The Philosophy of Rabindranath Tagore
Download 467.3 Kb. Pdf ko'rish
|
The Philosophy of Rabindranath Tagore (Ashgate World Philosophies Series) (Ashgate World Philosophies Series) by Kalyan Sen Gupta (z-lib.org)
Hindu and Muslim
Tagore has a utopian vision of India as a place of pilgrimage for the happy abode of different races, tribes and religions. This may be represented as a plea for the need to deterritorialize the world – the object being to forge social and cultural ties between different nations, and drive home a sense of fellow-feeling that cuts across borders. He realizes that Indian culture cannot thrive unless there is space for harmony and interchange, but recognizes that the India of his vision, as the icon of a deterritorialized world, does not exist, that actual circumstances do not fit with his dream. He is painfully aware of the alarming distance and rivalry between people, particularly between the two major religions of India, Hindu and Muslim. This became more evident to him when, in 1926, he personally witnessed the Calcutta riots which, in fact, started with an incident in the locality around his Calcutta residence at Jorasanko. These riots were preceded and followed by similar events in Lahore, Delhi and other cities. Tagore was deeply shocked by this deterioration of commmunal relations, by a ‘satanic bestiality which wears the garb of religion’. Of course, he does not merely note this problem. He wants to trace the reasons for this disharmony and think of ways to bridge this distance, to alleviate this terrible conflict of communities. In ‘Hindu Musalman’ (Hindu–Muslim), 1 Rabindranath points out that once the Hindus and the Muslims were close to one another despite the differences 18 between them. They were not indeed free from religious dogmatism, but religion had not dominated the problems, events and activities of their everyday life. Moreover, beyond the limits of their respective communities, there was ample room for their union, and free interchange. It is a historical fact that communalism came into existence only with the birth of political consciousness, when people began to think in terms of their narrow group interests emanating from a strong religious bias, when religious dogmatism gave way to religious fanaticism. This communalism was fanned by the ‘divide and rule’ policy of the British rulers (whom Tagore calls ‘small English men’ as opposed to ‘great English men’). As he puts it in ‘Sabhyatar Sankat’ (‘Crisis of Civilization’): The greatest misfortune that has now confronted India is not only the unfortunate lack of food, cloth and education, but is, more crucially, the barbarous inner discord among the Indians which has no parallel. The danger is that our society is held responsible for it. But the misfortune is gradually becoming so severe day by day that such a dehumanized and uncivilized consequence of Indian history could never happen if it were not nourished by the indulgence from a secret corner of government machinery. 2 In confirmation of Tagore’s perception, we may quote the observation of Lord George Hamilton, the Secretary of State, as evidence of the British resolve to take advantage of Hindu–Muslim communalism: ‘… while to wish for the unity of ideas and action would be very dangerous politically, divergence of ideas or collision are administratively troublesome. Of the two the latter is the least risky, though it throws anxiety and responsibility upon those on the spot where the friction exists.’ 3 By following this policy, the British were able to make the Muslims suspicious of the national movement. Rabindranath was very critical of this Muslim non-participation. Incidentally this was also the view of Abul Maulana Azad who believed in a united struggle against the British. He said: Indian Muslims followed blindly the policy of the British government … [They] broke off all relations with the Hindus who were the real active group in the country … We were warned that the Hindus were a majority and if we went along with them they would crush us … The result was that the government which should otherwise have become the target of the Muslims’ spears was saved, and their own neighbours became their mark instead. 4 The above shows how the responsibility for communalism was borne by the divide and rule policy of the British. What, however, is important to consider is why the British were able to provoke the evil of communalism. The background to it, according to Rabindranath, was provided by religious and social conditions which had already created an inner distance between the two communities. Download 467.3 Kb. Do'stlaringiz bilan baham: |
Ma'lumotlar bazasi mualliflik huquqi bilan himoyalangan ©fayllar.org 2024
ma'muriyatiga murojaat qiling
ma'muriyatiga murojaat qiling