptions   consistently utilised throughout the book include:

a) deliberately concealing   the much larger body of information contrary to his defamatory thesis;

b) presenting as quotations   what are Peter’s own speculations;

c) deliberate   misrepresentation and distortion of context;

d) defamation of Sri   Aurobindo’s character by use of innuendo, speculation, exaggeration and   outright falsehood;

e) bias to quote   extensively from people who question Sri Aurobindo’s credibility and sanity;   outright rejection of any person or quotation offering appreciation or praise   of Sri Aurobindo

f) preferring speculation   against Sri Aurobindo’s own affirmations to the contrary;

g) academically unsound and   perverse attempts at Freudian analysis of Sri Aurobindo personality; perverse speculations of   sexual and marital life of Sri Aurobindo

Peter spends much time and   energy in speculation on Sri Aurobindo’s relationship with his wife Mrinalini   Devi. On reading the entire book, his objectives become clear. He is   preparing grounds for a Freudian analysis of Sri Aurobindo’s poetry and plays   to prove that he was looking for an ideal wife. Still later he ties this

in with his speculation of   romantic relationships with the Mother. The following passages represent the   kinds of speculative backgrounds on which he builds his later thesis:

Page 54: It is often cloudy   in Nainital during summer, and the honeymooners may have been denied a   glimpse of the peaks of Trishul and Nanda Devi and Snow View, but they   doubtless enjoyed strolling by the lake and wandering through the down’s   bazaar, Aurobindo spent money freely….

It sounds charming and even   sweet. But the entire passage is built entirely out of speculation and   fantasy. Only one factual detail follows this passage in listing some items   bought by Sri Aurobindo as noted in his personal financial records, but they   do not indicate that he “spent money freely”. Notice the detailed   descriptions emerging from Peter’s   fertile imagination, but presented as factual and followed by a footnote   utterly irrelevant to the fantasy just woven, but creating the impression of   a scholarly reference. He imprints in our mind the picture of Sri Aurobindo’s   relationship with Mrinalini Devi as that of two modern American teenagers on   a honeymoon. But he deliberately deceives the reader with this image, knowing   ull well that in the conservative society of that period, couples did not go   for romantic strolls in public, especially not the most senior official of   the Maharaja’s government! In fact, as in most conservative families even   today, Sri Aurobindo’s sister would likely have accompanied them only to be   with Mrinalini in public functions. If anyone went strolling by the lake, it would   be these two, and always accompanied by a retinue of guards and servants waiting   one them.

But Peter invents the   fiction of the modern American romantic couple deliberately. His cunning   intention is to dash our hopes in the very next paragraph so as to prove   their relationship as unhappy and their marriage as unsuccessful. Read on:

Page 55: Sometime during   their stay in Nainital, Aurobindo and Mrinalini stepped into a photographic   studio to have their picturetaken. The result shows the young woman…seated   ratheruncomfortably on a bench. Her husband, natty in tweeds, perches beside   her. Despite his protective arm, the two do not seem ill at ease with one   another. Mrinalini looks somewhat coolly to the left,Aurobindo to the right.   It must have taken them a good amount of  time to get to know each other. She   spoke little English, his Bengali was far from perfect, and it is hard to   imagine what the Cambridge educated scholar and the girl… found to talk about.   Aurobindo clearly was not looking for   intellectual companionship when he chose her. What then was he looking for?

Peter’s attempt to analyse   their relationship on the basis of the false expectations he created earlier.   But now the two modern honeymooners casually step into a photo studio. He   prepares us for a brash modern American couple hugging and grinning at the camera   in casual dress having dropped into the studio on impulse. Again he deceives   us knowing well the reality of that period. One need only look at any formal   photographs of any couple of that period to disprove Peter’s thesis. Photos   then were an elaborate and expensive affair (not the instant click of today).   They were planned for in advance and the visit to the studio was a major   social event, with the time slot at the studio booked in advance by Sri Aurobindo’s   secretary, if at all they went to studio. It is more likely that, given Sri   Aurobindo’s stature, the photographer would have been called home. They would   necessarily be formally dressed for the occasion with Sarojini and accompanying   staff. The photographers of the time demanded that couples sit stiffly and pose   formally. It was common fashion until recently to have the wife sit and the   husband stand behind. It was considered cheap to pose before the Studio’s   camera with a casual smile (as it still is in many parts of India), or to show any kind of intimacy in public. They had to look formal, the direction of their   gaze chosen and frozen by the photographer. The idea was not to look “at   ease” “despite his protective”.

After misdirecting our   expectations, after falsifying the mood of the age, and after his wrong   interpretation, Peter prepares for the kill. He presumes as obvious the   conclusion of an unhappy marriage (avoiding explicit accusation to protect   himself), and then presents his speculation of the cause of the alleged   failure as fact:

Page 55: “It must have   taken them a good amount of time to get to know each other.”

In most marriages in India, especially in that period, the bond of marriage was and still is established before   and during the marriage across months through numerous ceremonies, not only   between the couple, but between the families as well. Peter has no experience   of family bonds and cannot understand the depth of intimacy, comfort and love   that are possible in a healthy joint family.

But Peter has an agenda,   and must continue with more defaming speculations:

Page 55: She spoke little   English, his Bengali was far from perfect, and it is hard to imagine what the   Cambridge-educated scholar and the girl, who, as her father put it, “evinced   no exceptional abilities or tendencies,” found to talk about. 

There are several   deceptions in Peter’s writing above.

He presumes that their relationship was based on   “intellectual” discussion. He ignores the tenderness and sweetness possible   in relations of the heart which are more meaningful, more profound and more   lasting than intellectual chatter, and which are eminently seen in Sri   Aurobindo’s letters to Mrinalini Devi. But Peter will not quote those   passages because they would disprove his thesis.

He suggests communication problems because Sri   Aurobindo’s Bengali was “far from perfect”. Does one need “perfect” mastery   of a language in order to communicate? The vague phrase “far from perfect” is   deliberately used to hide the truth which would demolish Peter’s thesis.   Consider that during the same year Sri Aurobindo was reading the   Mahabharata in the original and translating Kalidasa’s Meghadutam. If   such was his mastery of Sanskrit then, was his Bengali so far behind that he   could not even communicate with his wife as Peter would have us believe?

Finally, does Peter really think that stable   relationships and  marriages are built on “exceptional abilities or   tendencies”? The purpose of the reference at this point to Mrinalini Devi as exceptional   is meant to demean her, defame Sri Aurobindo and misdirect us. Relationships   are not built on skills of entertainment, but on clarity and openness of the   heart. It is these that Sri Aurobindo sought in choosing his wife, as documented   elsewhere by Peter.

(Peter’s comments above not   only expose his perverse intentions, but also his shallow understanding of   human psychology and  relationships. Yet he tries, later in the book, to sit   in judgment over Sri Aurobindo’s poetry and literary style!)

In case we thought that   Peter’s conclusions emerge from his own immaturity, our doubts are finally   put to rest as Peter goes in for the kill:

Page 55: Aurobindo clearly   was not looking for intellectual companionship when he chose her. What then   was he looking for?

Yes, of course Sri Aurobindo did not choose her for “intellectual   companionship”. Even if he had looked for someone of his own intellectual   caliber, how many would he have found in the world then, or even now? He   obviously chose her for the very things that we have mentioned earlier, which   make for a meaningful and lasting relationship, things that Peter cannot   understand but which  he has quoted earlier in the same section:

Page 54: But it was her   “sweet innocence and childlike simplicity” that Sri Aurobindo liked most   about her. Like her husband-to-be, she was quiet and shy.

Peter’s rhetorical question   “What then was he looking for?” is only the crude expression of a perverse   mind working hard to project his own perversions into his understanding of   Sri Aurobindo’s life.

pp. 8-15

Peter spends much time and   energy in speculation on Sri Aurobindo’s relationship with his wife Mrinalini   Devi. On reading the entire book, his objectives become clear. He is   preparing grounds for a Freudian analysis of Sri Aurobindo’s poetry and plays   to prove that he was looking for an ideal wife. Still later he ties this

in with his speculation of   romantic relationships with the Mother. The following passages represent the   kinds of speculative backgrounds on which he builds his later thesis:

Page 54: It is often cloudy   in Nainital during summer, and the honeymooners may have been denied a   glimpse of the peaks of Trishul and Nanda Devi and Snow View, but they   doubtless enjoyed strolling by the lake and wandering through the down’s   bazaar, Aurobindo spent money freely….

It sounds charming and even   sweet. But the entire passage is built entirely out of speculation and   fantasy. Only one factual detail follows this passage in listing some items   bought by Sri Aurobindo as noted in his personal financial records, but they   do not indicate that he “spent money freely”. Notice the detailed   descriptions emerging from Peter’s   fertile imagination, but presented as factual and followed by a footnote   utterly irrelevant to the fantasy just woven, but creating the impression of   a scholarly reference. He imprints in our mind the picture of Sri Aurobindo’s   relationship with Mrinalini Devi as that of two modern American teenagers on   a honeymoon. But he deliberately deceives the reader with this image, knowing   ull well that in the conservative society of that period, couples did not go   for romantic strolls in public, especially not the most senior official of   the Maharaja’s government! In fact, as in most conservative families even   today, Sri Aurobindo’s sister would likely have accompanied them only to be   with Mrinalini in public functions. If anyone went strolling by the lake, it   would be these two, and always accompanied by a retinue of guards and   servants waiting one them.

But Peter invents the   fiction of the modern American romantic couple deliberately. His cunning   intention is to dash our hopes in the very next paragraph so as to prove   their relationship as unhappy and their marriage as unsuccessful. Read on:

Page 55: Sometime during   their stay in Nainital, Aurobindo and Mrinalini stepped into a photographic   studio to have their picturetaken. The result shows the young woman…seated   ratheruncomfortably on a bench. Her husband, natty in tweeds, perches beside   her. Despite his protective arm, the two do not seem ill at ease with one   another. Mrinalini looks somewhat coolly to the left,Aurobindo to the right.   It must have taken them a good amount of  time to get to know each other. She   spoke little English, his Bengali was far from perfect, and it is hard to   imagine what the Cambridge educated scholar and the girl… found to talk about.   Aurobindo clearly was not looking for   intellectual companionship when he chose her. What then was he looking for?

Peter’s attempt to analyse   their relationship on the basis of the false expectations he created earlier.   But now the two modern honeymooners casually step into a photo studio. He   prepares us for a brash modern American couple hugging and grinning at the camera   in casual dress having dropped into the studio on impulse. Again he deceives   us knowing well the reality of that period. One need only look at any formal   photographs of any couple of that period to disprove Peter’s thesis. Photos   then were an elaborate and expensive affair (not the instant click of today).   They were planned for in advance and the visit to the studio was a major   social event, with the time slot at the studio booked in advance by Sri Aurobindo’s   secretary, if at all they went to studio. It is more likely that, given Sri   Aurobindo’s stature, the photographer would have been called home. They would   necessarily be formally dressed for the occasion with Sarojini and   accompanying staff. The photographers of the time demanded that couples sit   stiffly and pose formally. It was common fashion until recently to have the   wife sit and the husband stand behind. It was considered cheap to pose before   the Studio’s camera with a casual smile (as it still is in many parts of India), or to show any kind of intimacy in public. They had to look formal, the direction   of their gaze chosen and frozen by the photographer. The idea was not to look   “at ease” “despite his protective”.

After misdirecting our   expectations, after falsifying the mood of the age, and after his wrong   interpretation, Peter prepares for the kill. He presumes as obvious the   conclusion of an unhappy marriage (avoiding explicit accusation to protect   himself), and then presents his speculation of the cause of the alleged   failure as fact:

Page 55: “It must have   taken them a good amount of time to get to know each other.”

In most marriages in India, especially in that period, the bond of marriage was and still is established before   and during the marriage across months through numerous ceremonies, not only   between the couple, but between the families as well. Peter has no experience   of family bonds and cannot understand the depth of intimacy, comfort and love   that are possible in a healthy joint family.

But Peter has an agenda,   and must continue with more defaming speculations:

Page 55: She spoke little   English, his Bengali was far from perfect, and it is hard to imagine what the   Cambridge-educated scholar and the girl, who, as her father put it, “evinced   no exceptional abilities or tendencies,” found to talk about. 

There are several   deceptions in Peter’s writing above.

He presumes that their relationship was based on   “intellectual” discussion. He ignores the tenderness and sweetness possible   in relations of the heart which are more meaningful, more profound and more   lasting than intellectual chatter, and which are eminently seen in Sri   Aurobindo’s letters to Mrinalini Devi. But Peter will not quote those   passages because they would disprove his thesis.

He suggests communication problems because Sri   Aurobindo’s Bengali was “far from perfect”. Does one need “perfect” mastery   of a language in order to communicate? The vague phrase “far from perfect” is   deliberately used to hide the truth which would demolish Peter’s thesis.   Consider that during the same year Sri Aurobindo was reading the   Mahabharata in the original and translating Kalidasa’s Meghadutam. If   such was his mastery of Sanskrit then, was his Bengali so far behind that he   could not even communicate with his wife as Peter would have us believe?

Finally, does Peter really think that stable   relationships and  marriages are built on “exceptional abilities or   tendencies”? The purpose of the reference at this point to Mrinalini Devi as exceptional   is meant to demean her, defame Sri Aurobindo and misdirect us. Relationships   are not built on skills of entertainment, but on clarity and openness of the   heart. It is these that Sri Aurobindo sought in choosing his wife, as documented   elsewhere by Peter.

(Peter’s comments above not   only expose his perverse intentions, but also his shallow understanding of   human psychology and  relationships. Yet he tries, later in the book, to sit   in judgment over Sri Aurobindo’s poetry and literary style!)

In case we thought that   Peter’s conclusions emerge from his own immaturity, our doubts are finally   put to rest as Peter goes in for the kill:

Page 55: Aurobindo clearly   was not looking for intellectual companionship when he chose her. What then   was he looking for?

Yes, of course Sri Aurobindo did not choose her for “intellectual   companionship”. Even if he had looked for someone of his own intellectual   caliber, how many would he have found in the world then, or even now? He   obviously chose her for the very things that we have mentioned earlier, which   make for a meaningful and lasting relationship, things that Peter cannot   understand but which  he has quoted earlier in the same section:

Page 54: But it was her   “sweet innocence and childlike simplicity” that Sri Aurobindo liked most   about her. Like her husband-to-be, she was quiet and shy.

Peter’s rhetorical question   “What then was he looking for?” is only the crude expression of a perverse   mind working hard to project his own perversions into his understanding of   Sri Aurobindo’s life.