Tagore on Nationalism

I had not read Tagore earlier except for a few short stories. Tagore’s works have remained relatively unknown outside Bengal, including his writings in English and on subjects far removed from Bengali milieu. I had though read Saratchandra Chatterjee, a contemporary of Tagore, way back in 1960s and 70s during my school-college days, thanks to Marathi translations (by Mama Warerkar) of his novels, which, I remember, were then easily available in libraries. I can still recall reading “Parinita”, “Shrikant”, “ Charitraheen” and being deeply affected by the characterizations and empathy for the poor and the women in his works. I consider him as one of the great novelists and storytellers of the twentieth century and his appeal endures even in these modern times. But Tagore dominates Bengali cultural landscape so overwhelmingly that he overshadows others including Sharatchandra. This had disheartened me a little and possibly that was one unconscious reason for my initial lack of enthusiasm for Tagore.

Reading Tagore on Nationalism was a revelation (“Nationalism” published by Penguin 2009). The book is a compilation of three lectures delivered by Tagore on the subjects of nationalism in Japan, Nationalism in the west and Nationalism in India around 1910-1920. Contrary to his popular image as a philosopher and a mystic poet, a cultural icon of Bengal who wrote poetry, stories and novels in Bengali, Tagore’s views on social and political issues elucidated in this book demonstrate his rational outlook, audacity to confront the conformist and swim against the current. Indeed, as the editor of this book argues, “parochialization” of Tagore by Bengal and his image as Bengali cultural icon has overshadowed an extraordinary range of his ideas in the domain of social and political fields. Tagore had a long association with Gandhi and had interacted with him on a whole lot of issues during the freedom struggle. He did not hesitate to air his differences with Gandhi on many occasions, while fully acknowledging Gandhi’s stature as a leader and Gandhi’s intrinsic qualities as human being (the honorific “Mahatma” was given by Tagore to Gandhi). For instance, he was critical of village-centric economic views and the Charakha symbolism of Gandhi. He chided Gandhi when the latter remarked after a severe earthquake that hit Bihar in early part of the last century that it was God’s punishment for the sins of untouchability. He also had some reservations about non-cooperation movement that he publicly debated with Gandhi. (It was then a different era altogether when leaders and intellectuals debated issues in the midst of the freedom movement with civility and respect. Tagore would be called anti- national and even a traitor if he were alive today and aired his views on nationalism).

Tagore was a strong advocate of an open and free mind, seeking knowledge and wisdom from all traditions of the world. His vision of the world was that of a community of cultures and civilizations based on plurality and equality, mutual respect, free and open cross- national and cultural exchanges and outright rejection of militarism and war. His concept of culture was not something that is static but something that is vibrant and dynamic, which is enriched, and not diminished, with interaction with other cultures and traditions. For him “there is only one history- history of man – all national histories are mere chapters in the larger one”. Tagore was a true champion of human freedom and his suspicion of nationalism and patriotism stemmed from a deep abhorrence of any notion that in the slightest degree was sectarian, close-minded and based on blind faith than on reason, and that came in the way of true human spirit and creativity. His criticism of nationalism and patriotism can be fully appreciated only in the light of his deep commitment to humanism that pervades his exposition on nationalism. The following summarizes the main ideas, as I see them, of Tagore on this subject. Tagore’s flowing prose, vivid imageries, keen perceptions and a whole lot of ideas and concepts scattered all over leave a refreshing and lasting impression on the reader’s mind. That is why I have quoted him extensively, as I think at times there is no better way to elucidate his thoughts on a point than in his own words.

Critique of Nationalism

Nationalists, here and in other parts of the world, tend to consider nationalism as an axiomatic, fundamental, incontestable principle, a standpoint which does not logically follow even if one admits that today nation state is the only acceptable form of political organization of the world with no apparent alternative. Historically seen, nationalism is essentially a modern phenomenon, a political expression that came in to being after the industrial revolution and emergence of nation states with clear geographical boundaries and common laws, markets and military. Although various elements such as language, culture, ethnicity, religious and social traditions did act as glue in its making, nationalism is not a spontaneous and natural development and expression of human need and aspiration. In Tagore's view, nation is manipulative organization for the purpose of commerce, profit and greed and nationalism is “organized selfishness”. He contrasts nation with society- the former being an “organization with a mechanical purpose” and the later as “spontaneous self-expression of man as a social being... without any ulterior purpose and an end in itself”. And since “greed for power and wealth can never have a limit”, he was distrustful of notion of nationalism viewing it as a fetish that inevitably will manifest itself in imperialistic arrogance ultimately leading to jingoistic militarism and wars. The two world wars fought with nationalist fervour on either side of the divide, with patriotic chest beating by people who were ready to kill and willing to die for their nation, vindicated his prognosis. The British conquest of India was also a manifestation of ideology of (British) nationalism, which justified imperialism as a means to subjugate and plunder colonies, not for the benefit of individuals or groups (which was the case in earlier conquests) but for the sake of the nation back home, to enrich Britain, to make her economically, industrially and militarily powerful. Tagore was equally skeptical about the notion of patriotism. GB Shaw had described patriotism as “your conviction that your country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it”. Tagore also was wary of patriotic ideas that are nourished by over-glorification of the past (particularly distant past where history dissolves in a haze of legends, mythology and folklore, and thus is obscure enough to be interpreted to suit one's views). In his view, it engenders an exclusivist narrow outlook and leads to xenophobic aversion to external ideas and views. He writes in this book, “ … it is my conviction that my countrymen will truly gain India by fighting against education that the country is greater than the ideals of humanity”. Tagore has written elsewhere “patriotism can not be our final spiritual shelter, my refuge is humanity. I will not buy glass for the price of diamonds and I will never allow patriotism to triumph over humanity, as long as I live. I took a few steps down that road and stopped. For when I can not retain my faith in the universal man standing over and above my country, when patriotic prejudices overshadow my God, I feel inwardly starved”.

These lectures by Tagore were in a way a response to the nationalist fervour that he saw in Japan and in the West as well here in India. Describing the state of affairs in Japan at that time Tagore writes “ I have seen in Japan the voluntary submission of whole people to trimming of their minds and clipping of their freedom by their government, which — regulates their thoughts, manufactures their feelings.------The people accept the all-pervading mental slavery with cheerfulness and pride because of their nervous desire to turn themselves into a machine called “nation” ….”.      (One can notice the germ of the theory of "Manufacturing Consent” developed with great research and elaboration by Noam Chomsky in the 1980s). 

Dehumanization

Central to Tagore’s critique of Nationalism of western civilization was his indictment of it for initiating a process of dehumanizing through its commerce and politics. As a humanist, what mattered most to him about nationalism and imperialism of western powers was that it debases not only the conquered but also the conqueror. By this “ people which love freedom perpetuates slavery—; people who are naturally just can be cruelly unjust both in their act and their thought… people who are honest can blindly go on robbing others..”. He calls the idea of the Nation “ the most powerful anesthetics man has ever invented” under whose influence the whole people can become most virulently self-seeking “without being in the least aware of its moral perversion” and, he further adds, “can feel dangerously resentful” if this moral perversion is pointed out to them. Tagore sees a perfect man as a harmonious blending of the mind and the flesh, of the heart and the intellect, of humanity and scientific power. The progress of science has conferred on man the benefit of greater range of time and space, profusion of physical comforts and alleviation of ills; and this has enabled the “reason” to outrun the complete humanity leaving moral man behind, while creating a delusion to the exact contrary- an illusion that humanity has come to the forefront in these modern times. Tagore viewed the Western civilization with its scientific organizations as a force that is strengthening power and not humanity, giving rise to the “cult of the self-worship of the Nation” where “ the individual worships with all sacrifices a god which is morally inferior to himself”. The Nation, he says, “thrives on this mutilated humanity”. Tagore summed up the de-humanization of whole population of the nation states of the western civilization in these words: “Men, the fairest creation of God, came out of the National manufactory in huge numbers as war-making and money-making puppets, ludicrously vain of their pitiful perfection of mechanism. Human society grew more and more into a marionette show of politicians, soldiers, manufacturers and bureaucrats, pulled by wire arrangements of wonderful efficiency”.

The West and the East

Notwithstanding his critique of Western civilization, Tagore admired its tremendous advancements in science, ideas of liberty, equality and justice, democracy, its art and culture, etc. To him the European civilization has Janus-faced duality: “.. it is supremely good in her beneficence where her face is turned to all humanity; ... and supremely evil in her maleficent aspect where her face is turned only upon her own interests…”. Tagore admired Japan for her industrial progress and her emergence as an industrially developed (first non-western) Asian nation, without imitating the West and without losing its identity. He expressed hopes that Japan will not follow the western civilization that has enslaved whole nations with militaristic conquests although he did sense with disquiet manifestations of Japan’s imperialist ambitions and muscle flexing. He had hopes from the United States of America as well due to the advantage of inheritance of ideals of European civilization without the burden of the history of national wars and colonial conquests. (As it turned out Japan's imperialistic ambitions led to she plunging herself in the second world war with disastrous consequences. And the US spread its neo-imperialist tentacles in the post war period across the globe (without direct colonization) with equally disastrous consequences not for itself but for a large part of the so called third world).

Tagore’s view of the anti-imperialist struggle in India was that it was trying to imitate the west by importing the political formation as a nation state. Also, “India is too vast and too diverse in its races. It is many countries packed in one geographical receptacle. It is just the opposite of what Europe truly is; namely one country made into many”. He therefore held that the western concept of nation had no true relevance in this diverse land. Opposed to the British rule and supporting the Indian freedom struggle, he was yet critical of the freedom movement for only political freedom and forgetting the “moral and spiritual” freedom and freedom from poverty and vast inequalities in our society. He did not agree with either of the two representative views amongst Indian nationalists- those who wanted political freedom first and then deal with other social issues later or those votaries of “ the creed of our nationalism” which believes that “ this (Indian) social system has been perfected for all time to come by our ancestors … with superhuman vision.. and only “one task of political freedom” remaining to be achieved.  Both these standpoints lead to rejection of the “western spirit” from which we can benefit, just as colonial rule made the westerners to look down upon the East with disdain and reject Eastern wisdom. Tagore believed that India must not imitate the west but find its own way towards a society that is based on the principles of universality commensurate with her “soul”. Many historians believe that Tagore’s views influenced Gandhi and Nehru a great deal that resulted in the then Congress leadership adopting a non-sectarian, all-encompassing nationalist outlook. For Gandhi as he often stated freedom struggle was not only a mass struggle with all sections of population participating to achieve political freedom but also a fight against social ills like untouchability and a process of social transformation towards an inclusive peace loving society. This perspective ultimately led to independent India adopting a secular, pluralistic, federal and democratic constitutional framework for the republic aptly summarized in the preamble of the constitution.

The ideology of Nationalism being pursued by the current regime is the tendency that Tagore had noticed and described and categorized as one inspired from Nationalism of the west. V D Savarkar was the original theoretician and ideologue of this Hindu Nationalism. Savarkar in this respect was greatly influenced by the late19th century Italian politician Mazzini who is considered as the founder of Italian Nationalism. Mazzini was instrumental in initiating and leading movement for unification of various Italian city states (Rome, Naples, Venice, Florence etc many of them under foreign domination) into a Nation state of Italy based on common language, religion, culture. Savarkar coined a new term for "Hinduness" viz Hindutva for national identity, in the fashion of "Italianness" used by the Italian nationalists. In his view Hindu civilization was a product of Aryan migration and intermingling and amalgamation with local population that led to a new culture and a new nation. He however did not view subsequent conquests and migrations by Muslims in the same fashion.  Tagore, on the other hand, perceived Indian culture as multi-religious and multi ethnic as he comments “ Indian history does not belong to one particular race but to a process of creation to which various races of the world contributed- the Dravidians and the Aryans, the ancient Greeks and the Persians, the Mohemmedans .."   Since Hindu religion, unlike Christianity, with its myriad of castes and sub-castes (and presence of various other practices followed by likes of Adivasis and tribals outside Hindu fold) was inadequate as a unifying entity, Savarkar defined Hindus as inhabitants of the land stretching from Sindhu River to Sindhu (Ocean) whose ancestry and whose holy shrines were situated within this land. (पितृभूमी and  पुण्यभूमी). Thus, while Jains, Sikhs, Buddhists and Adivasis and tribals with their local deities were included in the broad Hindu definition, Muslims and Christians were excluded. Savarkar thus viewed Hindus and Muslims as two different nations. This was exclusivist Nationalism as opposed to pluralistic and inclusive Nationalism of Tagore and Gandhi. Tagore had pointed out in these essays that India is a land of boundless ethnic, linguistic, cultural diversity and multiple Nationalities unlike Europe. Another central element in Savarkar's nationalism was the writing of history as a weapon in the struggle for freedom and for resurrection of nation. Tagore had warned against over glorification and falsification of the past for political objectives.  On the nationalism of western civilization, he writes “..the whole people is being taught from boyhood to foster hatreds and ambitions by all kinds of means - by manufacture of half-truths and untruths in history, by persistent misrepresentations of other races and culture of unfavourable sentiments towards them, by setting up memorials of events, very often false, which for the sake of humanity should be speedily forgotten, thus continually brewing evil menace towards neighbours and nations other than their own. This is undermining the very fountainhead of humanity”. These words bring to mind the agenda to rewrite history books from a nationalist and communal angle in strident tone and narrow and exclusivist outlook that is increasingly being pivoted on hatred of “enemies” within and without, real or imaginary. 

 

(I am digressing it a little here. In my school days I was an ardent volunteer (स्वयंसेवक) of RSS and a regular attendee at evening Shakhas. My disenchantment with RSS was paradoxically triggered by Savarkar’s writings that I came across. My grandfather had a collection of books by Savarkar and I had a chance to read quite a few books- "१८५७ चे स्वातंत्र्य युद्ध", "माझी जन्मठेप", ""काळे पाणी , which I remember clearly and some other books and essays as well. While I was impressed with his language and passionate nationalism, what appealed to me equally was his atheism and rationalism, his rejection of religious rituals, cow-veneration, superstition etc. His novel काळे पाणी contains many passages depicting erotic and carnal scenes between man and woman. All these somehow did not quite seem to sit well with बौध्दीक teachings and puritanical ethos of the RSS. I was subtly discouraged from reading too much of Savarkar. Savarkar is now an icon of the triumphalist Hindu nationalism that has gained hegemonic ascendancy, But I do not think any discussions on the entire body of his work is encouraged or even allowed within the political party that worships him)

Tagore the visionary 

“Where the mind is without fear and head is held high;

Where knowledge is free;

Where the world has not been broken up in fragments in narrow domestic walls;

Where words come out from the depth of truths;

Where tireless striving stretches its arms towards perfection;

Where the clear stream of reason has not lost its way into the dreary desert sand of dead habit;

Where the mind is lead forward by thee into ever-widening thought and action-

Into that heaven of freedom, my father, let my country awake”

- Tagore

Tagore believed in a world with multiplicity of cultures interacting on the basis of shared values of humanism, and not enmity or suspicion. He had himself expressed succinctly his outlook in this oft-quoted poem in simple but profound words. Delineating differences between wars and conflicts of the past and the present he writes “we had wars, pillages, changes of monarchy and consequent miseries” “intrigues and deceptions” but these did not uproot the societal foundations and relations”. The British rule in India was however qualitatively different. “This time it was the nation of the West driving its tentacles of machinery deep down into the soil”.

He was ahead of his times and his views have perhaps more relevance in the present time. It may seem that “heaven of freedom” envisioned by this visionary is today farther away from reality than it was when he penned these words. And the society without “ narrow domestic walls” that Tagore dreamt of may seem to be losing ground with more domestic walls being built under the banners of region, language and religion. Yet the world is relentlessly being globalized and is creating material foundations for an interactive and interdependent global society in future. Tagore recognized this globalization as he writes, “the whole world is becoming one country through scientific facility and the moment is arriving when one must find a basis of unity which is not political”. He believed that just as only those societies and nationalities survived that overcame competition and conflicts between individuals, groups and sects, the time has come for the nations to overcome their conflicts and become one world or else perish. The worldwide efforts to deal with issues such as environment, nuclear proliferation, energy etc is evidence of recognition of the reality that these issues besetting all nations can no longer be addressed in isolation and there is no alternative except to unite on a “non-political” platform. Tagore talked of inter-civilization alliance. In 2005, nearly a hundred years later, the United Nations has adopted an initiative on “ Alliance of Civilization” with the stated aim of encouraging inter-cultural understanding. UNESCO has acknowledged Tagore as one of the visionaries as a source of inspiration for the organization’s objective of reconciliation of cultures.

One may or may not entirely agree with Tagore’s views; some may call it romantic and utopian. Tagore himself was aware of possibility of this charge being made against him as he says “.. it is easy for any street urchin to fling against me the epithet “unpractical””. Utopian ideals by very definition may be unattainable but many a times, they can be practically approached very close to the ideals. In any case, the merit of such ideals is that they set a direction even if in a general sense, shape morals and mould ethics. Tagore may not have given us, to use the current popular jargon, a “roadmap” to achieve global society. But he certainly did warn us of the pitfalls, traps and wrong turns on the way, which is equally a hallmark of a visionary.