Tag Archive | Tagore’s essays

নিঃস্বার্থ প্রেম / Selfless Love Part 1

নিঃস্বার্থ প্রেম

দেখো ভাই, সেদিন আমার বাস্তবিক কষ্ট হয়েছিল। অনেকদিন পরে তুমি বিদেশ থেকে এলে;  আমরা গিয়ে জিজ্ঞাসা করলুম। “আমাদের কি মনে পড়ত?’ তুমি ঠোঁটে একটু হাসি, চোখে একটু ভ্রূকুটি করে বললে, “মনে পড়বে না কেন? উত্তরটা শুনেই তো আমার মাথায় একেবারে বজ্রাঘাত হল; নিতান্ত দুঃসাহসে ভর করে সংকুচিত স্বরে আর-একবার জিজ্ঞাসা করলুম, “অনেক দিন পরে এসে আমাদের কেমন লাগছে।?’ তুমি আশ্চর্য ও বিরক্তিময় স্বরে অথচ ভদ্রতার মিষ্টহাসিটুকু রেখে বললে, “কেন, খারাপ লাগবার কী কারণ আছে?’ আর সাহস হল না। ও-রকম প্রশ্ন জিজ্ঞাসা করা আর হল না। বিদেশে গিয়ে অবধি তুমি আমাকে দু-তিনখানা বৈ চিঠি লেখ নি, সেজন্য আমার মনে মনে একটুখানি অভিমান ছিল। বড়ো সাধ ছিল, সেই কথাটা নিয়ে হেসে হেসে অথচ আন্তরিক কষ্টের সঙ্গে, ঠাট্টা করে অথচ গম্ভীরভাবে একটুখানি খোঁটা দেব’, কিন্তু তোমার ভাব দেখে, তোমার ভদ্রতার অতিমিষ্ট হাসি দেখে তোমার কথার স্বর শুনে আমার অভিমানের মূল পর্যন্ত শুকিয়ে গেল। তখন আমিও প্রশ্নের ভাব পরিবর্তন করলুম। জিজ্ঞাসা করলুম, “যে দেশে গিয়েছিল সে দেশের জল-বাতাস নাকি বড়ো গরম? সে দেশের লোকেরা নাকি মস্ত মস্ত পাগড়ি পরে, আর তামাক খাওয়াকে ভারি পাপ মনে করে? এখান থেকে সেকেণ্ড ক্লাসে সেখেনে যেতে কত ভাড়া লাগে?’ এইরকম করে তোমার কাছ থেকে সেদিন অনেক জ্ঞান লাভ করে বাড়ি ফিরে এয়েছিলুম! তোমার আচরণ দেখে দুঃখ প্রকাশ করেছিলুম শুনে তুমি লিখেছ যে, “প্রথমত আমার যতদূর মনে পড়ে তাতে আমি যে তোমার ওপর কোনো প্রকার কুব্যবহার করেছিলুম, তা তো মনে হয় না। দ্বিতীয়ত, যদি-বা তোমার কতকগুলি প্রশ্নের ভালোরকম উত্তর না দিয়ে দু-চার কথা বলে উড়িয়ে দিয়ে থাকি, তাতেই বা আমার দোষ কী? সে রকম প্রশ্ন জিজ্ঞাসা করবারই বা তোমার কি আবশ্যক ছিল?’ তোমার প্রথম কথার কোনো উত্তর দেওয়া যায় না। সত্যই তো, তুমি আমার সঙ্গে কোনো কু-ব্যবহারই কর নি। যতগুলি কথা জিজ্ঞাসা করেছিলুম, সকলগুলিরই তুমি একটা-না-একটা উত্তর দিয়েছিলে, তা ছাড়া হেসেও ছিলে, গল্পও করেছিলে। তোমার কোনোরকম দোষ দেওয়া যায় না। কিন্তু তবু তুমি আমার সঙ্গে ভালো ব্যবহার কর নি; সে তোমাকে বা আর কাউকে আমি বোঝাতে পারব না সুতরাং তার আর বাহুল্য উল্লেখ করব না। দ্বিতীয় কথাটি হচ্ছে, কেন তোমাকে ও-রকম প্রশ্ন জিজ্ঞাসা করেছিলুম। আচ্ছা ভাই তোমার তো হৃদয় আছে, একবার তুমিই বিবেচনা করে দেখো না– কেন জিজ্ঞাসা করেছিলুম। তোমার ভালোবাসার উপর সন্দেহ হয়েছিল বলেই কি তোমাকে জিজ্ঞাসা করেছিলুম, যে, “আমাদের কি মনে পড়ত’ কিংবা “আমাদের কি ভালো লাগছে’, না তোমার ভালোবাসার ওপর সন্দেহ তিলমাত্র ছিল না বলেই জিজ্ঞাসা করেছুলম? যদি স্বপ্নেও জানতুম যে, আমাকে তোমার মনে পড়ত না, কিংবা আমাকে তোমার ভালো লাগছে না, তা হলে কী ও-রকমের কোনো প্রশ্ন উত্থাপন করতুম। তোমার মুখে শোনবার ভারি ইচ্ছা ছিল যে, বিদেশে আমাকে তোমার প্রায়ই মনে পড়ত। কেবলমাত্র ওই কথাটুকু নয়, ওই কথা থেকে তোমার আরও কত কথা মনে আসত। আমার বড়ো ইচ্ছা ছিল যে, তুমি বলবে– “অমুক জায়গায় আমি একটি সুন্দর উপত্যকা দেখলুম; সেখেনে একটি নির্ঝর বয়ে যাচ্ছিল, জায়গাটা দেখেই মনে হল, আহা ভা– যদি এখানে থাকত তা হলে তার বড়ো ভালো লাগত!’ একটা ছোটো প্রশ্ন থেকে এইরকম কত উত্তরই শুনতে পাবার সম্ভাবনা ছিল। যখন প্রশ্নটি জিজ্ঞাসা করেছিলুম তখন মনের ভিতর এইরকম অনেক কথা চাপা ছিল!

আমি তোমার কাছে দুঃখ করবার জন্যে এ চিঠিটা লিখছি নে; কিংবা তোমার কাছে অভিমান করাও আমার উদ্দেশ্য নয়! আমি ভাই, কোনো কোনো লোকের মতো ঢাক ঢোল বাজিয়ে অভিমান করতে পারি নে; যার প্রতি অভিমান করেছি, তার কাছে গিয়ে “ওগো আমি অভিমান করেছি গো, আমি অভিমান করেছি’ বলে হাঁকাহাঁকি করতেও ভালোবাসি নে। যদি আমি অভিমান করি তো সে মনে মনে। আমার অভিমানের অশ্রু কেউ কখনো দেখতে পায় না, আমার অভিমানের কথাও কেউ কখনো শোনে নি; অভিমান আমার কাছে এমনই গোপনের সামগ্রী। তাই বলছি তোমার কাছে আজ অমি অভিমান করতে বসি নি। তোমার সঙ্গে আমার কতকগুলি তর্ক আছে, তার মীমাংসা করতে আমার ভারি ইচ্ছে।

তোমার সমস্ত চিঠিটার ভাব দেখে এই মনে হল যে তোমার মতে যারা নিঃস্বার্থ ভালোবাসে তারা আর ভালোবাসা ফেরত পাবার আশা করে না। যেখানে ভালোবাসার বদলে ভালোবাসা পাবার আশা আছে সেইখানেই স্বার্থপরতা আছে। এ সম্বন্ধে তোমাকে একটি কথা বলি শোনো। আমরা অনেক সময়ে ভালো করে অর্থ না বুঝে অনেক কথা ব্যবহার করে থাকি। মুখে মুখে কথাগুলো এমন চলিত, এমন পুরোনো , হয়ে যায় যে, সেগুলো আমরা কানে শুনি বটে কিন্তু মনে বুঝি নে, নিঃস্বার্থ ভালোবাসা কথাটাও বোধ করি সেইরকম একটা কিছু হবে। যখন আমরা শুনে যাই তখন আমরা কিছুই বুঝি নে, একটু পীড়াপীড়ি করে বোঝাতে বললে হয়তো দশজনে দশ রকম ব্যাখ্যা করি। স্বার্থপরতা কথা সচরাচর আমরা কী অর্থে ব্যবহার করে থাকি? আহার করা বা স্নান করাকে কি স্বার্থপরতা অতএব নিন্দনীয় বলে? আহার না করা বা স্নান না করাকে কি নিঃস্বার্থপরতা অতএব প্রশংসনীয় বলে? মূল অর্থ ধরতে গেলে আহার বা স্নান করাকে স্বার্থপরতা বলা যায় বৈকি? কিন্তু চলিত অর্থে তাকে স্বার্থপরতা বলে না। সকল মানুষই মনে মনে এমন সামঞ্জস্যবাদী, যে, যখন বলা হল যে, “আহার করা ভালো’ তখন কেউ এমন বোঝেন না, বিরাম বিশ্রাম না দিয়ে ২৪ ঘণ্টার মধ্যে ছাব্বিশ ঘণ্টাই আহার করা ভালো। তেমনি যখন আমরা স্বার্থপরতা কথা ব্যবহার করি, তখন কেউ মনে করে না যে, নিশ্বাস গ্রহণ করা স্বার্থপরতা বা বাতাস খাওয়া স্বার্থপরতা। যা-কিছু পঙ্কজ তাকে যেমন পঙ্কজ বলে না, যা কিছু অচল তাকে যেমন অচল বলে না, তেমনি যা-কিছু স্বার্থপরতা তাকেই স্বার্থপরতা বলে না। খাওয়াদাওয়াকে স্বার্থপরতা বলে না, কিন্তু যে ব্যক্তি কেবলমাত্র খাওয়াদাওয়া করে আর কিছু করে না, কিংবা যার খাওয়াদাওয়াই বেশি, পরের জন্য কোনো কাজ অতি যৎসামান্য, তাকে স্বার্থপর বলা যায়। আবার তার চেয়ে স্বার্থপর হচ্ছে যারা পরের মুখের গ্রাস কেড়ে নিজে খায়। এ ছাড়া আর কোনো অর্থে, কোনো ভাবে স্বার্থপর কথা ব্যবহার করা হয় না। তা যদি হয় তা হলে নিঃস্বার্থ ভালোবাসা বলতে কী বুঝায়? যদি মূল অর্থ ধর তাহলে ভালোবাসC স্বার্থপরতা। যখন এক জনকে দেখতে ভালো লাগে, তার কথা শুনতে ভালো লাগে, তার কাছে থাকতে ভালো লাগে ও সেইসঙ্গে সঙ্গে তাকে না দেখলে, তার কথা না শুনলে ও তার কাছে না থাকলে কষ্ট হয়, তার সুখ হলে আমি সুখী হই, তার দুঃখ হলে আম দুঃখী হই, তখন অতগুলো ভাবের সম্মিলনকেই ভালোবাসা বলে। ভালোবাসার আর-একাট উপাদান হচ্ছে, সে আমাকে ভালো বাসুক, অর্থাৎ তার চোখে আমি সর্বাংশে প্রীতিজনক হই এই বাসনা। ভেবে দেখতে গেলে এর মধ্যে সকলগুলিই স্বার্থপরতা। এতগুলি স্বার্থপরতার সমষ্টি থেকে একটি স্বার্থপরতা বাদ দিলেই কি বাকিটুকু নিঃস্বার্থ হয়ে দাঁড়ায়? কিন্তু যেটিকে বাদ দেওয়া হল সেটি অন্যান্যগুলির চেয়ে কী এমন বেশি অপরাধ করেছে? তা ছাড়া এর মধ্যে কোনোটাকেই বাদ দেওয়া যায় না। এর একটি যখন নেই তখন বোঝা গেল যে, যথার্থ ভালোবাসাই নেই। যাকে তোমার  দেখতে ভালো লাগে না, যার কথা শুনতে ইচ্ছে করে না, যার কাছে থাকতে মন যায় না তাকে যদি ভালোবাসা সম্ভব হয় তা হলেই যার ভালোবাসা পেতে ইচ্ছে করে না তাকে ভালোবাসাও সম্ভব হয়। যাকে দেখতে শুনতে ও যার কাছে থাকতে ভালো লাগে, কোনো কোনো ব্যক্তি দুদিন তাকে দেখতে শুনতে না পেলে ও তার কাছে না থাকলে তাকে ভুলে যায় ও তার ওপর থেকে তার ভালোবাসা চলে যায়, তেমনি আবার যার ভালোবাসা পেতে ইচ্ছে করে তার ভালোবাসা না পেলেই কোনো কোনো ব্যক্তির ভালোবাসা তার কাছ থেকে দূর হয়; তাদের সম্বন্ধে এই বলা যায় যে, তাদের গভীররূপে ভালোবাসার ক্ষমতা নেই।

****

SELFLESS LOVE

My friend, you know I was really quite pained the other day. You returned from overseas after a long time; we went and asked,’Did you often think of us?’ You kept a little smile on your lips and a little frown about your eyes as you answered, ‘Why wouldn’t I?’ The answer filled me with immediate dread; but I still persisted bravely and asked in a small voice, ‘How do you feel. seeing us after all this time?’ You answered in an amazed but irritated tone, all the while with that polite smile in place, ‘Why? Why should I dislike you?’ I did not dare to go any further. I could not ask any more of those questions. I had a felt little disappointed because you never wrote more than two or three letters to me from overseas. I had greatly hoped to be able to raise the topic, tempering it with laughter but genuine sadness, to jest a little but also to make  the pain I felt clear to you. But your manner, your polite, excessively sweet smile and the tone of your voice made that disappointment wither right away. I also changed the questions I was going to ask. I asked questions such as, ‘Is it true that the land you visited is very hot? Apparently the people there wear huge turbans and have restrictions on the use of tobacco? How much does a second class fare cost from here to there?’ I gained much knowledge from you through these questions and came home. When you heard that I was hurt by your behaviour you wrote, ‘Firstly I do not recall having behaved badly with you. Secondly, if I did ignore some of your questions and talk about other things, what is wrong with that? Why did you have to ask those questions?’ I have nothing to say to your first comment. Truly, you did not treat me badly. You answered all the questions I asked in a manner of speaking and you also smiled and chatted. You cannot be blamed. Yet you did not behave well with me; I will not be able to convince you or anyone else of that so I will not mention it. Secondly, why was it that I asked those questions? Well, you have a soul, why do you not think about why I might have done that. Did I ask you, ‘Did you think of us?’ or ‘How do you like us now?’, only because I suspected the strength of your affections or because I had not the tiniest doubt about your love. If I had imagined even in my dreams that you did not think of me or that you did not like me, would I have asked that question? I wanted so much to hear that you remembered me often while you were away. Not just that, so many other things would have been remembered as a result. I had wanted so much that you woul have said, ‘I saw a beautiful valley in a certain place; there was a waterfall there and when I saw the place I immediately thought, if only Bha_ had been here, he would have truly loved the place!’ One little question could have led to the possibility of so many answers. These were the things that were hidden in my mind when I had asked the questions.

I am not writing to you to express my sadness; nor is it my aim to manipulate you with my disappointment. I cannot make a show out of these feelings like some people do; I do not like going to the person against whom I have a grievance and create an uproar over my disappointment.

If I am disappointed that is all internal. My disappointment is such a private matter that no one has ever seen my tears of angst or heard my words of pain;  That is why I am telling you I am not here for recriminations. I have a few points to resolve with you and I am keen to do that.

The tone of your entire letter makes me think that those who love selflessly like you never hope for any love in return. Wherever love is expected in return for love, there is selfishness. Let me say something to you about this. We often use many words without understanding their meanings. The words become so ordinary, so jaded, that we hear them but we do not understand them with our minds, I think selfless love is one of those phrases too. When we hear it we understand nothing, when pressed for the meaning we end up with different meanings from different people. How do we use the word selfishness usually? Are feeding or bathing acts of selfishness and thus worth censure? Should abstaining from feeding or bathing be thus considered praiseworthy? If you think of the true meaning, feeding and bathing are both acts of selfishness. But we do not call them selfish acts in day to day speech. Every human is so uniform in their way of thinking that when they hear it said that ‘Feeding is good’, no one understands it to mean that one must feed all through the twenty four hours of the day. Similarly when we use the word selfishness, no one thinks that breathing is selfishness or going for some fresh air is selfishness.  Just as not everything born in mud is not a lotus and not every un-moving object is a mountain, not every kind of selfishness is not to described as selfish. Eating itself is not selfish, but the person who only eats at the exclusion of other activities or the one who eats in excess and does little for others; such a person is selfish. Even more selfish than this is the individual who snatches another’s food for himself. This is the only manner in which the word selfish is used. If this is true, then what is selfless love? If one thinks of its true meaning love is also a selfish act. When we like to see someone, hear their words, be near them and at the same time feel bad if we cannot see them, hear their words and be near them; when we are happy at their happiness and saddened by their sorrow, when all these feelings come together, it is love. Another ingredient of love is the other person should love me, which means that I should be pleasing in every way to them. And thus, all of these become imbued with selfishness. Does the act become unselfish as soon as one of the components is removed? But how is one of the many things to be blamed more than the others? In any case, nothing can be left out. Removing any one makes this less than true love. If you do not like seeing someone, nor like hearing their words, nor wish to be near them at all times – if it is still possible to love that person then it is also possible to love the person whose love we do not crave.  When one likes to see and be near someone, but forgets them if they do not see or hear them for a short period of absence and stop loving them, or stop loving the object of their affections simply because they do not love one back, it can be safely said that they are incapable of loving deeply.

Advertisements

রাশিয়ার চিঠি/Russiar Chithi/The Russian Letters

images

A stamp bearing the image of Rabindranath Tagore released in Russia

মস্কৌ

রাশিয়ায় অবশেষে আসা গেল। যা দেখছি আশ্চর্য ঠেকছে। অন্য কোনো দেশের মতোই নয়। একেবারে মূলে প্রভেদ। আগাগোড়া সকল মানুষকেই এরা সমান করে জাগিয়ে তুলছে।

চিরকালই মানুষের সভ্যতায় একদল অখ্যাত লোক থাকে, তাদেরই সংখ্যা বেশি, তারাই বাহন; তাদের মানুষ হবার সময় নেই; দেশের সম্পদের উচ্ছিষ্টে তারা পালিত। সব চেয়ে কম খেয়ে, কম প’রে, কম শিখে, বাকি সকলের পরিচর্যা করে; সকলের চেয়ে বেশি তাদের পরিশ্রম, সকলের চেয়ে বেশি তাদের অসম্মান। কথায় কথায় তারা রোগে মরে, উপোসে মরে, উপরওয়ালাদের লাথি ঝাঁটা খেয়ে মরে–জীবনযাত্রার জন্য যত-কিছু সুযোগ সুবিধে সব-কিছুর থেকেই তারা বঞ্চিত। তারা সভ্যতার পিলসুজ, মাথায় প্রদীপ নিয়ে খাড়া দাঁড়িয়ে থাকে– উপরের সবাই আলো পায়, তাদের গা দিয়ে তেল গড়িয়ে পড়ে।

আমি অনেক দিন এদের কথা ভেবেছি, মনে হয়েছে এর কোনো উপায় নেই। এক দল তলায় না থাকলে আর-এক দল উপরে থাকতেই পারে না, অথচ উপরে থাকার দরকার আছে। উপরে না থাকলে নিতান্ত কাছের সীমার বাইরে কিছু দেখা যায় না; কেবলমাত্র জীবিকানির্বাহ করার জন্যে তো মানুষের মনুষ্যত্ব নয়। একান্ত জীবিকাকে অতিক্রম করে তবেই তার সভ্যতা। সভ্যতার সমস্ত শ্রেষ্ঠ ফসল অবকাশের ক্ষেত্রে ফলেছে। মানুষের সভ্যতায় এক অংশে অবকাশ রক্ষা করার দরকার আছে। তাই ভাবতুম, যে-সব মানুষ শুধু অবস্থার গতিকে নয়, শরীরমনের গতিকে নীচের তলায় কাজ করতে বাধ্য এবং সেই কাজেরই যোগ্য, যথাসম্ভব তাদের শিক্ষাস্বাস্থ্য-সুখসুবিধার জন্যে চেষ্টা করা উচিত।

মুশকিল এই, দয়া করে কোনো স্থায়ী জিনিস করা চলে না; বাইরে থেকে উপকার করতে গেলে পদে পদে তার বিকার ঘটে। সমান হতে পারলে তবেই সত্যকার সহায়তা সম্ভব হয়। যাই হোক, আমি ভালো করে কিছুই ভেবে পাই নি, অথচ অধিকাংশ মানুষকে তলিয়ে রেখে, অমানুষ করে রেখে, তবেই সভ্যতা সমুচ্চে থাকবে এ কথা অনিবার্য বলে মেনে নিতে গেলে মনে ধিক্কার আসে।

ভেবে দেখো-না, নিরন্ন ভারতবর্ষের অন্নে ইংলণ্ড্ পরিপুষ্ট হয়েছে। ইংলণ্ডের অনেক লোকেরই মনের ভাব এই যে, ইংলণ্ড্কে চিরদিন পোষণ করাই ভারতবর্ষের সার্থকতা। ইংলণ্ড্ বড়ো হয়ে উঠে মানবসমাজে বড়ো কাজ করছে, অতএব এই উদ্দেশ্য সাধনের জন্যে চিরকালের মতো একটা জাতিকে দাসত্বে বদ্ধ করে রেখে দিলে দোষ নেই। এই জাতি যদি কম খায়, কম পরে, তাতে কী যায় আসে–তবুও দয়া করে তাদের অবস্থার কিছু উন্নতি করা উচিত, এমন কথা তাদের মনে জাগে। কিন্তু এক-শো বছর হয়ে গেল; না পেলুম শিক্ষা, না পেলুম স্বাস্থ্য, না পেলুম সম্পদ।প্রত্যেক সমাজের নিজের ভিতরেও এই একই কথা। যে মানুষকে মানুষ সম্মান করতে পারে না সে মানুষকে মানুষ উপকার করতে অক্ষম। অন্তত যখনই নিজের স্বার্থে এসে ঠেকে তখনই মারামারি কাটাকাটি বেধে যায়। রাশিয়ায় একেবারে গোড়া ঘেঁষে এই সমস্যা সমাধান করবার চেষ্টা চলছে। তার শেষ ফলের কথা এখনো বিচার করবার সময় হয় নি, কিন্তু আপাতত যা চোখে পড়ছে তা দেখে আশ্চর্য হচ্ছি। আমাদের সকল সমস্যার সব চেয়ে বড়ো রাস্তা হচ্ছে শিক্ষা। এতকাল সমাজের অধিকাংশ লোক শিক্ষার পূর্ণ সুযোগ থেকে বঞ্চিত– ভারতবর্ষ তো প্রায় সম্পূর্ণই বঞ্চিত। এখানে সেই শিক্ষা যে কী আশ্চর্য উদ্যমে সমাজের সর্বত্র ব্যাপ্ত হচ্ছে তা দেখলে বিস্মিত হতে হয়। শিক্ষার পরিমাণ শুধু সংখ্যায় নয়, তার সম্পূর্ণতায়, তার প্রবলতায়। কোনো মানুষই যাতে নিঃসহায় ও নিষ্কর্মা হয়ে না থাকে এজন্যে কী প্রচুর আয়োজন ও কী বিপুল উদ্যম। শুধু শ্বেত-রাশিয়ার জন্যে নয়– মধ্য-এশিয়ার অর্ধসভ্য জাতের মধ্যেও এরা বন্যার মতো বেগে শিক্ষা বিস্তার করে চলেছে; সায়েন্সের শেষ-ফসল পর্যন্ত যাতে তারা পায় এইজন্যে প্রয়াসের অন্ত নেই। এখানে থিয়েটারে ভালো ভালো অপেরা ও বড়ো বড়ো নাটকের অভিনয়ে বিষম ভিড়, কিন্তু যারা দেখছে তারা কৃষি ও কর্মীদের দলের। কোথাও এদের অপমান নেই। ইতিমধ্যে এদের যে দুই-একটা প্রতিষ্ঠান দেখলুম সর্বত্রই লক্ষ্য করেছি এদের চিত্তের জাগরণ এবং আত্মমর্যাদার আনন্দ। আমাদের দেশের জনসাধারণের তো কথাই নেই, ইংলণ্ডের মজুর-শ্রেণীর সঙ্গে তুলনা করলে আকাশপাতাল তফাত দেখা যায়। আমরা শ্রীনিকেতনে যা করতে চেয়েছি এরা সমস্ত দেশ জুড়ে প্রকৃষ্টভাবে তাই করছে। আমাদের কর্মীরাযদি কিছুদিন এখানে এসে শিক্ষা করে যেতে পারত তা হলে ভারি উপকার হত। প্রতিদিনই আমি ভারতবর্ষের সঙ্গে এখানকার তুলনা করে দেখি আর ভাবি, কী হয়েছে আর কী হতে পারত। আমার আমেরিকান সঙ্গী ডাক্তার হ্যারি টিম্বর্‌স্‌ এখানকার স্বাস্থ্যবিধানের ব্যবস্থা আলোচনা করছে–তার প্রকৃষ্টতা দেখলে চমক লাগে–আর কোথায় পড়ে আছে রোগতপ্ত অভুক্ত হতভাগ্য নিরুপায় ভারতবর্ষ! কয়েক বৎসর পূর্বে ভারতবর্ষের অবস্থার সঙ্গে এদের জনসাধারণের অবস্থার সম্পূর্ণ সাদৃশ্য ছিল–এই অল্পকালের মধ্যে দ্রুত বেগে বদলে গেছে–আমরা পড়ে আছি জড়তার পাঁকের মধ্যে আকণ্ঠ নিমগ্ন।

২৫ বৈশাখ ১৩৩৮ শান্তিনিকেতন

Moscow

Finally I am in Russia. Whatever I see seems amazing. It is not like any other country. The difference is in the very foundation. They have awakened all their people in an equal manner.

There have always been one group of unseen people in society, their number is always greater, they are the carriers; they have no time to evolve as humans; they live off what their country throws away. They eat the least, they have the least to call their own, they learn less than all the others and they look after the rest; their labour is the greatest as is their misfortune. They die of disease at the slightest excuse, or of starvation and their mistreatment at the hands of those who are above them – they are deprived of every kind of comfort one needs in life. They are the stands upon which the lamp of civilization is placed, standing straight with the flame held above them – they ensure that everyone above receives light while they are covered in the drips of oil.

I have thought of them for a long time as being in a hopeless situation. One group cannot rise unless another group is at the bottom, and yet everyone deserves to be on top. One cannot see beyond what lies very close unless one is on top; just being alive is not where true humanity lies. One must surpass mere subsistence in order to achieve civilization. All the best outcomes of civilization have been derived during moments of leisure. There is a need to preserve leisure in the midst of civilization. That is why I used to feel that for the people who must of necessity work body and soul in the undercarriage of civilization and are not adapted to any other work, effort must be made to provide them with adequate education, health and other comforts as far as possible.

The problem is that nothing permanent can run on pity alone; assistance from the outside may be misconstrued at each step. Equality is a requisite for true assistance. I could never think of a solution but it shames me to think that it is an inevitable truth that civilization will remain elevated only if the majority of mankind is oppressed and dehumanized.

If you think of it, England has been fattened on the food that could have kept India nourished. Many people in England seem to be of the view that India’s only purpose is to nurture England for ever. The country has grown to perform major works for humankind and this justifies keeping another nation in slavery for eternity.If this race eats less and subsists on less- what does it matter, but still some compassion could have been shown and an improvement in their condition could have been made. And yet after a hundred years have passed, we are without education, or healthcare or resources.

It is the same within every society. He who cannot respect other humans cannot help them. Whenever there is a chance of self interest being affected, conflict breaks out. In Russia this problem is being addressed right at the grass roots. The time to judge the final results of this has not come yet but what I observe even now amazes me. The biggest solution to all our problems is education. The majority of society has been excluded from full access to education all this time – in India almost entirely so. One has to admire the extent and energy with which education is being promoted across every section of Russian society. The measure of education is not just in numbers, it is in its completeness and in its influence on people. There is great enthusiasm and much thought to ensure that no one is left without help and employment. This is not restricted to White Russia alone, they are pushing this veritable flood of education among the primitive tribes of Central Asia as well; there is no dearth of effort to take the latest developments in Science to them. Here there are large numbers of people flocking to watch great operas and plays at the theatres but the audience remarkably consists of farmers and workers.
There is no sense of inferiority. The few institutions I have seen are notable for their pride in themselves and their awakened spirits. Let alone the general population of India, the difference with the working class in England is immense. The entire country is doing what we have been attempting at Sriniketan and doing it well. It would be very helpful indeed if our employees were to come and learn from these people for a few days. I compare India with this country each day and think of what we are and what we could have been. My American companion Dr. Harry Timbers is looking at the healthcare system here – the efficiency is startling – compared to disease ridden, starving, helpless India. Only a few years ago, the situations of both our peoples was completely the same – but they have changed rapidly in this short time – while we are stuck neck deep in the mire of immobility.

April, 1931

For those interested: http://indrus.in/arts/2012/10/24/tagore_loved_russia_till_his_dying_day_12676.htmltagore in Russia

Rabindranath Tagore meets a group of schoolchildren. Moscow. 1930. Source: RIA Novosti

NATIONALISM IN INDIA

NATIONALISM IN INDIA

OUR REAL PROBLEM in India is not political. It is social. This is a condition not only prevailing in India, but among all nations. I do not believe in an exclusive political interest. Politics in the West have dominated Western ideals, and we in India are trying to imitate you. We have to remember that in Europe, where peoples had their racial unity from the beginning, and where natural resources were insufficient for the inhabitants, the civilization has naturally taken the character of political and commercial aggressiveness. For on the one hand they had no internal complications, and on the other they had to deal with neighbours who were strong and rapacious. To have perfect combination among themselves and a watchful attitude of animosity against others was taken as the solution of their problems. In former days they organized and plundered, in the present age the same spirit continues – and they organize and exploit the whole world.

But from the earliest beginnings of history, India has had her own problem constantly before her – it is the race problem. Each nation must be conscious of its mission and we, in India, must realize that we cut a poor figure when we are trying to be political, simply because we have not yet been finally able to accomplish what was set before us by our providence.

This problem of race unity which we have been trying to solve for so many years has likewise to be faced by you here in America. Many people in this country ask me what is happening as to the caste distinctions in India. But when this question is asked me, it is usually done with a superior air. And I feel tempted to put the same question to our American critics with a slight modification, ‘What have you done with the Red Indian and the Negro?’ For you have not got over your attitude of caste toward them. You have used violent methods to keep aloof from other races, but until you have solved the question here in America, you have no right to question India.

In spite of our great difficulty, however, India has done something. She has tried to make an adjustment of races, to acknowledge the real differences between them where these exist, and yet seek for some basis of unity. This basis has come through our saints, like Nanak, Kabir, Chaitanya and others, preaching one God to all races of India.

In finding the solution of our problem we shall have helped to solve the world problem as well. What India has been, the whole world is now. The whole world is becoming one country through scientific facility. And the moment is arriving when you also must find a basis of unity which is not political. If India can offer to the world her solution, it will be a contribution to humanity. There is only one history – the history of man. All national histories are merely chapters in the larger one. And we are content in India to suffer for such a great cause.

Each individual has his self-love. Therefore his brute instinct leads him to fight with others in the sole pursuit of his self-interest. But man has also his higher instincts of sympathy and mutual help. The people who are lacking in this higher moral power and who therefore cannot combine in fellowship with one another must perish or live in a state of degradation. Only those peoples have survived and achieved civilization who have this spirit of cooperation strong in them. So we find that from the beginning of history men had to choose between fighting with one another and combining, between serving their own interest or the common interest of all.

In our early history when the geographical limits of each country and also the facilities of communication were small, this problem was comparatively small in dimension. It was sufficient for men to develop their sense of unity within their area of segregation. In those days they combined among them-selves and fought against others. But it was this moral spirit of combination which was the true basis of their greatness, and this fostered their art, science and religion. At that-early time the most important fact that man had to take count of was the fact of the members of one particular race of men coming in close contact with one another. Those who truly grasped this fact through their higher nature made their mark in history.

The most important fact of the present age is that all the different races of men have come close together. And again we are confronted with two alternatives. The problem is whether the different groups of peoples shall go on fighting with one another or find out some true basis of reconciliation and mutual help; whether it will be interminable competition or cooperation.

I have no hesitation in saying that those who are gifted with the moral power of love and vision of spiritual unity, who have the least feeling of enmity against aliens, and the sympathetic insight to place themselves in the position of others will be the fittest to take their permanent place in the age that is lying before us, and those who are constantly developing their instinct of fight and intolerance of aliens will be eliminated. For this is the problem before us, and we have to prove our humanity by solving it through the help of our higher nature. The gigantic organizations for hurting others and warding off their blows, for making money by dragging others back, will not help us. On the contrary, by their crushing weight, their enormous cost and their deadening effect upon the living humanity they will seriously impede our freedom in the larger life of a higher civilization.

During the evolution of the Nation the moral culture of brotherhood was limited by geographical boundaries, because at that time those boundaries were true. Now they have become imaginary lines of tradition divested of the qualities of real obstacles. So the time has come when man’s moral nature must deal with this great fact with all seriousness or perish. The first impulse of this change of circumstance has been the churning up of man’s baser passions of greed and cruel hatred. If this persists indefinitely and armaments go on exaggerating themselves to unimaginable absurdities, and machines and store-houses envelop this fair earth with their dirt and smoke and ugliness, then it will end in a conflagration of suicide. Therefore man will have to exert all his power of love and clarity of vision to make another great moral adjustment which will comprehend the whole world of men and not merely the fractional groups of nationality. The call has come to every individual in the present age to prepare himself and his surroundings for this dawn of a new era when man shall discover his soul in the spiritual unity of all human beings.

If it is given at all to the West to struggle out of these tangles of the lower slopes to the spiritual summit of humanity, then I cannot but think that it is the special mission of America to fulfil this hope of God and man. You are the country of expectation, desiring something else than what is. Europe has her subtle habits of mind and her conventions. But America, as yet, has come to no conclusions. I realize how much America is untrammeled by the traditions of the past, and I can appreciate that experimentalism is a sign of America’s youth. The foundation of her glory is in the future, rather than in the past; and if one is gifted with the power of clairvoyance, one will be able to love the America that is to be.

America is destined to justify Western civilization to the East. Europe has lost faith in humanity, and has become distrustful and sickly. America, on the other hand, is not pessimistic or blase. You know, as a people, that there is such a thing as a better and a best; and that knowledge drives you on. There are habits that are not merely passive but aggressively arrogant. They are not like mere walls but are like hedges of stinging nettles. Europe has been cultivating these hedges of habits for long years till they have grown round her dense and strong and high. The pride of her traditions has sent its roots deep into her heart. I do not wish to contend that it is unreasonable. But pride in every form breeds blindness at the end. Like all artificial stimulants its first effect is a heightening of consciousness and then with the increasing dose it muddles it and brings in exultation that is misleading. Europe has gradually grown hardened in her pride of all her outer and inner habits. She not only cannot forget that she is Western, but she takes every opportunity to hurl this fact against others to humiliate them. This is why she is growing incapable of imparting to the East what is best in herself, and of accepting in a right spirit the wisdom that the East has stored for centuries.

In America national habits and traditions have not had time to spread their clutching roots round your hearts. You have constantly felt and complained of its disadvantages when you compared your nomadic restlessness with the settled traditions of Europe – the Europe which can show her picture of greatness to the best advantage because she can fix it against the back- ground of the Past. But in this present age of transition, when a new era of civilization is sending its trumpet call to all peoples of the world across an unlimited future, this very freedom of detachment will enable you to accept its invitation and to achieve the goal for which Europe began her journey but lost herself midway. For she was tempted out of her path by her pride of power and greed of possession.

Not merely your freedom from habits of mind in the individuals but also the freedom of your history from all unclean entanglements fits you in your career of holding the banner of civilization of the future. All the great nations of Europe have their victims in other parts of the world. This not only deadens their moral sympathy but also their intellectual sympathy, which is so necessary for the understanding of races which are different from one’s own. Englishmen can never truly understand India because their minds are not disinterested with regard to that country. If you compare England with Germany or France you will find she has produced the smallest number of scholars who have studied Indian literature and philosophy with any amount of sympathetic insight or thoroughness. This attitude of apathy and contempt is natural where the relationship is abnormal and founded upon national selfishness and pride. But your history has been disinterested and that is why you have been able to help Japan in her lessons in Western civilization and that is why China can look upon you with her best confidence in this her darkest period of danger. In fact you are carrying all the responsibility of a great future because you are untrammeled by the grasping miserliness of a past. Therefore of all countries of the earth America has to be fully conscious of this future, her vision must not be obscured and her faith in humanity must be strong with the strength of youth.

A parallelism exists between America and India – the parallelism of welding together into one body various races.

In my country, we have been seeking to find out something common to all races, which will prove their real unity. No nation looking for a mere political or commercial basis of unity will find such a solution sufficient. Men of thought and power will discover the spiritual unity, will realize it, and preach it.

India has never had a real sense of nationalism. Even though from childhood I had been taught that the idolatry of Nation is almost better than reverence for God and humanity, I believe I have outgrown that teaching, and it is my conviction that my countrymen will gain truly their India by fighting against that education which teaches them that a country is greater than the ideals of humanity.

The educated Indian at present is trying to absorb some lessons from history contrary to the lessons of our ancestors. The East, in fact, is attempting to take unto itself a history which is not the outcome of its own living. Japan, for example, thinks she is getting powerful through adopting Western methods, but, after she has exhausted her inheritance, only the borrowed weapons of civilization will remain to her. She will not have developed herself from within.

Europe has her past. Europe’s strength therefore lies in her history. We, in India, must make up our minds that we cannot borrow other people’s history, and that if we stifle our own, we are committing suicide. When you borrow things that do not belong to your life, they only serve to crush your life.

And therefore I believe that it does India no good to compete with Western civilization in its own field. But we shall be more than compensated if, in spite of the insults heaped upon us, we follow our own destiny.

There are lessons which impart information or train our minds for intellectual pursuits. These are simple and can be acquired and used with advantage. But there are others which affect our deeper nature and change our direction of life. Before we accept them and pay their value by selling our own inheritance, we must pause and think deeply. In man’s history there come ages of fireworks which dazzle us by their force and movement. They laugh not only at our modest household lamps but also at the eternal stars. But let us not for that provocation be precipitate in our desire to dismiss our lamps. Let us patiently bear our present insult and realize that these fireworks have splendour but not permanence, because of the extreme explosiveness which is the cause of their power, and also of their exhaustion. They are spending a fatal quantity of energy and substance compared to their gain and production.

Anyhow our ideals have been evolved through our own history and even if we wished we could only make poor fireworks of them, because their materials are different from yours, as is also their moral purpose. If we cherish the desire of paying our all for buying a political nationality it will be as absurd as if Switzerland had staked her existence in her ambition to build up a navy powerful enough to compete with that of England. The mistake that we make is in thinking that man’s channel of greatness is only one – the one which has made itself painfully evident for the time being by its depth of insolence.

We must know for certain that there is a future before us and that future is waiting for those who are rich in moral ideals and not in mere things. And it is the privilege of man to work for fruits that are beyond his immediate reach, and to adjust his life not in slavish conformity to the examples of some present success or even to his own prudent past, limited in its aspiration, but to an infinite future bearing in its heart the ideals of our highest expectations.

We must, however, know it is providential that the West has come to India. Yet, some one must show the East to the West, and convince the West that the East has her contribution to make in the history of civilization. India is no beggar of the West. And yet even though the West may think she is, I am not for thrusting off Western civilization and becoming segregated in our independence. Let us have a deep association. If Providence wants England to be the channel of that communication, of that deeper association, I am willing to accept it with all humility. I have great faith in human nature, and I think the West will find its true mission. I speak bitterly of Western civilization when I am conscious that it is betraying its trust and thwarting its own purpose.

The West must not make herself a curse to the world by using her power for her own selfish needs, but by teaching the ignorant and helping the weak, by saving herself from the worst danger that the strong is liable to incur by making the feeble to acquire power enough to resist her intrusion. And also she must not make her materialism to be the final thing, but must realize that she is doing a service in freeing the spiritual being from the tyranny of matter.

I am not against one nation in particular, but against the general idea of all nations. What is the Nation?

It is the aspect of a whole people as an organized power. This organization incessantly keeps up the insistence of the population on becoming strong and efficient. But this strenuous effort after strength and efficiency drains man’s energy from his higher nature where he is self-sacrificing and creative.

For thereby man’s power of sacrifice is diverted from his ultimate object, which is moral, to the maintenance of this organization, which is mechanical. Yet in this he feels all the satisfaction of moral exaltation and therefore becomes supremely dangerous to humanity. He feels relieved of the urging of his conscience when he can transfer his responsibility to this machine which is the creation of his intellect and not of his complete moral personality. By this device the people which loves freedom perpetuates slavery in a large portion of the world with the comfortable feeling of pride of having done its duty; men who are naturally just can be cruelly unjust both in their act and their thought, accompanied by a feeling that they are helping the world in receiving its deserts; men who are honest can blindly go on robbing others of their human rights for self-aggrandizement, all the while abusing the deprived for not deserving better treatment. We have seen in our everyday life even small organizations of business and profession produce callousness of feeling in men who are not naturally bad, and we can well imagine what a moral havoc it is causing in a world where whole peoples are furiously organizing themselves for gaining wealth and power.

Nationalism is a great menace. It is the particular thing which for years has been at the bottom of India’s troubles. And inasmuch as we have been ruled and dominated by a nation that is strictly political in its attitude, we have tried to develop within ourselves, despite our inheritance from the past, a belief in our eventual political destiny.

There are different parties in India, with different ideals. Some are struggling for political independence. Others think that the time has not arrived for that, and yet believe that India should have the rights that the English colonies have. They wish to gain autonomy as far as possible.

In the beginning of our history of political agitation in India there was not that conflict between parties which there is to-day. In that time there was a party known as the Indian congress; it had no real programme. They had a few grievances for redress by the authorities. They wanted larger representation in the Council House, and more freedom in the Municipal government. They wanted scraps of things, but they had no constructive ideal. Therefore I was lacking in enthusiasm for their methods. It was my conviction that what India most needed was constructive work coming from within herself. In this work we must take all risks and go on doing our duties which by right are ours, though in the teeth of persecution; winning moral victory at every step, by our failure, and suffering. We must show those who are over us that we have the strength of moral power in ourselves, the power to suffer for truth. Where we have nothing to show, we only have to beg. It would be mischievous if the gifts we wish for were granted to us right now, and I have told my countrymen, time and time again, to combine for the work of creating opportunities to give vent to our spirit of self-sacrifice, and not for the purpose of begging.

The party, however, lost power because the people soon came to realize how futile was the half policy adopted by them. The party split, and there arrived the Extremists, who advocated independence of action, and discarded the begging method, – the easiest method of relieving one’s mind from his responsibility towards his country. Their ideals were based on Western history. They had no sympathy with the special problems of India. They did not recognize the patent fact that there were causes in our social organization which made the Indian incapable of coping with the alien. What would we do if, for any reason, England was driven away? We should simply be victims for other nations. The same social weaknesses would prevail. The thing we, in India, have to think of is this – to remove those social customs and ideals which have generated a want of self-respect and a complete dependence on those above us,-a state of affairs which has been brought about entirely by the domination in India of the caste system, and the blind and lazy habit of relying upon the authority of traditions that are incongruous anachronisms in the present age.

Once again I draw your attention to the difficulties India has had to encounter and her struggle to overcome them. Her problem was the problem of the world in miniature. India is too vast in its area and too diverse in its races. It is many countries packed in one geographical receptacle. It is just the opposite of what Europe truly is, namely one country made into many. Thus Europe in its culture and growth has had the advantage of the strength of the many, as well as the strength of the one. India, on the contrary, being naturally many, yet adventitiously one has all along suffered from the looseness of its diversity and the feebleness of its unity. A true unity is like a round globe, it rolls on, carrying its burden easily; but diversity is a many-cornered thing which has to be dragged and pushed with all force. Be it said to the credit of India that this diversity was not her own creation; she has had to accept it as a fact from the beginning of her history. In America and Australia, Europe has simplified her problem by almost exterminating the original population. Even in the present age this spirit of extermination is making itself manifest, by inhospitably shutting out aliens, through those who themselves were aliens in the lands they now occupy. But India tolerated difference of races from the first, and that spirit of toleration has acted all through her history.

Her caste system is the outcome of this spirit of toleration. For India has all along been trying experiments in evolving a social unity within which all the different peoples could be held together, yet fully enjoying the freedom of maintaining their own differences. The tie has been as loose as possible, yet as close as the circumstances permitted. This has produced something like a United States of a social federation, whose common name is Hinduism.

India had felt that diversity of races there must be and should be whatever may be its drawback, and you can never coerce nature into your narrow limits of convenience without paying one day very dearly for it. In this India was right; but what she failed to realize was that in human beings differences are not like the physical barriers of mountains, fixed forever – they are fluid with life’s flow, they are changing their courses and their shapes and volume.

Therefore in her caste regulations India recognized differences, but not the mutability which is the law of life. In trying to avoid collisions she set up boundaries of immovable walls, thus giving to her numerous races the negative benefit of peace and order but not the positive opportunity of expansion and movement. She accepted nature where it produces diversity, but ignored it where it uses that diversity for its world-game of infinite permutations and combinations. She treated life in all truth where it is manifold, but insulted it where it is ever moving. Therefore Life departed from her social system and in its place she is worshipping with all ceremony the magnificent cage of countless compartments that she has manufactured.

The same thing happened where she tried to ward off the collisions of trade interests. She associated different trades and professions with different castes. It had the effect of allaying for good the interminable jealousy and hatred of competition – the competition which breeds cruelty and makes the atmosphere thick with lies and deception. In this also India laid all her emphasis upon the law of heredity, ignoring the law of mutation, and thus gradually reduced arts into crafts and genius into skill.

However, what Western observers fail to discern is that in her caste system India in all seriousness accepted her responsibility to solve the race problem in such a manner as to avoid all friction, and yet to afford each race freedom within its boundaries. Let us admit in this India has not achieved a full measure of success. But this you must also concede, that the West, being more favourably situated as to homogeneity of races, has never given her attention to this problem, and whenever confronted with it she has tried to make it easy by ignoring it altogether. And this is the source of her anti-Asiatic agitations for depriving the aliens of their right to earn their honest living on these shores. In most of your colonies you only admit them on condition of their accepting the menial position of hewers of wood and drawers of water. Either you shut your doors against the aliens or reduce them into slavery. And this is your solution of the problem of race-conflict. Whatever may be its merits you will have to admit that it does not spring from the higher impulses of civilization, but from the lower passions of greed and hatred. You say this is human nature – and India also thought she knew human nature when she strongly barricaded her race distinctions by the fixed barriers of social gradations. But we have found out to our cost that human nature is not what it seems, but what it is in truth; which is in its infinite possibilities. And when we in our blindness insult humanity for its ragged appearance it sheds its disguise to disclose to us that we have insulted our God. The degradation which we cast upon others in our pride or self-interest degrades our own humanity – and this is the punishment which is most terrible because we do not detect it till it is too late.

Not only in your relation with aliens but also with the different sections of your own society you have not brought harmony of reconciliation. The spirit of conflict and competition is allowed the full freedom of its reckless career. And because its genesis is the greed of wealth and power it can never come to any other end but a violent death. In India the production of commodities was brought under the law of social adjustments. Its basis was cooperation having for its object the perfect satisfaction of social needs. But in the West it is guided by the impulse of competition whose end is the gain of wealth for individuals. But the individual is like the geometrical line; it is length without breadth. It has not got the depth to be able to hold anything permanently. Therefore its greed or gain can never come to finality. In its lengthening process of growth it can cross other lines and cause entanglements, but will ever go on missing the ideal of completeness in its thinness of isolation.

In all our physical appetites we recognize a limit. We know that to exceed that limit is to exceed the limit of health. But has this lust for wealth and power no bounds beyond which is death’s dominion? In these national carnivals of materialism are not the Western peoples spending most of their vital energy in merely producing things and neglecting the creation of ideals? And can a civilization ignore the law of moral health and go on in its endless process of inflation by gorging upon material things? Man in his social ideals naturally tries to regulate his appetites, subordinating them to the higher purpose of his nature. But in the economic world our appetites follow no other restrictions but those of supply and demand which can be artificially fostered, affording individuals opportunities for indulgence in an endless feast of grossness. In India our social instincts imposed restrictions upon our appetites, – maybe it went to the extreme of repression, – but in the West, the spirit of the economic organization having no moral purpose goads the people into the perpetual pursuit of wealth; – but has this no wholesome limit?

The ideals that strive to take form in social institutions have two objects. One is to regulate our passions and appetites for harmonious development of man, and the other is to help him in cultivating disinterested love for his fellow-creatures. Therefore society is the expression of moral and spiritual aspirations of man which belong to his higher nature.

Our food is creative, it builds our body; but not so wine, which stimulates. Our social ideals create the human world, but when our mind is diverted from them to greed of power then in that state of intoxication we live in a world of abnormality where our strength is not health and our liberty is not freedom. Therefore political freedom does not give us freedom when our mind is not free. An automobile does not create freedom of movement, because it is a mere machine. When I myself am free I can use the automobile for the purpose of my freedom.

We must never forget in the present day that those people who have got their political freedom are not necessarily free, they are merely powerful. The passions which are unbridled in them are creating huge organizations of slavery in the disguise of freedom. Those who have made the gain of money their highest end are unconsciously selling their life and soul to rich persons or to the combinations that represent money. Those who are enamoured of their political power and gloat over their extension of dominion over foreign races gradually surrender their own freedom and humanity to the organizations necessary for holding other peoples in slavery. In the so-called free countries the majority of the people are not free, they are driven by the minority to a goal which is not even known to them. This becomes possible only because people do not acknowledge moral and spiritual freedom as their object. They create huge eddies with their passions and they feel dizzily inebriated with the mere velocity of their whirling movement, taking that to be freedom. But the doom which is waiting to overtake them is as certain as death – for man’s truth is moral truth and his emancipation is in the spiritual life.

The general opinion of the majority of the present day nationalists in India is that we have come to a final completeness in our social and spiritual ideals, the task of the constructive work of society having been done several thousand years before we were born, and that now we are free to employ all our activities in the political direction. We never dream of blaming our social inadequacy as the origin of our present helplessness, for we have accepted as the creed of our nationalism that this social system has been perfected for all time to come by our ancestors who had the superhuman vision of all eternity, and supernatural power for making infinite provision for future ages. Therefore for all our miseries and shortcomings we hold responsible the historical surprises that burst upon us from outside. This is the reason why we think that our one task is to build a political miracle of freedom upon the quicksand of social slavery. In fact we want to dam up the true course of our own historical stream and only borrow power from the sources of other peoples’ history.

Those of us in India who have come under the delusion that mere political freedom will make us free have accepted their lessons from the West as the gospel truth and lost their faith in humanity. We must remember whatever weakness we cherish in our society will become the source of danger in politics. The same inertia which leads us to our idolatry of dead forms in social institutions will create in our politics prison houses with immovable walls. The narrowness of sympathy which makes it possible for us to impose upon a considerable portion of humanity the galling yoke of inferiority will assert itself in our politics in creating tyranny of injustice.

When our nationalists talk about ideals, they forget that the basis of nationalism is wanting. The very people who are upholding these ideals are themselves the most conservative in their social practice. Nationalists say, for example, look at Switzerland, where, in spite of race differences, the peoples have solidified into a nation. Yet, remember that in Switzerland the races can mingle, they can intermarry, because they are of the same blood. In India there is no common birthright. And when we talk of Western Nationality we forget that the nations there do not have that physical repulsion, one for the other, that we have between different castes. Have we an instance in the whole world where a people who are not allowed to mingle their blood shed their blood for one another except by coercion or for mercenary purposes? And can we ever hope that these moral barriers against our race amalgamation will not stand in the way of our political unity?

Then again we must give full recognition to this fact that our social restrictions are still tyrannical, so much so as to make men cowards. If a man tells me he has heterodox ideas, but that he cannot follow them because he would be socially ostracized, I excuse him for having to live a life of untruth, in order to live at all. The social habit of mind which impels us to make the life of our fellow-beings a burden to them where they differ from us even in such a thing as their choice of food is sure to persist in our political organization and result in creating engines of coercion to crush every rational difference which, is the sign of life. And tyranny will only add to the inevitable lies and hypocrisy in our political life. Is the mere name of freedom so valuable that we should be willing to sacrifice for its sake our moral freedom?

The intemperance of our habits does not immediately show its effects when we are in the vigour of our youth. But it gradually consumes that vigour, and when the period of decline sets in then we have to settle accounts and pay off our debts, which leads us to insolvency. In the West you are still able to carry your head high though your humanity is suffering every moment from its dipsomania of organizing power. India also in the heyday of her youth could carry in her vital organs the dead weight of her social organizations stiffened to rigid perfection, but it has been fatal to her, and has produced a gradual paralysis of her living nature. And this is the reason why the educated community of India has become insensible of her social needs. They are taking the very immobility of our social structures as the sign of their perfection, – and because the healthy feeling of pain is dead in the limbs of our social organism they delude themselves into thinking that it needs no ministration. Therefore they think that all their energies need their only scope in the political field. It is like a man whose legs have become shrivelled and useless, trying to delude himself that these limbs have grown still because they have attained their ultimate salvation, and all that is wrong about him is the shortness of his sticks.

So much for the social and the political regeneration of India. Now we come to her industries, and I am very often asked whether there is in India any industrial regeneration since the advent of the British Government. It must be remembered that at the beginning of the British rule in India our industries were suppressed and since then we have not met with any real help or encouragement to enable us to make a stand against the monster commercial organizations of the world. The nations have decreed that we must remain purely an agricultural people, even forgetting the use of arms for all time to come. Thus India in being turned into so many predigested morsels of food ready to be swallowed at any moment by any nation which has even the most rudimentary set of teeth in its head.

India, therefore has very little outlet for her industrial originality. I personally do not believe in the unwieldy organizations of the present day. The very fact that they are ugly shows that they are in discordance with the whole creation. The vast powers of nature do not reveal their truth in hideousness, but in beauty. Beauty is the signature which the Creator stamps upon his works when he is satisfied with them. All our products that insolently ignore the laws of perfection and are unashamed in their display of ungainliness bear the perpetual weight of God’s displeasure. So far as your commerce lacks the dignity of grace it is untrue. Beauty and her twin brother Truth require leisure, and self-control for their growth. But the greed of gain has no time or limit to its capaciousness. Its one object is to produce and consume.

It has neither pity for beautiful nature, nor for living human beings. It is ruthlessly ready without a moment’s hesitation to crush beauty and life out of them, moulding them into money. It is this ugly vulgarity of commerce which brought upon it the censure of contempt in our earlier days when men had leisure to have an unclouded vision of perfection in humanity. Men in those times were rightly ashamed of the instinct of mere money-making. But in this scientific age money, by its very abnormal bulk, has won its throne. And when from its eminence of piled-up things it insults the higher instincts of man, banishing beauty and noble sentiments from its surroundings, we submit. For we in our meanness have accepted bribes from its hands and our imagination has grovelled in the dust before its immensity of flesh.

But its unwieldiness itself and its endless complexities are its true signs of failure. The swimmer who is an expert does not exhibit his muscular force by violent movements, but exhibits some power which is invisible and which shows itself in perfect grace and reposefulness. The true distinction of man from animals is in his power and worth which are inner and invisible. But the present-day commercial civilization of man is not only taking too much time and space but killing time and space. Its movements are violent, its noise is discordantly loud. It is carrying its own damnation because it is trampling into distortion the humanity upon which it stands. It is strenuously turning out money at the cost of happiness. Man is reducing himself to his minimum, in order to be able to make amplest room for his organizations. He is deriding his human sentiments into shame because they are apt to stand in the way of his machines.

In our mythology we have the legend that the man who performs penances for attaining immortality has to meet with temptations sent by Indra, the Lord of the immortals. If he is lured by them he is lost. The West has been striving for centuries after its goal of immortality. Indra has sent her the temptation to try her. It is the gorgeous temptation of wealth. She has accepted it and her civilization of humanity has lost its path in the wilderness of machinery.

This commercialism with its barbarity of ugly decorations is a terrible menace to all humanity. Because it is setting up the ideal of power over that of perfection. It is making the cult of self-seeking exult in its naked shamelessness. Our nerves are more delicate than our muscles. Things that are the most precious in us are helpless as babes when we take away from them the careful protection which they claim from us for their very preciousness. Therefore when the callous rudeness of power runs amuck in the broad-way of humanity it scares away by its grossness the ideals which we have cherished with the martyrdom of centuries.

The temptation which is fatal for the strong is still more so for the weak. And I do not welcome it in our Indian life even though it be sent by the lord of the Immortals. Let our life be simple in its outer aspect and rich in its inner gain. Let our civilization take its firm stand upon its basis of social cooperation and not upon that of economic exploitation and conflict. How to do it in the teeth of the drainage of our life-blood by the economic dragons is the task set before the thinkers of all oriental nations who have faith in the human soul. It is a sign of laziness and impotency to accept conditions imposed upon us by others who have other ideals than ours. We should actively try to adapt the world powers to guide our history to its own perfect end.

From the above you will know that I am not an economist. I am willing to acknowledge that there is a law of demand and supply and an infatuation of man for more things than are good for him. And yet I will persist in believing that there is such a thing as the harmony of completeness in humanity, where poverty does not take away his riches, where defeat may lead him to victory, death to immortality, and in the compensation of Eternal Justice those who are the last may yet have their insult transmuted into a golden triumph.

Rabindranath Tagore