Remembering Tagore in times of sectarianism
His reflections on nationalism, peace, and harmony are more relevant today than they were in the past
image for illustrative purpose
He viewed nationalism as the source of inhumanity and oppression. He became very critical of the European model of nation-states as it supported freedom and human rights in European countries while endorsing repression in the non-European world
The interest Prime Minister Modi had shown in Nobel laureate Rabindranath Tagore during the West Bengal assembly elections just vanished this time. His birth anniversary on 7 May largely remained a low-key affair for the Prime Minister and his party. Except for some formal gestures to pay tribute to the poet, nothing significant was done. With the conclusion of assembly elections, interest in the life and works of the poet died down. However, it was on the expected line. Tagore cannot walk along Hindutva. It is not that only Prime Minister Modi and his supporters do not have an interest in him, others also show similar indifference. No party or organization organized an impressive program. Even those who believe in the great ideals of humanism remained passive, despite the fact that the poet-philosopher is more relevant than he was in the past. In these times of hatred and violence, we must recall his appeal to give up illiberalism and adopt higher values of love and humanity. He has to offer many things to us in terms of peace and harmony, as, like Tolstoy, he was not a poet to remain closeted in his room and remained indulged in experimenting to make life better on the planet.
Tagore’s journey from a staunch nationalist to an internationalist is interesting. The decision of Lord Curzon to divide Bengal came as a rude shock to him, and like many other intellectuals of his time, he was on the street. He zealously participated in the movement. He would sing songs and mingle with the common people. He was at the height of his popularity. Famous filmmaker Satyajit Ray has captured these moments in a documentary on Tagore. The movement had forced the government to withdraw its decision.
However, immediately after the movement was over, the poet lost interest in fervent nationalism and started moving away. The planet was under the cloud of the First World War, and a strong wave of nationalism had overtaken Europe. He viewed nationalism as the source of inhumanity and oppression. He became very critical of the European model of nation-states as it supported freedom and human rights in European countries while endorsing repression in the non-European world.
"Nationalism is a great menace. It is this particular thing that has been at the bottom of India’s troubles. And in as much as we have been ruled and dominated by a nation that is political in its attitude, we have tried to develop within ourselves, despite our inheritance from the past, a belief in our political destiny," he wrote in 1917, in his book ‘Nationalism in India’.
"I am not against one nation in particular but the general idea of all nations," he declared.
"In this, he feels all the satisfaction of moral exaltation and therefore becomes supremely dangerous to humanity. … "By this device, the people who love freedom perpetuate slavery in a large portion of the world with the comfortable feeling of pride of having done their duty", he explains.
He declares, "My conviction is that my country will truly gain their India by fighting against that education that teaches that a country is greater than the ideals of humanity."
In opposing the western model of nationalism, Tagore never fell prey to the contemporary chauvinistic ideas that everything in India was good and it was wrong to point out our failings. He criticized Indian nationalists who were imitating the West to solve problems in India. His tone was similar to what Gandhi was saying: that without removing the ills of Indian society, we could not prepare ourselves for freedom. He very logically pleaded that it was wrong that we only blamed outsiders for our problems and avoided blaming our own system. He critically examined the caste system and said how we could move forward without transcending the rigid boundaries of the caste system.
Tagore cherishes the diversity of India and says, "India is too vast in its areas and too diverse in its races. It is many countries packed in one geographical receptacle."
He says that India tolerated differences between races from the beginning, and India, unlike America and Europe, never exterminated any race. He admires how India has been devising social unity among different people. However, he criticizes caste regulations and says that they accept diversity but reject mutability. He points out how Swiss people can maintain direct democracy because they can sit together, which is impossible in India, where physical hatred is the norm.
Should we discuss Tagore for his being a Nobel laureate or for his being the founder of an institution like Shantiniketan? No, we must discuss him because he is relevant to the current times. His reflections on nationalism, peace, and harmony are more relevant today than they were in the past. The RSS and the BJP are adamant about turning this country into an authoritarian state along the lines of Nazi Germany. It does not believe in diversity and tolerance, which Indian society has been cherishing all through its history.
We must also remember him for his patriotism and his uncompromising stance after the Jallianwala Bagh massacre in Punjab. He surrendered his knighthood and all his honours received from the British just one month after the gory incident. Famous Bangla writer Maitreyi Devi has described his mental state after the incident.
He wrote a strongly worded letter to Viceroy Lord Chelmsford and fearlessly expressed his feelings," The time has come when badges of honour make our shame glaring in their incongruous context of humiliation, and I, for my part, wish to stand, shorn of all special distinctions, by the side of my countrymen."
The massacre was committed on April 13, 1919, and Tagore returned the honour on May 31, 1919. Should we not recall that Veer Savarkar, the revered Hindutva ideologue, wrote a mercy petition just after one year, on March 30, 1920, and did not even refer to the massacre? How can Hindutva supporters accept Tagore?
(The author is a senior journalist. He has experience of working with leading newspapers and electronic media including Deccan Herald, Sunday Guardian, Navbharat Times and Dainik Bhaskar. He writes on politics, society, environment and economy)
