In the last ten years, Prime Minister’s Narendra Modi’s has made more than one high-profile State visit to South Africa. His public addresses there in Durban focused primarily on Mahatma Gandhi, with ceremonial visits, of course, made to places like Durban associated with Gandhi’s life and message. There is extensive media coverage and official documentation of these tributes.
Significant other eminent Indian persons with direct South African connection like Ela Gandhi and events relating to Gandhian movements and Sastri College (founded by Srinivasa Sastri) have been honored and recognized locally in South Africa, with alumni gatherings and celebrations acknowledging Sastri’s lasting contributions to Indian education and upliftment there. However, there is no evidence in government press releases, major news coverage, or public speeches of Narendra Modi directly mentioning or honoring Srinivasa Sastri on these visits—despite Sastri’s foundational role as India’s first agent to South Africa and his lasting educational legacy. In the last decade, local communities in South Africa nonetheless continue to respect Sastri’s legacy in the sphere of Education.
While previous Prime Ministers of India and their governments may have had various priorities for visits abroad, from a historical and diplomatic standpoint, not acknowledging Srinivasa Sastri’s role is a significant lapse on the part of Narendra Modi and predecessors—and one that ought to be meaningfully addressed in future commemorations or cultural exchanges. Such recognition would enrich the narrative of India-South Africa relations and serve as a reminder of the many individuals like Sastri who worked for justice, dignity, and friendship between the two nations.
India’s Home Minister, Amit Shah, recently made a public statement declaring that “soon, in India, English speakers would feel ashamed,” arguing that the dominance of English represents elite privilege and cultural detachment from the broader Indian society. Shah’s remarks were made during some author’s book-launch event in New Delhi. The media reported his comments and were widely interpreted as a critique of English as an elitist language and as part of the ongoing effort to center Indian languages in public life. Shah then went on to emphasize that “the languages of our country are the ornament of our culture,” and asserted, “Without them, we would not have been Bharatiya. Our history, our culture, our Dharma – these cannot be understood in foreign languages”. Shah’s statement was seen as a call to efface the perceived elitism of English from India and to shift cultural and institutional focus toward Indian languages.g
In voicing such blatant disdain for the English language, calling it an elitist tongue that eventually Indian languages must banish from India, Amit Shah was articulating an extreme Hindu Right Wing or Hindutva aspiration common to mass-populations in the vast Hindi-Belt of North India.
What Amit Shah obviously did not know perhaps was that love of English more did not necessarily mean love of Indian languages less. Srinivasa Sastri was the best example of such ardent lovers of both English as well as ancient Sanskrit which was the root language of ancient India — in fact, the mother of all other Indian languages of the present — but which many people believed was no less an “elitist” language.
Shah’s vehement statement revealed a strange Hindutva paradox: On the one hand, it was a pronouncement of an Hindutva agenda that means to revive, and resurrect from the dead, elitist Sanskrit; and on the other hand, there was also this wish for so-called “elitist English“, that was alive and thriving, to be banished from India and dead. It was Sastri however who had brought home to millions of Indians who knew no Sanskrit at all, all the sublimity of Valmiki’s Ramayana, enabling them thus to overcome the language handicap and still be able to creatively appreciate the epic through the medium of English.
One today wonders how might Sastri have responded to Amit Shah calling him an unabashed Anglophile or to Shah’s tirade against the English language. Perhaps in typically “inoffensive” manner, he would have reminded our powerful Home Minister that it was mastery of the English language that had enabled Sastri to contribute to the Indian freedom struggle in ways for which even Mahatma Gandhi had expressed not only admiration and appreciation but also gratitude.
It was the English language, polished oratory, and constitutional approach that had made Sastri, yes, an elite diplomat into a consummate international representative of Indian interests. It had enabled him to successfully engage with British political leaders and at global forums like the League of Nations, the Imperial and diplomatic missions to South Africa and the UK and speak with authority on matters like even the creation of the United Nations Organisation.
Sastri might also have deigned to give Amit Shah a lesson in history to help him understand how Anglophile elites like Sastri had contributed essential diplomatic skills and constitutional knowledge to gain international legitimacy for India’s independence struggle; how a pluralistic nationalist movement balancing elite negotiation and mass Gandhian resistance movement was thus created. And why inspite of such valuable contributions, people like Sastri were still disdained by radical nationalists for their perceived Anglophilia and “elitism“. It was unfair and uncharitable.
************
The renowned Tamil litterateur, novelist, scholar and Sahitya Akademi Award winner, “Sri. Indira Parthasarathy“ once shared a wry titbit with me in a private message about how in New Delhi, the name of the Rt. Hon’ble Srinivasa Sastri had been completely ignored and erased from public memory:
“In New Delhi many many years ago, a new locality that came into existence was named “Srinivasapuri” to honour the memory of Srinivasa Sastri. But subsequently they forgot after which Srinivas exactly the neighborhood was so named. The common belief among Delhites thereafter becamet that it was named after Lord Balaji, the Deity of Tirupathi!”
*************
New Delhi is the capital city of India. It has served as the crucible and centre in which all post-Independence political churning took place — of ideas, ideology and notions of all kinds getting had been brewed…. Hindu Nationalism and Hindutva, Nehru’s conceptions of Socialism and Secularism, the idea of Constitutionalism, Rule of Law and the ideas of Civil Rights, Freedom of the press and speech and not to speak of Indian federalism and that grand idea of “unity in diversity”… and many more newer forms of thinking later mutating and growing therefrom.
In such a dynamic intellectual milieu and ideological cauldron as New Delhi was, Srinivasa Sastri, one would have expected, would have come to be ever remembered fondly and saluted too for his cerebral brilliance and such valuable contributions to the country’s affairs in history that he had made. What then possibly could be the reasons for a man of such great stature to have got so undeservingly short-shrifted by New Delhi that Prime Ministers and Home Ministers of India, past and present, hardly remembered or cared to mention him even in passing in their public speeches, either in India or in South Africa, in acknowledgment of his many-faceted accomplishments in life?
************
IN historical hindsight that one possesses today, could it be said that Sastri’s stature in the Indian political landscape of his times was something that of a political gadfly? One who every one respected, of course, but who, more often than not, they saw as a stormy petrel of sorts? Was that why none felt comfortable with him? … With the sole exception of Mahatma Gandhi, of course.
Sastri was not a political gadfly in the sense of a pestering or provoking irritation; nor was he a hated stormy petrel stirring up revolt. He was genuinely revered for his intellect, moral courage, and tact, often called upon to mediate or articulate the moderate nationalist viewpoint. However, his moderate, liberal stance sometimes did frustrate radicals, and his cautious nature occasionally drew criticism, but even then, he was never hated—his reputation remained sterling across the Indian political landscape.
Yet, it is true that Sastri never belonged nor was he warmly embraced by and accepted into any established organisation!
The complex reality of Srinivasa Sastri’s career path was that, practically everywhere, it was marked by profound respect from all quarters but also with a certain “outsider” status . He was in many ways a paradox. He was admired by all yet he remained peripheral to all. The reasons that can be adduced for such a paradox may well be explored along the following lines:
- Independence of Mind: Sastri’s unwavering commitment to principle, truth, and constitutionalism made him difficult to fully assimilate into any group or party. He followed his conscience rather than the majority or the mood of the movement—even when this meant walking alone… “eklo chalo re...!”.
2. Reluctant Political Affiliations: He started his career in the Indian National Congress but was uncomfortable with its drift toward mass agitation, civil disobedience and Gandhian style satyagraha. He left the Congress when it conflicted with his convictions, joined the Servants of India Society but didn’t truly belong ther either. And then he helped found the Indian Liberal Federation—which, despite initial hope, remained just a marginal parliamentary force.
3. Leadership Without a Following: Sastri was never a charismatic mass leader or populist. He was too scholarly, too urbane, and too principled for populist politics. His politics was about reasoned persuasion, not emotion or mobilization.
4. At odds with the political zeitgeist: He was skeptical of both revolutionary nationalism and state socialism, which became the dominant idioms in twentieth-century India. Even the British government hesitated about him—respecting his intellect and moderation, but wary of his insistence on equality and rights for Indians.
5. Geographical Limitation: Outside South India, Sastri’s fame did not match that of Gandhi or Nehru, since he was not given to mass movements or popular agitation.
6. Relationship with National Leaders: Nehru, Rajaji, and Patel found Sastri a formidable intellect and moral presence but perhaps too independent-minded and uncompromising for their coalition-building and power politics. He was admired rather than trusted as a fellow strategist.
- PANDIT Jawaharlal Nehru in his Autobiography, published in 1936, was highly critical of Sastri. He had not met Sastri often and long enough to form a close personal friendship which could rise above political differences. When he had freshly returned from England about 1912 he heard a speech of Sastri in Allahabad which gave him a “great shock,” because Sastri, according to Nehru, had advised students to obey and be respectful to their teachers and observe the rules and regulations of constituted authorities. The advice seemed to Nehru to be “goody-goody” and “platitudinous” and “somewhat undesirable.” Though he admitted that Sastri had not used the “hard word,” he formed the impression that Sastri advocated students’ “spying” on one another and acting as informers! He was aghast at such advice and felt that there was a great deal of difference between his morality and Sastri’s.
- Sastri refrained from replying to Nehru’s criticisms, and preferred to put up with them silently. Years later he revealed his reaction, which he called his “drawback” in his Tamil autobiography, “If I Live Again” (freely translated here):
- “When one criticises me in the papers or on the platform it is not my practice at once to enter into a controversy and immediately answer the criticism. If any mis-statement has been made I would correct it. For a long time I suffered greatly on account of this. Some time back, a few years ago, a patriot of unparalleled eminence wrote a book. It sold in lakhs. Few were there who did not read it. In that book he criticised me at great length and subjected me to humiliation. Several friends of mine, feeling that it was unjust criticism, prompted me to reply in defence. To me it appeared unnecessary. Though I had the fear that the younger generation on reading this book would have a very low opinion of me I thought that there was no way out and put up with it. But this idea of mine is by no means the outcome of the Gita doctrine that we must treat praise and blame alike. Nevertheless, I do have an iminense faith and desire to live up to that doctrine.” (Letters of Srinivasa Sastri, pp. 135-136).
- In 1940, Sastri in a moment of introspection and self-deprecation made this remark about himself: “I may make a general confession that I am particularly weak-minded. I cannot come to strong and decided resolutions. I am in the habit of looking round and round. of weighing things in the scales of right and wrong; and, as you know, a man who thinks too much of right and wrong is apt to land himself in utter confusion. For, the moment of action is gone; time for decision is left behind.”
7. A “Conscience-Keeper,” Not Kingmaker: Sastri’s destiny was to be heard and heeded by the influential, but seldom to lead the crowd or control an organization.
Sastri’s legacy thus was his personal example which was his own unique one. It was one of rectitude, learning, and statesmanship—an influential outsider, respected but rarely embraced, who never did quite “fit” anywhere and yet left an indelible imprint on every space he occupied. Sastri’s story in that respect is emblematic of the intellectual or moral giant whose devotion to principles places him eternally outside the inner circles of power, but always at the center of conscience and public respect.
This unique position of Sastri, neither fully “in” nor “out,” was both his greatness and his solitude.
**********
Would Srinivasa Sastri’s liberalism qualify as true Liberalism as we know it to be in the world today?
Sastri’s liberalism bears far more resemblance to “classical liberalism” or “liberal constitutionalism” than to contemporary neo-liberalism. His was a philosophy of gradual reform, social justice, and constitutional safeguards, not one of market deregulation or state retrenchment. He stands closer to 19th and early 20th century political liberals than to late 20th century economic neo-liberals .
Sastri’s liberalism was an article of faith, not just strategy or rhetoric. He valued intellectual honesty and detested political posturing or cynical branding. If modern politicians used “liberalism” as a mere label, without substance, he would have called them out.
Sastri at the same time also strongly opposed extra-constitutional protest and civil disobedience except in the most extreme circumstances. He feared lawlessness and social instability. He might today have roundly criticized tactics (of what are called “andolan jeevis“! i.e. professional agitators) that resort too quickly to street protest or shutdowns, preferring legislative and judicial routes.
Sastri, like some early Indian liberals, operated in a socially elite, English-educated world. Some critics today, we see in fact, often accuse “Indian liberalism” of a similar disconnect with broader public sentiment. Sastri too might have found that that some of today’s liberal leaders lack deep grassroots ties or rely too much on symbolic posturing.
Sastri championed inclusive Indian-ness, moral public leadership, and the dignity of all. But he equally placed real weight on education, self-restraint, and personal example—not just rhetoric. He might have gone and supported today’s broad calls for protecting India’s “soul” (understood as secular, plural, and just), but would have surely expected rigorous self-discipline and principled action, not mere slogans.
Sastri would probably also today have offered critical fellowship to some modern liberal politicians in India—defending genuine constitutionalism, civil liberty, women’s and minority rights, and pluralist values. But he would have been sharply critical of those whose liberalism lacked depth, principle, or respect for legal methods, and those who used the language of the “soul of India” as a convenient substitute for real reform or civil behavior. He would certainly have stood as a formidable reminder that true liberalism is lived practice, not just a platform.
***********
Sastri’s Views on Secularism contrasted with that of Nehru’s:
Sastri: Emphasized inclusive secularism based on constitutional equality and mutual respect among religions. He firmly believed in religion but that it should be a private matter and citizens should act as individuals, not based on exclusive religious identities. Warned against communalism and political divisions based on creed, stressing Hindu-Muslim unity as essential for peace and progress. His secularism was moderate, pluralistic, and sought harmony through understanding.
Nehru: Saw secularism as essential to modern nation-building and governance but was more explicitly atheist or skeptical of religion’s role in public life. Defined secularism as freedom for all religions to practice so long as they do not interfere with each other or the state’s basic functioning. He was personally skeptical about religion’s role in public affairs but respected all religions, envisioning a state that keeps a “principled distance.” Opposed religious communalism and favored nation-building based on modern, scientific principles. Practiced a pragmatic secularism balancing state neutrality with protection of minority rights.
Was the Rt. Hon’ble. Srinivasa Sastri a Socialist?
Sastri was fundamentally a liberal rather than a socialist. His economic views reflected a belief in free enterprise and constitutional progress, but with a strong emphasis on justice, social reform, and gradual political change. While supportive of constitutional reforms and social upliftment, Sastri’s vision aligned more with free enterprise and economic liberalism within a framework of fairness rather than socialist or collectivist economic models. Sastri was thus what is defined as a classical liberal in economic outlook: supportive of free enterprise, rule of law, and gradual reform, opposing socialism’s more radical redistribution or state control ideas. His engagement with international diplomacy further reflected a worldview respecting property rights and liberal economic principles, unlike socialist economic planning
************
If Sastri lived today in India, would he be regarded as a political anachronism?
Sastri’s liberal-humanism bears far more resemblance to “classical liberalism” or “liberal constitutionalism” than to contemporary “neo-liberalism” in India or abroad. He stands truly closer to 19th and early 20th century political liberals than to late 20th or 21st century economic neo-liberals.
Sastri’s liberalism was a broad, constitutional, political, and social program. Neo-liberalism is primarily an economic program, often with less focus on social equality or political rights. Sastri’s genre of liberalism was deeply invested in social uplift, minority rights, and constitutional protection—the opposite of the more technocratic, market-dominated outlook of modern neo-liberalism. There’s little evidence that Sastri espoused the unfettered free-market economics or anti-state values characteristic of neo-liberalism.
Sastri if he lived today would probably be severely rebuking public figures who, in his view, called themselves liberals but sought power, office, or foreign approval rather than real reform. He would be telling them that he believed showy gestures or slogans (cliches like “progress”, “freedom”, “soul of India” etc.) were hollow without an ethical core and consistent effort. Sastri would probably have been skeptical of politicians who paraded liberal ideas for image or electoral gain, rather than embodying those values—and calling instead for policy, humility, and service.
Sastri’s values of liberal constitutionalism, pluralism, social justice, and internationalism would very likely place him in opposition or serious critique of the Hindutva movement too. He would have been probably advocating for an India that embraces all its diversities and upholds a constitutional, inclusive democracy.
So yes, Srinivasa Sastry, if he were living amongst us today in India would in all likelihood be looked upon as a political anachronism.
While his principles would be held up as being profoundly relevant today and might even earn respect across political lines … all mere lip-service, no doubt … the current political environment in India—with its intensity, fragmentation, dog-eat-dog rivalry and ideological battles—would quickly and most certainly marginalize a figure of his nuanced, moderate character. Sastri would today remain as much a respected outsider as he was in his own times. He would never be regarded as a mainstream party leader or influencer.
This overall assessement of Rt. Hon’ble Srinivasa Sastry, the man and the politician should surprise or offend no one … least of all admirers of Sastri like myself … because this pattern, of principled moderates being utterly sidelined in favor of our more combative, identity- and electorally-driven breed of politicians, is very common worldwide and it only exemplifies the challenges if not the impossibility of ever upholding true liberal values in contemporary democracies.
************
Sastri’s last days in life were spent in his home in the tranquil neighbourhood of Mylapore, Madras. He loved Mylapore. He was happy to breathe his last there… Does Mylapore cherish his memory today as it did then?
(to be continued)
Sudarshan Madabushi