Leftists Shifting Goalposts – Picking at Nationalism
Sympathizers of sloganeers, who wanted India’s (barbadi) destruction, go to any level to defend the perpetrators of an act which is still shamelessly touted as an instance of freedom of speech. One of the left wing blusters that they ultimately reach to, is an attempt to attribute the sloganeering with this very idea, which they find parallel with discussions on nationalism, and with the purpose of discrediting nationalism of importance.
Nationalism is not the new Church. It has been contested at least for the last 200 years. Samuel Johnson in The Patriot said this famous statement ‘Patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrel’ in 1775. In an apparent reference to ‘false nationalists’ he made the statement which is still the favorite of self-styled intellectuals who disparage the idea of a nation. But the most quoted person in last few days in this attempt of disparagement and disagreement would be Tagore, whose ideas about nationalism has been reduced to a story where he vehemently and directly disagrees of the supremacy of Nation over humanism.
Tagore and his undying literature:
On Nationalism
As this article on EPW debunks this myth, and blames analysts on Tagore of reductivism of his ideas; still it remains a truth that Tagore was critical of nationalism.
In this essay, he is opposed to the idea of Nation. As we travel through his thoughts on nationalism and ‘its peril’, it is imperative to note a few things.
One, it was written at a time when European nations were belligerent. A lot of references, especially the ones guiding how ‘Indian nationalism’ should be, if it should, are directly pitted against European mindset. This mindset was typical of the (Western) era which was preceded by Industrial Revolution and new found wealth and succeeded by conflagration of Europe, as inevitable World Wars, to which even USA and Japan (only non-European nations that reaped Industrial Revolution) were not untouched.
Two, the notion of Nation is seen from a point which reduces the same to a selfish group, which not just wants its best but also sees aliens- that are anyone who do not look similar, talk similar or behave similar- as suspicious. Though this would be a narrow definition of Nationalism, the assumptions and concerns raised by Tagore are completely justified given the times it was written (and hence the numerous references to contemporary environment). At one instance, he places pride as a base to Nationalism (which it is) while surmising that all pride leads to blindness. While he justifies it immediately with a European example, it should be noted that this essay, written in 1925 would reflect not just the aftermath of WW1 but also the growing tensions between European nations nearing another long war and the most devastating one in human history, WW2.
While at another place he writes upfront,’ I am not against one Nation in particular but against the general idea of all Nations’; while in subsequent paragraphs, hinting at (his opinion of) man’s ultimate object which is moral and spiritual; and not organizational(or national).
In fact, the reason of his return of Knighthood to the British being Jallianwala massacre, and not concurrent British atrocities in Iraq, makes him more nationalist than a self-declared nationalist. While at many places, his words disagree with what later came to be known as Utility theory, made famous by Samuelson, who pioneered at around the time Tagore died; this essay ends with a humble note from Tagore that since he is not an Economist, his beliefs (of Individual interaction with a group – or a Nation) may not be true; but he emphasises on the existence of these beliefs.
Ghare Baire
Another of his (great) works that is often quoted in critiques of nationalism is this fiction ‘Ghare Baire’. Having watched Ray’s movie by the same name and gone through its English translation,’ The Home and the World’; Tagore’s intentions come clear. He pits chest thumping revolutionary Sandeep as against a pacifist zameendar Nikhil; both initially friends. Bimala, wife of Nikhil is swept off seeing the charisma of Sandeep and finds Nikhil docile. First eighty percent of the novel, Sandeep runs the show and at each event his approach is potent and sensational, compared to Nikhil. With Bimala getting instigated by Sandeep and ending up joining the revolution against the British; the last twenty percent according to my judgement, inverts the narration. Sandeep who invokes Mother India at the drop of a hat, and is a nationalist is shown to be corrupt. Worst of it he is shown to be someone who covers his misdeeds and poor judgements up with the cloak of misplaced nationalism. Bimala represents innocent masses that initially are influenced by ideas of nationalism, but it is humanism – in form of Nikhil- which triumphs or should triumph according to Tagore.
Based highly on this book, Ashish Nandy of the ‘most corrupts are from lower caste’ fame tries to illegitimatise nationalism in his critique.
While his section of people deride nationalism based on events in this fiction; it is important to note that even someone as genius as Tagore had to show Sandeep as corrupt to bring down his persona. This makes us ask a critical question – what if Sandeep was as honest as Nikhil and possessed as a sound judgement. Who should ‘win’ in that case? Isn’t vilification of Sandeep a weakness from a writer’s perspective to tone down nationalism? If corruption and improper conduct are the only ways to sway readers, then it shows us the might, and independent uprightness of nationalism, which could not be directly attacked.
Nationalism & Literature in Second Half of Twentieth Century:
The world and Indian subcontinent changed just after Tagore died. It would have been interesting to have him commenting on Muslim League’s demand of a separate nation, which came just around his death. The Two-Nation theory’s concept of a Nation (of Muslims) inside the Nation of India would have come as shocking to him. Unfortunately we do not have much of him on partition, but I bet, he could have no longer held the same Utopian setting, where Nation loses its importance.
In the next twenty years of his death, Africa rose. It rose from the darkness that European imperialism and colonialism brought upon it. A significant role in binding Africans was their common shared culture, and beliefs. ‘Things Fall Apart’ a magnum opus by Chinua Achebe describes in details the gory and ethnocentric attitudes of western masters and the destruction it brought upon Africans. While this piece of fiction is still being read in African universities, it reinstated the ‘use’ of nationalism in the narration. In the phase when African Nations were getting independent, there was a probability, where Africa might have fallen into disarray. African nationalism which bound Africans together with the same ‘imaginary thread of Nation’ finds pride and identity in African culture. Colonial culture, all of it European, was seen and insinuated to be ethnocentric in the novel, which devastated African culture in preceding 100 years or so. ‘Things fall apart’ talks in details how Africans acquiesced after failing to fight a battle which they had already lost; even before it had started.
Well, absence of nations and a world abuzz with humanism is romantic, till hard realities strike. ‘Things Fall Apart’ ripped apart the story of white masters ‘civilizing the tribes’ and it made local customs and beliefs significant again in the minds of Africans. Achebe’s other works were significant too, in reinstating African pride which was lost during years of cultural suppression by Christian missionaries.
Achebe’s works were celebrated not just for its uniqueness as it showed colonialism from an African’s eyes, hitherto unexplored, but also of the effects it produced. The power his words carried cemented African pride in them, which was shaken by years of disdain from colonialists.
Should Empiricism do the Talk?
A Utopian talk of Nobel laureate Tagore which was in stark opposition to what transpired in the world after his demise, makes us think if Africans should have heeded to him and accepted their fate without any attempts to spring nationalism up. Or what Achebe did, for what he went on to win Man Booker International prize in 2007, was true and correct in the way it should be?
While Tagore’s works transcends time, and it would keep influencing generations making us ask ourselves crude and difficult questions, Achebe’s is more real, pragmatic and reflects society how it is, while leaving the question of how it should be.
The saddest part in this discourse is the way Tagore’s work is selectively and illogically quoted by a section, to shove their ideas and understandings down our throat. While ‘intellectuals’ discuss non-national ideas of Tagore, I am sure he would not have espoused the cause of ‘Bharat ki barbadi’ as a legitimate course in his quest of removing national boundaries. The disgust that emanates from seeing selective quotation of works around a hundred years old from a national pride, can only be attributed to Left controlled media who extol a part of Tagore’s antinomy to their advantage while secretly abhorring the other. By the way, Achebe’s works which re-invigorated the African pride has not yet led to their blindness. Only time will tell when it does, if it does.
A classic example of nationalism lists European nations, which are trying their best to cut across national lines, and unite as much and as far as possible. While a section of crowd sees it as evaporation of nationalism, it is just the opposite. EU integration is NOT a sign of diluting boundaries. It is a classic case of strengthening them by having a larger, stronger border.
In times where IS is seeing educated professionals migrating to achieve their goals cutting across boundaries and nations and language, this premise that nationalism is thinning out does not hold ground.
Nationalism is un-debatable when compared to anti-nationalism.
Nationalism when contrasted to non-nationalism is still debatable; and even achievable in an Utopian setting, which seems distant from now. Debating nationalism is legitimate but the pivot around which the discussion should revolve, better be humanism and not around the conception of the government. Hatred towards a government which excite you to a level, that you wish destruction of a nation is no intellectualism. It is sick mentality.