This attitude towards politics would be quite understandable in one that was opposed to the inter change of ideals between East and West. But Tagore says emphatically : " I am not for thrusting off Western civilisation 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 " (Ibid. p. 109). How is it possible then, that with the constant interchange of ideas and the spread of western education, India must eternally refrain from western institutions, say those of representative and responsible govern ment ? And that on the specious assumption that our venerable ancestors will turn in their graves, when they get to know that their progeny have actually taken to democratic ways. Is it not much more preferable to accept the best ideals that have '1 moulded British institutions than simply to bow down before the physical force of pax Britannica ? We do not know whether Sir Rabindra Nath is confusing sectarianism with nationalism " which for years has been at the bottom of India's troubles." The root-causes of India's repeated misfortunes have been sectarian antagonisms and religious bigotries and racial insularities. If we could have evolved a strong, unified and consolidated national conscious ness, Indian history would be quite different to-day. If, however, Sir Rabindra Nath is referring to the recent unrest in that section of India that is politically self-conscious and articulate, we have only to remind him that national consciousness is richer in content than provincial jealousies and communal feuds, however deplorable the anomalies attending on a period of transition, and however inferior in quality be national feeling to that sense of international harmony towards which all Indian nationalists of the sane type are impatiently aspiring.
It is only as a nation that India can take her place in the counsels of the nations. It is all very well to talk of International Brotherhood, but we cannot dispense with the preliminary stage of nation-building, and no free nation would admit us to her brother hood unless we go there as the accredited repre sentatives of " India : a Nation." The task that faces Indian nationalists to-day is stupendous, and the courage with which they face difficulties of vast magnitude that beset the path of nation-building, should call forth our admiration instead of provoking our amusement.
Besides, commercial enterprises and vast organisa tions for the exploitation of weaker races and poorer individuals do not exhaust the contents of nation ality. A nation has a vast heritage of ideals, dreams and aspirations bequeathed from the past and waiting to be developed for the future, and only as members of a nation can we appraise our own traditions or rightly value the acquisitions of other races. Besides, there are internal problems awaiting solution at the hands of any one nation. We have heard of broad-minded Englishmen and sympathetic Frenchmen, but we have not yet come upon one that was a representative of all the nations.
But Tagore is on much weaker ground when he expounds his views on nationalism " Nationalism is a great menace," he begins. " 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." (Ibid. pp. in, 112). And yet, curiously enough, Tagore completely stultifies himself by the astound ing declaration that " India has never had a real sense of nationalism. Even though from childhood I had been taught that idolatry of the 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 truly gain their India by fighting against the 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." Before we proceed to unravel the amazing incon sistencies that are sown thick in these otherwise beautiful and touching passages, we should like to give in Tagore's own words, his definition of a nation. " It is the aspect of a whole people organised for power " (p. IR)).
We do not accept the definition, for it is the most tortuous and one-sided that could possibly catch the eye. Yet we should like to analyse his own statements in the light of his definition. A moment ago, we quoted Tagore's dictum that nationalism " which for years has been at the bottom of India's troubles " is a great menace. But has any student of Indian history—even of recent Indian history— ever heard of the whole Indian people " organised for power ? " There is nothing more conspicuous among, at any rate, the illiterate masses of humanity inhabiting the various parts of India, than their seeming heterogeneity and disparity from other communities. If the whole of India were " organised for power " British ascendancy there would have been rather difficult to establish.
But Sir Rabindra Nath takes our breath away when he tells us, in a half-humorous manner that " In the beginning of the history of political agitation in India . . . there was a party known as the Indian Congress ; it had no real programme. They had a few grievances for redress by the authorities." And yet Reuter tells us that Tagore shared with Mrs. Besant, the president-elect of the Indian National Congress (which according to Sir Rabindra Nath was and is presumably, no longer in existence), and Mr. Surendra Nath Bannerj ea the honours of the national assembly that had met to demand Home Rule within the Empire. And what is more inter esting is that Tagore specially composed a beautiful ode for the occasion. And yet he coolly tells us that " there was a party known as the Indian Congress " ( Ibid. p. 112).