The world has started the beginning of a yearlong celebration of the 150th birth anniversary of Rabindranath Tagore, a towering figure in Indian intellectual and cultural life of 20th century, born on 7 May 1861. W.B. Yeats in his exhilarating introduction to “Gitanjali” wrote: “These lyrics, wrote Yeats, display in their thought a world I have dreamed all my life. Work of a supreme culture….”. More than hundred years have passed since Yeats made his enthusiastic remark on Tagore’s poetry. In the West, the name of Rabindranath Tagore no longer ranks among the great figures of his time. The exuberance of the early years of Tagore’s reception has given way to almost complete indifference. One might be tempted to dismiss Tagore as a romantic and idealistic poet, whose writings are too unrealistic for a world that prides in its pragmatic approaches. But this is not the case. Many of Tagore’s views on nationalism, education and dialogue of cultures are intellectually valid, and some off his ideas have attracted and influenced contemporary thinkers and writers both in India and abroad.

But let us ask the question: What relevance does Tagore have to us “post-moderns” as we live the first decade of the new millennium? Assuredly, in the backdrop of the violence and fanaticism of the contemporary world, the pressing need is to reach as close as possible to Tagore’s philosophy of peace and harmony. In his devotion to peace, Tagore denounced nationalism and violence. He sought to instill in human beings a sense of their unity. He had no magic formula for the salvation of humanity. He believed in no ideologies. He merely emphasized certain basic principles which philosophers have known in all ages and which humans may ignore only at their peril. Tagore was not a politician and he abhorred power politics. In a letter written to William Rothenstein in October 6, 1920 , he sums up very clearly his bitterness over the display of power politics. “I have nothing to do directly with politics”, affirms Tagore, “I am not a nationalist, moderate or immoderate in my political doctrine or inspiration. But politics is not a mere abstraction, it has its personality and it does intrude into my life where I am human. It kills and maims individuals, it tells lies, it uses its sacred sword of justice for the purpose of massacre, it spreads misery broadcast over centuries of exploitation, and I cannot say to myself, ‘Poet, you have nothing to do with these facts, for they belong to politics’”. For Tagore, the spiritual man cannot remain completely unpolitical, but must eventually seek refuge in a political thinking which guarantees direct access to all cultures. The issue of intercultural dialogue occupied Rabindranath Tagore throughout his life. This interest is best indicated by the expression , “Unity in Diversity”, which he often used in his essays and addresses. Throughout his life he consistently opposed uniformity and contrasted it to the ideal of unity. True unity, Tagore believed, was only possible in celebrating diversity through a dialogue among cultures. The pursuit of harmony remained an ideal for Tagore beyond the imperatives of modernity as a way of relating various cultures and achieving unity in diversity.

Tagore was opposed to modern civilization for its lack of wholeness

We can look back on Tagore’s idea of intercultural dialogue but also his anti-political critique of modern civilization as opening the way to the gradual achievement of such a vision. If Tagore’s philosophy is the outcome of the conflicts and aspirations in modern India, philosophy in turn is the moral standard by which he judges progress. Tagore was opposed to modern civilization for its lack of wholeness and its predilection for the material rather than the moral progress of humankind. Tagore had no illusion about what is called “progress” and has come to be synonymous of the law of necessity rather than the law of truth. For Tagore, progress was the free expression of human personality in harmony with life. Therefore, the real crisis of modern civilization was due, not to the conflict and clash between cultures, but between Man and the idea of life as a whole. According to Tagore, the problem of Man lies to a great extent in his inability to relate to the ideal of wholeness. His stress on the uplifting of human life through “freedom from the servitude of the fetish of hugeness”, is related to his deep-set conviction that there is no inherent contradiction between the claims of the so-called opposites such as the human and the divine, beauty and truth, social responsibility and individual rights, respect for tradition and openness towards modernity and finally love of one’s country and belief in the unity of mankind. For Tagore, these opposites can and must be reconciled, not by force and subjugation, but by finding a true harmony out of the apparent divergences. That is why, perhaps, Tagore moved about not only his native Indians, but among the enlightened and wise men of many cultures of the world. “I do not put my faith in any new institution,” he said in 1920, “but in the individuals all over the world who think clearly, feel nobly, and act rightly, thus becoming the channels of moral truth.” Tagore was certainly thinking of a universal culture in which the great minds of each nation would be directly accessible to all men. That is why the fundamental approach remained constant in all Tagore’s moves along the national and international lines. Tagore was convinced that “The heart of men is composed of rhythm”, but due to modern civilization, it is at present broken. This point of view expressed itself through the Tagorian doctrine of the Greater Man. “I have believed that the truth of man is in the Greater Man…”, says Tagore. And he continues: “ I have come into earth’s great pilgrimage where, in the heart of history of all countries, of all races and of all times-the supreme Man-God resides.”

This attitude is not the attitude of a man who wishes to be above the challenge of life and who barricades himself in his ivory tower. On the contrary, Tagore’s acquaintances and friendships during his trips to the East and the West, broadened his humanist sympathies, which were already broad enough, and deepened his understanding of the intellectual and spiritual urges that had spurred the Western and the Eastern minds to great achievements. Henceforth, Tagore was more a citizen of the world than an Indian, or more precisely he was a cosmopolitan Indian, because he belonged to the Indian cultural space without being involved with the idea of a particular territory with borders. As a literal translation of his novel “Ghare Baire” suggests, he was “At Home and Outside”. Standing between Asia and Europe, without submitting to the idea of a clash among them, Tagore extended the meaning and pragmatic importance of the critical intercultural dialogue as nobody else had done before him. By extending his vision of civilization beyond the bounds of mere particularism, Tagore placed the idea of a whole world as of supreme value. For him, the whole world should be viewed as a single family where different nations are its members, each contributing its quota to the welfare of the whole. Equally important is Tagore’s assertion that “the Man’s world is a moral world which would be dangerous for us to ignore.” Today in a time when mankind is confronted with a grim scenario involving clashes of national self interest and ethnic and racial prejudices, an attempt to engage in an intercultural dialogue can be a well trusted means of laying the groundwork of a new human solidarity in a plural world. The question then is whether we are at the point in history when we should “lose our faith in man” or we must work to prepare conditions which form the basis of how an intercultural dialogue works to forge human solidarity in a plural world. It goes without saying that Tagore is the witness whose writings will help us to discern whether or not we are moving toward greater cultural dialogue and human solidarity in our world.

We can look back on Tagore’s idea of intercultural dialogue but also his anti-political critique of modern civilization as opening the way to the gradual achievement of such a vision. If Tagore’s philosophy is the outcome of the conflicts and aspirations in modern India, philosophy in turn is the moral standard by which he judges progress. Tagore was opposed to modern civilization for its lack of wholeness and its predilection for the material rather than the moral progress of humankind. Tagore had no illusion about what is called “progress” and has come to be synonymous of the law of necessity rather than the law of truth. For Tagore, progress was the free expression of human personality in harmony with life. Therefore, the real crisis of modern civilization was due, not to the conflict and clash between cultures, but between Man and the idea of life as a whole. According to Tagore, the problem of Man lies to a great extent in his inability to relate to the ideal of wholeness. His stress on the uplifting of human life through “freedom from the servitude of the fetish of hugeness”, is related to his deep-set conviction that there is no inherent contradiction between the claims of the so-called opposites such as the human and the divine, beauty and truth, social responsibility and individual rights, respect for tradition and openness towards modernity and finally love of one’s country and belief in the unity of mankind. For Tagore, these opposites can and must be reconciled, not by force and subjugation, but by finding a true harmony out of the apparent divergences. That is why, perhaps, Tagore moved about not only his native Indians, but among the enlightened and wise men of many cultures of the world. “I do not put my faith in any new institution,” he said in 1920, “but in the individuals all over the world who think clearly, feel nobly, and act rightly, thus becoming the channels of moral truth.”

Tagore was certainly thinking of a universal culture in which the great minds of each nation would be directly accessible to all men. That is why the fundamental approach remained constant in all Tagore’s moves along the national and international lines. Tagore was convinced that “The heart of men is composed of rhythm”, but due to modern civilization, it is at present broken. This point of view expressed itself through the Tagorian doctrine of the Greater Man. “I have believed that the truth of man is in the Greater Man…”, says Tagore. And he continues: “I have come into earth’s great pilgrimage where, in the heart of history of all countries, of all races and of all times-the supreme Man-God resides.” This attitude is not the attitude of a man who wishes to be above the challenge of life and who barricades himself in his ivory tower. On the contrary, Tagore’s acquaintances and friendships during his trips to the East and the West, broadened his humanist sympathies, which were already broad enough, and deepened his understanding of the intellectual and spiritual urges that had spurred the Western and the Eastern minds to great achievements. Henceforth, Tagore was more a citizen of the world than an Indian, or more precisely he was a cosmopolitan Indian, because he belonged to the Indian cultural space without being involved with the idea of a particular territory with borders. As a literal translation of his novel “Ghare Baire” suggests, he was “At Home and Outside”. Standing between Asia and Europe, without submitting to the idea of a clash among them, Tagore extended the meaning and pragmatic importance of the critical intercultural dialogue as nobody else had done before him. By extending his vision of civilization beyond the bounds of mere particularism, Tagore placed the idea of a whole world as of supreme value. For him, the whole world should be viewed as a single family where different nations are its members, each contributing its quota to the welfare of the whole. Equally important is Tagore’s assertion that “the Man’s world is a moral world which would be dangerous for us to ignore.” Today in a time when mankind is confronted with a grim scenario involving clashes of national self interest and ethnic and racial prejudices, an attempt to engage in an intercultural dialogue can be a well trusted means of laying the groundwork of a new human solidarity in a plural world. The question then is whether we are at the point in history when we should “lose our faith in man” or we must work to prepare conditions which form the basis of how an intercultural dialogue works to forge human solidarity in a plural world. It goes without saying that Tagore is the witness whose writings will help us to discern whether or not we are moving toward greater cultural dialogue and human solidarity in our world.

کلیدواژه ها: Ramin Jahanbegloo, Tagore |  Print | نشر مطلب