Independence Day Special, 1964
KINSHIP OF TAGORE AND NEHRU (Part II) - By Late Shri Abani Mukherjee M.A.
*********************************************************************************
Not only this, both reflected that truth is not limited to it but is universal. Nehru said “India must see her struggle in the larger context of world developments and upheavals”. This obsession with other countries while his own country was in bondage puzzled many. Many scoffed at him. But “Fools rush in where angels fear to tread”.
The international awareness that has grown in Indian Politics is purely the contribution of Nehru and the rich dividends it has paid we have seen during the time of Chinese aggression. This cosmic attitude, a legacy of spiritual transformation saved Tagore also from his sensuousness in literature just as it saved Nehru from his all-consuming Nationalism. The greatest drawback of all embracing Nationalism is narrowness and in-humanism. All dictators Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin ultimately became inhuman and have paid a heavy price for this intense Nationalism not allowing it to flow into Internationalism.
Nehru as a student of history knew this very well and always tried to understand problem in larger context. The same is true of Tagore. Both are angels one in Politics and other in literature and it is for this universality life has granted both of them passports to cross all frontiers and became universal, to become light and echo unto eternity. For a poet it is natural but for a politician it is unique.
Great Gandhiji also radiated politics with spiritualism but he was bit cloudy. His approach to most of the problems was intuitive. He was moved by conscience more than by mind, one critic speaks the truth when he says “To Gandhiji the thing is right, therefore, it is rational. To Nehru the thing is rational therefore it is right”. Sri Feroz Khan Noon once said “Gandhiji is a gentleman whom God alone can understand”. Whereas Nehru is described by Mr. Stowe “A man of great intelligence with an aura of nobility around him”.
In short Gandhiji is religio-politician whereas Nehru is a poet-Politician. The poetry in him certainly would not have been widely known but for his autobiography. Every line in it speaks of unique temperament radiated by universal brotherhood. This fame radiates whole fibers of Tagore and Gandhiji also, but whereas Tagore and Nehru hold a perfect balance between intuition and intelligence Gandhiji if often lets loose the same. All of them came in contact with universal soul and held love as more beautiful than hatred. All of the m hated British Imperialism but never hated British people. With width of imagination they took the whole world as ‘Gods’ Kingdom’.
As poet Nehru and Tagore evinced a deep love for beauty and creative mind. Like Wordsworth they severely castigated man’s obsession with materialism at the cost of spiritualism. They warned man that “Thing is becoming more the Centre of interest than he himself, and the crisis of spirit is bound to emerge. Creative mind for beauty alone can alone solve this human crisis.”
“Beauty is the truth and truth is beauty – that is all, ye know on earth and all ye need to know.” Both realized it and practiced it. Both lived beautifully and simply like flower and children. Both swept aside un-intelligent acquiescence and orthodoxism and held spirit alone of value. With the ‘soul of a poet and the body of bridegroom’ both became dynamic forces-one in politics and the other in literature.
Both are men of iron-will and firm convictions. When Tagore started experiments in literature ha had to face all sorts of criticism but never gave it up. Similarly when Nehru started socialism and internationalism in Indian politics many scoffed at him. Of course he had often to temporize and compromise not to give ideal up but to achieve his end. In this he is a grange contrast to Subhash Bose whose capacity for adjustment was but rigid. He lost his case of Socialism with Gandhiji for his hurry whereas Nehru slowly brought the Great Man in his fold and prodded Congress to accept is as its ideal. For this compromising attitude he is often called ‘Hamlet’ in Indian Politics – Vacillating and brooding. But it is far from the truth. For the sake of larger loyalties he had often to throw some of his cherished beliefs in the background but never abandoned them. He like Fabian conquers by delay. His views on the religion, on economic and on woman are the same as they were when formed in his early age.
Both are Poets
If the definition of a poet is “one who has realized in himself and in whom humanity as gained realization and when this is expressed in fine musical language with grace and refinement he becomes a poet” – then Nehru is certainly a poet of high order. As regards the first part of the definition it has already been proved that he is a poet. As regards the second, one is only to go through his writing and speeches. All the elements of romantic poets will be found in them not only in essentials but also in accidents. Love for the peasants, war against philistinism, accessibility to imagination, hatred for gross materialism, holding of spirit alone of value, are all expressed in words of rich cadences and of aesthetic quality of high order. J.S. Bright rightly remarks “They reflect a rhythm of spiritual experience rising from the subconscious. That alone is responsible for its magic. Words are never jerky. They are bisurely and one in whom divinity is inspired can write like this”.
Both Tagore and Nehru reached soul-state is further proved by their excessive love for flower and children. Both of them fixed children as type of what people should try to become. Dante describes the soul of man coming from God as “weeping and laughing like a little child”. Jesus Christ wanted man to lead a ‘flower like’ life. Love for perpetual youth and strength against worn out ideals also stems from the same state. Pandit Nehru not only loves but also embodies in him perpetual youth to fight out the effete ideals.
Thus we see Essential Nehru and Essential Tagore are linked so profoundly with universal soul. Both are not only individuals but all men. Both are dreamers and idealists. Both are concerned with freedom struggle; one wants to free man politically and the other psychologically. Moral leadership and over whelming rationality guide them in their crusade against the slavery of the soul.
Gandhiji’s leadership is also moral; he is also a man of soul state but not always rational. Pandit Nehru on the other hand a man of superhuman grandeur, a man of universal spirit, a man whose life is all poetry is all emotional with an aura of rationalism all around him and is a perfect complement to Gandhiji a vital factor in his political mathematics, but certainly not like him. In this sense he resembles Rabindranath Tagore more in serene philosophic temper, in the contemplation of the spectacle of life with proper emotion. Tagore’s best we have seen but in case of Nehru ‘God’s will was different. He was called upon to bear the titan weight of politics for which he was not mentally fit. Yet like Hamlet he did not fall prey to circumstances. He acquitted himself very creditably. He has transcended politics from the devildom of ills. He has infused in it divinity as a true disciple of Gandhiji. But the best of him we have seen in his autobiography which fills one only with appalling wonder, what he would be if the greater part of his life he could devote in literature. But man or woman is born to fulfil certain purpose and it is for Him decide which suits on best and where he is more urgently needed. No amount of skill in science has unlocked this mystery nor does it seem possible that such study will ever do so – The will is women with absent heed And ever will so weave.
No comments: