Gandhi was too rigid to change and Sri Aurobindo knew very well who he was. As far as changing him, if at all, it would have been easier to work upon him from behind as Sri Aurobindo did with Churchill and others than through a physical meeting which would only increased Gandhi’s resistance as we see how he vehemently refused the Cripps proposal despite Sri Aurobindo’s advice which would have given us an undivided India.
As to independence Gandhi did copy paste Sri Aurobindo’s program of passive resistance, swadeshi, boycott, without acknowledging of course. But he gave them a typical Gandhian twist which was not good for the country. As is now generally known Gandhi did not emerge as a leader as much as he was projected as such by the British. The independence did not come due to him but because after the Second World War and its heavy economic toll it was impossible to sustain a country that the British had already looted to the point of famine. Gandhi’s gift was the gift of partition. Sri Aurobindo did intervene to prevent it, sending a special emissary but Gandhi refused to listen. The Mother recounted.
‘Yes, he never understood why Sri Aurobindo did not resume his political life.
No. And then, you see, he takes Gandhi’s asceticism for spiritual life—always the same mistake! There’s no way to pull them out of it. Unfortunately, the entire world has caught the same idea.
Then when there was that Cripps proposal,5 I believe it was Nehru (or Gandhi, I don’t remember which of the two) who said, “He has withdrawn from political life, why is he meddling! It’s none of his business.” They never forgave him. That is to say, completely obtuse, unable to understand that one can have a knowledge higher than practical knowledge.’
Affectionately,
Alok Da
