7/19/2019 Tagore on Nationalism: In Conversation with Prof.

Ashis Nandy | Sahapedia

Tagore on Nationalism: In Conversation with Prof. Ashis

Nandy
sahapedia.org/tagore-nationalism-conversation-prof-ashis-nandy

S. Gopalakrishnan interviews Prof. Ashis Nandy on Rabindranath Tagore in 2012

In conversation with Prof. Ashis Nandy

S.Gopalakrishnan: How do you address Tagore’s concept of nationalism which seems

contradictory to many people?

Ashis Nandy: Well, a lot of people look very internally inconsistent. To a lot of people, it will
seem an inner contradiction, as if Tagore did not know his mind because there are
thousands of people who went to jail or marched in demonstrations singing Tagore songs.
He has not only recently written our national anthem, Jana Gana Mana, he has also scored
Vande Mataram. But I want to distinguish between patriotism and nationalism.

Tagore was a patriot. Patriotism means love for one’s country—a sense of territoriality. This
is not only common to humankind. You see it in many species other than the Homo sapiens.
You see it in dogs, cats .You even use it in birds to send messages. At one time, they used
to do that. That is territoriality. Patriotism is a form of territoriality—a certain emotional
attachment to place of one’s birth, the place where you have grown up, place which frames
your earliest memories. Nationalism is different. Nationalism is not a sentiment. It is an
ideology. It is based on the idea of that nation.

Tagore believed that India was a country of communities. It was not a country of a nation. So
trying to build a nation in India was like an attempt to build a navy in Switzerland, that is
what he wrote. Because nation and nationalism presumes that you homogenise the
population. And give them a theory of love of the country which also specified enemies and
friends, allies and detractors. It also presumes that you will give priority to the nation over
everything else. You are first an Indian, then a Hindu. You are first an Indian, then a Muslim
or a Sikh. But then the answer to that is what Khan Wali Khan, Abdul Ghaffar Khan’s son,
said in a Pakistani court. He said, ‘My Lord, I am a Pakistani for 45 years, Muslim for 1400
years and a Pathan for 5000 years’. So he knew that he has multiple selves and some
selves will often have priority over other selves.

Nation claims absolute priority, communities do not. The traditional identity of India does not.
And to that extent, there is an intrinsic incompatibility between the idea of nation and the
Indian concept of self. But then lot of Indians are now urban, westernised, middle class
Indians. And to them, the nation seems an absolute must, a necessary ingredient of

https://www.sahapedia.org/tagore-nationalism-conversation-prof-ashis-nandy 1/8
7/19/2019 Tagore on Nationalism: In Conversation with Prof. Ashis Nandy | Sahapedia

nationalism and nationality which defines a nation-state because what we are trying to run is
a modern nation-state. That is the more modern concept of state that it must be built on
nationality and nationalism and not a nation.

Sometimes states are multinational, in Indian case they don’t want to say that. They claim to
be one nation. And if you object, they say what they say in the case of secularism. They say
our concept of nation is different, our concept of secularism is different, but ultimately in
practice it often boils down to the same thing. And my feeling is this that Tagore’s hostility to
nationalism came from the awareness that the nation state system and the idea of nation
and nationality and nationalism were totally incongruent with Indian self-definition and went
against the basic principle on which the Indic civilization as well as Indian unity as such is
organised. So that is the background of Tagore’s criticism of nationalism. That criticism was
not lightweight. He believed in it strongly.

When he went to Japan, for example, he noticed the delirium of nationality from which they
were suffering and delivered his famous series of lectures there. The result was this that
when he landed in Japan, there were tens of thousands to welcome him. This was soon
after he won the Nobel Prize. He was the first Asian to win the Nobel prize.

And the Japanese covered his visit, the newspapers covered his visit like royal visit. But as
he went on giving his lectures, they were deeply disturbed and hostile. When he left Japan,
there was only one person to see him off, his host. And roughly similar things happened in
China too because these were countries which were like India, experiencing the might of
Europe and they felt that their salvation lay in European style nation-states and that is what
they must have.

But Tagore felt as he spelt out in all his three political novels (Gora [1909]; Ghare
Baire [1916] and Char Adhyay [1934]), that that will be a poisoned victory because in the
course of that victory against West, you have become like the West. You have lost your
culture, you have become deracinated, you have lost yourself actually. And what you will live
with is a pale version of European culture sold to you as a basic ingredient of modernity.
That was his position. And he never deviated from it. All his three political novels in some
way or other bring in the issue of nationalism and violence and in all of them, he is
absolutely clear which side of the fence he stands. There is no way you can whitewash this
and sell him as a nationalist.

And people unconsciously know this. They might not admit it but they know this. Tagore is
the only person in the 350 years of the history of nation-states who has been associated
with four national anthems. Nobody has written more than one national anthem. Tagore is
associated with four. He wrote and scored Jana Gana Mana. He did not write but he scored
Vande Mataram. He did not write but scored the national anthem of Sri Lanka. And he wrote
and scored the national anthem of Bangladesh. This is a record I don’t think will be broken
even in the future of nation states. This is a world record if I may put it that way. And I think
we have reasons to be proud that somehow implicitly it is accepted that Tagore belongs to
no nation. He was an Indian, he was a Bengali, he was a Hindu but he was also a Brahmo,

https://www.sahapedia.org/tagore-nationalism-conversation-prof-ashis-nandy 2/8
7/19/2019 Tagore on Nationalism: In Conversation with Prof. Ashis Nandy | Sahapedia

a reformist sect which borrowed a lot from Islam and Christianity. And in some fundamental
sense, he belongs to everybody. Somehow or other this is accepted in the case of Gandhi
but this is not accepted in the case of Tagore.

S.G.:How do you compare Tagore’s concept of nationalism and his sense of patriotism with
that of Gandhi?

A.N.: Yes, but then Gandhi’s nationalism was not very strong either. In this 90-volume
collected works, there are hardly a dozen or so references in the index to nationalism
though it comes out indirectly in many places but I would suspect that most cases you can
see that he is actually talking about patriotism, not about nationalism as an ideology.

Secondly, I suspect that the Tagore–Gandhi differences have been played up in the 70
years because we want to play up Tagore as a modern Indian. Modern Indians have been
desperately looking for a great hero and not finding anyone, Tagore probably serves that
purpose for them to some extent. Actually, Tagore strange though it might seem to you was
writing about Gandhi even before he had heard of Gandhi, even before Gandhi emerged in
the Indian scene, when Gandhi was an incipient idea. In other sense, he was anticipating
the emergence of somebody like Gandhi in Indian political scene and there is a lovely essay
by the late Sisir Kumar Das, himself a writer and a historian of literature, where he shows
that how Gandhi met this unfulfilled ambition of Tagore, to see in his lifetime, the emergence
of somebody like Gandhi in the Indian public sphere. And Tagore was the one who called
Gandhi ‘Mahatma’ for the first time. Gandhi called him ‘Gurudev’. And Tagore wanted to
leave his alternative university Viswabharati at Santiniketan with Gandhi. He wanted him to
take care of it after his death. Gandhi was younger than Tagore. And I don’t think that is an
accident because even the vision of that alternative university is partly influenced by Gandhi.
Gandhi was trying to practice, atleast play with the same ideas and there was a continuity
between Gandhi’s Nai Talim and Tagore’s Visvabharati.

S.G.: You mentioned Tagore’s visits to Japan and the Far East. Can it be argued that Tagore
was more Asian than Gandhi as the latter drew upon a lot of Western ( or, European)
philosophy in his thought?

A.N: Yes, Tagore was probably, you are right, more consciously Asian. He was deeply
perturbed that the pre-colonial ties with India’s neighbours that had existed for centuries had
collapsed. That even if we have to dialogue with your neighbours, you have to go through
the western university system, a western language and western mediation and that he
considered a real loss. And in Santiniketan, he tried to take care of that and India’s first
department of Chinese Studies was established there. It is true. His dance bears the imprint
of Sri Lankan dances .

But the fact remains that Gandhi also was not entirely a product of India. He was a product
of India and Africa. His most formative years, he spent in South Africa. Satyagraha emerged
in a racist country. Many people believe that satyagraha could have only emerged under a
liberal dispensation, only under British rule. That is not true. It was tried out in a country
which was openly racist and was a police state in every sense. In that sense, Gandhi also

https://www.sahapedia.org/tagore-nationalism-conversation-prof-ashis-nandy 3/8
7/19/2019 Tagore on Nationalism: In Conversation with Prof. Ashis Nandy | Sahapedia

had his exposure to different kinds of cultural plurality. And if you read accounts of Gandhi in
South Africa, you have no reason to feel ashamed as an Indian because there is no touch of
racism in him. Indeed, Nelson Mandela has said that you sent us a barrister, we sent back a
saint to you. And it is also true that the three greatest Gandhians at this moment, none is an
Indian. None is an Indian, no one is a Hindu either or a Jain. Aung San Suu Kyi, Nelson
Mandela and the Dalai Lama. And I think it also talks of a different kind of cross cultural
sensitivity. Both of them in some sense thought not of only of India but you might say that
they tried to envision a world where India will have its rightful place but every society, every
culture and every civilisation will also have its rightful place. There will be no hierarchy
amongst civilisations and cultures. That was their attempt.

Within that, I think Tagore by his upbringing was perhaps more sanitised in the sense that he
lived a sanitised life. That was his background and by his vocation too, (there was a) slight
distance or isolation from the heat and dust of the Indian village. He talked of the village, he
talked of rurality but his touch with the reality of Indian village, with the destitution and
poverty that had begun to enter Indian villages was perhaps weaker than Gandhi’s.

Gandhi was after all a mass politician. Let us not forget that part of the story. Gandhi also
came from a background in some ways similar to Tagore. If you look at his backgrounds, his
education, he was not from village India. He encountered Indian village in his middle years.
Tagore atleast had encountered the village early in his life through his zamindari in what is
now Bangladesh.

Gandhi encountered it later because for his education he went to Indian cities and then to
the West, went to London. But both retained the capacity to use the Indian village as a
component of their utopias—as a corrective to the excesses of the Indian urban imagination
which had no place any more for a village. Traditional Indian cities and villages were
complementary to each other. The colonial city was in negation of the village. And the village
to them seemed a negation of the colonial city, to these urbane Indians. Both fought against
them, both knew that you have to build into, build the Indian village in your vision of a good
society. Not to turn India into a village utopia but atleast as a living standing criticism of
some elements of urban life and as a corrective to its excesses.

They were the first theorists. Both of them were the first theorists of the city as well as the
city’s relationship with the village.

S.G.:How does one look at the inter-relationship of Tagore, Tolstoy and Gandhi? Can it be
seen as a triangle constituting a universal point of view?

A.N.:It is not really a triangle. It is an attempt in both of them to keep in touch with the other
self of Europe. Gandhi even more so than Tagore, because Gandhi was fighting Europe,
Gandhi was fighting the West in the form of an imperial power on the ground. And he
thought a necessary part of non-violent struggle was that he had to keep in touch with
western dissenters who negated the stereotyped concept of the West in many Indians as an
oppressive power only. Western civilisation also has its other self which it has abrogated
and now claims to have superseded. Tolstoy represented that best. So did number of others.

https://www.sahapedia.org/tagore-nationalism-conversation-prof-ashis-nandy 4/8
7/19/2019 Tagore on Nationalism: In Conversation with Prof. Ashis Nandy | Sahapedia

The west doesn’t end with the enlightenment and the positivist part of the Greek civilisation.
It also had Pythagoras, starting from Pythagoras all the way down to people like Blake and
others who took a position against urban industrial civilisation. A robust criticism of the kind
which Gandhi was looking for and so was Tagore.

If you read his last book of Tagore, he clearly had travelled a long way towards the
Gandhian critique of the West. He says in great sadness that one time I thought the new
world civilisation will perhaps begin to take shape in the West. Now I believe that that is not
possible. Just in the beginnings of the second World War II by that time. So I think instead of
looking at this relationship between Gandhi and Tagore as the meeting point of two radically
different kinds of public awareness I would say perhaps everything said, it is an attempt to
displace Gandhi as a relevant public figure in globalising India and have relatively more
apolitical, more manageable person in Tagore. Gandhi has already been shelfed and the
technology has been to call him a saint and to put him on a pedestal claiming that this is a
height of saintliness and ethics that we cannot approximate and which has no place in
contemporary statecraft. That is why the great Gandhians are now outside India. They did
not give up their faith in Gandhi.

S.G.: How far was Tagore connected with the Muslim masses?

A.N.: His zamindari was East Bengal. So he must have been in touch with the Muslim
masses but how deep was the touch I cannot say and I don’t believe that it was very deep. It
was not perhaps as deep as many like to believe. But with the Muslim middle class yes,
because he was a writer, everything said, and he was in touch with it and you cannot avoid,
majority of Bengalis are Muslims.

And his family also were heavily exposed to Islam. It is not that, he had that kind of family
background if you look at it.

S.G.: It is said that Gandhi claimed the Pathans were very brave persons. What is your
comment on it?

A.N.: He has said this in many ways earlier that the Pathans were the best satyagrahis in
India too because the British particularly treated them very nastily because they had fought
four Afghan wars. But not one Pathan picked up a stick.

Apart from that, the first announcement of militant non-violence, that is the way to translate
satyagraha, I believe, in South Africa, was made by a Muslim friend of Gandhi. Then they
were a triumvirate. It was first published by a Muslim editor. Of the triumvirate, two were
Muslims, one was a Hindu.

So there was this linkage from the beginning and even in Tagore . I don’t think his
experience did not encompass Islam. In a meaningful way, it did. It cannot. Otherwise
nobody can claim like Tagore and Gandhi both did—that Indian unity is not built on the

https://www.sahapedia.org/tagore-nationalism-conversation-prof-ashis-nandy 5/8
7/19/2019 Tagore on Nationalism: In Conversation with Prof. Ashis Nandy | Sahapedia

Vedas and the Upanishads. It is built on the medieval sants and their kind of spirituality
because the medieval sants had ambiguous religious as well as sect identities and India has
thrived on those ambiguities. That has been its traditional cultural strength.

In fact, I would say that this is the way it has been in a large part of Asia and Africa, from
Japan all the way to the west coast of Africa, that you can have more than one religion, you
can have porous boundaries of faiths, you can share places of worship, rituals and customs
with other faiths, other sects and so on and so forth.

S.G.:How do you see the famous Tagore’s rejoinder to Gandhi’s comment on the
earthquake ? Gandhi attributed the 1934 Bihar-Nepal earthquake to untouchability which led
to a public debate with Tagore.

A.N.:Yes, many people asked me that question and I think no easy answer is possible. At
one plane, both of them differed radically on that issue. At another plane, Tagore
underestimated Gandhi’s philosophical position. Gandhi was looking most probably for
something like a collective karma which he believed determined the faith of communities,
cultures and civilisations. A bit like Simone Weil, as the late Ramchandra Gandhi pointed
out to me. There are similarities in that search.

It was not a lightweight search and it cannot be dismissed by saying that he was trying to
promote superstitions and supporting the caste system.

It will be a pity if we underestimate the nature of Gandhi’s quest. I think he was serious in his
quest for a spiritual position as well as a political position which will be mutually potentiating
and uphold the concept of ethics in politics which you would not find in contemporary
cultures or politics. Certainly not within the enlightened vision of a good society. Because
enlightened vision has no strong theory of non-violence. It has a theory of containment of
violence but not non-violence.

So there is a vested interest both in nature and a non-Homocentric view of the universe.
Because there is no guarantee that in next birth you will be born as a human being. You can
be born as a lowly insect.

S.G.:How did Gandhi and Tagore engage with the question of ‘modernity’ and ‘tradition’ ?
Can it be argued that Gandhi’s relation with Tagore have been otherwise ignored due to the
afore-mentioned public debate between them?

A.N.: Yes, that is my feeling, i.e., the real connect between the two have been missed
because Gandhi was a celebration of an ordinary Indian living his ordinary life and trying to
capture the magic of that ordinariness. That was his starting point. Tagore’s starting point
was, I would say, the human potentialities inherent in this civilisation and how it could
actualise it—try and win over its political plight as a colonial subject nation at that point of
time. So I think the starting points are different but the deeper connection was much
stronger than people believe. And I suspect this is because they were both open to the
native genius of what you might call Indian interpreters of the world as it lived in the hearts

https://www.sahapedia.org/tagore-nationalism-conversation-prof-ashis-nandy 6/8
7/19/2019 Tagore on Nationalism: In Conversation with Prof. Ashis Nandy | Sahapedia

of people. That is why both of them did not locate Indian unity in the Vedas and the
Upanishads. Both of them located it in medieval India, which contrary to the European belief
and contrary to the belief of modern Indians who used the term medieval glibly and
indiscriminately, medieval India was the golden age of India. Our finest music, poetry and
spiritual quests have their beginnings in medieval India. And there is nothing like the Dark
Ages of Europe in medieval India. We have reasons to be proud of our medievalism.

S.G.:When it comes to the education and philosophy of Tagore, one may cite the example of
how he sent one person to Kerala to learn Kathakali and the way he took Kathakali to
Santiniketan not as an art form but as a tool for education. Again, such an example
demonstrates that he took the best from all over the continent—the art forms, the music—for
educating the masses for the new generation as preparatory tools.

A.N.:I would avoid the expression ‘the best from everywhere’. That is what the politicians
say when they introduce Tagore while inaugurating a seminar. We don’t have to go by that.
Both Tagore and Gandhi has very—I won’t say clear-cut—but very well developed visions of
what a good society should be like and whatever they thought was congruent with that
vision, they took it, not the best. Tagore never tried to introduce the ballad into India or never
tried to write an opera. And though he would have agreed probably that Shakespeare was a
great poet, I do not see much significance being given to the works of best in the world. I
see more significance being given to bring in and deepen the knowledge of India’s
neighbouring countries, deepen the knowledge of all kinds of art forms which are culturally
very typical, which have the capacity of telling something to the audience without
expenditure of too many words.

Amongst the dance forms, Kathakali’s richness perhaps lies in its capacity to be a narrative
also. So he had readied for that kind of a thing because he wrote verse-plays himself and
when he wrote his verse-plays, the idea was to carry his words forward. There is no reason
why should he. I mean that was also what he thought about his music and I thought he was
wrong there. He should have allowed more freedom to performers. That would have
enriched music. He was afraid that they will not be able to convey the significance of the
words if they were allowed to play with the composition. But I can see why he said that. I
can understand why he was saying that. I may not agree with him. That is different.

S.G.: Is it because of Tagore’s contribution to Bengali literature that he is ‘owned’ by the

Bengali community? Gandhi’s creative expression has been through political activism. Can
this be a possible reason as to why Gandhi is not ‘owned’ by Gujaratis?

A.N.: I was not really talking of really ‘owning’ Tagore. I used probably the wrong word. I
would like to say that Bengali possessiveness about Tagore which didn’t allow them to look
at Tagore through the eyes of others.

I think Gujarati identity is less dependent on Gandhi than Bengali identity is dependent on
Tagore and that is why they have to be possessive about him. That is the real answer.

https://www.sahapedia.org/tagore-nationalism-conversation-prof-ashis-nandy 7/8
7/19/2019 Tagore on Nationalism: In Conversation with Prof. Ashis Nandy | Sahapedia

The Bengali middle class is very heavily dependent on Bengali language itself. Gujarati
language is not that central to Gujarati culture. There are other cultural pillars to strengthen
this edifice called Gujarati culture—Gujarati public sphere. The Bengalis depend much more
on language, language and what we will call high culture and hence the possessiveness
about Tagore.

S.G.: Can the iconic image of Tagore be compared to the iconic image of Sree Narayana
Guru of the Ezhavan community in Kerala?

A.N.:Yes, but that community needed him also. Don’t forget that. I mean this is not a
possessiveness which you can control really speaking, the community needed the person in
that particular. I am associated with some of these people who are keen to organise
occasional festivals around Narayan Guru and so forth and I do read their writings also to
the extent I can. That is a different kind of possessiveness. It is a bit like the Mahars feel
possessive about Ambedkar because Ambedkar was a Mahar leader till quite recently. He
has become a pan-Indian Dalit leader really speaking more recently than many people think.

I think there is something else in the Bengali possessiveness about Tagore which is, for
example, obvious in the way his copyright was extended, the way you have to take
clearance from Visvabharati for performing his music or using it in a film and so on and so
forth. I found that after a point rather odious. I think in matters of creativity, bad
interpretations, bad performances should be judged by the audience who buy tickets for the
performances or buy the records and the CDs. That is the best way to decide these things
and however much you might push your line, nobody is going to be bound by that. and that
is what exactly has happened. Tagore himself gave permission to some selected people to
sing his songs anywhere they liked, like Dilip Kumar Rai. He gave permission to Pankaj
Mullick to score a poem of his. If he could do that in his lifetime, after his death I think you
should give permission to a large number of people to do such experiments.

https://www.sahapedia.org/tagore-nationalism-conversation-prof-ashis-nandy 8/8