Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan was the first vice president of India from 1952 to 1962. He is celebrated as a luminary philosopher and a staunch defender of Hindu-Brahmanism. So much that his birthday on 5th September is celebrated as Teacher’s Day in India.
However, beneath the veneer of his renowned achievements lies a complex narrative rooted in his conservative Brahmanical upbringing.
Radhakrishnan’s journey from the humble village of Sarvepalli in Andhra Pradesh to his profound contributions to philosophy and religion is intertwined with intriguing aspects of his life that are seldom discussed.
This article delves into some untold facets of Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan’s life, offering a subaltern perspective that unveils the nuances of his family background, his marriage to a distant cousin at a tender age, his philosophical convictions, views on other religions, and even accusations of plagiarism.
By shedding light on these lesser-known aspects, we aim to present a more comprehensive portrait of this towering figure in Indian intellectual history.
Family Background
Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan came from a conservative Brahmanical background.
Radhakrishnan’s family hailed from Sarvepalli village in Nellore district of Andhra Pradesh. His early years were spent in Thiruttani and Tirupati.
His father was a subordinate revenue official in the service of a local Zamindar (local landlord). His primary education was at K. V. High School at Thiruttani.
Married his distant cousin
Radhakrishnan was married to Sivakamu in May 1903, a distant cousin, at the age of 16, when she was aged 10.
As per tradition the marriage was arranged by the family. The couple had five daughters named Padmavati, Rukmini, Sushila, Sundari and Shakuntala.
They also had a son named Sarvepalli Gopal who went on to a notable career as a historian.
Defender of Hindu-Brahmanism
Radhakrishnan’s philosophy was grounded in Advaita Vedanta, reinterpreting this tradition for a contemporary understanding.
He defended Hinduism against what he called “uninformed Western criticism”, contributing to the formation of contemporary Hindu identity.
He has been influential in shaping the understanding of Hinduism, in both India and the west, and earned a reputation as a bridge-builder between India and the West.
Thesis on Vedanta
Sarvepalli wrote his bachelor’s degree thesis on “The Ethics of the Vedanta and its Metaphysical Presuppositions”. It “was intended to be a reply to the charge that the Vedanta system had no room for ethics.”
According to Radhakrishnan himself, the criticism of Christian teachers of Indian culture “disturbed my faith and shook the traditional props on which I leaned.”
Radhakrishnan himself describes how, as a student, “the challenge of Christian critics impelled me to make a study of Hinduism and find out what is living and what is dead in it. My pride as a Hindu, roused by the enterprise and eloquence of Swami Vivekananda, was deeply hurt by the treatment accorded to Hinduism in missionary institutions“.
Views on other Religions
Radhakrishnan considered other religions as inferior to Hindu-Brahmanism arguing that most of other religions were based on teachings of Vedanta only.
He saw other religions, as lower forms of Hinduism, as interpretations of Advaita Vedanta, thereby Hinduising all religions.
According to Radhakrishnan, Vedanta offers the most direct intuitive experience and inner realisation, which makes it the highest form of religion
“The Vedanta is not a religion, but religion itself in its most universal and deepest significance”, he often said.
Contributions to Hindu-Brahmin Ideology
According to Richard King, the elevation of Vedanta as the essence of Hindu-Brahmanism, and Advaita Vedanta as the “paradigmatic example of the mystical nature of the Hindu religion” by Indologists and neo-Vedantins served well for the Hindu=Brahmin nationalists, who further popularised this notion of Advaita Vedanta as the pinnacle of Indian religions.
According to Rinehart, the neo-Hindu discourse is the consequence of the initial moves made by thinkers like Rammohan Roy, Vivekananda, Radhakrishnan.
Accusations of Plagiarism
In the January 1929 issue of The Modern Review, the Bengali philosopher Jadunath Sinha made the claim that parts of his 1922 doctoral thesis, Indian Psychology of Perception, published in 1925, were copied by his teacher Radhakrishnan into the chapter on “The Yoga system of Patanjali” in his book Indian Philosophy II, published in 1927.
Sinha and Radhakrishnan exchanged several letters in the Modern Review, in which Sinha compared parts of his thesis with Radhakrishnan’s publication, presenting altogether 110 instances of “borrowings.”
Radhakrishnan felt compelled to respond, stating that Sinha and he had both used the same classical texts, his translation were standard translations, and that similarities in translations were therefore unavoidable.
Election as President
Radhakrishnan was elected as the first Vice-President of India in 1952, and elected as the second President of India (1962–1967).
Radhakrishnan did not have a background in the Congress Party, nor was he active in the Indian independence movement.
He was the politician in shadow. His motivation lay in his pride of Hindu-Brahmin culture, and the defence of Hinduism against Western criticism.
When Radhakrishnan became the President of India, some of his students and friends requested him to allow them to celebrate his birthday, on 5 September. He replied, “instead of celebrating my birthday, it would be my proud privilege if September 5th is observed as Teachers’ Day”.
Conclusion
In conclusion, Radhakrishnan’s journey from a conservative Brahmanical background to the corridors of political power is an embodiment of complexity.
His early life in the village of Sarvepalli, the marriage to his distant cousin Sivakamu at a tender age, and his unwavering commitment to Advaita Vedanta as a defender of Hindu-Brahmanism all reveal dimensions rarely examined.
His views on other religions, portraying them as offshoots of Vedanta, further deepen the narrative.
Moreover, the accusations of plagiarism serve as a reminder that even intellectual giants have their controversies.
Radhakrishnan’s legacy, then, must be viewed through a more nuanced lens—one that recognizes the layers of his life and thought, adding depth to the story of a man who straddled the worlds of philosophy, religion, academia and politics.
In revisiting these untold facets of his life, we gain a richer understanding of the man behind the celebrated figure, reminding us of the intricate tapestry that shapes the lives of historical luminaries.