"“I am not against one nation in particular, but against the general idea of all nations. What is the Nation? It is the aspect of a whole people as an organised power. This organisation incessantly keeps up the insistence of the population on becoming strong and efficient. But this strenuous effort after strength and efficiency drains man’s energy from his higher nature where he is self-sacrificing and creative. For thereby man’s power of sacrifice is diverted from his ultimate object, which is moral, to the maintenance of this organisation, which is mechanical."
This is a collection of three lectures the famous Rabindranath Tagore gave, on the topic of nationalism, in the early twentieth-century. His analysis of nationalism in Japan, in the West, and in India, is thought-provoking and remarkably eloquent. He was clearly a skilled writer, and his prose can be very beautiful (even if I, personally, found it was a bit much at times).
Tagore's critique of the inhumane and suffocating machinery of modern nation-states is prescient, and very well done. He articulates the spiritual desolation that modern industrial society brings in its wake, and his warnings about what might follow if the colonised peoples of the world attempt to follow the doctrines of nationalism were far-sighted.
The nation-state, capitalism, and the mechanical nature of the world that began to take shape in the previous century had a distorting effect on people:
"[Man] feels relieved of the urging of his conscience when he can transfer his responsibility to this machine which is the creation of his intellect and not of his complete personality. By this device the people which loves freedom perpetuates slavery in a large portion of the world with the comfortable feeling of having done its duty; men who are naturally just can be cruelly unjust both in their act and their thought, accompanied by a feeling that they are helping the world to receive its deserts; men who are honest can blindly go on robbing others of their human rights for self-aggrandisement, all the while abusing the deprived for not deserving better treatment. We have seen in our everyday life even small organisations of business and profession produce callousness of feeling in men who are not naturally bad, and we can well imagine what a moral havoc it is causing in a world where whole peoples are furiously organising themselves for gaining wealth and power.”
However, I must admit that I found it hard to agree with all of Tagore's arguments, and his viewpoint felt quite alien to me, at times. No doubt much of that has to do with temporal distance, and the fact that his vision of man as spiritual animal, driven to a higher moral purpose now seems, in some ways, to have been defeated. However, I also found some of his reading of history highly suspect, and I struggled throughout to get on board with his abiding belief in 'ultimate truths' and on God's role in the world. I also found that he seemed to be proving Partha Chatterjee's argument from his excellent, Nationalist Thought and the Colonial World. Chatterjee felt that the Orientalist division of the world into East and West, each endowed with essential characteristics, was one that even many nationalist intellectuals were unable to break. They may have rejected arguments about European superiority, but they did not entirely reject ideas of "Asian genius" or "Eastern character". Tagore is especially guilty of this, as he makes multiple references to the West and East as, respectively, political and spiritual civilizations. For example: "Each nation must be conscious of its mission, and we in India must realise that we cut a poor figure when we try to be political, simply because we have not yet been finally able to accomplish what was set before us by our providence."
I would, however, be interested to see how Tagore's views may have evolved later in life- just a few years after this book was first published in 1917, the nationalist movement in India took on a mass character and- I believe- Tagore also wrote a book on his impressions of the Soviet Union after a visit there.
Furthermore, while many of Tagore’s critiques of nationalism, and by extension the nation-state, are quite apt- its greed, rapaciousness, inhumanity, militarism, etc- I think the reality is likely more nuanced. As Benedict Anderson wrote in Imagined Communities, nationalism- despite its horrors- has also inspired great self-sacrifice, spawned beautiful works of art, and more. The nation has, indeed, sometimes spurned mankind to dedicate themselves to what Tagore would likely recognise some of the ‘higher’ purposes of life (sacrifice, selflessness, the transcendence of personal interest).
In all, I did enjoy reading this even if I struggled with it at times. I've become much more sympathetic to critiques of modernity, and the spiritual void that seems to come with it, recently. However, I think I still have trouble breaking away from 'materialist' readings of history. Tagore's work here was definitely a valuable read and, while I agree with many of his critiques about our world, I'm not sure we're entirely on the same page about the value of what was lost, and how we can go about mending our wounds.
“At the least pressing of its button the monster organization becomes all eyes, whose ugly stare of inquisitiveness cannot be avoided by a single person amongst the immense multitude of the ruled. At the least turn of its screw, by the fraction of an inch, the grip is tightened to the point of suffocation around every man, woman and child of a vast population, for whom no escape is imaginable in their own country or even in any country outside their own.
It is the continual and stupendous dead pressure of the inhuman upon the living human under which the modern world is groaning. Not merely the subject races, but you who live under the delusion that you are free, are every day sacrificing your freedom and humanity to this fetish of nationalism, living in the dense poisonous atmosphere of world-wide suspicion and greed and panic.”