This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Ranajit Guha, in a recent lecture on world-history and historiography makes the claim that it is by “climbing on the back of philosophy” that world-history has established its moral transcendence over the local and the merely political. In this triangulated adjudication of the relative valences of politics, world-history, and philosophy, philosophy could either be celebrated for its sublime ability to create possibilities of transcendence in the absence of real conditions for such possibilities; or it could be summarily critiqued and condemned for inculcating false consciousness in the name of a spurious transcendence. So, what exactly does philosophy do, and how is the interventionary agenda of philosophy preset by its generic determination? What is the relationship among history, politics, ethics, and philosophy? Is this relationship hierarchically subsumptive, synchronic, concentric, intersecting and overlapping, contradictory, organic, strategic and opportunistic? It is with these questions in the back of my mind that I wish to analyze the momentous debates between Mohandas Gandhi, the Mahatma and father of the nation, and Rabindranath Tagore, the Poet, Gurudev, and visionary concerning the politics of swaraj, the non-cooperation movement, and finally, the nature of freedom, reason, and the human being. Of particular importance to me is the manner in which Gandhi and Tagore anchor their arguments and positions in the idea of “reason” that each of them conceives differently, and derives from different sources and for different ends. But before I get into the debates proper, I would like to offer a few general comments about the categories that constitute their mutual agreements and disagreements. One of Gayatri Spivak’s recent books has the following phrase in its title: “postcolonial reason.” So, how many reasons are there and in how many worlds? What is the connection between the worlding of each of these worlds and the evolution of its attendant reason? In the phrase, “postcolonial reason,” is reason a practice, an activity, a perspective, a micrological procedure in search of its proper macrology? How polemically instrumental is reason in its postcolonial formation, and how does such a polemic invoke and encounter the polemical situatedness of other reasons such as “colonial” and “imperial” reasons? Within the epistemic jurisdiction of reason in the post-colony, how is the En Soi of reason articulated with its Pour soi? Is postcolonial reason experienced and “cogitated” as a break from colonial reason; and if so, where was the break validated initially: in the pure realm of reason itself, or in those drastically changed historical conditions that warranted a break in the superstructural realm of reason? In the break between the colonial and the post-colonial, how is the potential
universality of reason maintained under erasure? I focus on the historical vicissitudes of reason in the context of colonialism and postcoloniality for the obvious “reason” that the debates between Gandhi and Tagore take place in the context of decolonization: in particular, the choice of reasonable strategies for India’s decolonization and its emergence as a free post-colonial nation. Equally at stake is the status of philosophy as discourse. In his essay, Ranajit Guha focuses on the ways in which western, and in particular Hegelian philosophy, creates an illusion called world-history in the name of occidental dominance. It is in the realm of philosophy that the horrors of political realities are laundered and renamed as the imperatives of world-history. Are all philosophies condemned to behave thus as accomplices to regimes of dominance, or is this tendency specific to the West poised towards world domination? The invocation of the “world” as spirit, whether or not in an explicitly Hegelian mode, in conjunction with “history” produces an imperative: the imperative that there can only be one true history on behalf of one world. It becomes the burden of philosophy, as a form of higher transcendent truth, to validate and justify this alignment, achieved via political dominance and economic exploitation, between history and the world. The worlding of the world through many different flows and in many different directions is highjacked in the name of dominant historiography towards a single telos that philosophy anoints as the end point of all humanity. There is then a deep traditional complicity between the historical empire building and colonizing of the West and its philosophy. The higher truth of philosophy, rather than question or problematize the historico-political adventure in the form of a critique, in fact fabricates an allegorical alibi, or “sublates” a la Hegel , for the vicious and politically fraught local processes of dominance, oppression, and exploitation. If the “world” is to persist as an epistemological/disciplinary object as well as a worthwhile horizon for all human thought, then it becomes important to think of the world perspectivally, rather than concede that the world has already been realized as “one” within the philosophy authorized by the dominant discourse, be it western, imperialist, neocolonialist, patriarchal, capitalist etc. As Ashis Nandy points out memorably in his essay on Third World Utopia, the difference between dominant and subaltern modes of imagining Utopia is that the latter openly acknowledges and assumes accountability for its perspectival investment in the concept of Utopia. In other words, the philosophical contents of such a Utopia would be projections from the perspective of a certain historico-political situatedness in the world, and that even as Utopian projections, they would carry all the markings of such a situatedness. The Utopian dream, in other words, will not and ought not to function as an allegorical or philosophical exorcism of its historico-political rootedness in a certain context. The reasonable-ness of the Utopian blueprint cannot be transcendent of the ethico-political authority of the flawed and contingent perspective that initiated in the Utopian process in the first place. To put it in the context of my current endeavor, how is the “world” that figures in Gandhi’s political discourse and Tagore’s philosophico-poetic discourse different from the “world” in a Hegelian phenomenology? How is Gandhi’s world cathected by his ethico-political Reason, and Tagore’s by his philosophical Reason? What is the relationship in their thinking between epistemology and politics, between subject formation and agency formation?
An easy way to get into the Tagore-Gandhi debates would be by way of the standard opposition between practical and pure reason, between means and ends, and between reason as strategic-opportunist and reason as necessary. I do intend to tap into these canonical forms of opposition later in my essay; but now I would like to introduce, in broad strokes, the historical context of the debates. First and foremost, there was the burning question of India’s decolonization and independence from British colonial rule. Swaraj had to be given a specific content, and there was the equally important issue of elaborating the methodology that would take India towards its goal. Second, there was the challenge of articulating a persuasive pedagogical relationship between the Indian masses and the leaders of the independence movement. Thirdly, there was the question of India’s relationship to the West and the rest of the world: how such a relationship could be anticipated in the context of the movement towards decolonization. Fourthly, “education” emerges as a major motif in these discussions: should the syllabus be practical or theoretical, generalist or specialist, indigenous or cosmopolitan, indo-centric or of the world, anti-western or inclusive of the west with a certain caveat? Fifthly, was nationalism a good phenomenon or bad? Is Gandhi’s non-cooperation movement fuelled entirely by critical anti-colonial negativity, rather than by its own affirmative energy? How should the immediate and urgent political context be thought through with reference to the long haul? How is the long haul to be recognized in the contours of present practices and their pragmatic imperatives? How is Reason to be identified both as a demystification of extant ignorance and the producer of new knowledges and affirmations? What is the constitutive connection between “Truth” as in satyameva jayathe and its “producability” by Reason? How is Tagore’s celebration of Truth as Cosmic and cosmopolitan different from the Truth that Gandhi was after by way of askesis, the “story of his experiments with Truth?” In the context of decolonization, how should the Indian subject forge a relationship between critical nay-saying and joyful ayesaying? What role does nationalism play in the evolution of the boundless human spirit? What can India teach the world, and what can it learn from the world? And finally, how can India be the world and the Indian human being realized as the human in general? I begin the essay with a statement that Gandhi makes in a letter that he writes to the Gurudev in April 1919, soliciting a message in the context of the national struggle. “The forces arrayed against me are, as you know, enormous. I do not dread them, for I have an unquenchable belief that they are supporting untruth and that if we have sufficient faith in truth, it will enable us to overpower the former. But all forces work through human agency. I am therefore anxious to gather round this mighty struggle the ennobling assistance of those who approve it.” I begin with this quotation to make the following points. Gandhi captures the situation both agonistically and antagonistically. Truth “is,” but the historical way to the truth is by way of a struggle: struggle against the forces of untruth. Gandhi’s conviction is two-directional: convinced that he is in the true and the forces arrayed against him are captive to untruth. Truth becomes the function of an uncompromising ethical unilateralism, and in this context, “faith” takes on a curious epistemological role. Truth preexists as an a priori, but it needs to be jumpstarted and motored by “our faith,” for only then will it work instrumentally on our behalf and “overpower” the enemies. The important lesson is that truth as an a priori has to be put to work perspectivally, i.e., in a force field where conflicting forces are at work
one’s truth as “the truth. Tagore outlaws power as such from the domain of rationality. Both Tagore and Gandhi concur in their insistence that human agency is crucial to the correct harnessing of power. The irrational is likened to a horse that drags the carriage blind-folded. Passive resistance is a force which is not necessarily moral in itself: it can be used against truth as well as for it. Human agency is the contingent but unavoidable executor of a higher truth. or a Foucauldian who would disallow the uncoupling of the will to truth from the will to power. The danger inherent in all force grows stronger when it is likely to gain success. and the human subject. Unlike a dialectician. except as an . of Truth. that have somehow found historical human sponsorship and endorsement? How will the temporality of the one Truth vanquish and demystify the regimes of “illusory truths?” Tagore’s thoughts on the matter. but an ontology that requires for its Pour Soi the agency of the human. such as Colonialism. Imperialism. Refusing to make any opportunistic distinction between those forms of power that are good and empowering and those that are bad and corrupting. Using the all too familiar example of the horse carriage and the human driver (there is the other famous example of the carriage driven by the 5 indhriyas (sense organs) that would run amok but for the human mind in control of the carriage: a hierarchical dispensation that reads the mind as more authentically representative of the human than the sense organs). why is it that the moral sense in and by itself cannot direct and motor the carriage? What is the implication of the directionmotor split or division of labor? Are power and irrationality coextensive and consubstantial? If Reason is the opposite of the irrational. Apartheid etc. Mohandas Gandhi will not allow the “the truth of the Truth” to implode into the perspectival truth of human agency. So.” We can see where Gandhi’s and Tagore’s formulations intersect. Tagore relegates or downgrades “power” into a necessary evil that nevertheless needs to be controlled by the human moral sense.” This postulation raises interesting questions about the epistemology of truth and the ontology of the human condition or perspective that is the partisan bearer of the truth. it is like the horse that drags the carriage blind-folded.contending and battling against one another. Unlike a dialectical or historical materialist who would be concerned with the recognition of an emancipatory teleology in the history of the present. morality. and if power and the irrational are either synonymous or reciprocally entailed. What Tagore has in mind is not a Foucauldian notion of power that is constitutive of truth and knowledge but rather an instrumental phenomenon hat requires the externality of “agency” to avoid a fatal blind-foldedness. There is the unmistakable reference to human agency and its indispensability for the historicizing. The question of course then arises: What makes them hold on to their untruth as though it were the Truth? How will the one common human Truth emerge from the many untruths. for then it becomes temptation. then is Reason powerless. Hegelian or Marxist. perhaps incommensurability. but such a transcendence will have to be worked out through a perspectival antagonism. Tagore’s invocation of rationality in this passage is compelling. but they anchor it differently. The moral element in it is only represented in the man who drives the horse. the a posteriori unpacking. Truth will triumph transperspectivally. in agreement as well as in discord. run thus: “Power in all its forms is irrational. Gandhi is committed to Truth as an absolute ontology. as conveyed in a letter that he writes to the Mahatma on the eve of the gruesome Jallianwalabagh massacre. Tagore makes an implicit but all important connection among rationality.
in Tagore’s reading. success functions like a currency. whose virtue or probity is unexceptionable. and not Narayansena.” that some thing is worth doing precisely and exclusively because it ensures “success. In other words. The moral here is that if anything is worthy of human valorization. that failure does not deprive it of its dignity and worth. I will begin with Tagore’s philosophical objections to Gandhi’s program of action and then analyze Gandhi’s sharp polemical rejoinder to Tagore’s critique. like the logic of monetization that usurps the place of what a moralist would call “intrinsic value. and here I use the term “philosophical” to characterize Tagore’s discourse and “polemical” in Gandhi’s context with my own polemical intention: to understand why. without the invasiveness of didacticism and the opportunistic power that such a didacticism has to employ. and this is what Gandhi calls “temptation” and “habit. that will vanish leaving no stain on the radiance of the . passive resistance is not exempt either from a moral or an epistemological blindness.” Tagore goes on thus. from the muddy level of physical conflict to the higher moral attitude. And she is to raise the history of man. an irresistible stimulus. As a procedural use of force power. he is also making the symptomatic reading that all practices of power are necessarily equivocal. It would appear that Tagore is seeking an apodictic validation of Truth in the human mind. and ideologically in the semantics of the enemy. passive resistance is equivocal vis a vis Truth.the power of soul and not that of muscle. A strong corollary to Tagore’s absolute criticism of Power in all its forms is his negative attitude to success. but in Tagore’s reading. and polemics acquires the ability to fashion an entire worldview. and ergo ex officio directs and “unblinds” all forces of power? Tagore is clearly invested in a necessary as against a contingent or merely opportunistic or strategic notion of “the moral”: he is looking for the “moral in itself” over and above the determinations of specific historical deployments of force or power. passivity in and of itself does not constitute either a higher moral or epistemological ground. As Tagore himself puts it: “We must know that moral conquest does not consist in success. how. is not moral in itself. Gandhi may well have a point in claiming that passive resistance as modus operandi does not partake substantively.” then such a logic is doomed to forever fall short of a Truth that is independent of winning and losing. and the differences between the two thinkers in the context of India’s opposition to colonial domination. He sees success as an immoral seduction that turns force into a temptation.ahistorical and perhaps immaculate category? Is the moral sense that categorical imperative that stands in for Reason. like money. What is swaraj! It is maya.” With this background I would now like to focus on the themes of non-cooperation and satyagraha. qualitatively. it is like a mist. The destiny of India has chosen for its ally. When Tagore adjudicates that even the Mahatma’s passive resistance. I will have more to say about this when I discuss the role of positivity and negativity in Gandhi’s and Tagore’s thought.” If the logic simply were. and when philosophy becomes polemics. such a valorization should have nothing to do with success. Now to Tagore: commenting appreciatively on Gandhi’s resolve and ability to galvanize “the immense power of the meek” to remedy the “insulted humanity of India. To put it somewhat cryptically. Narayan.
with lighted torches.-these organizations of National Egoism. When we borrow this word from other people.Eternal.” To put this in the context of my initial question concerning the relationship of philosophy to history: is Tagore suggesting that all historico-political conceptions of “the self” tout court unreal when compared to the eternal truths of spirituality. and between such a dependence and “our true nature.e. the armed. Tagore is aligning the “truly real” with epistemological monism and political realities with historical opportunism that is illusion. the whole castle of the Giant Flesh will vanish in the void. “on the phrases we learnt from the West. According to this reading. the wealthy. Having agreed with Gandhi on some of the essentials. The butterfly will have to be persuaded that the freedom of the sky is of higher value than the shelter of the cocoon. In invoking the Eternal in opposition to the merely temporal (and his invocation is reminiscent of the manner in which Shelley “eternalizes” the memory of Keats in his elegy Adonais). heteronomous. Tagore here is taking recourse to Sankara’s Advaita or monism when he introduces the concept of maya into the discussion. it would be okay precisely because of its irrelevance to Gandhian thought. ragamuffins of the East. Tagore strikes at the heart of the Gandhian thesis when he asserts that the swa in the concept swaraj is a meretricious. We are to emancipate Man from the meshes that he himself has woven around him. I have seen the West. the famished. if Tagore were doing nothing more than instantiating the otherworldly epistemology of Sankara to discredit the world of circumstantial history. a profound epistemological misnomer. If that were all. First. are to win freedom for all Humanity. For we are to make our league with Narayan. is this mad orgy of midnight. or is he arguing that the “self” is rendered false when it is enthralled within a colonizing and alien historiography? Here are two ways of reading Tagore.. the spiritual fight on behalf of “Man” would function as a demystification of . The second reading would argue absolutely in favor of a transcendent spirituality that would see no difference between one kind of historico-political belonging and another. maya. but awakenment in the serene light of the morning. it never fits us. revealing to the world power of the immortal spirit. the one’s own as exemplified in the concept of swaraj is nothing ut a reactive paranoid fantasy that is dependent on the reality of colonialism. Swaraj is not our objective. and our victory will not give us anything but victory itself. If we can defy the strong. Tagore carefully differentiates his chosen teleology from that of the Mahatma. growing more and more bloated and red and dangerously delirious. And then Man will find his swaraj. The most startling diagnosis that Tagore makes is that swaraj is nothing but a manifestation of maya: in other words. victory for God’s world. But Tagore is doing something more: he is making a connection between the epistemology of illusion and “our” dependence on the West. and parasitic “self” that is dependent. it is for Man. We have no word for Nation in our language. Our fight is a spiritual fight. We. If this is what makes swaraj part of the epistemology of maya. Not for us. I covet not the unholy feast. in which she revels every moment. then such a scenario is politically “corrigible”: treatable through a different political alignment that would anchor the “self” affirmatively and proactively in its own historiography and worldview. in its very antagonism. However we may delude ourselves with the phrases learnt from the West. i.
is ontology. Gandhi is exclusively a Karma Yogi who does not acknowledge a “beyond” that lies beyond the karma-kshetra. with his strong epistemic faith in Spirituality. At this juncture. the so-called “orientals”. Gandhi’s action is centered in a collective notion of the human subject and subjectivity whereas the poetic-philosophic Tagore is attuned to the music of “the individual. “God’s world” literally or not. Beginning . it is clear that to Tagore the spiritual securing of the Self in its own sovereign context is pure act of unconditional affirmation. “When we borrow this word (Nation) from other people. always constituted. or is it a genuine disagreement about “the worlding of the world?” Let us hear Tagore directly on this issue.” Awakening to the serene light of the morning and its spiritual call will have to be on the basis of a resolute transcendence of the orgy of the West and its nocturnal revelries of the Flesh.” As a symptom of the same difference. “I refuse to live in other people’s houses as an interloper. governed and directed by ethics. when his rationale would seem to leave behind the world of determinate names and histories towards the horizon of a pure and untrammeled spirituality. As Sekyi-Otu contends in the context of Frantz Fanon.” and Gandhi proclaiming.” Here.” they ground and nurture their ontology differently. and ontology political. even though it partakes in. To locate Gandhi and Tagore within the famous Hindu tripartite division of reality-seeking into Karma yoga.any other fight that focuses on the merely circumstantial and historical. a beggar or a slave. Bhakthi Yoga. and as such cannot be anything but “negative. Tagore is also gesturing passionately towards a cosmic universality that is thwarted and derailed by what Tagore terms “National Egoism. and Gnana Yoga. have the responsibility of not succumbing to illusion and of producing a spiritual and all encompassing Humanity grounded in its own spirituality. and the diagnosis is not so much the preemption of our own political sovereignty. It has to be recognized in a specific political betrayal or misapplication. cannot be identified as such. whereas Tagore privileges the temporality of Gnana yoga and its commitment to the “beyond. and that of spiritual or ontological freedom. According to this logic. the absolute perversion or occlusion of Spirituality (or what I choose to translate as Ontology in a Heideggerian vein). the meshes that any historically determinate human subject weaves around himself could be the enemy’s or his own. just as in the earlier context.” We. but at the same time this “all Humanity” becomes the perspectival responsibility of “the ragamuffins of the East. Whether we take Tagore’s words. politics. Tagore loops his thesis back into the world of history and politics when he makes the confident claim that “we have no word for Nation in our language.” we are being forced to use the word. whereas acts of self declaration in the manner of swaraj are mired in the immediate moment and its particular mode of conditional entrapment. The symptom is the fact that even though “we have no word for Nation in our language.” Is this merely a matter of temperament. Politics. alienation from our true and one’s own Spirituality. To Gandhi. Though Gandhi and Tagore are at one when it comes to rejecting anything alien: we have Tagore saying. it never fits us. two discourses get interbraided: that of political autonomy and self-reliance. It is clear that in invoking spirituality. but more crucially. here too. Whereas to Tagore.” The reference to “all Humanity” is both omniscient and perspectival: omniscient since “all Humanity” is posited as a necessary a priori. Ontology is separate from.
The poet accepts. the swadharma of that subject-position. Tagore too takes intellectual pride in eternally wasting Time. but the idea of non-cooperation with its mighty volume of sound does not sing to me. rather than succumb to the seduction of an anthropocentric. straining my ear. Secondly. and even if such a confession may sound inane. He is a singer. subtly but surely.with a charming confession that of late he has been “playing with inventing new metres” based on the conviction that God himself is “an eternal waster of Time. with an implicit politics of its own. at his own peril and the possibility of accusations of infamy and treason to the political cause. I have been trying all these days to find in it a melody. what is the cognitive as well as epistemological status of Tagore’s symptomatic reading that the swaraj movement. . for I am a singer. And I say to myself. its congregated menace of negations shouts.” Tagore offers us the following thesis of his own interpellation.” A couple of significant asides before I comment on the passage. “If you cannot keep step with your countrymen at this great crisis of their history. that goes something like this: Why would anyone craft a good veena/veenai and let it gather dust? In this passage. to be a poet since it has become untenable to combine within the same performance the role of the poet and that of the soldier. be it nationalist or otherwise. Zhivago). and not in abeyance of. In the very heat of the critical historical moment. then my own sitar can catch the tune and I join in the chorus. there is a remarkable resemblance between Tagore’s appeal to the sitar and its mode of aesthetic being and that remarkable poetic utterance of Subramanya Bharati. What he hears. be ready to accept popular derision and disgrace. pressed from all sides? And what is this noise about me? If it is a song. Tagore fearlessly poses the question of alignment and attuenement. the famous Tamil poet-freedom fighter-visionary contemporary of Tagore. But where am I among the crowd. employs his subject-positional and specific-intellectual (and of course here I am thinking of Michel Foucault) expertise not just to register the political passively or receptively. He reserves for himself and his poetic-singerly swadharma the right to expect and find a melody in the immanent political manifesto and its rhythms. that can function as a radical critique of the political as such? To put it concretely. in the place of a possible melody and its affirmative joy. then my voice is wrecked and I am lost in bewilderment. What is also interesting in this passage is the way in which Tagore. he has to keep singing and keep faith with his sitar. The question to pose here is this: Is this merely an elitist-individualistintellectualist withdrawal from “politics” in the name of temperament and sensibility. architectonics of Time. pushed from behind. precious. and irrelevant in the context of “the great crisis” of the people and their history (and here one is reminded of the predicament of the poet Yury Zhivago in Boris Pasternak’s Dr. Like the visionary intellectual Tridib in Amitav Ghosh’s The Shadow Lines. never say that you are right and the rest of them wrong. go back to your corner as a poet. but rather to constitute “politics” proactively. But if it is a shout. or is it a kind of position taking.” And this dissonance precipitates a crisis: the poet has to make a drastic choice and a decision about what role to play. only give up your role as a soldier. Tagore is unabashedly identifying and staking his subject-position and asserting unequivocally that he can assume a political role on the basis of. is “the congregated menace of negations shouts.
On the one hand. “interest. i.” Tagore’s objective is to uncover the life-denying violence that is implicit even within putative non-violence of asceticism.” What is the difference between the “interest” that underlies acts of cooperation and the “interest” that informs practices of non-cooperation? Furthermore. they are both against life. The idea of non-cooperation is political asceticism. It has at its back a fierce joy of annihilation which at best is asceticism. in the act of creating positive or affirmative value. maya. and can non-cooperation. transform itself into a form of “aye saying?” What could Tagore mean by “the basic reality of normal life” when such a life has been invaded and contaminated by Occidental Colonialism? Is Tagore suggesting that despite such an invasion “the basic reality of normal life” goes on its own terms. and at its worst is that orgy of frightfulness in which the human nature. The desert is as much a form of himsa (malignance) as is the raging sea in storms. does it matter what one is cooperating with. untouched by the epistemic violence of Colonialism. i. in its own sphere. human subject of the East to show up Colonialism for what it is. is a flawed and erroneous manifestation of the political? In other words. by the “reality” of Colonialism. but on the other hand he forwards a strong theory of agency on behalf of the eastern spiritual subject: it is indeed up to the volition of this subject to “nihilate” colonial reality into maya. Once such a demystification has been achieved. Crucial in this entire discussion is the valence given to the term. or non-cooperating against? Can cooperation turn into an act of nay-saying under certain conditions. an effect of illusion that has no command or purchase over “our” creativity. in its passive moral form is asceticism and its active moral form is violence. under certain circumstances. It is up to the spiritual.e. No. a process that demonstrates that . losing faith in the basic reality of normal life.. finds a disinterested delight in an unmeaning devastation as has been shown in the late war and or other occasions which came nearer to us. Tagore seems to acquiesce in Sankara’s Advaitic theory of maya as a fait-accompli. does and can the Poet have something meaningful to say to the political agitator. In a manner reminiscent of Nietzsche’s campaign on behalf of Life in the arena of philosophic thought. inviting the “Yes” of cooperation from the Indian/human subject? Whereas Fanon would argue poignantly that the very wells of a human ontology have been poisoned by the Manichean illogic of the Colonizer-Colonized divide. If Nietzsche’s thesis was that a compulsive preoccupation with history causes a chronic inability to forget which in turn encourages an ascetic denial of life’s vitalism. Tagore seems to be suggesting that it is up to the subject to give credence or not to the regime of colonialism. that it is not and cannot ever be a free movement. His argument is that precisely because the non-cooperation movement is interpellated. can the truth claim of this message be entertained on its own terms. and what Foucault would later term “the history of the present.. albeit in dire antagonism.fuelled exclusively by negativity and nay-saying. and not merely as the truth of a special pleading of a special interest group? And Tagore helps us out here with the following statement: a statement that has all the zing and the oomph of a manifesto even though it emanates from a poet-singer. Our students are bringing their offering of sacrifices to what? Not to a fuller education but to non-education. Tagore targets asceticism and negativity as enemies of Life.e.
and yet. even though the West is referred to continually. and what is violated is a deep-seated human nature that is constituted by its capacity for cooperation. its asceticism becomes a force of violence. but within a continuum that can only be called Hindu. brahmana have to do with the historicity of political struggle. Tagore could also be seen.” It is interesting that in all the exchanges between the two great thinkers.” Contrasting the Hindu brahmana worldview with that of an ascetic Buddhism. while Buddhism has nirvana. worldly. or. Noncooperation will just do. It may be argued that both have the same idea in different names. In psychoanalytic terms. Is this the kind of philosophy that allows history a piggy back ride and thereby sublimates the guilty. as an ally of an Althusser to come in so far as both Tagore and Althusser privilege epistemology or theoretical thinking over the immediate and “self-evident” imperatives of political need. and the achievement of political freedom? How is harmony. and accountable contradictions of history into a monophonic symphony. mukti. is it an organic philosophy that acknowledges its ideology of worldliness without the ruse of sublimation? To put it bluntly and to put the onus of proof and credibility entirely on Tagore: what do terms like anandam. extinction. Mukti draws our attention to the positive. mukti. even germane in the context of historical dialectical struggle and antagonistic confrontation between a . When nay-saying is actively pursued as an instrument of socio-political change. It was like our musical instrument tambura whose duty is to supply the fundamental notes to the music to save it from straying into discordance. and its own simplicity was not to kill it but to guide it. and swaraj has to be conceptualized and tracked differently. and nirvana to the negative side of truth. Here for example is Tagore. But the forest life of the Brahmana was not antagonistic to the social life of man. “Brahma-vidya (the cult of Brahma. emphasize particular aspects of truth. it will have to be maintained that Tagore is insisting on a volitional change of direction. Tagore’s persistent diagnosis that a certain kind of political praxis is itself a manifestation of maya that warrants demystification by intellectual thought is very similar to Althusser’s altogether theoretical exorcism of those humanist obstacles that come in the way of our understanding of “what is man. and this might seem like an ungainly stretch. emancipation. the real aye-saying of cooperating with one’s own nature and affirming life can begin. legitimating his preference for cooperation over non-cooperation.what is seemingly real is in fact an illusion. all the sources of erudition mobilized by both Tagore and Gandhi are resolutely Indian: Hindu and Buddhist to be precise. Tagore himself perhaps not like the language of cathexis since it has to do with desire. a drive not all that compatible with the discourse of spirituality and spiritual ontology. It believed in anandam. decolonization. Tagore’s argument could be interpreted as an endeavor to re-cathect the human subject in opposition to the ascetic imperative. Tagore goes on thus. But names represent attitudes of mind. fractious. the Infinite Being) in India has for its object. The abnormal type of asceticism to which Buddhism gave rise in India revelled in celibacy and mutilation of life in all different forms. troped by way of music. the music of the soul. but harmonious with it.
All religions teach that two opposite forces act upon us and that the human endeavor consists in a series of eternal rejections and acceptances. I venture to suggest that the Poet has done an unconscious injustice to Buddhism in describing nirvana as merely a negative state. before I get into Gandhi’s rejoinder to Tagore. Also. Let me close this part of my argument by drawing attention to the fact that the final word of the Upanishads (Brahma-vidya) is Not. Non-cooperation with evil is as much a duty as co-operation with good. significantly such a truth is very much in the making in a world replete with antagonism. it would seem that Truth preexists.” Gandhi gets to the heart of the matter. In opposition to such a luxuriant and indulgent theory of Truth and Bliss. there indeed is an askesis theory of Truth that is close to Mohandas Gandhi’s “Story of Experiments with Truth. In this scenario. i. the actualization of Truth is the function of a disciplinary regime: a regime that is an expression to the extent that it is also an analytic of imposition. His whole soul seems to rebel against the negative commandments of religion. “He(The Poet) has a horror of everything negative. The body politic does not ipso facto produce the truth. both individual and collective. historiography. rejection is as much an ideal as the acceptance of a thing. if not as an essence. at least as a promised horizon reachable through aesthetic and spiritual troping. and historicity..” He then engages directly with Tagore’s position. not until it is conditioned through a series of prescriptions and proscriptions so that it can yield the truth. Truth is a rigorous funding that is not necessarily a celebration of the flow of life: it could well be a distillation. an annealment. Emancipation from or extinction of the bondage of flesh leads to ananda (eternal bliss). To the Poet. a meaningful desiccation.” In this story of historical and empirical experiments with Truth. the coming into its own of truth by way of process. The anandam that Tagore is ecstatic about is an integral part of the Sachitanandam constellation of concepts: a constellation that effects the mutual apotheosis of Truth and Beauty. At this point. Beginning with a stern repudiation that Tagore’s letter has been “written in anger and in ignorance of facts. exploitation. and domination.colonizing collective human subject and a colonized collective human subject? Isn’t this the philosophy of quietism. the self. Let us now hear Gandhi responding to Tagore’s misgivings and anxieties about non-cooperation. or simply opting out of history into a spiritual mode of engagement with the world. I make bold to say that mukti (emancipation) is as much a negative state as nirvana. of the status quo masquerading in the guise of phenomenological and/or spiritual transcendence? Isn’t this the good old philosophy that is happy to pontificate post-historically from a position of virtual transcendence even as history is taking shape historically? What is not clear is whether Tagore is initiating a meta-historical interrogation of history. (Propositional negation: state of being and instrumentality) In my humble opinion. a restricted distillation of Life by way of as much nay-saying as aye-saying. I would like to digress a bit to discuss the status of “truth” in general: and in particular. It is as necessary to reject untruth as it is to accept truth. functions (much like the practice of ethical self styling and taking care of the self in the later Foucault) as the “acted upon”: as the object of epistemological askesis. Neti was the best description the authors of the .e.
contestations. therefore. . Noncooperation is the nations notice that it is no longer satisfied to be in tutelage. the contingent and unpredictable vicissitudes of history for their legitimacy. colonialist or otherwise. even whilst the crops are growing.Upanishads were able to find for Brahma. she will do so only by Non-violent Non-cooperation. and antagonisms is so intense and deep-rooted that he prefers to protect and quarantine whatever is worthwhile and precious in Existence from betrayal by History. We had lost the power of saying ‘no’. And if India is ever to attain the swaraj of the Poet’s dream. This deliberate refusal to cooperate is like the necessary weeding process that a cultivator has to resort before he sows. Tagore’s distrust of history and the outcome of historical processes as struggles. think that the Poet has been unnecessarily alarmed at the negative aspect of Non-cooperation. cooperation and anandam are ontological states of being that enjoy a categorical/spiritual a priori status. The Poet is keen to establish the truth of philosophical thinking over and above the mutable and deceptive truths of political history. I. It had become disloyal . The nation had taken to the harmless (for it). and therefore never true by virtue of themselves. and not as the function of an ongoing critical negotiations with negativity and “nay-saying. is an instrument almost of daily use. This disagreement between the Mahatma and the Poet works on two registers simultaneously: the political and the philosophical. as every husbandman knows. and an eternal vigilance against the improper high-jacking of the En-Soi by the meretricious and inauthentic practices of historical representation that are motivated exclusively by a polemical opportunism that desires and wishes on behalf of “the loser” nothing more than the triumphalism of ritual winning. The epistemological critique of history as such as maya is informed by the understanding that all productions of Truth in History are unavoidably reactive in nature (and never proactive or anchored in their own ontology or worldview: and this is a truly postcolonial concern regarding “derivativeness. natural and religious doctrine of Non-cooperation in the place of the unnatural and irreligious doctrine of violence. To the Poet. almost sacrilegious to say ‘no’ to the Government. the contradictions. Indeed. In other words. The ultimate epiphanic affirmation of statements such as Aham Brahmasmi and Tat tvam asi is true by virtue of itself. cooperation as a fundamental ontological orientation and anandam as a primordial spiritual possibility/goal/horizon do not require the travails. and the rationale of unmediated instantiation is only too willing to consider history as such. as the maya that warrants demystification. To put it in basic philosophical discourse. The nation’s Noncooperation is an invitation to the Government to co-operate with it on its own terms as is every nation’s right and every good government’s duty.” (Partha Chatterjee) and ontological pre-emption by the vicious binary logic of winners and losers). Tagore’s thinking takes the form of an abiding solicitude on behalf of the En Soi of Truth. Weeding is as necessary to agriculture as sowing. the weeding fork. by and large.” Tagore’s objective is to instantiate in every instance of living the principle of ontological cooperation with spirituality and the principle of anandam.
there is another controversial conjuncture that lies at the heart of the GandhiTagore debates: India and the World. Neti is as much the “name” of the Truth as much as it is the designation of an instrumentality or methodology.e. and as for Gandhi. Gandhi is also proving the point that there can be no Truth without instrumentalization. the statement. not as a state of being. “I will NOT obey your law” ought to be construed as an affirmation of positive sovereignty when the law being noncooperated against is Jim Crow or Colonialist legality. constitute a necessary continuum of emancipation. In reminding Tagore of the Upanishadic Neti protocol of finding the Truth. who is learning from who.” Gandhi reminds Tagore that gesturing towards a spiritual. Humbly but firmly. whether any statement is positive or negative in intent is to be understood as a matter of process or signification.e. England? I would like to start with that last colonial complication. Gandhi reminds Tagore that in a context where the country had lost its power to say “No. In a world structured in dominance. ontological humanity in an absolute and transcendent context that voids the reality of historical experience is utterly inane and otherworldly.Gandhi’s rejoinder to Tagore is two-pronged: he responds both programmatically by clarifying his objectives against Tagore’s misrecognitions.. Gandhi suggests that there indeed does obtain. Propositionally speaking. i. there is his well known and oftquoted example of India as a house with open windows that will let the breezes blow from wherever but only on condition that the winds don’t blow the house away. Along with the tension of the historically particular with the transcendentaluniversal. that comes about after the soil has been prepared and weed-disinfested by the nay-saying. or synecdochic? And furthermore. the Indian subject and humanity at large.” the wresting of this power can only be read as a positive and affirmative practice. First of all. The nay-saying and the aye-saying. and he also has something to say about Tagore’s philosophical rendition of the truths of history and politics. or is it a reciprocal unilateralism? What happens to the rest of the world in the evolving relationship between India and the world? Is this relationship micro-macro. between the two terms a relationship of semantic fungibility: mukti as “emancipation from” could be a negative practice in the name of freedom. . that I am not a fighter by nature. It is well known that Tagore named Shantiniketan also as Viswabharathi. negations and affirmations have to be understood with dialectical reference to each other. Gandhi corrects Tagore’s understanding of the valences of the terms mukti and nirvana. but as something being produced agentially from soothing other. But the great leader is also known to have averred that India has nothing to learn from the world. Indian polity and cosmopolitanism. This interchangability is as much propositional-formal as it is historical-contextual. and who is the teacher and who the student? Is it a winner take all zero-sum game between India and the World. I say again and again that I am a poet. With the ringing insight that an “India prostrate at the feet of Europe can give no hope to humanity. Here is Tagore reading his own role in the articulation of a relationship between India and the West. to be more specific. i. metonymic. Gandhi also makes it crystal clear that any self proclamation as free can happen only after the NO has been uttered in thunder. WorldIndia. So. how is the relationship between India and the World given shape and direction by the immediate colonial relationship between India and the West.. and that nirvana could well be an affirmation.
” cosmopolitanism is legitimated in the scriptural name of brahmanic Hinduism. the spirit of acceptance in the consciousness of unity. . And quite predictably in the case of Tagore. maintaining of balance between the foundation and superstructure. I love my fellow beings and prize their love. such a nameless. The idea of non-cooperation unnecessarily hurts that truth. This Infinite Personality of man is not to be achieved in single individuals.” To put it anachronistically. I believe in the true meeting of the East and the West. The idea of India is against the intense consciousness of the separateness of ones own people from others. Tagore feels strongly “that true India is an idea and not a mere geographical fact.” what is the relationship between politics and . But I still less believe in the destruction of the physical body. What is needed is establishment of harmony between the physical and spiritual nature of man. the Infinite Personality whose light reveals itself through the obstruction of darkness. So. Our fight is against this darkness. India will be victorious when this idea wins victory. our object is the revealment of the light of this Infinite Personality in ourselves. and which inevitably leads to ceaseless conflicts.” an idea that he has “come into touch with in far away places of Europe. or shall we say “ineffable.the idea of ‘Purusham mahantam aditya-varnam tamash parastat’. What is of importance here is Tagore’s avowal of his subject position as a poet and a person of culture. It is not our heart fire but the fire that burns out our hearth and home. The spirit of rejection finds it support in the consciousness of separateness. What irony of fate is this that I should be preaching cooperation of cultures between East and West on this side of the sea just at the moment when the doctrine of non-cooperation is preached on the other side? You know that I do not believe in the material civilization of the West just as I do not believe in the physical body to be the highest truth in man. Yet I have been chosen by destiny to ply my boat there where the current is against me. Tagore is playing here with “the politics of location.I would give everything to be one with my surroundings. and the ignoring of the material necessities of life. knowing that it is a part of the common illumination of our house. The darkness of egoism which will have to be destroyed is the egoism of the People.” He exhorts himself and his readers to “be rid of all false pride and rejoice at any lamp being lit at any corner of the world. We should do all we can. on the basis of what criteria does India and the leaders of India decide which of the two options is superior: cultural cooperation or political non-cooperation? Within the broader realm of what one could call “reality. for it is on that basis that her perceives the irony of his situation. but in one grand harmony of all human races. Therefore my one prayer is: let India stand for the cooperation of all peoples in the world. to carry its banner against all opposition. creating instead a diasporized concept of solidarity and a cosmopolitical sense of home. of proximity and distance. Love is the ultimate truth of soul.” destabilizing merely geographic notions of location. not to outrage that truth.” with his “loyalty drawn to it in persons who belonged to different countries from mine.
” “idea.” there is great harm in surrendering Truth to the vagaries of history. and they die. The idea of India. I want to begin this analysis with the simple statement that bodies and matter occupy space. nor is he denoting India when he means India. I am truly ambivalent in my evaluation of this aspect of Tagore’s thought. and observe how they circulate both in Tagore’s and Gandhi’s rhetoric. and it is in this sense that India is an “idea” that cannot be merely a “geographic fact.” It is this deterritorialized attitude towards Truth that sets him apart from Gandhi’s idea of truth emerging conflictually in a specific place. the vast and cosmic idea of humanity as spirit is vastly more compelling than the limited and limiting instantiation of humanity in ideological regimes such as Nationalism. whereas ideas and spirituality are not bounded territorially or temporally. It is time to look a little more closely at terms like “materialism. Tagore could be seen as endeavoring to construct a space for the category of the a priori over and above the clamor of historicity. Once we accept this modal differentiation. i. scattered-disseminateddiasporized all over the world. On the one hand I feel like dismissing Tagore’s position as elitist-idealist-and escapist. To extend this line of thinking. For example. To Tagore. or does the haunting emanate from a pure “elsewhere?” Is Tagore attempting to dissolve a pseudo-dualism by affirming the . It is the state of mind that liberates the body from its physical finitude and determination.” is an important aspect of the “truth of truth. how to describe the world both on the registers of immanence and transcendence at the same time? Is there then a body of the world that is necessary as raw material for the production of the meaning of the world? Is the body the nothing but the raw material that qua material contributes to the phenomenological unfolding of the meaning of the world as Spirit? Is the epistemological/spiritual haunting of the body by the spirit itself a corporeal practice. it is good in itself. When he means the West he is not denoting the West. if ahimsa is a moral good. What does it mean for Tagore to invoke cultural cooperation between the East and the West during the heyday of Colonialist and Orientalist practice? Wouldn’t such a cooperation tantamount to an abject acquiesecence in being colonized? The only way open to Tagore is the strategy of ontological derealization by which he demotes historical reality to the status of maya. culture acts as the placeholder for Utopia in blind abeyance of the historical situation on the ground. Truth and Spirituality are topoi in themselves: locations of ideality whose dependence on history and politics is mere maya.culture? In Tagore’s usage. it is easy to understand why Tagore would value the spirit and the idea as infinitely more worthwhile than the domain of the bounded and finite. the validation of this goodness should have nothing to do with the historical progress report of ahimsa: whether it has succeeded or not. rather than conceptualize it exclusively as the end product of determinate historical struggles. is infinitely more precious than a geographically determinate truth of India. But on the other hand.e. Tagore is reminding Gandhi and his readers that although the geneology of truth. The epistemological problem is this: how to understand the relationship between these two descriptions of the same worldly reality: as Spinoza would have it. the history of “where it comes from. It is only by deterritorializing the sovereignty of ahimsa from its empirical fixity that the human subject can truly honor the principle of ahimsa.” and “spirituality.. I feel compelled to listen carefully to Tagore’s reminder to us all that there indeed is a dire need to secure “truth” in its own ethical and spiritual ethos.
“the One of the many.” his discourse wouldn’t be all that different from the factitious discourse of nationalism. and German? When and under what conditions does the identification of oneself with one name militate against cooperation and harmony with other names? The “Infinite Personality in ourselves” that Tagore invokes is neither a collectivity nor an individual identity. Tagore is equivocal in his understanding of the relationship of “matter” to “spirit. Hegelian or Marxian. to introduce Michel Foucault to this discussion. Such a harmony. and the anthropological “grand harmony of all human races. that either sublates contradiction or mobilizes contradictions as active social antagonisms that are intended to play themselves out towards a final historical materialist resolution. in Tagore’s vision. The question is the following: the One of What? To say “the One of the One” does not take the discussion any further. of true Gnana over the materiality of maya? In the passage quoted above. It is a poetic vision of harmony where harmony is an “in itself” that is desirable as a human goal. a discourse that Tagore thoroughly disapproves of.” If the body is. he is in effect expressing an abiding solicitude for the indivisible One that is vulnerable to the fractious world of political partisanship and strategic opportunism. but an ideal potentiality that makes all selfcentered or identitarian entrenchment mean and paltry. When Tagore declares that the truth of non-cooperation hurts the higher truth of universal love and empathy. he neither believes in the material civilization of the west nor in the supremacy of physical truth. one that seeks to create the One from the many. Tagore has no intention of mortifying or impoverishing the former by way of empowering the latter. and the place-holder for the temporality of the Ideal One. French. Tagore will acknowledge India .sovereignty of the Noumenal over the Phenomenal. is not so much the result of a political production as it is the representation of an attitude of love or empathy that not even the dire antagonistic needs of the political can/should violate. if Tagore were to say. English. Aryan.” what status do names have.” Like Gandhi. His is not a dialectical project. from necessity to freedom as Marx would have it. On the other side is enlightenment and illumination in the name of the multiracial harmony of the family of Man. Dravidian. The balance or the harmony that he celebrates is the triumph of the indivisible One over the divisive many. He is not calling for an askesis or a desiccation of the physical and the material as a prolegomenon tinitiation into the realm of spirituality. by way of political production and manufacturing.” What is to be destroyed is “the dark egoism” of the People. he is not dismissive of the body or of the reality of material needs. Teutonic. what are the races.” and the spirit is the ideal or Utopian truth. On the other hand. The “soul” that makes its appearance repeatedly is both the sign-bearer of spirituality. and looking forward “to the establishment of harmony between the physical and the spiritual. Such a statement is either a tautology or the numinous silence of the En Soi. It is in this context that Tagore makes a curious distinction between divisive “egoism of the People” that he deplores. but unlike Gandhi. Mongolian. So. and who are the peoples of the world? What is the taxonomic relationship between “races” and “peoples?” In the context of “anthropological races” and “national peoples. He is in fact saying “yes” both to the physical and the spiritual. The ontological problem confronting Tagore is the qualification of the One. Indian. “the history of the present. names such as.
My question however is the following: Is this inner . whom does it belong to. that endorses present mortification or nay-saying in the name of a good to come. Much of the discussion that takes place between Tagore and Gandhi brings to mind the questions and concerns that Nehru voices in his Discovery of India: where is India. Critical vigilance against a shape-shifting chameleon cannot be based on the truth of some “true” external form for the simple reason that it is “externality as such” that is the deceiver. Tagore’s answer is to find an “inner truth” that is invulnerable to seduction by externality and its chameleon like self instantiations and exemplifications. The declaration of faith that my country is there. But if we can gain within us the truth called our country. Tagore’s diagnosis works at the systemic or structural level than at the level of ostensible contents. not from some foreigner. with its inherent powers. or is to be signified into being through the exercise of free populist will? Tagore’s views on the matter. And Tagore goes on to say that “we must win our country. as expressed in the following passage. despite the urgency of immediate political decolonization. or its colour. Like Derrida and Jacques Lacan. in a parasitic existence. and that the “self” can be its own “alien” are profound insights that transcend the pettiness of immediate and reductive political recognitions and identifications. The idea that our country is ours.” In other words. but from our own inertia. has the ethico-epistemological integrity to declare that “alien government in India is a veritable chameleon. Tagore is not in favor of a rationale. Today it comes in the guise of the Englishman. all outward maya will vanish of itself. Therefore. our own indifference. However determinedly we may try to hunt this monster of foreign dependence with outside lethal weapons.” Tagore too. teleological or eschatological. deterritorialized manifestations. and not read symptomatically as an instance of identity theft to be rectified through recourse to natal or native formulae of belonging. but rather as an allegorical point of entry towards “for the cooperation of all peoples in the world. it may take the shape of our own countrymen. it will always elude our pursuit by changing its skin. does India preexist as an ideal entity.not as a national identity. Alien government in India is a veritable chameleon.” In a manner that anticipates the deconstructive auto-critical vigilance of Jacques Derrida. But the true nature of man is his inner nature. That “we” can be or turn into our own colonizer. tomorrow perhaps as some other foreigner. without abating a jot of its virulence. are clear and definitive. that only can be a man’s true country. how is India to be made one’s own by its people. has to be attained by each one of us. can only be held by those who are fastened. which he can help to create by his wisdom and will. Unlike Gandhi. his love and his actions. merely because we have been born in it. who comes across in Tagore’s eyes as an ascetic who punishes the flesh and the materiality of the present.” Hence Tagore’s double-take on materiality and the physical: the material and the physical are to be fetishized as ends in themselves. but as the means towards a greater harmony. “alien government” has to be detected in all its floating. the next day. upon the outside world. to be realized. each of whom makes critical differentiations between “the other” and “the Other.
. “otherworldliness. can only be held by those who are fastened.. ie.” Tagore proposes a non-filiative re-negotiation of what it means to be Indian. the formulation. merely because we have been born in it. Tagore’s primary objective is to liberate the human subject from its bondage to the world of external fact and circumstance (the tenor of the allegory). and the question is purification by and in the name of what principle? To put this differently. literally re-semanticizing the meaning of what it means to be Indian: rather than celebrate and sacralize “being born in India” as a vital principle of authentic identity. contingent geographic accident called India. As a result. the allegorical repudiation of parasitism takes precedence over the historical critique of parasitic existence. despite the differences in the way they go about performing their tasks. history.” Let us hear Tagore again. “The idea that our country is ours.” or an “other” way of imagining reality in all its multivalent complexity. Sankara. is he re-signifying the concept of maya as nescience or illusive knowledge to enact a different relationship between the realms of contingency and necessity? If the cleansing and the demystification of politics and history is to take. or is it merely a form of the fake that is to be demystified and discarded on the way to true knowledge? To put it differently. etc. to the category of maya. how does each thinker deal with the “relative autonomies” of politics. Is Tagore merely recuperating classical Advaita philosophy and suggesting that history and politics pertain to the register of maya whereas true spiritual knowledge as Brahma gnana/vidya is on the “other” side of maya. Within Tagore’s philosophical hermeneutics. What is common both to Gandhi and Tagore. is the simultaneous practice as well as the purification of politics. In other words. in a parasitic existence. a la.” Tagore’s brilliant polemical formulation of “parasitism” does not reiterate the clichéd opposition between “parasitic dependence” and “one’s own natal/native/autochthonous/indigenous/filial independence. Tagore is recoding. to liberate the Indian subject from its bondage to inauthentic and erroneous notions of India. absolutely heterogeneous with the world of the political and the historical? Or. .self in Tagore a form of essentialist belief or fiction. “India is mine simply because I was born in India” becomes symptomatic of the most abject parasitism: citizenship not in the inner India of infinite spirituality. and at the same time envision Totality in critical transcendence of the logic of the parts? The question is: how does reality become one. but in the finite. or is it a historical/secular production? This issue becomes even more complicated in the context of Tagore’s constant negative reference. upon the outside world. and how the subject becomes “free” in such a realization? There is an interesting moment in the passage quoted above from Tagore where the Poet makes a telling reference to the figure of “the parasite.” but instead radicalizes the very meaning of “parasitic existence. or are they to be trans-substantiated into the Truth of Spirituality? What is difficult to determine in Tagore’s discourse is whether he is prescribing as a remedy. are the truths of politics and history to be valorized as historical and political. Tagore relegates “being born in India/in any place for that matter” to the secondary and nonessential condition of mere external circumstantiality. and as historical instantiation of the allegory. fro what position will such a critical endeavor be undertaken? Whence will such enlightenment emanate? Does the realm of maya partake in the production of true knowledge.
And here I quote at length from Tagore. and in particular. and more significantly. and epistemology. In his attempt to demystify the Indian people and wean them away from seduction by Indiaas-maya. In Tagore’s philosophical scheme of things. from Tagore’s perspective. Therefore. What has caused the mischief is the fact that for a long time we have been out of touch with our own culture and therefore the . The misunderstanding is profoundly intra-human. The misunderstanding. It is to be expected that Tagore. Tagore has no problem “ex-nominating” his canonical Hindu-Indian references. Consequently.. To put it in terms of my discussion of Tagore’s cosmo-spiritual-politics. before I turn my focus back to Gandhi. geographic entities. the intra-human misunderstanding as such has to diagnosed through the symptom of a determinate inter-human misunderstanding such as between the East and the West. The misunderstanding may well be in the arm. is a misunderstanding of the human by the human. and among the many nations that constitute our world. the Infinite Personality whose light reveals itself through the obstruction of darkness. in Tagore’s vision is the magisterial as well as pedagogical authority that characterizes his “anonymous” appeal to what after all are specifically Hindu-Indian texts: “Purusham mahantam aditya-varnam tamasah parastat. It is in the nature of the symptom to stimulate a local diagnosis.e. gnosis. whereas holistic medicine would first of all deterritorialize the finite location of the symptom and look for an inclusive and deep structure cure. There is a right understanding. or between the arm that is somatic and some psychic pressure or tension that the organism is going through. national human subjects. should pose the entire problem at the level of thought. and there are misunderstandings. if one were to think of humanity as an indivisible One. the world of Ideas and Spirituality is transcendent of the provincial pettiness and finitude of bodies. It cannot be true. and their divisive names. i. we only know all too clearly that the Human as One is divided up into multiple collective. but in reality. it may be a misunderstanding between the arm and the heart. however. ayurveda or yoga would attempt a holistic remedy that would focus on the root cause of which the symptom is all after the symptom. Tagore’s hope is that when the Indian people realize their country within their heart and spirit. conflicts among nations will cease. since I have used the term “remediation” along with “rectification”: whereas an allopathic system of medicine would cure the symptom at the site of the symptom itself. the intra-Human understanding is in effect an inter-human misunderstanding.What is problematic. So.e. between the East and the West. a relational misunderstanding. i. where and how should the rectification/remediation of the misunderstanding be applied? To point up a contrast here. parochial ego identifications with one’s exclusive and exclusionary “nation” will give place to a cosmic recognition of the human everywhere. it hurts me deeply when the cry of rejection rings loud against the West in my country with the clamour that the Western education can only injure us.. symptomatically speaking. But alas. unlike Gandhi who does not think of himself as a poet-thinker-philosopher.
Tagore’s vision is plagued by the flaw that bedevils all trans-historical and trans-ideological humanisms: they create an absolute separation between the temporality of Ontology and historicity. is to encourage the worst form of provincialism. Ontology if you will. sans antagonism. sans contradiction. that the East should not misunderstand the West? Is the West not what the West has done to the East? Is there another latent West that is not complicit in the perpetration . perverted and pre-empted by the passing maya of Colonialism is all well and good. but the question is how will the truth of Colonialism as illusion be defeated in history. the commerce of thought with the outer world becomes natural and fully profitable. To reduce the outrage of Colonialism. should not be corrupted. that motivated by the urge to retaliate. in the name of the “time to come” perpetrates the nightmare of dystopia. excuses all in the name of “the time to come” and foists on the colonized subject the untenable burden of achieving a world without borders: sans struggle. but at the same time I am appalled by the ease with which Tagore exonerates the West and places the historical as well as ontological onus of introspection and moral spiritual information on the East. and the time will come when the West will find leisure to realize that she has a home of hers in the East where her food is and her rest. But to say that such commerce is inherently wrong. it has only become possible because to her is given some great mission for man. is Tagore’s reliance on the mystique of the Zeitgeist and the privileged relationship of the West to the actualization of the Zeitgeist. or for that matter the epistemological violence of Orientalism. If Stalinist Marxism. productive of nothing but intellectual indigence. for by doing so we hasten the fulfillment of this age. to a mere matter of misunderstanding and to “euphemize” colonialist dominance as mere “disharmony” is to be guilty of nothing short of absolute innocence. historically? Clearly. despite his call for East West cooperation and his perspectival endorsement of the potential and necessary contributions of the East. When we have the intellectual capital of our own. Tagore’s insistence that all human possibilities. Gandhi’s position of nay-saying to Colonialism makes perfect sense whereas Tagore’s call for spiritual-allegorical transformation is literally “fantastic. Equally troubling. The West has misunderstood the East which is at the root of the disharmony that prevails between them. It is one thing to assume responsibility for one’s own culture and one’s own failures and shortcomings. and quite another to assume a position of ethical martyrdom whereby the colonized subject is criminalized for having been colonized. My response to this passage is agonizingly ambivalent: on the one hand. but will it mend the matter if the East in her turn tries to misunderstand the West? The present age has been powerfully possessed by the West. We know that the East also has her lessons to give and she has her own responsibility of not allowing her light to be extinguished. at the other extreme. Tagore.” What then do we make of Tagore’s concern. I am moved and inspired by Tagore’s Utopian-deconstructive vision on behalf of all humanity. We from the East have to come to her to learn whatever she has to teach us.Western culture has not found its prospective in our life very often found a wrong prospective giving our mental eye a squint.
in many cases. a gnana yogi seeks to comprehend the same situation intellectually/epistemologically.” Whereas Gandhi.of Colonialism? The West’s intentions have been clear and colonialist: surely Tagore is not contending that the “colonial effect” is itself the result of “an Oriental misunderstanding of the Occident. Girls are taught English as a passport to marriage. would contend that the Colonizer is as much damaged. Hundreds of youths believe that without a knowledge of English freedom for India is practically impossible. while making that all important distinction between the “person of the Englishman” and the Colonialism that he stands for. i. but in English. All these are for me signs of our slavery and degradation. Gandhi and Tagore are so apart modally that they could be seen as living in the same “world of problems”. or will they.e. Gandhi rightly identifies .. and rightly in the present circumstances. but there are three equally viable modes to that One reality with each mode with its own temporality. Our boys think. If reality is One. I hope I am as great a believer in free air as the great Poet.” Literally. My point is simply that it is in the temporality of a particular mode of understanding that the world “worlds. for he has a horror of names that divide and perpetuate conflicts and hatreds among humans. Tagore will just not name Colonialism as Colonialism. I cannot tolerate the idea of parents writing to their children. but in altogether different “worlds of resolutions. or husbands writing to their wives. I know several instances of women wanting to learn English so that they may be able to talk to Englishmen in English. would argue (and this is a line of thought brilliantly theorized in the work of Ashis Nandy). Tagore with his horror of the negation and binary antagonism does not even look in that direction. the role of the West in the curriculum. not in their own vernaculars. The big difference between Tagore and Gandhi is that the latter actually builds a case circumstantially whereas the Poet generalizes acontextually. in their relative endorsement of the One reality? A bhaktha a la Job or Abraham and a whole pantheon of suffering bhakthas in the Hindu tradition make peace with suffering in a quietist mode all in the name of God’s will. The Poet does not know perhaps that English is today studied because of its commercial and so-called political value. It is unbearable to me that the vernaculars should be crushed and starved as they have been. karma. the only meaning of Education is a knowledge of English. The canker has so eaten into the society that. whereas the karma yogi acts and understands reality. by Colonialism as the Colonized.” It is in the context of moving from problems to resolutions that the theme of education and its relevance figure prominently in the Gandhi-Tagore conversations: in particular. if not more. gnana. I know families in which English is being made the mother tongue. To bring back to this discussion a theme I had barely touched upon earlier in the essay: the three paths to reality. As is to be expected. bhakti. the learning of English acts as the lightning rod for the entire effect of the West and westernization. Let us hear Gandhi on this fraught issue. I do not want my house to be walled in on all sides and my windows to be stuffed. that without English they cannot get Government service. how will the three temporalities will come together in synchronicity.
I am firmly of opinion that the Government schools have unmanned us. Most significantly. his fear is that for lack of proper subject formation and the consequent subject-agency misalignment. Gandhi. The youth of a nation are its hope. A Government builds its prestige upon the voluntary association of the governed. They have made us what we were intended to becomeclerks and interpreters. we were bound to begin with those institutions in which our association appeared to be the most voluntary. They have filled us with discontent. and moreover. the syllabus for and on behalf of the nation. Tagore’s sense of relevance works the other way around: from cosmic or boundless India to the named and nameable India. He refuses to consider the politics of English in isolation: it has to be in relationship to the fate of the vernaculars. some form of neo-colonialism will persist even after the realization of independence. rendered us helpless and Godless. The sphere of education is crucial for the obvious reason that it is through the educational apparatus that subject formation takes place. unlike the Poet. Gandhi shrewdly identifies the ways in which English becomes a stand in for Education. Gandhi immediately identifies the power dynamic between English and the vernaculars: an oppressively uneven dynamic imposed by Colonialism. And if it was wrong to cooperate with the Government in keeping us slaves. and it is Gandhi’s legitimate concern that the subject being formed should be relevant in the Indian context. Not for the political resister the luxury of the ideal world where English and the vernaculars are in a blissfully reciprocal relationship. Gandhi’s position is that bharath can fulfill its commitment to the vishva only after it has lived up to itself. The other ongoing contestation between the two has to do with critical negativity and offering a positive option. and the cultivation of a relevant youth towards a future that India can call its own. Here I must differ from him. and providing no remedy for the discontent. I have never been able to make a fetish of literary training. points out that weaning the youth away from a pernicious pattern of education . as soon as we discovered that the system of Government was wholly. My experience has proved to my satisfaction that literary training by itself adds not an inch to one’s moral height and that character building is independent of literary training. He is of the opinion that they should not have been called upon to give up Government schools before they had other schools to go to. I hold that. The only way to guard against such a possibility is to prepare the right pedagogical-educational track through non cooperation. Even though Gandhi does not phrase it thus. The Poet’s concern is largely about the students. have made us despondent. the formation of political and cultural subjectivity. The impoverishment of the vernaculars is the direct result of the flourishing of English. language is the site of and is power play. any political agency achieved on the basis of such a subject would be at odds with India’s needs and imperatives. or mainly evil. The issues are: pedagogy. Not for Gandhi the privilege of language as literature and language as aesthetic contemplation of the spiritual ideal: to him language is instrumentality. and here I would agree with him.specific interventions that English makes in the vernacular body politic of India. A subject interpellated by English would be at odds with Indian realities. and deracinates India from its vernacular being. it became sinful for us to associate our children with it.
is in itself a valuable plan of action. and 2) that indeed it is possible to “fetishize” literature and in the process lose sight of the total and overall pragmatic objective of education. The ontological thesis is that a free people give the gift of themselves to themselves. What is the best education policy for a whole nation that is seeking to decolonize and emancipate itself. Whereas Tagore would rather dwell as a Poet in the pure and untrammelled realm of Ontology and through an intellectual sleight of hand dismiss Colonialism as maya. I would like to focus on literature by asking the two following questions. in the context of democratic education. When is literature enlightening and when is literature itself a source of mystification? Is literature a general category of human learning and understanding. who are “the people” and how are they be both represented and produced into existence? What is the nature of leadership. and that is how he declares his subject position? The basic issue here is staggeringly complex. concept and precept in pedagogy. and who should be in charge of drawing up this blueprint? What is the role of the intellectual in all this? Are we looking for an organic intellectual. a la Gramsci. and who should be in charge in the task of elaborating education as a matter of public policy? Finally. the intellectual-people relationship. The other issues that come up here are: basic education and specialized education. and it is precisely this possibility of ontological self-address that is taken away from the colonized by colonialist domination and oppression. But the difference between the two thinkers about the “literary” and the “useful” deserves special attention. He makes two value judgments regarding literary pedagogy: 1) that the literary does not automatically become ethical. He understands the danger of what Ngugi wa ThiongO would call decades later “the culture bomb” that kills a people psychically by . Gandhi chooses the much more difficult path of producing a free ontology by way of political struggle: a struggle that has to produce its own terms of relevance in antagonism and in critical negation of the given colonized reality. Both Tagore and Gandhi are deeply aware of the ontological damage done to the natives by colonialism. education and community building. education as means and education as end. or the “talented tenth” of the Du Boisian kind. Gandhi categorically rejects the claim that a literary education is a good in itself. and does Tagore have a vested interest in Literature for the simple reason that he is a Poet. Gandhi understands that behind the literary English education provided by the colonial government schools lies a different mandate: the infamous Babington Macaulayan imperial desire to create obedient clerks and interpreters of Pax Britannica. and how should the authority of the leaders be produced and applied to the populist will? Is Gandhi a generalist and Tagore a specialist? Is Gandhi’s critique of the literary model a function of his populist-instrumental way of thinking. or the Foucauldian specific intellectual who refuses to take on the burden of macropolitical representation? And the complexity of these problems is compounded further in the context of a colonized people who are engaged in the task of overthrowing the oppressor: a people who are not yet their own politically speaking even though they have been an ancient people prior to the horrors of colonialism. By way of anticipating the next segment of this essay. or is it a specific genre that comes under specialized knowledges? What is or should be the relationship between education and ideology? Who are the experts and who the lay practitioners of knowledge.
they also raise fundamental questions about form-content. it is at the level of knowledge and epistemology that the native was undone. Gandhi’s diagnosis is at its most acute when he maintains that English education creates a discontent that it cannot remedy: what is created instead is a chronic despondency. in the Nietzschean sense of the term. this does not repudiate the fact that the West has its intra-familial quarrels with itself. In other words. against the armed imposition of modern methods of exploitation. On the contrary. i. The present struggle is being waged against compulsory co-operation. If there are different kinds of pedagogy.e. Whether Gandhi really believes that India has to learn anything from western modernity.deracinating them from their ethos. or that under totally transformed conditions East and West may establish a harmoniously symbiotic relationship with each other. and subject matter-methodology nexus as well. Of course. and that the nature of the contact is definitively constituted by these historic conditions and circumstances. trashed. In my reading. and as Edward Said has argued convincingly in his Orientalism. Midnight’s children are nothing but chronic symptoms who have accepted the symptom itself as the cure. honourable and voluntary co-operation based on mutual respect and trust. What Gandhi is describing symptomatically is the condition of the “midnight’s children” that Rushdie has immortalized. Tagore refuses to acknowledge the multiplicity of different times and occasions. masquerading under the name of civilization. an awareness lacking in Tagore’s idealized and utopianized vision. Non-cooperation is intended to pave the way to real. But what Gandhi is astutely aware of. Also implicated are the following questions. against one-sided combination. is another issue. who is to determine what the right time is for each kind of pedagogy? What is the difference between pedagogy during “normal times” and pedagogy under crisis or during times of political emergency and peril? How should the “pedagogy of the oppressed” be organized differently from the pedagogies of dominance? As is to expected. that the West has cultural and epistemological resources not all of which are complicit with colonialism and imperialism (I am reminded here of Said’s Culture and Imperialism). there is no denying the reality that the West was introduced to India through colonial violence and domination. If the Gandhi-Tagore discussions thematize the relationship between knowledge production as disinterested and knowledge as unavoidably polemical. As Gandhi would have it: Nor need the Poet fear that Non-cooperation is intended to erect a Chinese wall between India and the West. Non-cooperation is a protest against an unwitting and unwilling participation in evil. and eradicate it rightaway. The only way to prevent the malaise of endless post-colonial double-ness is to identify the source of the disease during the process of decolonization. given Gandhi’s tout court dismissal of modernity and its epistemology.. his dismissal of modernity is more definitive and binding than the metaphor of the house with open windows. his focus is always steadfastly on the temporality of the Indivisible Spirit even though such a Spirit has been traduced. is that cultures and civilizations and histories are brought into contact with one another under specific conditions of power and privilege. and violated .
and shall we say. “Spin and weave. who would lead us on the paths of karma. but even if Tagore were to acknowledge that. there is the question of the many sidedness of Truth. with its diverse powers and its confidence in those powers. but only for a time.” Is this the call: “Let all seekers of Truth come from all sides?” Is this the call of the New Age to new creation? Tagore goes on thus. To one and all he simply says. there thread can only be spun at the cost of a great deal of the mind itself. and folded into this discussion is the relationship of manual labor to intellectual labor. Gandhi. the Mahatma. Tagore has no hesitation in totally endorsing the messenger. gnosis enjoys no categorical primacy of the a priori. Freedom is in complete awakening. in full selfexpression. Mind is no less valuable than cotton thread.” But why should it be given for a time? Is it because within a short time spinning will give us swaraj? But where is the argument for this? Swaraj is not concerned with our apparel only – it cannot be established on cheap clothing: its foundation is in the mind. To Gandhi.” God has given the Mahatma voice that can call. in other words. But where. Some are objecting: “We do not propose to curb our minds for ever. spin and weave. It is in the context of Gandhi’s pedagogical prescription of the practice of charkha for the entire nation that the debate heats up. What is at stake is the determination whether the charkha is a semantically rich domain at all that can generate a meaningful pedagogy. for then alone shall the country awake.heinously by material history. and there is the heterogeneous multi-lateral constitution of this total Truth. And what does the Mahatma do? He trivializes this Truth with the simplistic injunction: Spin and weave. but he does he have a problem with the message: a message that he finds reductive. send forth such a call? Why should he not say: “Come ye from all sides and be welcome. which. gnostic realization has to come in the wake of situated practices. Why should not our guru of today. But if man can be stunted by big machines. I will begin with Tagore’s saying No to Gandhi’s program of action. The charkha in its proper place can do no harm but will rather do much good. by reasoned failure to acknowledge the differences in man’s temperament it is in the wrong place. on the other hand. is the situated and embodied thinker who has to strategize his pedagogy in response to the immediate situation which is far from a mere embodiment of maya. for Tagore is as unequivocal in his condemnation of “spinning the wheel” as Gandhi is absolute in his advocacy of the charkha. he would still . goes on all the time creating swaraj for itself. What Tagore does not understand of course is that Gandhi intends “spinning and weaving” as symbolic action. for in him there is the Truth. the danger of his being stunted by small machines must not be lost sight of. Why should not this be our long awaited opportunity? But his call came to one narrow field alone. anti-intellectual? First of all. Let all the forces of the land be brought into action.
have a problem with the programmatic and opportunistic condensation of the many ways and modalities of the Truth. in the context of Gandhian economics (a category that Tagore would not acknowledge. For this task. spiritual? I am thinking of the different stages that Antonio Gramsci talks about: the economic-corporate. In a word. despite his cosmic monism and advaitic anchorage. that is undertaken for a while could stay on indefinitely. it is the mechanical in the machine that is the object of discussion. the spirit of . in an interesting twist of logic. Then. the mechanic must labor. Above all. the economist must think. ad infinitum? The question about the mind and the body is simultaneously a question about temporality. the Mahatma—may our devotion to him never grow less!—we must learn the truth of love in all its purity. but the science and art of building up swaraj is a vast subject. is the equipmental or the mechanical nature of the machine to be provided ethical direction of the human agent who drives the machine but is in no way driven or constituted by the machine? On what level are the charkha and the cotton mills of Lancashire the same. historical. and hence his claim that swaraj is constantly being created in the Mind. Tagore is “accusing” Gandhi for his “production line” orientation to the charkha. Clearly. the proper site of permanent persuasion. ontological. but no less must study and thought be there likewise. philosophic. Tagore comes down strongly on the side of professionalism and the division of labor along lines of specialization. Its pathways are difficult to traverse and take time. For it. and not just the massive machines of modernity. and on what ideological grounds are they fundamentally dissimilar? Given Gandhi’s uncompromising valorization of manual labor on behalf of all humanity and Tagore’s solicitude on behalf of the creative possibilities of the intellect versus mere mechanical-physical repetition. that the strategy might master the human. or does it depend on the size and the scale? Just as in the earlier example of the chariot and the human charioteer. could stunt the human being. en masse. by an odd turn of logic. Here again. political. aspiration and emotion must be there. rather than function as a mere instrument. as in the following passage. the cultural. Tagore hoists the Mahatma on his own petard when he argues that small machines. psychic? Is swaraj to be attained in stages: economic. and what is worse. the mind of the country must exert itself in all directions. a closet dualist when it comes to the body and the mind? It is obvious that Tagore associates a perennial temporality with the Mind. and more of that in a little while). Or is it to be attained as a totality in one synchronic move? Tagore’s fear here is that a strategy. From our master. But even as he expresses concern over the instrumentalization of Reason. and finally the ethical. such as cooperation. cultural. does the laboring human body obviate the secondarity of the machine and thereby eliminate possibilities of alienation by achieving within itself a perfect subject-object harmony? Is Tagore then. while the time of the body is mechanical and transient time. the educationist and statesman must teach and contrive. transcendent. ad nauseam. Are all machines equally bad. is the human being his/her own machine when s/he is involved in manual labor? In other words. Tagore’s question to Gandhi is: How can freedom emerge when the human mind is enslaved to the mechanical practice of spinning and weaving. What is the appropriate temporality of swaraj: immanent.
If those who are going naked should have given us the mandate to burn.. its mind not made timid or inactive by compulsion open or secret. Of course.e. Gandhi and Tagore are two very different kinds of teachers. Both of them entertain highly divergent conceptions of the human subject of pedagogy and the . “the question of using regular cloth of a particular manufacture belongs mainly to economic science. makes no room in his thinking for an Economics that has gone colonialist.” Secondly.” but what he sees happening under Gandhi’s leadership is a tendency to use “the magical formula that foreign cloth is impure. but entirely on morality.” There are two other substantive reasons why Tagore has difficulty obeying Gandhi’s orders to the nation to non-cooperate and burn foreign cloth. it is quite another matter that Gandhi does not believe in the separation of Morality from Economics. untouched by the macro-political rationale of Colonialism. But how can we expiate the sin of the forcible destruction of clothes which might have gone to women whose nakedness is actually keeping them prisoners unable to stir out of the privacy of their homes?” In this context. but belong to those who most sorely need them. Tagore is appalled that Gandhi seems to be working on some irrational principle of magic and charismatic transformation. Tagore does not realize that the Economics that he is invoking does not exist in the real world. Tagore will not make the connection between the truths of Economics and the reality that the cotton mills of Lancashire are destroying indigenous cotton production. as Tagore claims. have been a case of self-immolation and the crime of incendiarism would not lie at our door. and that “this fight can never be carried on by our people being driven from one injunction to another. Sure enough. Whether it be the exhortation to spin the wheel or the imperative to burn foreign cloth. In fact. with his belief in pure gnosis or gnana. because Tagore believes that it is his “very first duty to put up a valiant fight against this terrible habit of obeying orders. What escapes Tagore’s Gnostic perspective is the fact that Gandhi is indeed trying to articulate a counter or subaltern Economics that begins with the task saying No to the demands of Colonialist Economics. Tagore is bothered by the fact that Gandhi’s decisions are not based on economics.” with the result that “economics is bundled out and a fictitious moral dictum dragged in its place. In so far as Tagore is reminding Gandhi that the specialist findings of economics ought not to be trivialized and subsumed under morality. I find myself favoring both Gandhi and Tagore. i. and for different reasons. Tagore is not convinced that Gandhi has earned the organic representative and representational sanction to make recommendations on behalf of the people. First. Says Tagore. I am with him. a positive solution to take the place of the “wrong” that he is non-cooperating with. Tagore. that Gandhi does not have an answer. Colonial economics is precisely what Gandhi is seeking to combat through noncooperation and the burning of foreign cloth. after having demystified the so-called objectivity of Colonialist Economics. As Tagore would have it. it is true. But I find Tagore far too credulous when he invokes the truth of economics as though it were disinterested and neutral. “I feel that the clothes to be burnt are not mine. both in terms of what they teach and how they earn authority on behalf of their pedagogical practice. at least.Inquiry throughout the whole country must be kept intact and untrammelled. it would.
there is the thesis of safeguarding the free interiority of the mind from mere factitious creatureliness: the mind needs to be the master and not degenerate into slavery. it is important to realize the space of mental freedom as the space of India. It is not at all coincidental that often Tagore would clinch the issue with an authoritative quotation from a scriptural Sanskrit text. it may be argued. Brave New World: a scene where the students regurgitate. which are slaves. In this passage. as he does here. Tagore privileges the mind and the intellect and downplays.psycho-somatic balance of this subject. Reason is true and creative by virtue of itself whereas habit is the blind creation of reiteration. First. The tragedy of course is that this knowledge by rote exists exclusively as a mechanical response to the stimulus-question: What is the Nile? Within this curriculum. The truth of reiteration lies “without” whereas the truth of Reason lies “within. and anti-pedagogical. Mind is to matter what India is to the maya of the West. Secondly. in response to the question. which is the master. He is also averse to the strategy of pedagogy as repetition: a strategy that in his view is mindnumbing and produces servitude in the body by way of reiteration and the production of an inescapable muscle memory. but the mind like a bull-turning bullock will be kept going round and round a narrow range of habit. we all know that the routine of clerkship is not mentally stimulating. Tagore takes great pains to steer pedagogy clear of the behaviorist model of pure stimulus and response. Habit . One of the operating oppositions in Tagore’s theater of thought is that of Habit versus Reason. But. and some times even derides. Tagore runs advances two theses simultaneously. In this clerk-ridden country. one can understand a man preferring to allow his mind to be killed. “Where is the Nile?” entire paragraphs on the history of the Nile. By doing the same thing day after day mechanical skill may be acquired. the students reside as idiots within the body of knowledge that they recite mindlessly. By and large. and not merely its commands for our muscles. Rather than die of starvation. does not external work react on the mind? It does. Carlyle may have proclaimed the dignity of labour in his stentorian accents. Tagore’s counter-valorization of manual labor is partly the result of intellectual elitism. Tagore chooses not to make a distinction between good and bad habits. for instance.” Habit is un-self-reflexive. The ultimate dystopic actualization of such a pedagogy would be the scenario that Aldous Huxley satirizes in his novel. in every country man has looked down on work which involves this kind of repetition. That is why. But it would be a cruel joke to try to console him by talking of the dignity of such sacrifice. but a still louder cry has gone up from humanity. and results in thoughtless addiction. Here is Tagore. “The wise man sacrifices the half to avert a total loss”-so says our Sanskrit proverb. age after age. only if it has its constant suggestions to our intellect. and partly the symptom of a romantic idealism that views matter as clunky and unregenerate. testifying to its indignity. the body and its musculature.
Both Nietzsche (who after all did favor poetic and aesthetic thinking) and Tagore. It is this romantic individualism in Tagore that questions the production of populist agency through leaderly unilateralism. It is this streak of Tagore’s aristocratic intellectualism on behalf of the all that leads to his passion for the concept of “mastery. whether it is freedom from or freedom towards. It is not to history. they learn nothing and they are not exercising Reason. achieves mastery over itself. It is also clear that Tagore finds the term “dignity of labor” quite problematic. the instructions broadcast to them by a charismatic leader. labor is exclusively physical. one could see Tagore supporting the thesis that labor commodifies human freedom.formation in general is epistemologically suspect. The call should come from within to within in a movement of transcendent and timeless interiority.” The telling difference between freedom. Tagore resists the pedagogy of habituation whereby the masses merely obey. Tagore’s critique is that Gandhi’s mode of propagating the moral authority of the movement precludes the possibility of the celebration of Reason within each and every individual. On a practical level. within ourselves. Mastery of and within the self is in fact a calculated polemical strategy to obviate history and anaesthetize oneself against laceration by history. the advocacy of one historicity and decolonization from another historicity. if not altogether oxymoronic. the many chameleon truths that strut around contingently as the mere products of history and historiography. Tagore’s leisurely physiocratic sensibility finds labor itself demeaning. in abeyance and/or transcendence of history.and post-colonialist historiographies. by way of habit formation. and to Tagore. and mastery is that the former is historical-circumstantial and the latter purely interior and non-relational. Tagore also. The great soul. both in a Tagorean as well as in a Nietzschean sense of the term. Thus. the individual Soul could be exercising and perfecting Self mastery and thus nihilate or reduce to the status of maya the all too tangible material-discursive reality of Colonialism and its reality. Tagore’s utopian thesis is that when people merely obey. seems to be ruling out the distinction between theoretical Reason and applied or practical Reason: a distinction that would allow for application as repetition. One could also foresee Tagore endorsing the wide spread use of machines as labor saving devices so that all human beings may reserve their time for mental and intellectual performance. whatever their other differences. identify history and the hang up with history as our basic human malaise. could be the Ubermensch inspired by a special amor fati. anti. The exercise of the mind in the name of Reason is a gratuitous and therefore free act. happens within the interiority of the organism without any reference to the outside. within Colonialist history. but such a calculated strategy can easily be valorized duplicitously as pure gnosis and the pursuit of Brahma-gyana. towards achieving a different kind of interpellation. Tagore in fact is invoking a deeper historicality that is coextensive and consubstantial with the very spiritual being of India. that we should be addressing our might and creativity. This resistance to blind authority is based both in the name of the individual and in the name of Reason. despite the strong ideological common ground between . but rather. But most crucially. and this invocation is being performed as an act of demystification of Colonialist. Mastery. as a believer in the creativity of Reason. And of course throughout this essay we have observed Tagore cleanse or sanitize politics with pure knowledge with the clear intention of claiming for philosophy and spirituality a Truth higher than the many changing truths. But here too.
but in the grand second order game of “playing with the game itself. for example.” Not being tied down by the winner-loser of the game and not being the ontological-axiological subject or creature of the rationale of the game. Unlike Tagore’s language that soars in abstraction even in the context of an immediate polemic. The Poet lives in a magnificent world of his own creation-his world of ideas. What does mastery mean here: the mastery of an individual. Nietzsche. Paris etc. I can merely show the hidden possibilities of old and even worn-out things.” And surely. The Poet presents the world with new and attractive things from day to day. The Poet is an inventor-he creates. It is time to realize that our fields are absolutely different and at no point overlapping. this problem is enacted as the tension between a situated sense of history and a historicality of the Spirit: a historicality where “the existential tangles with the epistemological. I am an explorer and having discovered a thing I must cling to it. and the annihilation of perspectivism in the doctrine of the Eternal Return. and by extension in Tagore as well. Thus. I wander after my beloved Sita. In Tagore. In the following passage. Gandhi’s discourse is nothing but situated. First of all.Nietzsche’s Ubermensch and Tagore’s Atman. and in fact is incapable of asking for the simple reason that he has outlawed through a sheer act of will such interrogation. resilience. fuelled and motivated exclusively and obsessively by ressentiment. it is only the small and weak minds. According to Nietzsche. there are differences to be observed between Tagore’s and Nietzsche’s quarrels with history. that history is nothing but the eternal return of the same. destroys and recreates. I have to struggle laboriously to find a corner for my worn-out things. Manchester. this Nietzschean remedy is as attractive as it is dangerous.or the second order project of the trans-valuation of all values and of the very value of “value. there is no competition between us. on behalf of whom? This is not the occasion for me to get into that million dollar issue in Nietzsche. of the relationship between perspectivism. I am a slave of somebody else’s creation-the spinning wheel. and intellectual fortitude to accept this truth and still live on in self mastery. I must say in all humility that we complement each other’s activity. and that it takes a human subject with extraordinary strength. the charkha and seek to deliver her from the ten-headed monster from Japan. he is assuring a wide national readership that there is no destructive ideological rift or unhealthy rivalry . a race. in his formulation of the concept of the Eternal Return. who dream of vanquishing history with history. this super subject can initiate the meta.” The question Tagore does not. Gandhi pitches their disagreement at the level of professional discord and misunderstanding. and of winning the game through the cheap and meretricious ruse of substitution effects. makes the shattering claim that nothing changes. The Poet makes his gopis dance to the tune of the flute. The world easily finds an honorable place for the magician who produces new and dazzling things. is the following: Is not the very search for stability beyond historicity a profoundly historical symptom? Gandhi’s response to “The Poet and the charkha” is remarkable both for its humor and its meticulous candor. But the really great human subject laughs and engages not in the game of winning and losing.
There are many profound and richly layered passages in The Wretched of the Earth where Fanon describes the birth of new genres and new modes of artistic activity that maintain their relative autonomies even as they re-discover themselves with reference to decolonization and the birth of the new nation. after the immediate priorities are resolved satisfactorily in purely opportunistic terms? But what if the Poet were to argue that his critique indeed does have something to contribute to the formulation of the immediate plan of action? Can a poet not speak politics and speak about politics. it is possible to bridge the gap or even create ideological alignments between Gandhi’s rescuing of the indigenous Sita from the foreign monsters and the poet’s untrammelled dalliance with the gopis. IMF. i. This is indeed a richly contemporaneous debate.e.. and intellectual creativity belong in the realm of transcendent spirituality and “inwardness. contrary to Tagore’s fears and anxieties. Fanon gives us moving descriptions of how both the form and the content of literature. If the two of them disagree on the specialist grounds of micropolitical practice and yet at the same time are united in their macropolitical solidarity. the big difference here is that whereas to Fanon culture is a hot site for the forging of a national consciousness. indeed with the problem of multiple temporalities within the same historical horizon. This is an important gesture in the context of the national struggle. to Tagore the realm of culture. how is the totality of India’s national condition to be interpreted with reference to the two very different sets of credentials? Should the poet’s suggestion be discarded on the grounds that his expertise is irrelevant in the present political context? Does this mean that the immediate context of political struggle only needs a pragmatic strategic generalist. There are at least three major motifs in Gandhi’s response to Tagore. Of course. and the condition of so-called underdevelopment. repressive universalisms from egalitarian universalisms that are in search of a new humanity beyond the colonizer-colonized divide.. poetry. visionaries. In other words. to delineate an aesthetic ideology in solidarity with an emerging political formation. poetry.e. If the poet cannot but speak from the perspective of his subject positionality and the political activist from his. It is in this context that Fanon seeks to separate out the neo-colonial from the native postcolonial. i. there is the question of the relative kshetra of each practitioner. and theater change in the creation of a new national subjectivity that is as much cultural as it is political and economic. First off. how then and on what grounds are their different prescriptions for India to be evaluated? This debate clearly foreshadows the debate concerning the representative sovereignty of the intellectual: from the traditional intellectual to the organic (Gramsci) and to the specific intellectual a la Foucault. for the last thing that Gandhi wants is a divided public that does not know which way to go: the Mahatma’s or the Poet-Gurudev’s.” . and philosophical thinkers? Will there time come at a later stage. if one were to introduce Frantz Fanon and other cultural nationalists who have also been freedom fighters and mujahuddeens.between them. given all the controversies about the World Bank. and can the agitator not have an opinion on scansion and prosody? The issue of representation here fuses with the problem of appropriate credentials. and not the services of poets. Who are the experts and who says so? Who can speak on what platform and on what basis? The second motif has to do with temporality. it is possible. Indeed.
should a spiritual account of mankind refuse any engagement with such antagonisms and quarrels? And finally. is the imperative to historicize the most compelling seduction that leads humanity astray from its true measure? Tagore’s search is for that domain where Truth is at home: in its unconditional and universal domain. has to put the energies of given history to work. much like Marx who has to concede that no revolution. however macrologically radical. The Poet on the other hand is a free. The only temporality and the only duration are those that pertain to the sheer process of making and unmaking. Of momentous importance in all this is the difference in the ways in which Tagore and Gandhi conceptualize the very category of “history. or at least likes to think that he works. and as a romantic. in sympathetic critique of Guha on Tagore. or should it be conceived of as a pure epistemological transformation? Is history an occidental ruse that has and should have no roots in Indian soil? Is the historical imagination the circumstantial product of antagonisms among peoples. sui generic. creating and destroying: the sheer ahistorical immanence of poesis. refuse to cling to the determinate duration of politics and history. all truths are generic productions. Gandhi clearly acknowledges that having discovered something. When there is a sharp conflict between historical truth and poetic truth. though not quite in those terms. nations.The third theme has to do with the articulation of the new with the old. Much like the contemporary theorist of “post-ality” Tagore the poet of the temporality to come can indulge in revolutions of the “always already” persuasion. To emancipate his people from an oppressive history. To Tagore. and no truth can be evaluated except with reference to the propriety of the genre of which it is a product. on the other hand. Gandhi’s understanding. where and how should this project be embodied? Should such a second order revolution be conceived in conjunction with a determinate overthrow of an oppressive history. on the other hand. Gandhi identifies himself with the plodding but rigorous worker who has to retool old equipment towards new and different futural possibilities. historical truth is but a devalued version of the real Truth that dwells in all humanity “otherwise. and in the name of that dehistoricized temporality. is born armed with its own proper methodologies and weapons.” Is history the same as reality? Are historical truths at one with the deeper truths of Ontology and Spirituality? Is it valid to make distinctions between the legitimacy of one’s own histories and the oppressions of colonialist and other dominant historiographies? If a fundamental problematization of the very category of “history” is to be inaugurated. it is not enough to decide in favor of the rectitude of . Gandhi as the historically situated politician. races. is that the Poet qua poet works. he can afford immense emotional and aesthetic investment in radical “breaks” from the maya of real history.” It is possible for the poet to dream the perfect perennial revolution.” As I have argued elsewhere. Gandhi has to work in and through history and inaugurate meaningful revisionist projects with the objective of overthrowing British Colonialism. “he has to cling to it. Gandhi. to put a Tagorean twist to the question. and if so. much like the swayam-bhu in Hindu spiritual thought who is conditioned by no temporality and no historicity that is not of its own making. has to work with the given-ness of history and some how find a way to transform that given-ness into a model as well as instrument of radical transformation. The revolution will have to be crafted in active and critical conjunction with a specific quarrel with an oppressive history. proactive and non reactive creator who creates ex nihilo all the time.
Behind the magnificent and kaleidoscopic variety. one discovers in nature a unity of purpose. To Tagore. After all. This is indeed a surreal postmodern scenario. design and form which is equally unmistakable. No two men are absolutely alike. Tagore seeks. is primarily political but has epistemological implications. from an advaitic spiritual perspective.” Though I find it disquieting to see Tagore destabilizing regnant categories not in the name of a future to come through political struggle and ethico-epistemological persuasion. The Poet thinks that the charkha is calculated to bring about a deathlike sameness in the nation and thus imagining he would shun it if he could. to destabilize a number of canonical categories that have shaped human destiny: the biggest culprit here is the category called “history. mangled. not even twins. Spirituality is neither collective nor individualistic. I am persuaded by Tagore’s lofty and rigorous suspicion of categories in general. Nor is he the only thinker to align the obsession with history with a sickly and jaundiced nay-saying to life. and his belief is in Spirituality. Tagore is not the only thinker to express a fundamental disillusionment with history and its truths. and mis-spoken for by historical regimes. has a cause and a belief that enable him heal the trauma caused by history: his cause is Universal harmony. as is to be expected. a scenario lacking in any kind of binding universal master narrative. whereas it resides perversely or idiosyncratically in the heart of poetry. It is indeed in the nature of history to function as provincial regimes. it is futile and unintelligent to look for the resolution of historical blunders through historical processes. And behind the commonness of form there is the same life pervading all. The truth is that the charkha is intended to realize the essential and living oneness of interest among India’s myriads. He is not the only one either to exhort human beings both in the concrete and in the abstract to wake themselves up from the nightmare of history. but rather in the name of a smug “future anterior” that seems securely lodged in Tagore’s poetic pocket. In other words. nor is it conceived as antagonistic. the very valence of truth is born only at that moment when such a truth is acknowledged as the truth of a particular genre. universal harmony intended by human spirituality has nothing to do with the violent universalist blueprints drafted by dominant historiographies. and therefore. It is a state of being whose coming into its own is forever marred. The idea of sameness or oneness was carried by Shankara to its utmost logical and natural limit and he . What is more difficult to determine is whether he even wants history to participate in the discovery of the Real. Should the human subject work its way historically through history to get over to the other Real. But the problem is: wake up into what state of being or consciousness? Does such a state pre-exist human habitation? Is it more real than the realities of history? It is obvious throughout Tagore’s discourse that he does not want to equate the Real with history. as negative. misrecognized. or are history and its claims to be rejected altogether as the human subject attempts to live the Real? Gandhi’s response to this problem. Tagore. and yet there is much that is indispensably common to all mankind. or as a differential effect to be produced through power plays within or between/among humans. rife and rampant with the seductions of petite narratives. unlike the postmodern rebel.historical truth on the assumption that truth somehow belongs naturally to history.
More like a Marx who produces the solidarity of class along lines of shared perspectives and interests. To Tagore. nam rupa was illusion and illusory. The difference between Gandhism and Marxism is that the former is not intended as an invasive procedure that treats either nature or the people as raw material to be redeemed by epistemology. It is through the category of symbolic action that Gandhi seeks to “realize the essential and living oneness of interest among India’s myriads. Is the reality of the leader . There are two related issues here: representation and pedagogy.” Unlike Tagore. Tagore does not contest the first issue. he is a leader. one God Brahman. but rather a particular people who have been beleaguered by history at a specific time in a determinate way. who unlike the poet. But Tagore objects to Gandhi’s pedagogy of issuing nothing but instruction after instruction to the people. isn’t the charkha not the bearer of Gandhi’s didacticism on behalf of the people? The charkha is indeed a regime as well as regimen that Gandhi prescribes and imposes on the people. Tagore’s perspective. Let both be equally real if you will. in line with the Marxian rationale of production. or is he not in fact. Gandhi is referring to a native or indigenous vitality that has been crushed by the engine of colonialism.exclaimed that there was only one Truth. But Gandhi cannot afford to take such a risk and acquiesce in the reality of such a benign assumption. Gandhi is of the people. and whether the real behind the unreality is what we do not see. and India and its multitudes are fortunate to have found the Mahatma in their hour of dire need. in the name of polemical interest.” But this last claim that I made on behalf of Gandhian methodology is suspect in many ways. does not have the luxury of fetishizing the individual or of questioning authority or the politics of representation just for the sake of problematizing authority. To be even more precise. as we have already had the chance to observe. evanescent. Also. “the idiocy of rural life. the indivisible Oneness of Being is a conceptual spiritual given at a level and scale that is coextensive with all of humanity. Gandhi is not referring to an ontological oneness. but of course it is in the name of the people that he exercises this authority. Gandhi does not wish to let the oneness remain nameless in the spirit of the oceanic commonality of all humanity. Where Gandhi parts company perhaps with Marx is in his assertion that there already pre-exists an essential unity among India’s myriads. The other crucial word here is “living”. We need not debate whether what we see is unreal. He has to produce such a Oneness through appropriate programmatic action that has to represent not just humanity at large in one cosmic move. It is Gandhi’s anti-intellectualism as a teacher that bothers Tagore. Is Gandhi just passively “representing” a living populism that is already there. Gandhi would have been horrified and outraged by Marx’s descriptive phrase. The cardinal difference between the two thinkers has to do with the relationships they forge between gnana kshetra and karma kshetra. Gandhi does insist that this oneness has to be produced into existence. is utterly disinterested and disjunct from all worldly and political considerations. and all form. What Gandhi achieves with the activation of “interest” is not a spiritual but a political ontology. He has to name it as the one-ness of the Indian people under specific circumstances. producing a force called “people?” And. but on the other hand. the one-ness is at the level of interests. Gandhi makes the important diagnosis that it is only on the basis of an underlying common interest that a people become one.
and how do they make human performance permeable to that transcendent principle? In the passage quoted above. Gandhi cannot be suggesting that human nature follows and replicates Nature in blind obedience. so be it. in the earlier instance. I would think. and cognition? In the name of what transcendent principle do they legitimate human action. that nature even “means” is an anthropocentric projection. and is there a way to tell the “really real” from fake realities? Gandhi’s response to Tagore about the epistemology of the real is superbly and disarmingly tactical. Whether the unity that Gandhi invokes at the level of historical political organization can even be derived from the first principles in nature is indeed open to debate. my point rather is that the appeal to nature has limited appeal and effectiveness in human affairs for the simple reason that human historicity is not in any way anticipated in the order of nature. Both Gandhi and Tagore are deeply invested in the valorization of the One that underlies the myriad kaleidoscopic play of differences. and how is this realm accessible to the human agent/subject during times of praxis? Where then do they locate the human. Perhaps I am not doing justice to Gandhi’s thought. but this is what I find Gandhi telling Tagore again and again when it comes to theoretical discussions of knowledge. Even without such a demystification it is possible to acknowledge and celebrate the underlying oneness of human reality and its inherence in nature. Which register do they identify as the realm of the One. he has no difficulty conceding “let both be real. enjoy its own measure of authenticity. Surely. More than reject. “let both be real. would reject such a radical thesis of human discontinuity from Nature. I would even contend that even the “order of nature” is not inherent in nature. It is Gandhi’s way of saying that this discussion about the reality of the real is merely academic and as such makes no difference. Gandhi. Nature just is. the intra-human. says Gandhi. It has no bearing on the practical political decisions to be made. the superficial and the deeper layer.” If the unity in nature is nothing but the human understanding that there is unity in nature. Let each layer of reality. As Akhil Bilgrami has recently argued in the context of Gandhi and modern medicine. I am not for a moment impugning the anti-anthropocentric and ecosensitive thrust of Gandhian thought. Gandhi makes it possible for us to locate the human subject on two levels without creating an untenable philosophical paradox. Anthropocentrism becomes a problem or an issue only when . If indeed reality is structured in double-ness. Take for example the issue of anthropocentrism. the interhuman. that is fine by Gandhi. Gandhi is suggesting that there is no need for the one to demystify the other out of existence. perception. Gandhi also delimits its scope and relevance. What is crucial however in Gandhi’s anti-anthropocentric thinking is that there is an inviolable relationship between the nature of the human and nature as reality. as though the Cogito itself were a function of Nature.different from that of the people? Is the reality of the intellectual different from that of the political leader? What about the reality of the poet as visionary? How many realities are there.” he also makes the strong suggestion that there really is no need to debate the issue conclusively and come up with a winner. and the human-nature spheres of experience. Some issues are issues because epistemological thinking makes it so. Gandhi makes it clear that to him that the “unity of purpose” obtains as a fundamental organizing principle of nature. Even as he concedes. Gandhi would perhaps just not invest in this specifically epistemological issue just as. While recognizing the importance of that debate.
Gandhi tells his interlocutor that both his self and his doubt will melt away as soon as he is able to determine the value of his action in the context of the weakest human being around and the needs of that being. as in the Prakriri-Purusha formulation a division within duality to be transcended in the name of spiritual harmony? Where stands human nature vis a vis Nature? Is there a mind in Nature? Is Nature purposeful and intentional. an ideal.” in a Heideggerian sense. only textiles from their looms. Instead of furnishing him with an automatically revolving grindstone-God slipped into his constitution that most lively sprightly thing called Mind. In his formulation of the talisman. a categorical a priori that drives and regulates human conduct? Is Nature “a standing reserve. Nature gets played out on multiple registers. or what I would like to call epistemological inflation. He is claiming something even more fundamental. What Gandhi achieves over and over again. this popular conception of the Creator’s doing is the very opposite of what he really did do to man at the moment of his creation. a horizon.the human subject chooses to accord to epistemology a status and an autonomy over and above praxis. often in a blur as the polemical context shifts. awaiting human application and labor: a potential awaiting actualization human agency? What is the connection between human work and the availability of Nature as raw material? Is Nature homogeneous or heterogeneous. from a third. and is human intentionality a celebration as well as a reiteration of nature’s purposefulness? What is mind and what is matter? Why is it even important to invoke Nature in the context of political practice? Are people be as natural as Nature? What is the relationship. The references to “nature” in Gandhi and Tagore are numerous. they succeeded in extorting-from one class of them. In so far as the men at the top succeeded in paralyzing the people’s minds by fear-or greed or hypnotic texts. only pots from their wheels. It is only the abstract and theoretical gnani who in taking his/her kshetradharma too seriously and absolutely creates problems that do not really exist within the continuum of human practice and action. mindlessly uniform or excitingly diverse? In the conversations between Gandhi and Tagore. is ontological/political certitude in the face of epistemological self indulgence. It is important to note that Gandhi insists not that the doubt will melt away. in is own under-theorized way. But whatever our shastras may or may not have said. And unless man can be made to get rid of this mind it will remain impossible to convert him into a machine. Tagore. Now when from such persons as these it becomes . repeatedly resorts to the notion of “mind” to counter the machine. from another class. I am reminded here of the famous Gandhi talisman. He is asserting that the very form of selfhood that accommodates such a doubt will disappear as though it were nothing more than a form of false consciousness. between the activity of spinning the charkha and repetitive motions in Nature? Is Nature an enemy. Is Nature physical? Is Nature the template of all that is Real? What is the relationship between nature and spirituality? Is Nature. but nowhere does the concept get defined with any kind of clarity. only oil from their mills. a partner. Right action undertaken in the name of common good dissolves theoretical doubt and a form of fake individual epistemological being. an exemplar. for example. modal as well as epistemological.
necessary to demand the application of their mind to any big work on hand. Mind!” cry they. “What on earth is that? Why don’t you order us what to do and give some text for us to repeat from mouth to mouth and age to age? Tagore posits “mind” simultaneously as something intrinsically and inalienably human and as a faculty that for lack of proper pedagogical cultivation could degenerate into a lower form and function. . they stand aghast.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.