Since the rise of the Hindu-nationalist BJP, Indian historians have been involved in a fierce battle around the prehistory of independence. The key role of the Indian National Congress and the towering figure of its leader M. K. Gandhi have been acknowledged and admired worldwide. More controversially, those in power today claim that their forefathers in the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh were also pre-eminent contributors to the overcoming of colonial rule. Little evidence supports those claims, but political tutelage combined with funding has given a boost to those arguing along these lines.

In all these more political than academic debates, it seems to be forgotten that there are many shades of grey between black and white, i.e. more than Congress here and Hindutva there. The second blind spot is the prehistory of the foreign policy of independent India. Since the Indian archives were opened, there has been an enormous output of studies on the Nehruvian years (1946-1964), nearly all assuming an hour zero. As a matter of fact, however, unlike most other former colonies, India could rely on a cadre of experienced diplomats and indeed foreign policy traditions dating back to the first years after the end of the Great War.

It is possibly no coincidence that two monographs from 2021 make both points. Next to the reviewer [1], Vineet Thakur, lecturer in international relations at Leiden University, takes the same line with his excellent biography of V.S. Srinivasa Sastri, one of the nearly forgotten so-called moderates. They opted for limited cooperation with the colonial power in order to achieve constitutional reforms and abhorred Gandhian methods of mass mobilisation. Accordingly, though Sastri was a personal friend of the Mahatma, he never belonged to his closer circle. In his formative years, he had come under the influence of Gopal Krishna Gokhale, a leading moderate, who established the Servants of India Society in 1905, aiming at overthrowing colonial rule by the promotion of education and health together with fighting social evils. [2]

The small but influential society had features of a monastic order. Following strict logic and discipline was essential for Sastri anyway, born into a poor Tamil Brahmin family. This community had a reputation for elitism, casteism and - closely linked with the latter - latent racism, imprints Sastri would never overcome. Forced to earn money for his extended family, he turned towards teaching, which remained a lifelong passion. A transfer to Madras brought him in touch with South Indian intellectuals and soon with nationalist politics. As Gokhale's closest aid, Sastri was introduced to everyone of relevance and quickly won a reputation as an extraordinary speaker and thinker.

Modestly, Thakur claims that he has skipped over certain aspects of his protagonist's biography, such as his contributions to constitutional reforms, philosophy and education. Indeed, his well-researched and elegantly written monograph covers everything in terms of Sastri's political life and much more than the hitherto standard biography authored by his private secretary. [3] With great expertise, Thakur provides background on Indian and global politics, in particular the transformation of the Commonwealth after 1918. As the metropolis lost power, the dominions achieved far-reaching autonomy, among others the right to regulate their respective populations. Many imposed colour bars and restrictions on immigration, often targeting Indians. On the contrary, British India remained an anomalous political entity, the only non-independent full member of the League of Nations and other international organisations.

For a full decade, fighting for the rights of Indians overseas became Sastri's main task. At Imperial Conferences and various other platforms, he argued in favour of equal rights and treatment as a key feature of benign British rule. As a political Liberal, he stood for principles combined with pragmatism, accepting temporary solutions. The 'silver-tongued orator' was a great success, capable of convincing even racist South African politicians. At the same time, willy-nilly he also was a problematic representative of his compatriots. Winning access to the highest circles as an anglophile, highly educated Brahmin, i.e. a successful product of colonialism, he convinced white politicians to reconsider the 'coolie' image of average Indians while he himself personified the exception.

Rightfully, Thakur calls Sastri India's first diplomat, though independence was yet not in sight in the first decade after the Great War. As the reviewer has argued, too, London deliberately left delicate tasks like British India's relations vis-à-vis South Africa to Delhi exclusively, where the viceroys made it a point to delegate Indians to represent their compatriots' interests abroad. In two round-table conferences focusing on issues of segregation and migration, Sastri together with his secretary Girja Shankar Bajpai, the leading expert on Indians overseas among the bureaucrats, crafted compromises protecting the rights of domiciled Indians while appeasing anti-Asiatic sentiments. As a result of the first conference, an Indian Agency in South Africa was created, which despite the name was tantamount to an embassy. Logically, Sastri became the first head of mission between 1927 and 1929. By mastering the art of pursuing interests with decency, personal integrity and convincing logic, Sastri set an example for how representatives of a country with little leverage could nevertheless exercise influence. Thus, Sastri became a role model for Indian diplomats post 1947.

Here, rather surprisingly, Thakur's account nearly comes to an end. While the author goes into much detail about Sastri's earlier life and diplomatic missions of limited relevance, he not only skips over later ones to Kenya and Malaya but hardly covers the second round-table conference with South Africa. There, Sastri successfully terminated all efforts to drive out people of Indian origin. A joint commission investigated possible destinations within the Empire as a whole only to prove that there were none. A short glance at the establishment of agencies in Ceylon and Malaya in 1923 and the policy around Indians overseas in general, as pursued by the Department of Education, Health and Lands, would have put the South African story into more context as well.

Altogether this is a book of rare qualities. Thakur tells Sastri's life story with much sympathy, without overlooking his ignorance for caste, gender and particular race. Indians claimed equality to Europeans but looked down on Africans as uncultured, and in this sense the former's struggle cannot be termed anti-colonial. The author also tells the story of an era by analysing crucial steps towards independence or changes in the practice of international diplomacy. Whoever is interested in the opposition between Gandhian 'spiritual anarchism' versus Sastrian constitutionalism and 'performative Brahmanism' - allowing entrance into a white society through cultured life - is also well advised to read this most enjoyable treasure box of a book.

Notes:

[1] Amit Das Gupta: The Indian Civil Service and Indian Foreign Policy, 1923-1961, Abingdon / New York 2021.

[2] B. R. Nanda: Gokhale. The Indian Moderates and the British Raj, Princeton 1977.

[3] P. Kodanda Rao: The Right Honourable V.S. Srinivasa Sastri. A Political Biography, Bombay / London / New York 1963.

Amit Das Gupta