From the beginning of the 20th Century till the beginning of the Swadeshi or Anti-Partition of Bengal Movement Rabindranath Tagore (1861-1941) sought to grapple with the theory of Nationalism and its implications in the Indian context. It is noteworthy that even in his ‘nationalist’ phase, he considered nationalisin as a western import and was not very sure about its success in the Indian soil – which he had always taken as a .civilization dominated by societal values, in contrast with the western civilization whose prime motive force had been political ambition. In the modern days, this urge for political/economic supremacy, according to Tagore, was best expressed in the theory and practice of nationalism. However, he became somehow hopeful after reading Renan’s famous writing on Nationalism, but he remained always doubtful about the usefulness of applying the western kind of nationalism in India. In the following contemporary essays such as ‘Nation Ki? (What is Nation?), ‘Bharatbarshiya Samaj’ (The Indian Society), ‘Prachya o Paschatta Sabhyata’ (The Oriental and the Occidental Civilizations), ‘Naba Barsha?,? (The New Year), ‘Bharatbarsher Itihas’,} (The History of India), ‘Chinemaner Chithi’,4 (The letter of a Chinaman) etc. Tagore evaluated the western notion of nationalism, expressed doubts about it and differentiated the oriental/Indian and the western civilizations. Going through these writings would make one see the difference of his concept of nationalism.
Tagore almost endorsed Renan’s concept of Nation as a ‘spiritual entity’. In this definition, the question of NationNationality-Nationalism is not seen from the point of mundane economic-political self-interest but as an ethical /spiritual bond that exists among a given people without any specific external element like ‘a common ancestry, a common religion, a home and a government’. These are some necessary elements but not sufficient ones. For, nationalism cannot really grow (despite the existence of these elements) without a common heritage, which is to be based on common historical antecedents and a desire 10 live together for fulfilling future ideals.
In ‘Bharatbarshiya Samaj”, he wrote that the ideal of unity in Europe was based on political background whereas the ‘Hindus achieved unity through social organism. The idea of the European nation was a hindrance in the way of merging of an alien race into it. But in the Hindu civilization, despite the separate identities in terms of race, language, religion and customs – the people have learnt to live together in peace and harmony. Here a careful reader must keep. in mind that although the poet used the term? Hindu? in the broadest possible sense, this coinage, however, connotes the influence of rising Indian/Bengali nationalism on him, which was undoubtedly – form/content and leadership wise – a ‘Hindu nationalist’ movement. In this essay Tagore put forward a thesis that would be almost echoed, nearly fifteen years later, in his celebrated book Nationalism, although to drive at different conclusions.
In ‘Chinemaner Chithi’, on the other hand, he quoted with approval from the letters of a Chinaman, living in England for a long time. These letters produced a cultural critique of the West from the Chinese/Oriental civilizational point of view. The poet was rather elated to find his views were almost echoed in these letters. Therefore, in this essay he talked about the civilizational unity and bond that existed between the Indian and the Chinese civilizations, distinguished the basic features of the Asiatic/Oriental from that of the British/Occidental. Another essay in the row, ‘Prachya O Paschatta Sabhyata’ also reflected the same spirit. After pointing out the basic differences in terms of the social ideals of the Indian civilization and the political/national ambition of Europe, he uttered some words of caution for those who in the eagerness of making India a ‘nation’ had begun to emulate some of the negative qualities – such as deliberate falsification of facts; indulging in cunning/corrupt/cruel practices etc. – of the western nations.
In a review article called “Desher Katha,’he only halfheartedly admitted that although we had to form a nation, but that should not be achieved by aping the West. Rather ‘we’ must protect and strengthen our inner essence and must drive back home what (i.e, our intellect and emotions) had been misdirected towards the outside world owing to . (foreign) educational and other situational influences. In all the above essays, he considered ‘Nationalism as a western plant that had been imported in ‘recent history through the modern/British educational and political systems.
II
In the above context, we should read and evaluate the text of ‘Swadeshi Samaj (The Native Community)-which marked the culmination of Tagore’s thought on the question of nationalism/ autonomy in this period. The immediate cause behind it had been the acute crisis of drinkable water in the rural Bengal, the reluctant attitude of the government and the people’s deep anguish over such reluctance. This essay (1904)-read in two largely attended (by the Bengali elites) public meetings in Calcutta-was warmly received by the audience. In fact, the second meeting was arranged, as many persons could not enter into the lecture theatre during the first time. On the second day, he slightly edited the piece and later distributed among friends and relatives a draft of the proposed ‘Constitution of the Samaj along with several dos and don’ts. On the whole, this thesis could be regarded as the height of Tagore’s version of nationalism as it reflected his ‘original’, although utopian, mind. Its central message was: Bengalis/Indians should develop their self/inner strength-Atma Shakti – than depend on the foreign rulers – to fulfill socio-economic cultural needs. Only this could provide the natives with the desired autonomy – material as well as spiritual, and free them from the humiliation of the foreign rule.
Sir Gurudas Banyopadhyay, who attended the first meeting and whom Tagore later named as the Chief of the proposed Samaj, instantly divided the latter’s thesis into three parts: first, regarding self-reliance; secondly, regarding the election of a Samajpati (Chief of the Community) and thirdly, regarding organization of native-fairs to foster fellow-feeling and engage in the. development of the Samaj. However, Arabinda Poddar? has divided Tagore’s main argument into five segments: a) differences between the state-based West and the society-based India; b) the destruction of the traditional Indian society/community under the British rule; c) organization of native-fairs as the platform for intermingling and being. aware of the real condition of the country and the community, d) election of an omnipotent leader of the community and e) development of a parallel community organization at the grass-root level within the State which would gradually weaken the grip of the State. Let us probe these points.
Tagore, as we noted, began with the differences between the Western/British State and the Indian Society. “In our country”, he wrote, “the king was engaged in warfare, protection of his kingdom and the business of adjudication. All the other tasks, from maintenance of education system to that of water system – had been performed by the society in such a manner that despite changes in rule by different dynasties – which flooded our country through centuries – our basic nature (dharma] was not spoilt. Changes in rule did not spoil our society and make us vagabonds… Our kingship was equivalent to what is known as the State/Government in English. But there had been basic differences. Britain has vested all the welfare activities in the hands of the State – whereas India had only partially done so… In Britain, the State is based on the uninterrupted social consent… In our country, the State/Government [Sarkabahadur] was nobody of the Society. It stood outside the Society: ” (Emphasis added.)
Therefore, he argued, whatever we would expect from the State, we would achieve it at the expense of our freedom. Whatever task the Society would entrust on the State, it would make itself unworthy regarding that field of activity. But such worthlessness had never been the characteristic feature of India. Yet at the present moment, the poet lamented, the Indians were eager to handover all the societal duties in the hands of the asocial State. The government had already granted fifty thousand in cash to solve the crisis of drinking water. It might even spent fifty lakhs in the face of a more intense movement. But what would be the ultimate result? The hearty initiative that once used to come from within the Society would be transferred to the foreigners.
And to save the Indian society from its spiritual peril, Tagore put forward a unique programme. He suggested that the national leaders must organize community-fairs in a large scale. These fairs (Mela) had always been the indigenous mode of meeting and exchange – where people participated spontaneously. This traditional space, according to Tagore, must be utilized as a platform for meeting among the urban educated and the simpleton villagers and also as a platform for dialogue between different religious communities. Here the native society, without any links with barren politics, might take into account various problems that the country was facing. And soon social initiatives might crop up in different directions – making these fields free from governmental/political interventions. To bear the costs of organizing such fairs, Tagore suggested arranging various entertainment shows, such as, open space plays or Jatra, Kathakatha (an indigenous mode of reading/reciting/interpreting religious/mythological texts), magic-shows, bioscopes, magiclantern shows etc.
But somebody must take up the initiative to do all these. Here Tagore proposed to elect an omnipotent Samajpati/ Adhinayak (Chief of the Community) who, by dint of his virtues, would personify the spirit of the country and through his vision the countrymen would feel and realize their country, Several leaders, appointed by the Samajpati, would take charge of different departments of work. (Tagore later forwarded a detailed draft of the constitution of the Samaj and the Pallisamaj i.e. the Rural Community) At the first meeting he proposed the name of Sir Gurudas Bandyopadhyay as the Samajpati. After a year, he proposed that two members – one from the Hindu community and other from the Muslim community – should be elected as the Adhinayaks. During the Anti-partition Movement he again proposed that the eminent moderate leader Surendranath Bandyopadhyay be elected as the Chief. Many years later he hoped that Gandhi would be able to take up this challenge. 8 Anyway, led by the able and omnipotent Adhinayak, the primary goal of the patriotic Indians, according to the poet, was to become autonomous in the social fields. The more they gained autonomy, the less they would be dependent on the foreign rulers. And at a certain point of time the imperialist State would be completely redundant.
‘Swadeshi Samaj’ – taken together with the proposed ‘Constitution’ and some supplementary essays – could be regarded as the most original and well thought out (as it offered a programme of action) thesis by Tagore on the questions of nationalism and autonomy (popularly known as Swaraj). Undoubtedly, it was Tagore’s version of nationalism sans political ambition based on social action bypassing/ignoring the State. Apparently Tagore was influenced by the instance of the Armenian Nationalist Party, which had launched a movement that established a “parallel state’ in the remote rural areas and made the Czarist administration virtually ineffective. 9 Sachin Sen, who wrote The Political Philosophy of Rabindranath Tagore in the late 1920’s (which could not be accepted by Tagore himself), also interpreted this essay as a thesis for State within a State’lo. But Tagore was, as we have seen, not interested in creating a Swadesi State in place of a foreign one, rather he wanted to privilege the Society over the State.
Questions were raised – in the past and present – about the practicability and intentions of this thesis. The principles of the essay, which had been so enthusiastically received by the people, were never practised. (Although, later Tagore himself tried to put some of the principles into practice in his zamindari at Birhampur – the police harassed the young protagonists and even put some of them behind the bar and the experiment came to an end.”) Critics like Poddar questioned the thesis of Statewithout-ness inscribed in the essay and Tagore’s apathy for ‘political movement in the face of imperialist oppression. He held – this seems to be Poddar’s central contention12-that such an apathy for politics and his refusal to confront directly with the imperialist state showed that Tagore was a split personality – one of a poet/emancipator: who could not accept the unjust foreign rule and the other that of a landlord: the beneficiary of the Permanent Settlement established by the British Raj. According to him, throughout his life Tagore suffered from this irreconcilable tension.
But Tagore himself seemed to be aware of such criticism. In a brief essay, written three years after ‘Swadesi Samaj”, he made this observation: “… Granted that Swaraj (ie, political autonomy) is our ultimate goal. But it has to start somewhere – at certain moment one has to make it. Swaraj is not a castle in the air, we have to achieve it through a series of action.”13 Thus it would be rather simplistic to assume that he did not approve of anything political. He knew that political power was ‘ultimately’ important only he wanted to lay primary importance on the social and cultural domain. Of course, there was politics behind such ranking hierarchy itself: Society first and then Politics. It might also emanate from Tagore’s class psyche. From this point of view, nothing is outside the politics: even personal is political, 14 – thus the social sphere too cannot stay outside the purview of politics. Any resistance or assertion that involve the application of Power (and Knowledge) at any sphere is politics, according to recent social and political (postmodern) theories. But then both Tagore and his critics had mistaken on one point both had taken only formal State/Party centric activities as politics
However, after a careful study of the text and supplementary writings, one can arrive at the following points. First, ‘Swadesi Samaj privileged Social Community over the National Politics. Or, indirectly, Tagore sought to establish Social Community as the (Indian version of) Nation. But here too, like many of his poems and songs, he had the problems of Bengal in mind’s While talking about the Indian nation. Secondly, although he had aversion for political organization – he blueprinted a very well knit and disciplined social organization, where ordinary members had virtually no rights than to obey the dictates of the Samajpati. It is very surprising that Tagore who, on many occasions, challenged tyranny vehemently (one can refer to plays like Muktadhara or Free Current, Raktakarabi or Red Oleanders and Taser Desh or The Land of Cards or his polemical essay ‘Call of Truth’) – could opt for a Samajpati with so much dictatorial power. Perhaps, he bore the ‘immaculate incorruptible image of an ideal Chief of the Brahmo Samaj, like Maharshi Debendranath Tagore, his father.
An attentive reader may even notice the existence of the common suffix Samaj with both the organizations – ie. the Brahmo and the Swadesi. Moulded in the high spirit of Hindu revivalism (he laid a particular emphasis on the word Brahmanlónot as a caste but as a virtue of Sir Gurudas Bandyopadhyay), the said Samajpati should possess some high moral virtues: Charitraguna. Tagore, it is noteworthy, despite his stanch opposition to tyranny, had always searched for a virtuous leader to rule the social and national life. One can refer to the Indian national anthem that replaced Bankimchandra’s Vandemataram. Written and composed by Tagore this song began with “Janaganamana Adhinayaka Jaya He’ – which literally meant ‘Hail to Thee! Oh, the Commander of the Peoples’ Heart’. At one moment he hoped that Gandhi would emerge as the leader with these qualities. Later he welcomed Subhash Chandra Bose – the dynamic nationalist youth leader from Bengal- as Deshnayal’, Le.. the Commander of the Nation.
One also cannot ignore the point that Tagore, in the proposed Constitution’, favoured a policy of secrecy regarding the net income of the contributors to the fund of the Samaj, i.e. no inquiry should be made to know the net income of the contributors. He also wanted to make the contributory “taxes’, imposed on the members, voluntary. No person would lose his membership. due to non-payment of ‘taxes’. He was also in favour of an equally flexible attitude for the ‘friends of the Samaj’, who. for various reasons, might not enrol themselves as the ‘members’ of it. But why such concessions were made? Perhaps the poet had anticipated that strict rules about contributions and declaration of the income and assets might discourage the prospective members – many of them belonged to the landed gentry – to join the Samaj. Similarly, by allowing the outside .friends’ to join the Samaj.on a specific basis, Tagore allowed the persons, who owing to gratitude/fear for the British could not formally join it.
Notes & References
- Rabindra Rachanavali (here after RR), centenvial volume, Govt. of West Bengal 1961 (1368 BS) Kolkata, Vol. XII pp 1055-61
2 Ibid.pp 1019-26
3 Ibid.pp 1027-34.
4 Ibid.pp 1045-55
5 Ibid.pp 903-05
6 Ibid. pp 683-707. For detailed proceedings of two meetings and also for the proposed ‘Constitution of the Samaj see Ibid. pp 767-778
7 Arabinda Poddar, Rabindranath Rajnaitik Byaktitwn, Uchchav, Calcutta, 1982 pp 107-07.
8 It is a fairly known fact that Tagore was such influenced by the advent of Gandhi that he created the character of an ascetic leader called ‘Dhanajay Bairagi’ modeled on Gandhi, who appeared in two of his plays, Prayaschitia & Muktadhara. Moreover, in his polemical essay: ‘The Call of Truth Tagore mentioned in clear terms that with what expectations and responsibilities Gandhi ‘stood at the door of the destitute millions’. See, Tagore. “The Call of Truth’, in Ronald Duncan (ed), Selected Writings of Mahatma Gandhi, Fontana/Collins, London; 1971, p.109..
9 As mentioned in Poddar, Op. 01. p. 104.
10 Sen Sachin, The Political Thought of Tagore, General Printers and Publishers, Calcutta, 1949, p.168.
11 Poddar, Op. cit. p. 112.
12 Ibid.
13 RR. Vol. XII, p. 791.
14 Any contemporary book on ‘postmodernist politics’ deals with it. See, for example, Alan Finlayson and Jeremy Valentine (ed), politics and Post-structuralism, Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh 2002.
15 Tagore explicitly admitted that for the time being, he was considering the case of Bengal only. See, RR, Vol. XII, p. 695.
16 RR, Vol. XII, p. 771.
17 RR, Vol. XIII, pp 387-90. In the last paragraph of this short essay, written in 1939, Tagore mentioned that long ago (ie. during the lecture on ‘Swadesi Samaj’) he had welcomed in advance the emergence of a future Adhinayak of Bengal. Now (in 1939) he was actually welcoming the Commander (ie. Subhash Bose) of Bengal. 18 RR. Vol. XII, pp. 767-73.
Dr. Sibaji Pratim Basu
Dr. SIBAJI PRATIM BASU is Associate Professor by Political Science at Sree Chaitanya College (West Bengal). For more then two decades, he has also tangent political science post-graduate Departments by various universities in West Bengal. A regular contributor to academic journals books as well as popular dailies, periodicals and news channels he specialises in Modern Indian political thought and politics.