SOCIETAL DIFFERENCES

RABINDRANATH TAGORE

(Translated by R. Srinivasan and Kunjbala P. Modi,

Department of Civics and Politics, University of Bombay)

[This essay was written in 1901 and has not been earlier translated into English. It contains Tagore’s reflections on the Boxer Rebellions and on the Boer War and his general concern for preserving the culture and civilizations of traditional societies.]

In the last January issue of the Contemporary Review Dr. Dhillon has an article entitled “The Chinese Tiger and the European Lamb.” It describes the untold atrocities inflicted by the Europeans on the Chinese during the war. Notorious oppressors of history, like Chengiz Khan and Timur the Lame, now bow their heads to the deranged barbarism of civilized Europe.

Europe has always gloried in its civilization which it has been claimed as based on love and compassion. It has been customary for Europeans to hold Asia in contempt. I am not happy at this opportunity to refute this claim of European superiority and for an obvious reason. The weak can never by accusation harm the strong. But the strong can easily inflict a mortal blow on the weak any time they choose by their accusations.

With the Europeans, it has become proverbial to refer to Asian barbarism, cruelty and inscrutability. They think it not necessary to apply European ideals to Asians and this remains a persistent strand in Christian thinking.

When we were first exposed to European education, the lesson that we learnt was the absence of distinctions between human beings. And therefore we prepared ourselves to be on an equal footing with our new teacher. Just then he closed his scriptures and said that the gulf between the East and West is so wide that it is impossible to bridge it.

Well, if there are differences, let them be. Diversity does make for the well-being of the world. On earth it is differences in temperature that make for the continuous movement of air. It is only proper that the different civilizations preserve their individual identities by manifesting their ideals in different forms¹–only then there will be a free exchange of knowledge among civilizations.

At present what we see is nothing but exchange of hatred and bullets. Thus begins the new Christian Century (that is, the twentieth century).

Conceding that differences do exist, if these are not comprehended with reason, love, magnanimity, humility and empathy, of what avail the Christian teaching over a period of a thousand and nine hundred years? Should the fort of Eastern civilization be entered by opening its main gate with a key or by demolishing its walls by canon fire?

The present revolt in China began with the Chinese attack on the missionaries. Europe liberally educated and suffused with a sense of moral responsibility has no difficulty in proving that the Chinese what with their impatience and intolerance to the spread of Western religion and education by the missionaries are indeed savages. For the missionaries had certainly not gone to China to conquer the country!

Here precisely is the difference between the East and the West. The West is strong. Hence it feels no need to notice the differences between the two cultures either in a spirit of tolerance or of respect.

The Chinese kingdom belongs to the Chinese monarch. If one were to attack the kingdom, a battle would take place but then it would only be between the kings. Though harmful to people, it would not hurt them gravely. But in Europe, kingdoms do not exclusively belong to the kings but to the entire nation. Political sovereignty ² is inextricably woven into European civilizations. A nation cannot survive, if it does not protect its sovereignty when attacked–for then one attacks its very springs of life. Therefore, they cannot conceive of the seriousness of any kind of attack on a nation, other than an assault on its political sovereignty. The propagation of Vedanta by Swami Vivekananda or the establishment of a British-Buddhist Society by Dharam Pal does not seriously affect European society. For the very life of Europe is in its, national sovereignty. While England will defend Gibraltar to the last, it will not be seriously perturbed over any challenge to Christian religion.

Quite the contrary is the case with the East. The basis of Eastern civilization is Dharma, which does not mean “religion” but the entire web of social life including religion and politics and all these held in proper balance. If this Dharma is attacked the entire nation is affected, for the attack is on its very heart, the very source of its life. The loosely structured sovereign power of China cannot make its political impact felt effectively over its immense territory. The king’s commands emanating from the capital reach the most distant parts of the country, but it is otherwise with his royal prowess. In spite of this, there is peace, order and civility. Dr. Dhillon expresses surprise at this. To control such a big country with so little use of force is indeed no ordinary task.

But a vast country like China is not governed by force of arms, but is regulated by rules of Dharma. It is these rules that regulate all kinds of relationships, between father and son, brother and sister, husband and wife, neighbours and villagers, kings and subjects, the priest and his clientele. A revolution may convulse the outer world, anyone may enthrone himself by capturing political authority, yet this Dharma permeating to the innermost recesses of the vast Chinese society, has over the centuries united this immense expanse of a society and kept it whole. When this Dharma is attacked, the entire Chinese nation feels the pangs of death and should it surprise us if they become ruthless in wanting to protect themselves? Then, who can check them? Where then is the king, and where the army? For now, it is not the Chinese kingdom as much as the entire Chinese people who are aroused.

A small example will explain my argument. The English family is only concerned with its members. Our family, is part of a larger kinship group.³ This small difference makes the two societies distinct. The English⁴ people, if they fail to appreciate this, will never grasp the deep bonds that bind a Hindu family together and will tend to be disrespectful and intolerant on many issues. Hindu family ties bind together the dead, the living and the generations yet to be born. Since among the English family ties are restricted only to the husband and the wife, they fail to comprehend the severe blow that a Hindu inflicts on his family by deserting it. For this reason, the marriage of widows, though legal, did not become common with us. No living being can give up any of its vital organs. Similarly, no Hindu family is prepared to hurt itself by abandoning its widows. Therefore, a Hindu family rightly prefers child-marriage. For while love can blossom between a man and a woman when they come of age, it is only from childhood that deep bonds of affection for the whole family can develop.

Prohibition of widow marriage and the prevalence of child-marriage can be regarded as harmful when looked from certain perspectives; but he who knows and understands the Hindu social structure will never dismiss them as signs of barbarism. The English have to defend Gibraltar, Malta, Suez and Aden even at a great expense in order to protect their Indian empire; similarly to preserve the unity and integrity of his family a Hindu has to accept the ideas of social behaviour even if conceding to its inherent defects.

The English can emphatically argue regarding the goodness or otherwise of the unchanging social and family structure to be found in India. We in turn can also argue that it is a matter of debate whether the highest ideal of national interest is only the attainment of political stability. Europe is now afflicted with the cancerous growth of military might nibbling into all other needs. The social harmony of the European community is being crushed under the weight of its excessive military might. Where will this end? Will it be engulfed in the volcanic eruption of the nihilists or in an internecine war of destruction? It may be true that we are suffocating and strangling ourselves by imposing innumerable restrictions on ourselves. But it is yet to be put to test whether Europe will be in eternal bloom, by exclusively cultivating to the highest degree only personal freedom and individual self-interest.

Whatever we may say or do, the differences between the East and West are worth examining and discussing. We might overlook and do serious injustice to European society if we do not consider European customs in their proper setting. For example, we look askance at girls in Europe remaining unmarried for a long time; we have our own doubts at this custom for it is not prevalent with us. But it does not occur to us that to keep a child widow unmarried for all her life can be more dreadful than this European custom. When talking about young girls we argue that human nature is weak and fallible; however, while considering widowhood we argue that this very weak nature can be controlled with the help of education. But the true fact is that all these have arisen from no ethical principles but out of necessity. Just as child-marriage for girls is necessary for Hindu society, so too widowhood for life. For this reason, though it is dreadful that widows do not remarry and in spite of all the inconvenience and shortcomings our girls get married when they are yet children. Similarly, by force of necessity European girls get married at a later age and widows, there, marry again. There, it is not possible to establish an independent household with a wife of tender age. Widows there do not have any place in the family and second marriage for them often is a necessity. It is this reason that makes this custom good for European society. The other good points that there may be are all accidental and secondary.

In societies necessities turn prevailing things in to customs and gradually these customs acquire an emotional and aesthetic dimension as well. A reading of European literature will reveal to us the rather exalted place accorded by them to the ideal of love as a sentiment between young man and woman. This ideal has been highly glorified by European men of letters.

In our country, the Hindu mind has been dominated by the ideal of the domestic felicity ⁵ of a devoted loving wife. In our literature this ideal has been given a pride of place high above all other values. We will discuss this in another essay.

In our admiration for our ideals if we fail to appreciate the sublimity of the sentiment of mature free love that prevails among European individuals we will only exhibit our idiocy and ignorance. Indeed it appeals to our hearts too. If it were not so, English poetry and novels would not have any attraction. Beauty knows no social distinction of being Hindu or British. ⁶ When that ideal of beauty in English society is reflected in its literature, it lights up our hearts and conquers our traditional national prejudices. Similarly if the British are unable to appreciate the benign ⁷ grace and beauty residing in the Hindu family ideal when they too are to that extent barbarous.

European society has produced many great men; there, literature, the arts and science are still progressing. It is a society that is steadily advancing and every step proves its greatness. If this pace of progress does not make them giddy, no outside force can slow down or retard their advancement. There are Bengali writers among us who out of ignorance not only fail to appreciate its greatness and carefully study it but mock this great society and in doing this they only caricature themselves.

On the other hand these missionaries who do not respect Indian society do not deserve any respect either. For ours has been a society which has withstood the ups and downs of uprisings, has undergone countless privations and has nurtured Bharatvarsha through love, compassion and duty. Ours has been a society that did not allow itself to go down into the infernal regions. Absorbing foreign ingredients it nurtured the native genius to grow. It not only suppressed foolish and illiterate people when necessary but also bound and sacrificed itself for all familial and communal welfare. It is necessary for missionaries to understand that this vast society is like a gigantic living being; one may want to attack one aspect of it, but then he will have to remember that he would be attacking a living, pulsating entity. ⁸

In fact there are differences among cultures and civilizations. ⁹ This diversity is even desired by the Creator; and it becomes fruitful only when there is a free exchange of different ideas issuing out of enlightened mind. Any education or culture which stops such free exchange moves towards barbarism. This gives rise to injustice, thoughtlessness and cruelty. What are the characteristics of a genuine civilization? That which has as its motto “he who knows everything and pervades everywhere”! Those who always look down upon and laugh at Western culture are only practising Hinduism, while not realising the real essence of Hindu culture. Similarly, those who reject the Eastern culture totally are snobs and “Babus” who are not educated in Western culture. An ideal which is jealous of other ideals is no ideal at all.

Presently in Europe this blind jealousy or hatred has besmirched the peace of Western culture. When Ravana out of sheer pubris took to Adharma, prosperity¹⁰ in every sense deserted him. It seems as if grace and prosperity are deserting the churches of present day Europe. This is evident in the inflammation of the Boer War, in the unrestrained barbarism inflicted on China and in the assault on Dharma by the harsh statements of the missionaries.

¹ Samsar is a term with a very wide connotation meaning–society, world, life, etc. What the author has in mind is the generic meaning of the term.

² Rashtratantra has been translated as political (national) sovereignty as it is more appropriate with the theme of the article.

³ The word Kool refers not only to a family but also to the lineage and in a very general sense to family honours also.

⁴ Tagore although refers to English specifically, his argument is with regard to Europeans.

⁵ Kalyanparayan here is translated as domestic felicity; literally it should be one who contributes to advance, comfort, happiness and contentment.

⁶ Here the author perhaps refers to European.

⁷ Kalyanmayi is one who sacrifices one’s happiness for the welfare and happiness of others; it carries the connotation of nobility.

⁸ Here perhaps the reference is to the missionaries who wanted to reform Hindu society.

⁹ Tagore uses the term Sabhyata both for civilization and culture.

¹⁰ Lakshmi in Hindu mythology is the wife of Vishnu and the goddess of wealth; she is prosperity personified and is always associated with Dharma.

Back