TAGORE, GANDHI AND NATIONALISM

 

Dr. C. R. REDDY

 

YEARS ago I happened to be a guest at a dinner given by some university men in New York, and the conversation turned on the political servitude of India. I argued that the crucifixion of India’s political body had enabled her to discover and develop her soul and evidenced Tagore’s Gitanjali as proof, to which a professor of Philosophy retorted: “That means I have got a sensation because somebody has given me a knock on the head and I gladly resign myself to foreign knocks because of the sensations they evoke.” I replied that the natural gift of Negroes (and our untouchables) for music was probably due to their sufferings, and quoted: “Our sweetest songs are those that tell of saddest thought.” Jesus Christ was a man of sorrows and a nation of sorrows may yet be the source of a gospel of international salvation. It was a few days after this dinner that the award of the Nobel Prize for Literature to Rabindranath Tagore was announced, and I triumphantly pointed to it as a startling justification of my contention.

 

About the year 1908, the chief vogue of Tagore in the Andhra Desa was as the stirring laureate of Indian nationalism. The country can never forget the way in which he inspired and roused us to active patriotism. But the call of the universal was to his sensitive soul a living command; he has since then progressed from Nationalism to Humanity, subordinating all particularisms to the higher Absolute Values, without however impugning their relative and temporary validity. This phase marks his highest reach as poet and seer and has revolutionised the spirit and tone of the best modern Andhra Poetry.

 

Tagore’s powerful condemnation of State as a soulless machine and the patriotism that grounds itself on ‘My country right or wrong’ to the negation of moral ideals, has stirred the conscience of the world, horrified at its own terrible doings in the Great War. His call to regulate life on the principle of humanity has been taken up by Romain Rolland and other Western thinkers. But the subject nations of the East have not found much consolation in that doctrine, since obviously it is only the imperialist nations that could take the initiative and illustrate the new direction. Japan, ever fearful that the fate of the other Oriental nations may yet befall her, and China struggling fitfully for nationhood, have derided it as the philosophy of defeatism. India with her longing for freedom, still feeble and ineffective, has not been able to accept this dispensation. “Religion is not for empty bellies,” said the divine Ramakrishna Paramahamsa. In similar-wise humanitarian ardour is not for slaves, nor internationalism for those who are no nation. The higher should be a synthesis or federation of nationalities and if race and colour barriers are in process of time dissolved, there may be a growth into World State through absorption and assimilation.

 

But have not the Imperialist Powers made a hopeful response to this ideal of human federation? I think they have. The League of Nations is the embodiment, in however feeble aid tentative a form, of this higher spirit of international co-operation. The oldest of the races, India, through the intuition of her imaginative genius, Tagore, invoked the idea, and the youngest of the nations, America, through her President Woodrow Wilson, organised it into institutional shape and potency. What a miracle of ideal co-operation! More than any other poet of the world, Tagore shines forth as the laureate of humanity.

 

It does not mean that he is not a patriot, or that he is one of those artistic or scientific exquisites who profess to be above patriotism chiefly for pleasing the Government, or that he condemns nationalism and the state as evils per se to be destroyed, root and branch. The noble heart that flung his knighthood in contempt back into the hands that gave it to him because they had become blood-stained at Jallianwallah Bagh, the generous soul that more recently emerged from its ecstatic retirement to bemoan the Chittagong happenings and the recent Hijli shootings, cannot for a moment be thought to be a less ardent patriot than Das, Nehru, or Ansari. What he condemns is the claim (alas! widely conceded) of the State to be an end in itself and a law unto itself, in brutal disregard of ethical standards, reducing itself to a non-moral animal impulse. Just as the family has in course of evolution been subordinated to society, and is no longer an interest overriding all other considerations, so must the State be subordinated to humanity. A nation should be just one member in the larger society of the family of nations and the Fatherhood of God must be implemented by the brotherhood of Man. And just as a family must be healthy and efficient in order to subserve successfully social ends, so must each nation be strong and efficient in order to fulfil its humanitarian functions properly. The State should be content to occupy the position of a means to world ends, instead of continuing to be a lawless exhibition of greed and force.

 

Is Gandhian Nationalism any different from this in essence and spirit? It seems to me that the Tagorean mirror contains a faithful reflection of the Gandhian universe, or, to put it differently, in its insistence on Truth and Non-violent, and the subordination of political ends and methods to moral laws, Gandhism may almost be said to be an organised form of Tagorism. India must be free, not that she may thereupon roam about like a beast of prey, but that she may the better subserve human brotherhood and culture. And she must achieve her freedom by means of Truth and Non-violence, historically speaking novelties never before tried; by invoking and never by inflicting suffering; by converting the enemy and getting him to be your friend instead of exterminating him; and melting his heart in the fire of world’s pity and righteousness. And it follows as day the night that freedom thus won is bound to be used for spreading a regime of light and love, and not for perpetuating dark deeds of exploitation. Nor is it only blood that may not be shed. Un-compensated sweat too may not be, and the capitalism that has thriven on the ill-paid sweat of the labouring masses must melt into co-operative effort. In fact even tears are forbidden; for you must undergo your sufferings with a quiet, bravely and cheerfully, like martyrs; then only will its transfigurative efforts be forthcoming.

 

I wonder if Soviet Russia is not in many of its aspects a true answer to Gandhian prayers, the organised and institutionalised form of his social and moral ideals. It is ready to disarm completely; clan is its regulative category, not country; it has abolished the exploitation of the masses; it is a knight-errant ready to march against the many-headed Hydra of imperialism; it is no respecter of race and colour; its patriotism is subordinate to the world-proletariat; and it is universalistic in idea and intention. Only it is not prepared to lose its life by meekly practising non-violence against its enemies, a human weakness which may be forgiven.

 

But Gandhi is for the ascetic life, the life of minimum needs and requirements, since these could be more easily shared equally by all than the life rich in manifold pleasure and satisfactions. The perfect life is the ideal of Tagore, the primitive of Mahatma Gandhi. Community in fasting is more easily secured than community in feasting, and how could a man of heart feast in the midst of so much starvation? Such cultural and aesthetic (in the best sense of the term) life as the world has enjoyed so far has, it must be confessed, rested on the exploitation of the many by the few. Artistic and philosophic Greece rested on slavery, and indeed held that without slavery the best life would not be possible. Religious and philosophic India turned exploitation into its chief Dharma, and fashioned castes as well as outcastes for this purpose. European civilisation has divided society into capital and labour, into classes and masses. Every man of God, unless he be worshipping the Devil under that respectable pseudonym, must revolt against this iniquitous negation of human brotherhood. Gandhi’s revolt, in despair at making all equally rich, would like them to be equally poor in material goods and exalted in spirit. He would have no machinery, no large industry, no palaces, but just neat little cottages and the restless charkha. Tagore’s intuition is the truer and it may yet be realised consistently with the demands of our conscience. Though as history has gone so far the ideal of the full life has not been consistent with the moral ideal of equalitarean co-operation, the great Russian experiment has shown that material prosperity and human equality could go together and that asceticism is not the indispensable basis of socialism. Its new social and economic order, its marvellous powers in education and the broadcasting of the amenities of civilisation, and its five-year plan, demonstrate the possibility of the community’s achievement of the perfect life, where light, love and joy will in widest commonalty be spread. Meanwhile until this divine consummation is reached by the world, Mahatma Gandhi as the great man of action, the reviver and inspirer of our jaded national will, and the organiser of mass action on a scale almost miraculous, will rightly hold the primacy in our affections as well as admiration. He is will; he is action; he is life; and these are more than idea and imagination.

 

I have had the honour of knowing Rabindranath Tagore in person, and can never forget the impression he made during his visit to Mysore in 1918. After completing his tour in South India he told me that nothing healthy could grow under the shadow of our temples. He revealed to us the beauty that Kalidasa and other ancient poets found in the forest where the hermits had their dwellings (tapovanas). South Indian music was an intellectual exercise, barren of heart and soul. The music of Bengal penetrates the heart and quickens the soul. I can confirm the truth of this contrast by personal experience of both. If Bengal has a soul, fiery, reckless, and generous to a fault, part of the explanation may be found in its stirring, emotional music. And Tagore’s creation of the Visva Bharati! What perfect insight does it not show into the nature of university education, which should be research and creation and the development of personality, and not, as the Government Universities are, distributing channels for the scanty, muddy, slow, belated flow of western knowledge and discoveries.

 

Tagore’s name will live as long as humanity lasts. To have been the glory of India is indeed a great triumph; but he is more, he is one of the lights of the world.

 

* From the Golden Book of Tagore. (1941)

 

Back