The writer is a journalist in Delhi whose work has appeared in The Christian Science Monitor and The New York Times. He tweets @DilliDurAst
“Nationalism,” Tagore wrote, “is a great menace. It is the particular thing which for years has been at the bottom of India’s troubles.”
He meant this as a reference to nationalism as a driving force behind colonialism. From this, he drew the lesson that nationalism would be disastrous for India. “Our real problem in India is not political. It is social,” he wrote, further qualifying that “This is a condition not only prevailing in India, but among all nations.”
Nationalism for Tagore was a manifestation of the greed of individuals and the nation state should merely be an organising, administrative principle. Nationalism, Tagore said, makes man feel “relieved of the urging of his conscience when he can transfer his responsibility to this machine (nationalism), which is the creation of his intellect and not of his complete moral personality”.
Tagore’s opposition to nationalism drew from colonialism and the First World War, as also from the inherent dangers he saw in the Indian freedom movement. India’s limited achievement but also its big challenge, he said, was to keep “different races” together.
“India has never had a real sense of nationalism,” he wrote about the colonial import. “It is my conviction that my countrymen will truly gain their India by fighting against the education which teaches them that a country is greater than the ideals of humanity.”
Tagore’s complex relationship with nationalism is on account of supporting an anti-colonial movement but opposing nationalism by itself at the same time. He warned Indian nationalists that ‘mere political freedom’ wouldn’t make India free: “When our nationalists talk about ideals, they forget that the basis of nationalism is wanting. The very people who are upholding these ideals are themselves the most conservative in their social practice.” He clarified, “I am not against one nation in particular, but against the general idea of all nations.”
In December 1911, the Indian National Congress approached Tagore to write a poem to welcome King George V. Tagore smartly wrote a five-stanza-long hymn in Sanskritised Bengali addressed not to the King but to God. It was a hymn called “Jana Gana Mana”. In 1950, India adopted the first stanza, set to a martial tune rather than Tagore’s slow music, as the national anthem.
Most educated Indians are aware of another Tagore poem, often taught in schools. “Where the Mind is Without Fear” is the India Tagore imagined. As those who dissent with Indian nationalism, from Kashmir to Koodankulam, are charged with sedition, put in jail and even shot dead in ‘police firing’, I doubt if Tagore would consider India truly free.
“Keep watch, India” he wrote in another poem in Bengali on December 31, 1899, which he later translated as “The Sunset of Century”. He advises India, “Let your crown be of humility, your freedom the freedom of the soul/ Build God’s throne daily upon the ample bareness of your poverty/ And know that what is huge is not great and pride is not everlasting.”
As I read Tagore, I thought of some recent news headlines. In a Mumbai cinema, a woman slapped a man for not standing up for the national anthem in a cinema hall. In doing so, she herself wasn’t standing in attention for the anthem. In Kishtwar in Chenab Valley, some BJP goons took to violence because Muslims shouted slogans asking for freedom from India. In Bihar, the police’s rifles jammed while giving a gun salute to Khudiram Bose, the first Indian to have hurled a bomb at the British.
If Tagore would be unhappy to see today’s India mired in nationalist greed, one thing would make him happy. He is the only poet whose poems have been adopted as the national anthem of two countries. Nationalism demands exclusive loyalty, you can either be Indian or Bangladeshi. When Bangladesh stands up for “Amar Shonar Bangla”, Tagore fails the loyalty test.
Published in The Express Tribune, August 16th, 2013.
Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.
COMMENTS (25)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
@Anand I didn't jump the gun. Unfortunately, my response to Np was not published by ET.
@Np
I was just about to respond @Razi. But you said it for me, almost word by word.
@Razi
May be, you have jumped the gun.
@Razi: Glad to know that you agree with Tagore who questioned nationalism rather than Iqbal who talked about pan Islamic nationalism or Jinnah who propagated the 2 nation theory.
Dear Shivam,
Interesting article. And yes, Tagore remains ever relevant in the South Asian subcontinent, and not least because 2013 marks the 100th anniversary of the award of the Nobel Prize in Literature to him, a significant moment for South Asia and world literature. I think his musings on nationalism are probably his most potent legacy as a serious thinker and activist. You may also like to think about the natural thread which links Tagore to Saadat Hasan Manto, whom I have called Tagore's possible, and worthy, South Asian successor to the Nobel Prize elsewhere. What Tagore explored in his lectures on nationalism and his novels, Manto observed first-hand in the horrific partition of the subcontinent in 1947, and which he commemorated dispassionately in his stories, sketches and essays. While you sought to make sense of Tagore on August 15, I spent the better part of August 14 reading and translating Manto's amazingly prescient love letter to the subcontinental independence, a remarkable essay called 'Youm-e-Istiqlal' (Independence Day) written almost 60 years ago. Here is my imperfect but original translation from the Urdu: http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/08/16/independence-day/
Read and reflect!
Most of the commentators do not have the understanding of Nationalism and Patriotism.Nationalism is a bane..wherever it exists whereas the Patriotism is the real thing.
@kaalchakra: cant be more agree with you.
@Alann: why sir....because they dare to present the negative sides of the country? Remember being an escapist is of no use and it will not change the ground realities.Despite our progress, we still remain a nation of poor, malnutrition, corrupt human beings.Still if you want to behave like an ostrich, you are welcome.
@kaalchakra:
Islam brought to the world the blessings of global brotherhood.
By attacking and conquering lands they spread this brotherhood, right?
@Naveen: You have obviously not read 'Amar Sonar Bangla' in Bengali. It talks about Bengali patriotism not Bengali nationalism.
@Shivam
Excellent article. You are one of my favourite writers on ET. There are obvious reasons why you won't be liked by Indians. You should ignore them and keep writing. Those criticising you really need to read a lot before they can begin to understand where you are coming from.
@Kaalchakra
Well said!
Kudos to woman who slapped to the man for not standing when the anthem was being played. As for the premise of your piece that nationalism is the reason for all our ills........... shows your intellectual laziness.......i would say it is lack of real nationalistic which has destroyed our Nation....if anything most indians lack ownership of their country........how else can you explain great improvement in civic as soon we land in a foreign country...but same is found missing in India.....we have billions of dollars corruption in all spheres of life from defence to Mid meals..... this all shows that current lot of indians are opportunistic including me.We lack and our leaders lack any nationalistic ideals. As some of my other fellow indians have said you probably must re- read Tagore and poems.Everything within limits acts like Medicine so to say that nationalism alone is the reason for all our ills is a little dishonest coming from a activist like you. For some reason if you don't like the India you can relocate or if you don't like constitution you can get elected and rewrite it.If you dont like Nationalism you should go to the moon, that is the only nearest place with no nation states.
Author: If Tagore would be unhappy to see today’s India mired in nationalist greed, one thing would make him happy. He is the only poet whose poems have been adopted as the national anthem of two countries. Nationalism demands exclusive loyalty, you can either be Indian or Bangladeshi. When Bangladesh stands up for “Amar Shonar Bangla”, Tagore fails the loyalty test. How do you know? Tagore died in 1941!
Tagore's views about . He's right when he says that Nationalism creates 'walls' between the larger Humanity. However, It must also be remembered that in hyperdiverse Countries such as India, Nationalism is perhaps the only thing standing against even narrower ideologies such as ethnic parochialism, Sectarianism, Communalism and so on. The cries of being 'Indian First' (in case of Pakistan, being Pakistanis first), do help in calming down the tempers when people of 2 tribes, 2 religions or 2 ethnicities etc. start butchering each other. In other words, While Nationalism in India may very well be creating a wall between 1.2 billion Indians and the rest 6 billion planetizens but at the same time, Nationalism is also bringing down the centuries old walls that 1.2 billion Indians (or some 20 million Pakistanis) have built between themselves.
Given the course of history ( society moving from small tribes to kingdoms to Nation-States), Gandhian view of looking upto Nationalism as a stepping stone to Internationalism seems much more realistic. Infact for all the moralising, Tagore himself was busy writing 'Amar Sonar Bangla' and many other poems to arouse Bengali Nationalism at the time of partition of Bengal.
Tagore was not asked by the congress to write song about King George. Please get your fact right. It was pro-british press of the time who started this rumour. Tagore himself rejected this in numerous letters that he wrote to many people including 1. letter to Pulin Bihari Sen on November 20, 1936, 2. letter to Sudharani Sen on March, 1929. Regarding Tagore's view on nationalism, you have to understand the context of the lecture as well the difference between patriotism and nationalism. Powerful nation states of that time were going to war, occupying territories, and suppressing human rights all in the name of nationalism. In India the call to boycott foreign goods, clothes and ideals were loud. Revival of so called Indian values and rejection of west was synonymous with nationalism. Tagore wanted a progressive liberal society which embraces every good thing from every part of the world. He wanted the nation-state to be the facilitator of the exchange of ideas instead of creating narrow domestic walls of nationalism and racial superiority. To him, India has never been a nation because it has accepted people and their culture from all the world and have created a diverse society with composite culture. To Tagore, building a society with individual liberty and freedom is the primary job of nation and not suppressing it in the name of collectivist idea called nationalism. If a nation attacks other nation with the justification of nationalism, it denies the right of the life of freedom and liberty to the people of the invaded nation. So every patriotic citizen should ensure the freedom of the fellow citizens of the nation and other nations. So to him this patriotism is what is the basis of his anti-colonialism, not the nationalism. That is why he wants the independent India to recognize the freedom of other nations as well as the Indian citizens. That is why he wants the Indian society to evolve and change continuously by accepting new ideas through debate discussion and reasoning. That is why he does not want India to remain stagnant with her so called ancient values, something that Gandhian concept of nationalism advocated on those days.
@ Indain ''But for nationalism, India would have been still under British rule today.''
this is whats wrong with with unquestioned inculcated nationalism . The most imporvished of the British colonies of Africa like Nigeria , Ghana , Rhodesia were independent by the end of of 60s and the officially taught Indian nationalism makes people like you believe that the greatest of all Colonies , the Jewel of the crown , United India still wud have been a british ruled was it not for he struggle of Nationalist parties like congress!! this i am afraid sir is not rational thinking.Mr Vij, please ignore the critics. You have stumbled upon a real gem, and the ever intelligent and astute man, you immediately grasped its meaning.
It pains me to see some people trying to go the way of Indians and promote 'Pakistani nationalism'. Islam brought to the world the blessings of global brotherhood. No narrow walls of base nationalism must divide humanity. Nationalism is fascism. Nationalism is jingoism and war-mongering. Next to idol-worshiping, nationalism is the source of all of today's problems.
one can be soft nationalist as well as being internationalist, it's the nationalist chauvanism of the BJP variety that's the problem. india has been the biggest beneficeiry of internationalism in the world, it has recieved more aid than any one else since independence. i would claim EU the most internationalist, since they give the most aid and accept the most refugees from the third world.
Of all the writers contributing articles on ET, I hate the Indian writers the most. (Only the ones on ET). If I were to say one better thing about Pakistan compared to India, I would point at these self-proclaimed "journalists". They are no better than "defense analysts" like Zaid Hamid.
@Shivam Vij, Please come out of your utopian world. Most of the problems India is facing today because people have no sense of nationalism in them. I, for one, consider such people as fools. But for nationalism, India would have been still under British rule today. It was a nationalist in Gandhi who started mass movement for freedom in India against the British Raj. It was a nationalist in Subhash Chandra Bose who formed Indian National Army (Azad Hind Fauj) abroad and fought against the British forces in WWII. It was a nationalist in Sardar Patel who unified the whole India by merging 565 princely states into a single unit. It was a nationalist in Nehru who ended Zamidari system in India. he most educated people who indulge in corruption today in India are those who are not nationalist. As mentioned by a gentleman above, you ought to read more to catch up. Keep reading and I'm sure before long you'll be able to enlighten yourself.
You probably need some more understanding of Tagore before start quoting him selectively and putting your own biased thoughts in between.
About time we make a separate "nation" where all liberals will be staying with their own fantasies, away from real world problem, assuming things in a hypothetical world.
Please keep reading. You have lot to catch up.