Was not the 1950-1951 edition of Savitri approved by Sri Aurobindo?
During 1979-86, for eight years, the Archives editors Peter Heehs and Richard Hartz examined all the available drafts of Savitri and, based on certain editorial policies formulated by them, prepared a comprehensive list of changes that should be introduced as new readings in place of the ones present in the earlier printed editions. These readings or corrections are essentially of two types: i) transmission errors arising because of the composition passing through several stages, and through several hands, including the preparation of fair copy, typing, proofreading, and these going back and forth a number of times; ii) emendations of the text and punctuation keeping in view what could possibly represent Sri Aurobindo’s final intentions. It is also said that this proposed critical edition was prepared under the supervision of Nirodbaran and KD Sethna [Amal Kiran], they taking the final decision regarding the recommended changes; further, it had the “approval” of Nolini Kanta Gupta himself. “These three men were associated with Sri Aurobindo in his writing, revision and publication of the poem,” inform us the editors in their introduction. It continues, “the present edition has the endorsement of Nirodbaran and KD Sethna, who have seen and sanctioned all the changes introduced in the text.” The authority or claim by “these three men” is solely ascribed to their direct association with Sri Aurobindo. That seems to be their lone qualification, which rather sounds odd if not funny here.
But then such is the unfortunate justification provided by the editors in support of the departures in Savitri, these insisted by them, such large-scale crucial changes and revisions in the absence of the author. It is also said that the author is not responsible for every word printed in his books! But can anyone actually claim right or entitlement to give consent for making changes in what he left behind? Procedurally and in principle that becomes perplexing when, in reality, nobody had anywhere given any authority or power for “approval” to anybody, none; it plainly amounts to grabbing or appropriating the right to make changes.
And, again, what are the qualifications of “these three men”? according to the note of the editors, nothing but their “association” with the author of the work. But that itself looks rather strange, if not unusual, association giving authority; at the best it might provide some credibility to what they say. If we have to give a rough though not inappropriate example, it is like an experienced compounder in a dispensary prescribing medicine to patients—only because he had association with a qualified England-educated doctor who is no more living! It is certainly reading in the darkness of the night an inspired and revelatory text in scant light of the clay-lamp of mind, instead of the sunlight of the luminous day.
Here it might be interesting to look into the basis of “these three men”, though best among us, setting themselves up to approve what has been set in front of them to approve. However, Nolini Kanta Gupta passed away early in 1984 and it all devolved only on Nirodbaran and Amal Kiran. Nevertheless, any “approval” from whomsoever it might be would, in the strictest sense, carry no content unless each and every entry is examined by him, with all the data in his hand, he going through all the entries and details himself. Simply seeing what is shown is never sufficient. It is expected that “these men” will not merely go by what is presented to them in a meeting when in an hour or so dozens of them are disposed of; this is particularly so for them who were directly involved in this exercise. It should also be pointed out that the examination of this comprehensive archival research by them was not done at any early stage of the present work when it was in progress, done before or while preparing the critical edition of Savitri. It is a post facto examination even as the Table of Corrections was already published, in December 1986; this examination by Nirodbaran and Amal Kiran is thus just a ratification. The exercise already has the tinge of rationalizing the archival work: the Table of Corrections had become a fait accompli. Surely, things cannot be approved on the basis of pre-judgement. More importantly, however, for a composition like Savitri any ‘examination’ has to be in the quiet of the mind; it has to be by deeply identifying oneself with the text, and by invoking the inspiration that brought it down. It is in its light that the understanding should get the guidance. This does not happen in an argumentative discussion.
But let us first go back to the very beginning of this whole exercise. When Jayantilal Parekh, the then in-charge of the Archives, spoke in the late 1970s to Nolini Kanta Gupta about the revisions in Savitri and their incorporation in a printed edition which would become authoritative, the latter had simply said: “If Nirod approves.” This was of course much before his passing away in 1984; it was about when the work was proposed to be taken up, in the late 1970s. But everything is contained in it, in that pregnant phrase: “If Nirod approves”. Then the suggestion that the Archival editing had the sanction of Nolini Kanta Gupta becomes somewhat misleading. Significantly, however, the occult responsibility vis-à-vis the approval was passed on by Nolini Kanta Gupta to Nirodbaran. That begs a question.
If Nolini Kanta Gupta had the final authority among “these three men”, as is purported by the Archives, then what locus standi even for Nirodbaran? none, and none at all for Amal Kiran. According to Nolini Kanta Gupta’s statement,—“If Nirod approves”,—Amal Kiran does not come anywhere in the picture. In fact this whole business of “approval” becomes improper, becomes unauthorized, it also becomes in terms of principles unacceptable. And are not the editors of the aborted critical edition of Savitri mixing up facts in terms of the time sequence? But our concern is to ask the following question: where is the question of Nolini Kanta Gupta “approving” the changes if he had left it to Nirodbaran? This whole theory, this idea, of “these three men” and their “association” with the work of Savitri seems to be there only to obfuscate the issue. Association may bring respect and reverence, particularly in a spiritual context, but not necessarily authority, it cannot give adhikāra, and spiritual adhikāra is an altogether different thing. True,
His life, a Virgilian song to the august sun,Yet it does not endow Nolini Kanta Gupta any power to approve or not to approve changes in the writings of his Master; in fact he would never do that. The point is, this curious theory of association should be dismissed in the context of the Savitri-editing.
A canticle and a prayer brightly enriched
In meaning of the birth of the Supreme.
It should also be mentioned that, when this eight-year work was going on in preparing the critical edition, the proposal was to put certain readings in the main text and their alternatives as footnotes. But in the Revised Edition, 1993, finally presented on the basis of these ‘researches’ and ‘approvals’, we find that there are no footnotes, no alternative readings anywhere in the book. Let us take an example, from Book Four Canto Two, towards the end of the canto: (p. 367 in both 1972 and 1993)
In the 1951 and 1993 editions we have the line
Earth nursed, unconscious still, the inhabiting flame.But in the 1954 and 1972 editions we have instead
The wide world knew not yet the inhabitant flame.The proposal was to put this line as a footnote. This has not happened. By the way, this example itself provides reasons to suspect the “approval”-theory, in fact the very methodology of doing things. It is said that Amal Kiran and Nirodbaran approved the changes suggested by the Archives. So the situation is something like this. What was in the 1951 edition that was changed by Amal Kiran in the 1954 and, later, retained in the 1972; but, again, under his own “approval” it was reverted to the 1951 reading. We have to see these fluctuating positions when it is proclaimed that the Mother had “approved” this and the Mother had “approved” that, thus making her own position dependent upon these factors which kept on fluctuating. Is that so? We can’t say that the Mother had “approved” such changes which themselves look so uncertain. In fact, the question to be asked is: Is the Mother’s “approval” going to sway at different times, in 1950, 1954, 1972? The answer “Yes” to it will be preposterous. It will be not only in terms of editing Savitri; it will be for Savitri itself, for Sri Aurobindo’s Savitri. And how can the Mother at all approve anything else than what Sri Aurobindo himself had “approved” in 1950, when his work had gone for publication at that time? Part One of Savitri was published in September 1950 before his withdrawal in December that year; Part Two and Part Three came out in May 1953, possibly when the manuscripts had gone to the Press during his own lifetime. Was not that edition of Savitri, the 1950-1951 edition approved by Sri Aurobindo?
But here let us first look into the Savitri-work done by the Archives team. Here is their introduction. ~ RYD
… more »
