J KRISHNAMURTI AND THE FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION

Chaitanya Nagar’s life has been one of many dimensions; teacher, writer, translator, journalist and public speaker. He has gone into the teachings of J Krishnamurti in great depth. In this short article, Chaitanya looks at a lesser known aspect of Krishnaji’s life. 

Not many may know that Jawaharlal Nehru used to meet Jiddu Krishnamurti and after Mahatma Gandhi’s assassination, he spent some time with Krishnaji just to express his anguish and mental turmoil. Indira Gandhi too used to meet Krishnaji and the first meeting between them took place in the 1950s. Later she also took Rajiv Gandhi with her for a meeting.

What is very interesting is that Krishnaji doesn’t mention these meetings in his own writings. He refers to Nehru as an important leader from a big country and comments that “he had a fine intellect but it was being destroyed by politics.” If you just read what he has written, you will not be able to make out that he is referring to Pandit Nehru. 

Mrs Gandhi used to meet Krishnaji in order to spend some time quietly in his presence. In fact, sources close to Krishnaji say that it was he who urged Mrs Gandhi to end the National Emergency in India (1975-1977) and face elections even if she lost. 

The elections were then held in 1977, despite the fact that Sanjay Gandhi had expressed his views against them in no unclear terms. Krishnaji was never in favour of restrictions on civil rights. He was a staunch supporter of freedom of speech and during the National Emergency, he refused to come to India for his regular visits. 

He said that he would continue to speak in favour of freedom of speech but didn’t want “this body to be put behind bars”. He was assured by Pupul Jaykar that he would be allowed to say what he wanted but Krishnaji decided not to visit India.    

Incidentally, Indira Gandhi had an appointment with Jiddu Krishnamurti on the day she was assassinated (31October 1984). She was supposed to meet him in the evening in New Delhi. 

Krishna ji didn’t flaunt his proximity to politicians. He didn’t ‘bless’ them, so that they could win in the fiercely competitive political realm and become more ‘powerful’. And I am sure he didn’t say anything that pleased them either, because his views against wars, ego-centred activity and self-aggrandizement could never have appealed to politicians anywhere in the world. 

He was against those who held power and used it to perpetuate their unthinking ways and exploit others. But he never hesitated to say what he had to say. In Sri Lanka, he argued with a very popular communist leader, Dr N M Perera, who was the leader of the opposition at that time. He told him openly that he refused to bow down to pressures exerted by a totalitarian regime, even if they ‘liquidated him’. This heated discussion took place at a public meeting in 1950.

I don’t know if many Indian politicians have shown interest in Krishnaji’s teachings, other than Nehru Ji and Indira Gandhi. Perhaps, there isn’t enough space in the shrewd, selfish, warped political brains of politicians to allow sagacious words to enter. Incidentally, no meeting seems to have taken place between Mahatma Gandhi and Jiddu Krishnamurti. However, he did have a meeting with Vinoba Bhave.

When one looks at many of the so-called modern spiritual teachers who snobbishly hobnob with the powers that be as though the power of truth were less important than political clout, one wonders why Krishnaji preferred anonymity. Wouldn’t his association with big leaders have made him more popular? I feel he was very clear about it when he said once that popularity was the last thing that he ever wanted. The so-called great people and what transpired at his meetings with them hardly mattered to him at all, and his reluctance to speak about them was in actually in consonance with one of his most insightful statements in which he said: “I don’t mind what happens”.

Perhaps, Krishnaji had with him a power which was too immense compared to the political power that influential political leaders possessed. It was the power of truth, the power to break away from not just one’s own individual past, but the movement of the past itself in which the whole human consciousness was trapped. He had the power to stand alone even if the whole world disagreed with what he said. It was the power of simplicity, innocence and purity which very few can ever capture.