The Idea of the Great Plan: From Annie Besant to Nicholas and Helena Roerich
By Dany Savelli
On October 2, 1920, the Russian painter Nicholas Roerich and his wife arrived in the United States and remained there until May 8, 1923. The difficult period they experienced there essentially intensified, in my view, their channeling practices. Indeed, during the sessions they organized with a few close ones, a certain Allal Ming and later Master Morya—one of the Mahatmas with whom Madame Blavatsky claimed to communicate—kept reassuring the two emigrants, promising a happy resolution to their financial difficulties.
The Theosophical Society (TS) also helped the Roerichs. It enabled them to build a social network that was particularly useful for surviving in exile. Members of the Society supported the painter by inviting him to give lectures in their lodges, dedicating articles to him in their journals, and publishing his writings. In return, Nicholas Roerich maintained a good relationship with the leaders, including Jiddu Krishnamurti (1895–1986), Bahman Pestonji Wadia (1891–1958), and its president, the British women’s rights activist and socialist politician Annie Besant (1847–1933). Roerich even assured the latter two that he was “following the same path” and “working in the name of the Same” (July 25, 1921, see Rerikh 2012, 111f).

This cordial and respectful attitude changed entirely in the summer of 1922. Nicholas Roerich expressed disappointment with Annie Besant in a letter (August 7, 1922, see Rerikh 2012, 127) without explaining the reasons for this disappointment. Exactly the day after this letter was written, Morya predicted the imminent end of the TS (Rerikh 2009, 203). The following spring, Elena mocked the “theosophists [who] meticulously gather crumbs and publish books about them, while we, every day, experience miracles, proofs, visions, and cannot even fathom the greatness of our Master—his immense, colossal greatness!” (the statement reported in Fosdik 1998, 172).
To understand this shift, we must revisit the Roerichs’ relationship with the TS. We must note that although a Russian section of the TS had existed in St. Petersburg since 1908, Elena and Nicholas joined the TS only in July 1920—just a few days after obtaining their visas to India. Following the historian Alexander Andreev, one might consider that this membership was driven purely by opportunism: at that time, Nicholas and Elena sought to collaborate with the leaders of the TS (Andreev 2008, 182). They could claim neither primacy over the Mahatmas nor a schism creating a dissident branch of Theosophy. But, in 1922, an important event occurred in their life that made them lose interest in the TS: they met Louis L. Horch, a wealthy businessman who was literally captivated by Nicholas’ and especially Elena’s channeling talent. Like a magic wand, Horch’s material help freed the couple from the harsh conditions of an emigrant’s life and, one might say, freed them from bitter reality; in other words, he shifted their existence into the enchanted fiction of the Mahatmas.

Furthermore, for Elena and Nicholas Roerich, who considered themselves the exclusive holders of primordial esoteric knowledge, the one provided by Master Morya, and who, as such, could claim to be the true heirs of Madame Blavatsky, the leaders in Adyar appeared as potential rivals. Indeed, they seemed capable of questioning their supremacy and interfering with the Great Plan entrusted to them by Morya.
The existence of a “Great Plan” (Velikii plan) was first mentioned by Morya at a séance on October 27, 1922. The vague nature of the project was immediately emphasized: “The Plan is not for words, but for action” (Rerikh 2009, 226). However, the expression ended up referring to a large-scale geopolitical and spiritual project concerning Russia, which was constantly changing depending on their political games with different governments. First, Elena and Nicholas Roerich will think about the creation of a state that is both Buddhist and communist in the Altai with the help of the Bolsheviks, then the creation of a new Russian country in Siberia with the help of Roosevelt’s United States, and eventually militaristic Japan.
However, the expression “Great Plan” was not new among the Theosophists.
Shortly before Morya used the expression “Great Plan,” Annie Besant, who succeeded Colonel Henry Olcott as President of the Theosophical Society in 1907, employed it during lectures she gave first in Adyar in December 1920, which were later published under the title The Great Plan (1921a) and then in London the following summer as Britain’s Place in the Great Plan (1921b). It is unknown whether Besant coined this expression or not—at least, it does not appear in the writings of Helena Petrovna Blavatsky (HPB) (1831–1891), the founder of the Theosophical Society. Nevertheless, it is worth examining how she used it in these lectures since a comparison between the British thinker’s Great Plan and the Russian couple’s Velikii Plan does indeed help to highlight the specifics of the latter.

In her lectures, Annie Besant claims to have “seen reason enough to accept, as a hypothesis even, that a Plan underlies the whole of the evolution of our world, the whole of the evolution of our system, and probably far, far beyond.” (1921b, 80). For her part, the president of the TS intends to focus on a specific aspect of the Plan: the resolution of the “crisis when the future evolution of India has to be decided” (1921a, 105). She explains this by noting that India is facing a danger unlike any it has ever known since “the Eastern ideals […] were being lost in India by the glamour of Western civilisation” (1921a, 104). However, the Theosophist Besant observes that “the state of turmoil and unrest which persists throughout Europe” cannot stop “unless India comes to her place” (1921a, 106).
Because Besant follows a long line of thinkers and writers who, since Romanticism conceived India as the cradle of humanity and, a fortiori, the cradle of the West (1921a, 105), she analyses British imperialism as a threat of acculturation for Indian civilization—in other words, as a major obstacle to the realization of the Great Plan, that is a ‘harmonious spiritual evolution.’ Addressing this situation requires a radical revision of the relations between Britain and India in accordance with the theosophical value of brotherhood. For Besant, this is the first step toward the creation of a “Commonwealth of Free Nations” (1921b, 53). And according to her, only Great Britain, “with dominions so widespread and so varied can build up that mighty Commonwealth of Brotherhood, of all the races of every faith, of every colour, of every line of thought” (1921b, 103). “If Britain can do that,” she adds, then she “will do her part in the Great Plan” (ibid).
While it cannot be stated with certainty that the Roerichs borrowed the idea of a “Great Plan” from Annie Besant, it is nevertheless clear that their Velikii Plan shares similarities with Besant’s Great Plan. It also concerns a large-scale geopolitical project related to Russia, which is viewed as the direct heir of Indian culture (a theory strongly emphasized by the art critic Vladimir Stasov (1824–1906) (1894) who, at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries, was the mentor of the young Nicholas). Beyond these similarities, the differences remain essential.
While for Besant, Great Britain, “inspiring and largely guiding the West” (1921a, 77), is destined to build a “Temple which shall become the model for the Temple of Humanity” (1921a, 104), for the Roerichs, it is Russia that is chosen to be the ‘beacon of humanity.’ Roerichs’ Morya explicitly declares: “Russia will manifest the unity of peoples” (November 17, 1921, see Rerikh 2009, 92).
Moreover, while Besant calls for an equal union between Great Britain and India, aimed at sealing the union of West and East, the Roerichs, for their part, think of “uniting India with Russia” (December 27, 1921, see Rerikh 2009, 106) as an organic constituent of the East. “My people are in the middle of Asia” (August 30, 1922, see Rerikh 2009, 209). Morya further envisions “an alliance of the peoples of the East.” (September 20, 1922, see Rerikh 2009, 216).
Another colossal difference exists between the positions of the British activist and the Russian émigré couple. While the former takes a critical view of her country, denouncing imperialism, the latter exalts their homeland by embracing the pure Slavophile tradition, i.e., rejecting the West as a model and glorifying the Russian state as a peaceful state. Within this revivalist framework, the Indo-Russian union they envision is conceived as a natural return to previous conditions of a Golden Age. In doing so, they entirely overlooked the colonial question.
At the end of this brief comparison between the two Great Plans, it becomes clear that far from following Besant, who was elected president of the Indian National Congress in 1917, the Roerichs turned away from politics and idealized a ‘timeless Russia’ – called the New Country–which in their eyes was both their homeland, lost in 1917, along with India as the country of the Ancient Wisdom and Tibet, the Mahatmas’ residence according to Madame Blavatsky.
While politics and idealism go hand in hand in Besant’s project, and utopia takes precedence over politics in Roerich’s project, the role each reserved for themselves in their respective Great Plan differs in nature. Annie Besant fully committed herself to the struggle for India’s autonomy, just as she did for the Irish cause. Although she was convinced of having to intercede on behalf of the ‘weaker brethren’ because of her access to the Mahatmas (see Taylor, 280, etc.), her aim was not to position herself as a messianic figure. Indeed, as early as 1909, following Charles Leadbeater, it was the young Krishnamurti in whom she recognized Lord Maitreya, the long-awaited Messiah of the Theosophists. On their side, the Roerichs indulged in stunning megalomania, which elevated Nicholas to the status of Messiah and, over time, led to the development of a true mysticism of the “Leader.”
One final difference between both is worth noting. While the former, eager to gain supporters for her cause, detailed the content of her geopolitical-spiritual projects in lectures and publications, the Roerichs, convinced of their superiority and lost in their fantasy of grandeur, chose secrecy and conspiracy—in other words, they decided to avoid confronting socio-political reality. Hence, the totalitarian deviations of their utopia.
***
The Roerichs’ stay in the United States marked a significant turning point in their beliefs, leading them to break away from the Theosophical Society and develop their own spiritual teaching, Agni Yoga. Of course, the question arises: What would have become of their belief if it had not been for Louis Horch? Or, to put it in another way, would Morya, as Elena and Nicholas shaped him and left it to us in their visionary writings, have remained “viable” for much longer without this providential man? One thing seems inevitable: without Horch’s financial help the Roerichs’ Great Plan could not have been realized in any way.
References
Andreev, Aleksandr I. Gimalaiskoe Bratstvo. Teosofiski mif i ego tvortsy (Himalaya Brotherhood. Theosophical Myth and Its Creators). St. Petersburg: Izdatel’stvo SPbGU, 2008.
Besant, Annie. The Great Plan. Four Lectures Delivered at the Forty-fifth Annual Convention of the Theosophical Society, Held at Adyar, December 1920. Adyar: Theosophical Publishing House, 1921a.
Besant, Annie. Britain’s Place in the Great Plan. Four Lectures Delivered in London, June and July 1921. London: Theosophical Publishing House, 1921b.
Fosdik, Zinaida G. Moi Uchitelia. Vstrechi s Rerikhami. Po stranitsam dnevnika 1922–1934 gg. (My Teachers. Meetings with the Roerichs. Through the Diary’s Pages of 1922–1934). Moscow: Sfera, 1998.
Rerikh, Elena Iv. Listy dnevnika, 1920–1923. T. 1. (Diary Leaves, 1920–1923. Volume 1). Moscow: Rassanta-Gosudarstvennyi muzei Vostoka, 2009.
Rerikh, Nikolai K. Derzaite! Pis’ma (1921–1925) (Go Ahead! Letters (1921–1925)). Red. A. N. Annenko. Abakan: Khakasskoe knizhnoe izdatel’stvo, 2012.
Stasov, V. V. Sobranie sochinenii. t. III. St. Petersburg: typ. M. M. Stasiulevich, 1894, col. 948–1259.
Taylor, Anne. Annie Besant. A Biography. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 1992.
OpenEdition suggests that you cite this post as follows:
Dany Savelli (April 2, 2025). The Idea of the Great Plan: From Annie Besant to Nicholas and Helena Roerich. New Age in Eurasia. Retrieved May 18, 2026 from https://doi.org/10.58079/13mqb


