While celebrating the 150th birth anniversary of Rabindranath Tagore, the best way to honour him is to examine yet again his relevance for the world today. His relevance for the subcontinent to which he contributed in many ways, including two national anthems, is generally recognized. There is more to Tagore than his Indian identity. An expression of his universal relevance is that he is as much relevant to Europe today as to the region of his birth. In a lecture that I delivered on the theme of “Rediscovering Europe” at the Institut Pierre Werner, Luxembourg, in 2005, I tried to argue that at a time when Europe is trying to go beyond national rivalries and create the possibility of peace, we need to look forward. Tagore is relevant here.

On hearing of the shooting of unarmed people in Jallianwala Bagh in Amritsar on April 13, 1919, Tagore wished, as is known, to be relieved of his knighthood. In a letter to Lord Chelmsford, he wrote, “The very least that I can do for my country is to take all consequences upon myself in giving voice to the protest of the millions of my countrymen, surprised into a dumb anguish of terror. The time has come when badges of honour make our shame glaring in their incongruous context of humiliation, and I for my part wish to stand, shorn of all special distinctions, by the side of those of my countrymen who, for their so-called insignificance, are liable to suffer a degradation not fit for human beings. And these are the reasons which have painfully compelled me to ask, Your Excellency, with due deference and regret, to relieve me of my title of Knighthood which I had the honour to accept from His Majesty the King.”

Tagore’s letter, which was printed and read by his countrymen, was not viewed kindly by the colonial administration. It was, at the same time, necessary not to act in a manner that gave any importance to it. Devising a cunning way of handling the situation, Chelmsford took the stand that he was unable himself to relieve Tagore of his title, nor did he propose to make any recommendation to His Majesty. London agreed with him and so did King George V. Poor Tagore officially remained Sir Rabindranath for the rest of his life.

Tagore felt troubled not only in 1919. Earlier, when World War I broke out, he felt disturbed and saw it as “the accumulated insults to the divine in man”. He told his audience in Japan during this period that in showing the potentiality of new life, Japan had to take note of the legacy of the ancient culture of the East. Japan could not be “a mere reproduction of the West”.

On the political civilisation that sprang from the soil of Europe, he said, “It is carnivorous and cannibalistic in its tendencies; it feeds upon the resources of other peoples and tries to swallow their whole future. Before this political civilisation came to its power and opened its hungry jaws wide enough to gulp down great continents of the earth, we had wars, pillages, changes of monarchy and consequent miseries, but never such a sight of fearful and hopeless voracity, such wholesale feeding of nation upon nation, such huge machines for turning great portions of the earth into mincemeat, never such terrible jealousies with all their ugly teeth and claws ready for tearing open each other’s vitals. This political civilisation is scientific, not human.”

Just months before he died in 1941, as the world was witnessing yet another World War, Tagore addressed the students of his university, Visva-Bharati. He combined in this last public address his criticism of British rule in India and of European civilisation in these ringing words: “The Wheels of Fate will some day compel the British to give up their Indian Empire. But what kind of India will they leave behind, what stark misery? When the stream of their two centuries’ administration runs dry at last, what a waste of mud and filth will they leave behind them! I had at one time believed that the springs of civilisation would issue out of the heart of Europe. But today, when I am about to quit the world, that faith has deserted me.”

Tagore made a distinction between “the spirit of the West” and “the Nation of the West”. While the spirit of the West is moved by freedom, the nation of the West manufactures unbreakable chains. This paradox leads him to assert, “Europe is supremely good in her beneficence where her face is turned to all humanity; and Europe is supremely evil in her maleficent aspect where her face is turned upon her own interest, using all her power of greatness for ends which are against the infinite and the eternal in Man.” Tagore was not against a particular nation but the idea of the nation as such. He considered it “a great menace” and this held good for a colonized country like India as well. He persisted in believing in “the harmony of completeness in humanity”, which he believed was undermined by nationalism.

As Europe rediscovers itself and draws ever-expanding boundaries through the march of the market and also the concern for peace for itself and for the rest of the world, as Europe struggles with its internal issues of interests, identities and legitimacy, does Tagore have something to offer? Tagore was naïve in some ways. He was duped, for instance, by Mussolini, whom he found a man of intelligence and force. Beyond these aberrations of realpolitik, he saw acutely — perhaps with poetic insight — that humanity had to think beyond the constraints of the day.

In this era of postcolonial scholarship, it has been argued, notably by Dipesh Chakrabarty, that what is needed is to “provincialize Europe” from outside, which presumably means to de-centre Europe and create space for others. It is obvious that Europe is not the centre of the world any longer. If there are Europeans who still live with their thoughts in the past, it is to be hoped that their thoughts will eventually catch up with the emerging reality. It is more important, I submit, to universalize Europe, not in the false sense of its arrogant boast, which sounds more and more hollow now, but in the spirit of Tagore. He can be compared, in this respect, to Goethe, who had asked his countrymen to strive, not to be a nation, but to become freer human beings.

Universalizing Europe means, for me, to help Europeans overcome their provincialism. This is not easy, for it runs, in the worst case, against the deadly combination of ignorance and arrogance. European thought will gain, not lose, if it extends its reach and learns that human thought is not confined to its boundaries, nor to the period of its domination. To do justice to the spirit of Tagore will mean cooperation between cultures when men and women from different cultures work together, in Tagore’s words, to win back their lost human heritage.

There are different ways in which reason can be taken prisoner. Only free persons, not prisoners, could ensure the success of such a project. “Prisoner, tell me, who was it that wrought this unbreakable chain?” This question is asked in a poem in Gitanjali. “It was I,” said the prisoner, “who forged this chain very carefully. I thought my invincible power would hold the world captive leaving me in a freedom undisturbed. Thus, night and day I worked at the chain with huge fires and cruel hard strokes. When at last the work was done and the links were complete and unbreakable, I found that it held me in its grip.”

surendramunshi@yahoo.com