Was Rabindranath Tagore an anti nationalist

There are certain views that are floating around in intellectual circles that Rabindranath Tagore was an anti Nationalist. I am not sure why Nationalism has become a dirty word with some people, esp. with the liberal elites and the media. Nationalism, which conveys deep sense of pride and respect for one's own country is now synonymous with war mongering, chest thumping and positioning one's own country as greater than the others. No harm in taking that position, in fact the dictionary meanings also convey the similar impression.

The dictionary definition of Nationalism as per https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nationalism - begins with "Loyalty and Devotion to Nation". To me that's important, even though the next few lines dilutes the main definition a little bit. Oxford dictionary defines Nationalistic as Having or expressing strong identification with one's own nation and vigorous support for its interests, especially to the exclusion or detriment of the interests of other nations. 

Again the first half is important constituent, the second part is an extension, it is just a subset of a larger set of Nationalism, albeit a narrow one. Therefore if we are to define an Anti Nationalist he/she  - 1) Does not have love or devotion for the nation as per Merriam Webster, does not have a strong identification with one's own nation and does not support its interests, whether or not to the exclusion or detriment of the interests of the other nations - as per Oxford dictionary

One who is familiar with life, works and ideology of Tagore would know instinctively how wrong both the points would be in his context.

First, a context about the book or lecture of Tagore quoted here. Nationalism - a book with a series of lectures delivered on Nationalism in West, Nationalism in Japan, Nationalism in India was published in 1917 and represented his thoughts during the first world war between 1914 and 1918. In the war that was fought Rabindranath with his sensitive mind and keen sense of humanism saw through the hollowness of the war perpetrated by power hungry nations, nations whose sole objective was to establish and exercise their military power and brute force and dominate over others. That sickened him and that was the ideology he rebelled against in his essays. If Nationalism is a broad canvass, Nationalism as motive force for power is one aspect of it and it was this aspect the he was against, not the broad Nationalism reflected in the love for one's nation, ideals and culture. If we carefully read through the article on Nationalism in India, we see that he has repeatedly highlighted the dangers and pitfalls of imitating the Western form of Nationalism (which sadly is reflected in the extension of the definition given in the dictionaries), which borders around imperialism, and whose moral corruption would be devastating for a nation state concept which was in the offing for India. For Indian Nationalism he envisaged a much broader canvass, based perhaps on humanism and pluralism, with spiritual values and ethos as is evident from his stressing on our own heritage that should be our backbone. If he was against that Nationalism he would not have named his essay as Nationalism in India to begin with. He wanted an India that would be deeply indebted to its own heritage and values instead of blindly copying the materialistic ambition and greed driven West. This is my humble understanding of his essay which I have tried to reconcile based on his life and works. Blindly quoting his lecture without understanding the context and the underlying message would be too dangerous. We have seen how literal interpretation of even religious scriptures are leading to mass murders in today's world.

When we read his ideas in his essay it is crystal clear as to what kind of Nationalism he had problems with - The Nationalism of the dead wood, of prayers and petitions, of struggle for power and supremacy over other races, but not the core of Nationalism - the love and devotion for one's own country, which is also the essence of Universalism which he professed.

Tagore was an active participant in the 1905 movement against partition of Bengal - a purely Nationalist movement as we all know. He was closely associated with Sister Nivedita and we all know that Indian Nationalism is deeply indebted to the initial endeavors of the Sister. So appreciative was Tagore that he gave the popular name "Lokamata" or the mother of the Nation or People to Sister Nivedita. The depth of their relationship and worldview can be read in the well researched book written by Sankari Prasad Basu - Nivedita Lokamata ( 2 volumes). Tagore's Gora was partly inspired by the character of Nivedita. In 1908 Rabindranath wrote a poem eulogizing Aurobindo who was then arrested on suspicion of being involved in the Alipore Bomb Case. The powem reflects his deep respect for Aurobindo. That is surprising because the later was an ardent Nationalist. An ardent anti nationalist writing a poem expressing his deep respect for an ardent nationalist? Does not gel well.

Of course one may point that Rabindranath's Char Adhyaya and Ghare Baire almost condemned the revolutionary activities, but then again some of his short stories express his respect for freedom fighters. Perhaps he just did not quite agree with the path of violence. Possibly, as his later inclination towards Gandhijis showed. However he was also a critic of Gandhiji and his methods. Some say that he was critical of the Non Cooperation Movement. Here it would be interesting to check what Subhas Chandra Bose wrote in his Indian Struggle - copied and pasted below. So Rabindranath's world view was not static, it was dynamic and also based on his deep distrust of European hegemony and hunger for power. He did not deride Nationalism, on the contrary he wanted to construct the positive side of it deeply rooted in India's spiritual tradition.

Now let me cite some more examples of his direct and indirect involvement in the Nationalistic movement of India, esp. his relationship with perhaps the most Ardent Nationalist that India had ever seen - Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose. So an ardent anti nationalist harbouring so much love and respect for an ardent nationalist? - May be an aberration? We shall see.

Jalianwalabagh like massacre was routine in British India, we know that he willingly gave up his title in protest against the 1919 massacre - there was no point for an ardent antinationalist to give up his title in protest against a tyranny committed against a "narrow", "parochial" nationalistic movement. In Sep 1931, when the British police shot dead several nationalist leaders in Hijli, Medinipur, entire India erupted. On 19 Sep 1931 Subhash and J.N Sengupta, forgetting their ideological battle called for a unity gathering in which the ardent anti nationalist poet, despite his physical illness, participated and expressed his anguish in the strongest form. Unthinkable and unimaginable for an anti Nationalist!

Now coming to the meeting between the ardent Nationalist and ardent Anti Nationalist -

https://www.thestatesman.com/opinion/tagore-netaji-spirituality-1502726784.html  

In the process of proclaiming this rare coalescence of political and spiritual goals of life, Bose acknowledged his deep sense of indebtedness to Tagore: “Those of us who are trying to work in a small way feel immensely gratified to have boundless affection, encouragement and inspiration from you.” Tagore’s direct tryst with contemporary politics was rather restricted. His recoil into the meditative world of Santiniketan, following his brief involvement with the Boycott and Swadeshi movement did evoke mixed reactions. Notwithstanding that experience, Tagore remained aloof from direct involvement in Indian politics till the late 1930s, when Bose had undisputedly emerged as the political leader of Bengal and of the Indian National Congress. In spite of Subhas’s success, in being appointed as the president of the Congress without the support of Mahatma Gandhi, he was eventually forced out of Congress politics.

Tagore on his part, though he differed with Bose on the issue of a violent struggle, openly endorsed his candidature for leading the Congress, which in turn, as historians point out, paved the way for differences with both Mahatma Gandhi and Nehru, especially the former. As Krishna Dutta and Andrew Robinson point out in Selected Letters of Rabindranath Tagore: “Tagore, despite strong initial reservations about Bose, had by 1937 come to view him as the only hope for principled leadership in Bengal. He was distressed to see Bose failing politically and the increasing factionalism of Bengali politics.” Tagore’s epistolary exchanges during this period testify to his seething discontent at the turn of events. He ventilated his deep sense of distress in a letter to Nehru from Santiniketan dated 28 November 1938.

As the Congress was divided between supporters of Gandhi and Bose, Tagore advocated the latter’s cause with his write up Deshanayak or The Leader of the Country in May 1939: “I am a Bengali poet; on behalf of Bengal I hail you as the leader of the nation”. In this essay Tagore not only hailed Subhas as the leader of the country, but revealed a mellowing of his own attitude towards the revolutionaries in Bengal: “We have seen the fiery beauty of will in the hearts of Bengali youths of the next generation. They were born with light to kindle lamps within the country, but ignited a fire by mistake… but even in that heart rending failure we have witnessed the superb grandeur of the heroic heart… They, in their fearlessness, have established for all time to come the indomitable will power of Bengal… Has all the ink of law smeared on them succeeded in blackening that inherent incandescence?”

Throughout 1939, Tagore spared no effort to gain the backing of Gandhi and Nehru for Bose, though with no success. In a letter to Gandhi written on 29 March 1939 he made a fervent plea: “At the last Congress session some rude hands have deeply hurt Bengal with an ungracious persistence; please apply without delay balm to the wound with your own kind hands and prevent it from festering.” Gandhi’s reply on 2 April, confirmed the stalemate: “I have your letter full of tenderness. The problem you set before me is difficult. I have made certain suggestions to Subhas, I see no other way out of the impasse.”

He went on writing to Gandhiji in 1939 - A rather unusual gesture from an ardent anti nationalist

He continued to harbour great interest in Subhas and his journey. He was gravely concerned after Netaji's historic disappearance and wrote a letter to Sarat Bose. In 1940 he even sought and had a personal interview with Subhas. Its a pity he could not live to see the latter's exploits.

Incidentally in 1914 he had good rapport with another great ardent nationalist - Rasbehari Bose. When Rasbehari left India for Japan after the failed uprising of 1914 he took the penname of P.N Tagore, a relative of Tagore to get his passport. Would not have been possible without the explicit consent of Tagore.

In 1941 before he departed he penned his poem ( a very poor translation of the original Bengali) - "the serpents are blowing poison fumes, therefore the message of peace will be useless, while departing let me give a clarion call to all who are getting prepared to fight the demons" - not exactly the sentiments of an ardent anti nationalist!

Also here is a very balanced article on his overall ideology http://www.mainstreamweekly.net/article6152.html