"What language is thine, O sea?"
"The language of eternal question."
"What language is thy answer, O sky?
"The language of eternal silence."
The subtle Rabindra Nath has a carrasing method to all accusation that he makes.
I am not an avid Rabindranath reader but recently going through his conversations with the Mahatma and the texture of the debate between the two identities of India in the first half of the 20th century I was able to reform a lot of my understanding about the nation and the nation state. I am not certain whether the political Mahatma Gandhi was more a nationalist or a humanitarian, but the literature and ideas of Rabindranath underlines his faith in love and humanism and the value that he endowed to the means over ends.
Characterstically of Gandhi his relations of mutual reverence with Rabindranath were built around differences. When Gandhi wrote to Tagore appealing public support for the non cooperation movement of 1921, Rabindranath contributed with these lines
What power is there in this world to rob me of my freedom? For do not thy arms reach the captive through the dungeon-walls, bringing unfettered release to the soul?
And must I cling to this body in fear of death, as a miser to his barren treasure/ has not this spirit of mine the eternal call to thy feast of everlasting life?Replying to the Mahtma he said "Power in all it's forms is irrational, - it is like the horse that drags the carriage blindfolded. The moral element in it is only represented in the man who drives the horse. Passive resistance is a force which is not necessarily moral in itself; it can be used against truth as well as for it."
Rabindranath sounds relevant in the present context. With the increasing debate over political and apolitical and the inflating confusion over the moral use of passive resistance Rabindranath's ideas demand serious discussion. A lot of our discussion has revolved around the adherence to the Gandhian values in our protest. We are fast reaching a stage where the morality of passive resistance needs a refined debate. Gandhi ji himself in 1948 expressed apprehension about the use of "passive coercion" in an independent India, sadly he could not live long after the Britishers to forge a means of protest against our own government and we have carried on protesting against our government, the way he did against a colonial regime. Gandhi's idea of protest was what he called passive resistance, he used his abilities to mobilise the nation to the best and Tagore commended Gandhi for his capabilities and never doubted his inclinations but repeatedly asked does the end justifies the means?
Tagore was uncertain that the passive resistance which sounds synonymous with non-violence was actually desiccated of anger, he argued that Gandhi utilised anger to channel the passive resistance and asked if anger can be the basis to a non violent movement, even if it is so, satyagrah he said has the potential to"beget evil on the other". While Gandhi and Tagore disagreed on what Swaraj is, they agreed that whatever it is, it has to be a process. Tagore was critical of protest through burning and boycott and called it "anarchy of a mere emptiness." He asked if the students leaving education institutes for no education is the process of swaraj?
Tagore repeatedly stressed upon the spirituality of India, he discarded the existence of an Indian nation state, he said politics can never bind this land and the nation state is a western political idea. His primary disagreement with Gandhi, was in Gandhi's effort at consciously politicising Ahimsaa and Dharma which Tagore believed maligned the two pious ideas. The India that Tagore believed in, is the spiritually strong, Karma oriented India. For him the politics of spiritualism not only trivialised the ideas but undermined the conscience of the country. Surprisingly Tagore even criticized the Swadeshi movement and called it an anti-colonial movement. He stated, "the boycott of Manchester had raised profits of the Bombay mill-owners to a super-foreign degree. This will not do, either; for it is also of the outside. Your main motive is hatred of the foreigner, not love of country." The lover that Tagore was and his views on India made it inevitable that Tagore would remain uninspired by a reactionary nationalism.
While Gandhi once called him an anxious poet, Rabindranath remained steadfastly committed to the Indian philosophies and beliefs "here is India, of about 50 centuries at least, who tried to live peacefully and think deeply, the India devoid of all politics, the India of no nations". Rabindranath apprehended the spiritual politics of Gandhi. He feared that the the politics may corrupt the spirit. whether this happened or not? remains an unanswered question, neither have the Gandhian ideals dwindled from the national consciousness, but the debate that Tagore initiated seems to have died down. Today in an independent India, While Gandhian fast and Satyagrah carry an irrefutable morality, the Rabindranath view of politics and nation are missing from our discourse. Probably the absence of Tagore is what makes Gandhi ever less effective and ever more politicised. India needs to revive the Tagore spirit, in the summers of protests a debate on passive resistance and disobedience is required, the communications between Gandhi and Tagore may well guide the nation. We need to remember and realise that Gandhi framed the appellation "Gurudev" and Tagore prefixed the "Mahatma" before Gandhi.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment