Tagore and the Foundations of Intercultural Dialogue

Ramin Jahanbegloo

When Tagore arrived in London in June 1912, he presented his English host William Rothenstein, a noted British painter, with several translations he had made from his Bengali poems while he was en route.  Rothenstein was impressed by the poems, made copies and gave to W.B. Yeats , who was enthusiastic. Yeats exhilaration is recorded in his introduction to “Gitanjali”. "These lyrics, wrote Yeats, display in their thought a world I have dreamed all my life. Work of a supreme culture....". The works of Tagore were translated to the French by Andre Gide and to the Russian by Boris Pasternak. Anna Akhmatova who translated Tagore's books in Russian in 1960s, wrote, "He is a great poet. It is not only a matter of individual lines which have real genius or individual poems... (it is) that mighty flow of poetry which takes strength from Hinduism as from the Ganges and is called Rabindranath Tagore”. 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.

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. This outlook finds its true expression through a cosmopolitan view of the concept of belonging, which is committed to a set of values shared across cultures and helps individuals around the globe to unite and express a sense of solidarity on the principles such as fairness, equality and justice. Tagore’s urge to make his fellow countrymen but also citizens around the world realize the value of an intercultural imperative as a moral and intellectual discipline in strengthening their passiveness of mind and in making them to become more active in the battle against blind nationalism and religious fanaticism is related to his close affiliation with the inner rhythm of the world. This inner rhythm, he tried to sustain in almost everything he wrote, whether it was a poem, a story or a play. 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”. Tagore’s philosophy has an interior as it has an outside. Inwardly, he had a close intimacy with the Indian psyche and his liberal views and humanistic ideals were deeply influenced by the Vedas, the Upanishads and the Buddhist tradition. Not for a moment did he forget that he arose out of the Indian soil and was linked with his roots. And, by doing so, outwardly he was committed to a higher order of culture which was that of the Universal Man. As a result, he made the world’s destiny his own and felt the crisis of the modern civilization deeply. In a letter written in August 1920 to Charles Andrews he spells out his views on the subject. “ I feel clearly that the ultimate reality of man’s life is his life in the world of ideas, where is emancipated from gravitational pull of the dust and he realizes that he is spirit. We, in India, live in a narrow cage of petty interest; we do not believe that we have wings, for we have lost our sky; we chatter and hop and peck at one another within the small range of our obscured opportunities…. Our most difficult problem is how to gain our freedom of soul in spite of the cramped condition of our outward circumstances; how to ignore the perpetual insult of our destiny, so as to be able to uphold the dignity of man.” Tagore’s ethos of a genuine sense of world unity can be seen in his dream of making Santiniketan a nest where kindred spirits would gather from all over the world. In that context Tagore believed that India could not do without the West and the West could not do without India. And so he exhorted the youth: “ I say again that we must accept truth when it comes from the West and not hesitate to render it our tribute of admiration. Unless we accept it, our civilization will be one-sided, it will remain stagnant…. No one nation today can progress, if the others are left outside its boundaries. Let us try to win the heart of the West with all that is best and not base in us, and think her and deal with her, not in revenge or in contempt, but with goodwill and understanding, in a spirit of mutual respect.”

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.” Therefore, the moral Man should never be sacrificed to the particularistic Man. As Roman Rolland put it clearly, “ Non-coperation clashed with (Tagore’s) way of thinking, for his mentality, his rich intelligence, had been nourished on all cultures of world.” Tagore’s greatest concern was the dark side of modern civilization, especially of Western civilization. He criticized this civilization in a clear and unmistakable manner, with the full authority of his responsible position as an intercultural pathfinder. “We have seen this great stream of civilization choking itself from debris carried by its innumerable channels. We have seen that with all its vaunted love of humanity, it has proved itself the greatest menace to Man, far worse that the sudden outbursts of nomadic barbarism from which man suffered in early stages of history. We have seen that in spite of its boasted love of freedom, it has produced worse forms of slavery than ever was current in earlier societies-slavery whose chains are unbreakable, either because they are unseen, or because they assume the names and appearance of freedom. We have seen, under the spell of its gigantic sordidness, man losing faith in all the heroic ideals of life which made him great.”  That said, it was by no means easy for Tagore to find a balance between the political reality that surrounded him and the universal ideals that he persevered to realize. To describe his situation, or shall we say his predicament, Tagore repeatedly used the metaphor of the bird with two nests, one on each side of the world. Living in India, he took up the task of linking his vision of India’s ancient history and ideals to the Western liberal values. Tagore did not consider Western civilization as basically bad. Putting in his own words, “In the heart of Europe runs the purest stream of human love, love of justice, of spirit of self-sacrifice for higher ideals.” But more important in Tagore’s words: “ 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 only upon her own interest, using her power of greatness for ends which are against infinite and eternal in man.” Tagore finds orthodoxies dangerous for the perfection of human relationship. For him selfish societies as selfish individuals are imperfect. Following the principles of Indian philosophy he believed that the self and the other are no rivals but different expressions of the same Absolute. Therefore Man has to satisfy his quest of the Absolute and the Infinite in harmony with others. Further, Tagore talks of his ultimate ideal being a pluralistic world, bound not by political or economic ties but by mental recognition of diverse expressions of human spirit. In one of his lectures he said: “ Differences can never be wiped away….Let humanity come together, not in a uniformity that is dead but in a unity that is living.” It would be interesting to note that Tagore’s  philosophy shows itself as much Man-conscious as it is God-Conscious., and the ideal of unity and universality developed by Tagore in his different writings can be found in his idea of creative unity of humanity and divinity. Tagore is a holistic thinker, who believes in the multifaceted nature of human beings. “To me humanity is rich and large and many-sided” he wrote in a letter from New York, dated January 1921. Given this multilateral outlook, for Tagore the truth of man is the unity or harmony in human life. As a result of this, the truth as universal unity is to be realized in the process of developing peace in human life and society and fostering unity in diversity. This wider view of universalism based on the unity of truth can be considered as the fundamental basis of unity of human culture and dialogue among cultures. Tagore believed that mutual harmony and inclusivism between cultures would propel the world towards global dialogue and fellowship and bring about the oneness of humanity. Tagore expresses again his unshakable confidence in humanity in a letter sent in 1934 to the British classical scholar Gilbert Murray. “At no other period of history”, asserts Tagore, “has mankind as a whole been more alive to the need of human co-operation, more conscious of the inevitable and inescapable moral links which hold together the fabric of human civilization. I cannot afford to lose my faith in this inner spirit of man, nor in the sureness of human progress which following the upward path of struggle and travail is constantly achieving, through cyclic darkness and doubt, its ever-widening ranges of fulfillment…” Tagore consistently believed that particularism and exclusivism were only passing phases in the development of human community. “We must usher in the age of reason, of cooperation, of a generous reciprocity of cultures which will reveal the richness of our common humanity,” he affirmed in a speech in Iraq in 1932. In his reply speech to the welcome addressed by king Faisal of Iraq, on May 25, 1932, he pointed out that: “Human civilization has crossed the boundaries of racial and national segregation. We are today to build the future of man on an honest understanding of our varied racial personality which gives richness to life, on tolerance and sympathy and cooperation in the great task of liberating the human mind from the dark forces of unreason and mutual distrust of homicidal pride of sect and lust of gain. I pray that Iraq may realize this great responsibility of a coming civilization…let her win her right to a boundless freedom in a world of greatness and proclaim under her high-vaulted heavens the majesty of the spirit of man which is the sacred shrine of the spirit of God.” One might think that Tagore’s optimistic view and his extreme confidence for a better future for the world is totally irrelevant, considering the current explosive situation in Iraq. But it is worth considering the essence of Tagore’s argument on dialogue of cultures, alongside the present debate on global vision whether the Iraqi situation leaves a place for general optimism or not.  Tagore belongs to a generation of outstanding thinkers who can still show us a new way of thinking and acting. The moral and spiritual bases of his ideas have not made him outmoded and his humanitarian approach to the idea of mutuality has a powerful trans-cultural potential. The meeting ground of cultures, as Tagore envisioned it, is the spirit hospitality “which is the first virtue in men that made civilization possible.” It is within this spirit of hospitality that a “common human horizon” can take shape. This is a core of shared universal values which makes the critical intercultural dialogue possible. Hence, it aims towards an intercultural orientation of a dialogical praxis. It goes without saying that the dialogical praxis is increasingly central to contemporary democratic theory, mainly due to the fact that we live in a diverse world that is unable to accommodate all cultural virtues and values into one life. As a result, members of different cultures should practice critical intercultural dialogue, whereby they try to understand each other and only then to criticize cultural practices they find offensive. On the most basic level, it is clear that most, if not all, living cultures change over time. Therefore, no culture constitutes a hermetically-sealed chamber of meaning. The boundaries of a culture may change as it encounters other cultures. In other words, critical intercultural dialogue could lead to cultural change where the process of dialogue and trust replaces that of coercion and manipulation. When portrayed in this way, partners in an intercultural dialogue end up engaging in a process of questioning rather than intimidating or patronizing each other. That is to say, only an open-ended, hospitable and empathetic dialogue, which takes the “other” seriously, could be a genuine intercultural encounter. The aim of a critical intercultural dialogue is to get a better sense of solidarity and empathy among cultures by celebrating and respecting the idea of diversity, but also by having a critical intervention against an uneven and unequal global design. What one can learn from this cross-cultural dialogue is that one has to be profoundly responsive to the sense of belonging that human beings experience in different cultures. But who says “response” says also “responsibility”. Responsibility moves the individual to respond to the call of the world and to create a future which would otherwise not happen. Importantly, this means facing the dialogue with the “other”, not avoiding it. The intercultural response to the “other” proposes neither imposing answers nor looking the other way. It is simply a reaction against violence in the world because it encourages members of conflicting cultures to adopt an attitude of openness toward each other, to attempt to understand each other’s perspectives and worldviews. This attitude of openness can be reinforced through the process of dialogue itself, where the idea of “togetherness” is primary. As Gadamer puts it, dialogue “is a game which we all play together. None plays before the other; each is in the midst of the game.” Thus, a theory of critical intercultural dialogue cannot pretend to exhaust all possible theoretical and practical responses to the problem of intercultural value conflicts. However, it can encourage cultural participants in a dialogue to engage in a process of questioning, in order to discover answers that help accommodate their different cultural perspectives in a world of diversity. Today in a time when mankind is confronted with a grim scenario involving clashes of national self interest, religious fundamentalisms 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. Engaging in a dialogue where “the mind is without fear and the head is held high”, as Tagore notes in a poem, is always difficult. But today- and this I believe is at root of Tagore’s dark despair in his final writing, Crisis in Civilization – being open and being silent in order to understand- is even more difficult than before given the rise of nationalist and religious fundamentalisms. “I had at one time believed that the springs of civilization could issue out of the heart of Europe. But today, when I am about to leave the world, that faith has deserted me. I look around and see the crumbling ruins of a proud civilization strewn like a vast heap of futility. And yet, I shall not commit the previous sin of losing faith in man.” 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.