Nationalism Beyond Nations: Tagore's Spiritual Odyssey

Perhaps The most fundamental characteristic of a great mind, or of a genius, is the fact that it is conflict-ridden. This conflict generates a dialectic, an apparent as well as inherent inconsistency between the two constituent, albeit opposing elements of the dialectic. And in Hegelian terms, through the clash between what can be thus viewed thesis and antithesis, emerges a synthesis which is not always and necessarily a resolution, but serves as a sort of calming-phase nonetheless for a thinking mind. Oftentimes that synthesis of thought exemplifies a dazzling, incredibly prophetic insight into the very fabric of common, long-established ways of thinking, ways of perception. Tagore's case offers no exception. A thinker who is widely known as too poetic and emotional to lay down and maintain rigorous, pragmatic system of thought or ratiocination, Tagore is equally perceived as chiefly a non-confrontational person. By this epithet what is meant is that he is largely a saintly personality that ultimately refrains from extended as well as discourteous debates even though at a strictly academic or philosophical level. This is not to argue that he did not oppose a line of thought that he considered non-valid or unreasonable; but to stress the factor of a highly sophisticated, elegant mind as well as sense of courtesy which completely subsumes his character. In fact it is this characteristic taciturn nature of him that has earned him the title of a pacifist, - a designation he never really begrudged. And this very feature of pacifism is something that also exemplifies his political belief-system, a significant component of profound importance if one attempts to approach and understand Rabindranath Tagore in a manner which is not perfunctory. Like any thinker of epochal significance Tagore had had his fair share of the moments of indetermination and a chronic

maturation, but an authentic record of the evolution of his political concepts is beyond the scope of this paper which strives to show a definitive line of thought clearly influencing Tagore's ideas on nationalism. To reiterate a truth about the nature of 'politics' perceived at large, it is something that is not apart from or originates from or is a byproduct of other areas of creativity or belief-system. This is even truer when one considers Tagore whose political thought emanates from and also happens to be a vital part of his overall system of thought, of his conception of how multifaceted a thoughtful life should be. Here it should definitely be remembered that this concept of politics as an inextricable component is not to be confused with the Foucauldian idea of politics as an unavoidable discursive construct beyond or surpassing which it is virtually impossible for a social person to live. Perceived as a discourse politics appears as a malicious if not evil mechanism that continues to define us who have to live within the society, within a space that is multiply de-scribed by an ensemble of signs and codes that are both generated and maintained by our own culture, and yet lies beyond our conscious control. For then it is 'we' which, being a singular, collective entity, become in the process a monolithic object that behave(s) in ways that are hopelessly predetermined. But it is precisely this mechanistic conception of politics that we require to be wary of, and this is where Tagore's thoughts render themselves so immensely contextual. The first thing that ailed him was his observation that in both India and China (he has, time and again, paired these two neighbouring countries, for reasons beyond the scope of this paper) 'society' has been given the authority to dominate subjects even to the extent of silencing 'them' when 'it' feels threatened. Being a thinker who has prioritized the individual over the collective specifically when the later has tried to throttle the aspirations of the former the name

of 'maintaining order and tradition', this reality of a supremely authoritative society always made him conscious of the awful amount of suffocation that the subject, the person as an individual has to undergo as an inevitable outcome. Tagore perceived this 'society', an enormously complex ensemble of cultural mores as well as traditions that dates back to thousands of years in case of countries with elongated histories like our own and China, to be even more powerful than state machinery itself. That indeed is the case since the state as a political symbol or construct happens to be an external structure, an elaborate 'arrangement' imposed from without. And this was being done (or to be done), at least in the case of India, with western nationstates as convenient 'models'. But a society, much harder to 'pinpoint', was naturally much more 'thinned out', diluted, so to say, and is therefore able to spread its authority in a much more effective, if not necessarily a sinister manner. It is an internal construct, as opposed to nation-state, and hence more likely to manipulate the individual. But at the same time, this society, ruthless and severe when it comes to subjective aberrations, could not, after all, indiscriminately cannibalize on its own members since its own survival was reliant upon a mutual relationship. The societal structure was a construct based on interdependence and interconnection: factors which rendered these age-old constructs self-sustaining as well as quietly impervious to forces of external disturbance. In their calm resilience lay their true power. But all this changed dramatically with the arrival of the European forces and the systematic colonization. The social system that once was self-sustaining and, by the same token, closed, could not raise an effective deterrent against external forces it did neither comprehend nor had any idea how to counter. Consequently the system fell back on itself; it had to lose to an extremely mighty and unusual opponent it didn't have any chance of winning against. The result was what can be called an overall state of

disarray in which the social structure itself ruptured in a permanent way, never to roll back to what had been, and all this happened in rapid succession after the European interest started assuming definitive shape; after it was apparent that India, colossal in size though it might be, did not have a central political unit, after it was conclusively realized by the shrewd invaders that the Indian population perceived as a whole did not necessarily share the crucial sense of belongingness which was desperately required to fight against organized external forces, if need be. After that phase that witnessed a veritable collapse of an entire system as well as ways of living that thrived for millennia in a land that had hitherto boasted its fixity , immutability, something was almost irretrievably lost. And this 'something' was of vital importance to Tagore. Even a rudimentary explication of this something would demonstrate the essential difference of Tagore's thought-process vis--vis contemporary thinkers with a much more objective, value-free approach. This quality that permeates all his writings as well as representations is a pervasive sense of spirituality. Tagore's spirituality has nothing whatsoever to do with the sort of institutionalised religion which, he unambiguously understood, had been and still continues to be one of the chiefest maladies tormenting a country with enormous potential like India. In the essay entitled Bharatbarshio Samaj (The Indian Society) he wrote about the element of specificity which separates the concept of 'Indian society' and its people from another 'people' in other part(s) of the world where through continuous struggle for existence those communities have congealed into a 'nation'. Tagore mentions 'nationwide revolutions' as the most compelling factor in effecting that 'grouping together', but in reality what served as the contributing factors might be anything that had its origin in some sort of conflict. An element of conflict, divergence, is of crucial significance because it is this component which allows people to feel themselves as a unified, monolithic whole, sharing

a same location and tradition, as opposed to another people, defined by their separation from the former group. This 'awareness' not only consolidates an identity based on a number of factors starting from spatiality, it simultaneously plants a toxic seed of the feeling of exclusivity, otherness. But in fact the whole construct of the grand ideologue of nationalism, patriotism, is pivoted on the concept of otherness; it's an exclusive discourse, and here this adjective is to be construed as an opposite of 'inclusive'. And as far as the precise issue of this 'selfishness', non-inclusiveness of the concept of nationalism is concerned, Tagore decides to fundamentally differ from other thinkers or theoreticians, even from the overly-enthusiastic Indian freedom fighters who sought to wrench the administrative power from the British through nothing less than a bloody head-on encounter with the British forces. Tagore has never approved of a conflict that requires physical engagement as a way of solution, or violence itself as a mean of attaining resolution. But this principle does not entail nonengagement, nor is it necessarily another version of the Gandhian non-violence. Tagore deeply believed in the perpetual, perennial, ubiquitous presence of a sanctifying, consecrating force that functions as the very governing principle of the entire creation; and that force is a moral force. Tagore's spirituality, a feature of his thought that is perhaps the most distinctive element, has always been at its 'crest' whenever he touches this specific issue of there being an almighty at the helm of everything, and he occasionally refers to 'him' as 'Porompita', the supreme father who, although can be personified, is also pure consciousness, an interminable fountain of pure bliss, pure goodness. This prime originator, despite being the ultimate creator, never intended division, conflict, falsity, deceptiveness, aggression, antagonism and violence among men, the specific concerns that continue to impair the human civilization, affecting the entire planet. This altruistic preconception may sound like impracticable idealism,

but nonetheless it remained a matter of faith with Tagore, and that too to such an extent that it became an abiding reality for him. It should be instructive to clarify how this all-encompassing sense of spirituality finds expression in Tagore's writing on things that are customarily not accorded that specific perspective. In an attempt to explain the 'formation' of nation-state in Europe Tagore describes the process as a 'natural' one in which through centuries of conflict between different ethnic groups there emerged separate interest-groups that later identified themselves as distinct communities, eventually leading toward nationformation. The factor that became the most dominant one was that of uniformity: the forging of a 'nation' had to do away with all vestiges of difference or diversity that there were before, and impose sometimes a forced unanimity in order for the 'nation' to come into existence. That is why, Tagore argues, in places where there were communities that could not be 'brought together' through any 'common ground' like Christianity, entire population(s) had been deracinated to achieve the element of uniformity so crucial for a 'nation'. He cites the example of native Americans or Australians as cases illustrating his contention. It may appear quite surprising to have this much straightforward statement from someone like Tagore but he has oftener than not shown an unanticipated forthrightness while criticising anything that is at variance with his sense of justice or morality. Now this concept of nation which presupposes a forced imposition of unity is, naturally, not only flawed at a fundamental human level; it is also malicious in the sense that its essential spitefulness, aggression is infectious. To Tagore the entire concept of extreme patriotism, absolute, unconditional nationalism had been suspect precisely for this reason. As great as well as noble love for one's motherland happens to be, that

cannot be prioritised over basic moral values that make us human in the first place. He has always maintained the same stance on the question of religion as well. To get back to the issue of nation-formation and the relevance of India, even though Tagore prefers to see the European process as lacking in something as vital as moral justification, he has nonetheless acknowledged that the process has somehow 'clicked', and the 'successful' nation-states of Europe have a regular, functioning system in place that increases among the citizens both productivity and an active will to participate in the affairs of the state. This has happened there because, Tagore argues, in European nation-states the administration itself takes proper care of people's rights, and doesn't allow the arbitrary regulations of the society to dictate and affect the lives of normal citizens.1 Tagore offered an idea here that was indeed quite 'unique' since no eminent, mainstream political thinker was prepared to acknowledge that an institution as dignified, glorious, magnificent, venerable and 'collective' as nation is in fact founded upon coercion, intimidation, compulsion and forced unity. That was as blasphemous as it could possibly get. But Tagore had a specific purpose behind this exposition. What he intended was to explain how and to what extent India is fundamentally different from a classic instance of an European nation, and why precisely it was imprudent to blindly follow the European 'model' of nation-formation while thinking about India. The principle of imposition worked for European societies because there had been much less diversity to oust in the first place. Due to a prolonged history of conflict and war between communities a centralized administration as well as an effective governing system was of crucial importance. Factors other than and less important than survival itself could not be accorded
'Varotborshio Samaj', Atmoshokti, Viswavarati, 1986) 623. Print.
1

Rabindra Rachanabali II (Kolkata:

anything more than a shallow consideration. Naturally when a centralized scheme of organization assumed power in the name of a 'nation', there was virtually nothing that 'society', as a system separate from the 'state', could do. Under such circumstances, Tagore argues, it was relatively much easier to 'forget' about the divisions that once existed among the very people that constituted the nation.1 And ultimately this forgetting facilitated the advancement of the nation enormously. But the history and reality of India are fundamentally different. India, being profoundly religious, had traditionally been a place where people had concentrated more on the afterlife than the life spent on earth. There have been battles, wars, imperial inroads, violent regime-changes, natural disasters, but the core of India had remained largely unchanged with its spiritual sustenance to be derived from countless sacred rites and rituals meticulously governing each step of the life of a human being. This whole setup has equipped the society with enormous amount of power, a power that actively determines the definitive ways a man or woman would behave, controls and supervises the regular lives of ordinary people so that the continuity or stability of the system is never compromised. Although the system, the society has been overly oppressive, extremely insensitive, and sometimes even torturous toward people whose personal interests were severely curtailed for collective interest, this was done for the survival of the system, of a spirit that held a fragile community together. And it is this essential spirit that indeed sustained the community, helped it continue its daily, regular, habitual course amidst even strife, disasters, revolutions, coups, and endless battles, as Tagore has so lyrically expressed it in Swadeshi Samaj.2 Even a
1

'Varotborshio Samaj', 623.

'Swadeshi Samaj',

Atmoshokti, Viswavarati, 1986) 627-629. Print.

2

Rabindra Rachanabali II (Kolkata:

cursory study of this paragraph should reveal that though he considered the lack of complexity apparent in European nationformation a success, simultaneously he reckoned the Indian society to be something that is positive, a constructive agent. It offers nourishment, acts as an unchanging constant in the middle of mighty forces of change that could radically tear down the very fabric of the belief-system people founded their life upon, unsettle as well as deconstruct the very structure of the society. So there was a power-centre other than the state, a centre perhaps even more potent than the state and its administration in its quiet forbearance and continuity that was there to act as a buffer for the general population in times when the state was dysfunctional. What made this seemingly impossible thing possible was the spirit, a pervasive sense of spirituality, something that has institutionalized manifestations in the society, and at the same time transcends any organised limitation. This is an encompassing sense of religiosity which has enabled the greater 'Indian community', including different religions, to live side-by-side without a catastrophic war. This spirituality happens to be the essential cornerstone of the singular character of 'Indianness', a characteristic feature that embraces everything, denies nothing, and through this catholicity is ever enriched, and in the process always enriching others that came into contact with this great civilization. Tagore has been vocal particularly about this catholicity of India, this inherent selflessness, an altruistic ideal that goes back to the Vedic scripts that first declared the entire world, entire humanity to be one large family, and prayed, through its chants, for the well-being of all life-forms, irrespective of whatever differences there may be. Tagore doesn't deny the Europeans their share of healthy diversity, unselfishness, nobility, and virtue; but maintains that this no longer remains the defining feature of a European nation when the national interest is by any way threatened. Then it becomes cruel, unified against a definitive enemy, and

aggressive.1 Great crimes have been and are being committed in the name of the nation when it expresses itself in this way. This is happening because the nation as it is conceived in the European way is devoid of that sense of spirituality which is ultimately a moral, human force. Spirituality for him assumes a certain functionality, its workings and influences being palpable as well as discernible;- and therefore, it cannot be relegated to the realm of pure, impractical ideology. The vastly ancient Indian civilization still stands with a significant amount of the most important lessons to teach, and it is left for the whole world to learn it in order to make it past the present era in which man now has the power to destroy the whole planet earth over and over again. Naturally Tagore, who happened to witness some of the bloodiest carnages of late nineteenth and twentieth century, found the element of aggression and self-centeredness inherent in the European nation-formation to be responsible for all that. He has strongly argued that if in Europe this trend of prioritizing the selfinterest of the state over any other, even moral and human considerations continues unabated, it will definitely spell the ultimate disaster.2 The only way to counteract this dangerous turn of events would be adopting a much broader, liberal, tolerant perspective that would be imbued with a deep dense of respect and love for things animate and inanimate, a sense of awe toward the extremely fragile balance and beauty that nature maintains everywhere, and most importantly, a sense of gratitude just for being alive in this wonderful earth. Spirituality in the broadest sense would imply all this, and would teach the humankind to rise above the narrow boundaries of discrimination, to surpass the limiting prospects of local, restricting interests, to soar beyond borders
Dr. Jibendu Roy, Rabindranather varatbarsha: Kalantor o Onnanno Rochona (Kolkata: Gronthobikash, 1991) 5. Print.
1 2

Rabindranather varatbarsha, 5.

and think of the entire planet as home. Spirituality in its most subjective sense would entail the proper recognition of a man's self in the scheme of things, the crucial role that as an individual s/he has to play for a greater good, serving a collective interest that surpasses all limitations and benefits all. In reality Tagore's spirituality includes all this, and perhaps even more. Even beyond his international dimension of political thought he talks about an immense accountability that as a sentient being we must possess for all things around us. He not only writes about the pitfalls of a political organisation and the ways to remedy it;- in fact he, assuming the appointed role of a profound seer, sees the pitfalls of the human nature itself and the ways to go beyond them. Diganta Bhattacharya diganta.bhat@gmail.com

List of Texts Consulted

1. Rabindra Rachanabali II and XII. Kolkata: Viswavarati, 1986.

2. Roy, Jibendu. Rabindranather varatbarsha: Kalantor o Onnanno Rochona. Kolkata:

Gronthobikash, 1991.

3. Tagore, Rabindranath. Nationalism. New Delhi: Rupa, 2005.