There was a kind of spiritual bond between him and his pupils. Though he was a Christian, he had room in his bosom for Hinduism and Islam which he regarded with great veneration. His was not an exclusive Christianity which condemned to perdition everyone who did not believe in Jesus Christ as the only saviour of the world. Jealous of the reputation of his own, he was tolerant towards the other faiths. He was a keen and careful student of politics. Of his sympathies with the so-called extremists, if he made no parade, he never made any secret either. Ever since my return home in 1915, I had been his guest whenever I had occasion to go to Delhi. It was plain sailing enough so long as I had not declared Satyagraha in respect of the Rowlatt Act. He had many English friends in the higher circles. He belonged to a purely English Mission. He was the first Indian Principal chosen in his college. I therefore, felt that his intimate association with me and his giving shelter under his roof might compromise him and expose his college to unnecessary risk. I therefore offered to seek shelter elsewhere. His reply was characteristic. "My religion is deeper than people may imagine. Some of my opinions are vital parts of my being. They are formed after deep and prolonged prayers. They are known to my English friends. I cannot possibly be misunderstood by keeping you under my roof as an honoured friend and guest. And if ever I have to make a choice between losing what influence I may have among Englishmen and losing you, I know what I would choose. You cannot leave me." "But what about all kinds of friends who come to see me? Surely you must not let your house become a caravanserai when I am in Delhi," I said. "To tell you the truth," he replied, " I like it all. I like the friends who come to see you. It gives me pleasure to think that in keeping you with me, I am doing a little service to my country." The reader may not be aware that my open letter to the Viceroy, giving concrete shape to the Khilafat claim, was conceived and drafted under Principal Rudras roof. He and Charlie Andrews were my revisionists. Non-cooperation was conceived and hatched under his hospitable roof. He was a silent but deeply interested spectator at the private conference that took place between the Maulanas, other Mussulman friends and myself. Religious motive was the foundation of all his acts. There was, therefore, no fear of temporal power, though the same motive also enabled him to value the existence and the use and the friendship of temporal power& Not many people know that we owe C. F. Andrews to Principal Rudra.
(Reprinted from an article in Young India; Stephanian (Oct 1925))

Copyright © 2022 ICICI Centre for Mathematical Sciences
All rights reserved. Send us your suggestions at