Social Scientist

Review: Tagore and Nationalism

Reviewed Work(s): The Illegetimacy of Nationalism by Ashis Nandy
Review by: Anita Prakash
Source: Social Scientist, Vol. 23, No. 1/3 (Jan. - Mar., 1995), pp. 128-131
Published by: Social Scientist
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3517896
Accessed: 16-10-2017 15:38 UTC

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms

Social Scientist is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Social
Scientist

This content downloaded from 14.139.212.114 on Mon, 16 Oct 2017 15:38:14 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
BOOK REVIEW

Tagore and Nationalism

Ashis Nandy, The Illegetimacy of Nationalism Oxford India

Paperbacks, Delhi, 1994.

This is the age of post-modernism. The basic paradigms and elements

of Enlightenment, which so much changed the context and content of
contemporary rationality and ushered in the age of 'modernism' are
now being subjected to much scepticism and questioning. Viability of
much-eulogised concepts of secularism, modernism, nationalism and
nation-state are being questioned by a set of social scientists, Ashis
Nandy is one of them. Earlier he had presented a critique of secularism
in 'The Politics of Secularism and the Recovery of Religious Tolerance'
in Veena Das (ed.) Communities, Riots and survivors (Delhi, 1990) and
'Anti-Secularist manifesto' in Seminar 314, 1985. Now, in this thin
volume of ninety pages, he has focused attention on the critique or
discourse of nationalism and has found Rabindra Nath Tagore as a
'dissenter' of nationalist ideology, for whom 'nationalism itself
became gradually illegitimate'. (p. 2) Hence, the title of the book-
'The Illegitimacy of Nationalism'.
The title itself is provocative, and sets the tone of the agenda. One
expects that one would leam what renders nationalism 'illegitimate'?
Is there something inherently wrong in the concept itself, or is this to
do with the praxis of the concept? Nandy recognises the idea of
nationalism to be essentially a western concept, internalised by the
early nationalists of second half of the nienteenth century. They felt
that indigenous state structure was feudal and oppressive and thus a
'liability' and irrelevant to modern nation-state which they believed
to be progressive. This 'unself-critical Indian nationalism' was, Ashis
Nandy argues, 'primarily a response to western imperialism and like
all such responses shaped by what it was responding to' and thus, 'this
version of nationalism was limited by its time and its origin' (p. 3).
As contrast to this 'idea of mono-cultural nation-state', a dissident
view of nationalist ideology was presented by a small minority of
Indian thinkers like Gandhi and Tagore. To quote Nandy, they
regarded nationalism, 'as an imposition, an attempt to mould the

Social Scientist, Vol. 23, Nos. 1-3, January-Marchl995

This content downloaded from 14.139.212.114 on Mon, 16 Oct 2017 15:38:14 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 BOOK REVIEW 129

Indian concept of the public realm to the requirements of standardised

western categories' (p. 89).
What then was the alternative to such nationalism? To quote
Nandy again, 'their alternative was a distinctive civilizational
concept of universalism embedded in the tolerance encoded in various
traditional ways of life in a highly diverse, plural society.' (xi)
In fact, throughout the entire narrative, the basic theme is Tagore's
emphasis on this 'civilizational' aspect-his dream that 'Indian
civilization with its demonstrated capacity to live with and
creatively use contradictions and inconsistencies would produce a
national' ideology that would transcend nationalism' (p. 83).
The Indian civilisation and life-style has been repeatedly
juxtaposed with the idea of nationalism and nation-state.
Nationalism arouses apprehensions for the very existence of
civilization-a fear of being 'caught in a situation where the idea of
the Indian nation would supersede that of Indian civilization, and
where the actual ways of life or Indians would be assessed 'solely in
terms of the needs of an imaginary nation-state called India'. (p. 3)
Rabindra Nath's antipathy towards western nationalism and the
evils of modernism is a vell-known fact, and so it is easier to choose
him rather than any other single individual the subject of such a study.
But by doing so one is liable to superimpose the entire critique of
modernity upon him. In the attempt, the 'pre-modern' tends to get
glorified. While admiring the 'pre-modern one should also remember
that the much trumpeted pluralism encoded in traditional ways was
not based upon democratic and egalitarian values but on discrimination
and hierarchy between different cultural, caste and religious groups.
Even Tagore did not believe in indiscriminate veneration of traditions,
but stood for unshackling of reason by opening up the doors of society.
He wrote in Ancient Treasures (1892).
'If we are to build up a nation, we must with all due respect and
regret cast aside the load of the venerable rock-like tradition,
which is suffocating our humanity, our strength and our manly
independence'.
Again, in 1912, he wrote in 'Objectives and Education, 'It is no use
repeating that our traditional society is the best training ground of man
as man. . . we must at the outset mercilessly smash this illusion of ours.
It is our own society that has tortured our humanity'.
Besides, a distinction has been made between patriotism, anti-
imperialism and nationalism. It has been Nandy's assertion that
Tagore's was the ideology of patriotism rather than nationalism.
Again, he argues that Tagore 'rejected the idea of nationalism, but
practised anti-imperialist politics all his life' (p. 80). Since the
author himself acknowledges that during the age to which Tagore

This content downloaded from 14.139.212.114 on Mon, 16 Oct 2017 15:38:14 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
130 SOCIAL SCIENTIST

belonged 'nationalism patriotism and anti-imperialism were a single

concept for most Indians', (ibid), he would have done better by at least
operationalising these concepts. Since the entire narrative is concerned
with how Tagore 'repudiated' the concept of nationalism, it could
have been even a more fruitful exercise to situate his views on
nationalism in the context of vast and growing historical literature on
the subject. Addition of a comprehensive bibliography at the end of
the book would have further enhanced the utility of the book for
those who want to acquaint themselves with the contours of the on-
going debate.
For 'vital psychological and cultural clues' to Tagore's concept of
politics and what he describes as his 'political selfhood', Ashis
Nandy analyses three novels of Tagore,-Gora (1909), Ghare-Baire
(1916) and Char Adhyay (1934). These have been characterised as
explicitly political novels of Tagore. By doing so, politics tends to get
over-emphasised at the cost of wide range of social themes covered
therein. Gora is concerned more with the issue of social conservatism
and parochialism-the predicament of a caste-ridden Indian society
grappling with new ideas. Ghare-Baire and Char Adhyay, though
admittedly more political have important gender issues to consider
regarding women's sexuality and autonomy. Even the 'political'
concerns articulated in these novels have more to do with the
unethicality of exclusivist violent brand of nationalism rather than
ideology of nationalism, per se.
While discussing these novels, the author chooses to depart from
the conventional chronological order and arbitrarily adopts a
'psychological sequence' by analysing first Ghare-Baire, then Char-
Adhyaya and lastly, Gora. One might have certain reservations about
this schema, as the ideas of a person like Tagore in whom rigidity or
fixity of views was singularly absent, and open-mindedness dominant
trait of personality, could best be understood in their gradual
evolution. These reservations apart, one must admit that Nandy has
drawn interesting parallels with Georg Lukacs' review of Ghare-
Baire, Sarat Chandra Chuttopadhyay's 'Pather Dabi' as a
counterpart of Char Adhyay and 'Kim' of Rudyard Kipling as a
counterpart of Gora. The psychological make-up of Tagore's characters
has been contextualised with reference to contemporary political
culture, as depicted in these counterparts.
This and the next part titled, 'The lives', in which Tagore's own life
and that of what author defines as his 'political double'-the fiery
revolutionary Brahmbandhab Upadhyaya-is the most captivating
part of the book. The subtleties and nuances of changing contours of the
two selves have been beautifully brought up. The psychological
influences of the structure of essentially masculine authority and

This content downloaded from 14.139.212.114 on Mon, 16 Oct 2017 15:38:14 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 BOOK REVIEW 131

defiance in Brahmbandhav Upadhyay's personality, which went i

the making of characters of Sandip in Ghare-Baire and of hIdranath in
Char Adhyay, and the nmdel of autonomy and dissent that developed
in Tagore due to his early life influences and went into the making of
characters of Nikhil in Ghere-Baire, and At in Char Adhyaya,
provide insightful psychological biography of Tagores views.
Yet, all through the work, one gets the impression of pre-modern
being hailed as open-ended, syncretic and plural. Moderity has been
criticised as leading to 'subversion of morality, 'standardised routine
structures of authority', and 'totalising, arrogant and violent'.
Similarly, nationalism is seen as 'willing to sacrifice Indians at the
altar of brand-new, imported, progressivist history of the Indian
nation-state in the making'. This may, at best, be only one side of the
coin. Much depends on where one's vantage-point lies. Though it may
be fashionable in twentieth century to criticise the modernity-project
for being overladen with 'western' values of Enlightenment, it seems
not so much of an irrelevant exercise if seen from the vantage-point of
contemporary social moorings and consciousness. Nationalism too, one
may add, could not be considered 'illegitimate' at least in the context
of nineteenth century colonial India.

ANITA PRAKASH
Lecturer in History
Bareilly College
Bareilly

This content downloaded from 14.139.212.114 on Mon, 16 Oct 2017 15:38:14 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms