By Jyotirmoy Prodhani
Rabindranath Tagore – the great poet, philosopher, Nobel laureate and arguably one of the finest thinkers of modern India – used to write primarily in Bengali and also in English, but his writings have been essentially a celebration of universal humanism, which have remained abidingly relevant not only within the regional confines of India alone but transcended the boundaries of nations, for he firmly believed that human civilization and intellectual refinements have been the foundational legacies of humanity in general. For Tagore the idea of humanity itself is a manifestation of deeper understanding and harmony despite contradictions and incongruities which essentially define the history of civilisations as a chronicle of innate values and beauty. And culture is part of that harmony. In his famous essay on Nationalism he has elaborated on his idea of inclusive identity as a civilizational reality. Even the idea of India, according to him, is a composite manifestation of ethical diversities when he had mentioned that the basis of Indian unity had come through the saints, the spiritual voices like Nanak, Kabir, Chaitanya and others. The cultural vision of Tagore was essentially universalist. In his essay, “Religion of the Forest” he writes, “Humanity for ages has been with one great creation of spiritual life. Its best wisdom, its discipline, literature and art, all the teachings and self- sacrifice of its noblest teachers, have been for this.”
Tagore had underlined the fact that despite the mutual differences of races and diversities, India has achieved a sense of unity. This, he argues, might well be the most significant contribution of India to the world. On the idea of history, he writes, “There is only one history – the history of man. All national histories are merely chapters in the larger one.” (“Nationalism”) He even reiterates that the most important fact of the present age is the fact that all the different races of men have come closer to each other.
Tagore’s philosophy has been inclusive, corporate and communitarian. But unfortunately he has been reduced into a formidable symbol of deeply exclusionary cultural disposition, the process that has provincialized Tagore. This is largely the reason that Tagore has been progressively alienated and distanced from the mental cartography of the communities who are not part of, what can be called as, ‘the Bengali cultural discourse’ or of the cultural pedagogy known as ‘Rabindra charcha”. With the growing awareness among the micro entities, even within Bengal, the communities are increasingly beginning to assert difference rather than engaging in voluntary retreat for ‘assimilation’. This has led to the anxieties as well as a sense of resistance among them when it comes to celebrating Rabindra Jayanti which essentially follows a module that zealously curates a mono cultural patronisation with aggressive exclusion of all other forms of cultural manifestations by effectively reducing them, even in the spaces of their own, as veritable pariahs, the culturally orientalised ‘other’ as well as the perpetual fence sitters, as if being on the fringe is an act of atonement of their ‘interpellated’ cultural inferiority.
This very act of exclusionary celebration of one of the greatest icons of modern India is a severe desecration of the very ideas that Tagore stood for than an achievement of the purportedly supremacist cultural stance that such acts actually aim at. Tagore would be the staunchest critic of any form of hegemony, be it cultural or political, but ironically the celebration of his own anniversary has, in effect, become an annual ritual of asserting that very scourge.
In the context of the North East, Tagore has a different significance. His association with Tripura was rather deep. He was close to the Kings of Tripura, including Radha Kishore Manikya and Bir Bikram Manikya. He had also given the name, ‘Ujjayanta’, to the Agartala Royal Palace and during his several visits to Agartala he came across Manipuri Dance and took some of the most eminent Manipuri Dance Gurus to Shantiniketan like Guru Budhimanta Singha and others. It was Tagore who was instrumental in making Manipuri Classical Dance as one of the first dance forms to become an institutional discipline in Indian academia. In fact, the dance form known as ‘Rabindra Nritya’ is primarily inspired by and based on the Manipuri Classical Dance. Tagore also had received generous financial support from the Kings of Tripura for Visva Bharati. Similarly, his association with Assam and Shillong have also been significant. He had visited Assam thrice. Despite having a different opinion initially, his support to the Assamese language has been particularly noteworthy.
In fact, Tagore was always critical of any form of oversentimental hegemonic assertion. He has been categorical in not accepting his own region, Bengal or his city, Calcutta, as the sole centre of cultural or historical supremacy. As a matter of fact, it is not Calcutta but rather the cities like Pragjyotishpura (Guwahati) or Imphal in the North East or even Coochbehar, presently in Bengal, have been rather few hundred years older than Calcutta in terms of antiquity, history and cultural enlightenment. In his essay, “The Modern Age”, about Calcutta Tagore writes, “Calcutta is an upstart town with no depth of sentiment in her face and in her manners. It may be truly said about her genesis- in the beginning there was the spirit of the Shop, which uttered through its megaphone. “Let there be Office!’ and there was Calcutta.” Tagore continued, “She (Calcutta) brought with her no dower of distinction, no majesty of noble or romantic origin; she never gathered around her any great historical associations, any annals of brave sufferings, or memory of mighty deeds. The only thing that gave her the sacred baptism of beauty was the river. (Tagore Selected Essays, 35-26). Tagore has been starkly objective with the stately elegance of a great thinker. He had famously said, “Nationalism is a great menace. It is the particular thing which for years has been at the bottom of India’s troubles”. (ibid 246) The same is relevant even in the context of what can be termed as ‘sub nationalism’. It is, therefore, an imperative on the part of the organisers to celebrate Tagore with the spirit of the bard himself, which is pluralistic, inclusive, multicultural and polyphonic, so that Rabindra Jayanti on 25th of Baishak becomes a collective celebration of cultures and not a mere esoteric rite that alienates.
The most ideal way of celebrating Tagore in the North East is not through the monochrome of cultural singularities but through the polymorph of multiplicities which is unifying. Rabindra Jayanti would carry much more significance and relevance if the event transforms into an occasion for uninhibited cultural freedom rather than an event of sanctioning the native tongues. There is no reason as to why there cannot be a Manipuri dance recital or a Kokborok khilima, a Rajbanshi Bhawaiya or a Khasi Phawar as part of celebrating Tagore. Rabindranath needs to be liberated from the provincial confines of cultural parochialism, he must remain as an abiding symbol of great inspiration for all.
(Jyotirmoy Prodhani teaches at NEHU, Shillong. [email protected])