ISSN (Print) - 0012-9976 | ISSN (Online) - 2349-8846

A+| A| A-

Antinomies of Nationalism and Rabindranath Tagore

Rabindranath Tagore's best known work, Nationalism (1917), is often mistaken for the sum and substance of his thoughts on nationalism. However, a look at the evolution of his idea over different stages suggests that his thoughts on nationalism cannot be accommodated within the stereotypes of "internationalism" or "anti-nationalism" in which commentators cast him. To focus only on that is a reductionist over-simplification of Tagore's evolving approach to the antinomies of nationalism as he perceived them.

This essay is the revised version of the keynote address delivered by the author at the Indian Institute of Advanced Study, Rashtrapati Nivas, Shimla, at the opening session of the International Conference on “Tagore and Nationalism” on 6 November 2015.Sabyasachi Bhattacharya ( is a historian of modern India and a former vice chancellor of Visva-Bharati University, Santiniketan.

In our endeavour to understand Rabindranath Tagores approach to nationalism we have to recognise three problems which probably hamper the current discourse on the subject. To begin with, a good deal of these commentaries on Tagore are often unhistorical in assuming a homogeneity in Tagores thoughts on nationalism; from the 1890s to 1941 they evolved and changed considerably. Unless we follow this evolution and identify the different stages, his denunciation of self-aggrandising nationalism of the West European model in his best known work, Nationalism (1917), is likely to be mistaken for the sum and substance of his thoughts on the subject. Arguably, a balanced estimation of Tagores outlook must include, inter alia, another aspect: his engagement in the critique of naked obscurantism, backward-looking and inimical to the inclusiveness of Indian civilisationthe obscurantism which sometimes dresses itself out of the wardrobe of nationalist rhetoric in India.

The second problem is that many commentators, as we shall see later, have cast Tagores ideas about nationalism into a stereotype of internationalism. When he wrote his major work on Nationalism in 1917 (commonly used by scholars since that is the one easily accessible in English) there were various concepts of internationalism (for example, President Wilsons version, the creed of the incipient League of Nations, internationalism of the British Pacifists, and even Japans own version of internationalism which was actually a rationalisation of Japanese imperialism). Tagore has been interpreted in terms of these stereotypes current in the world of politics. We need to examine whether this stereotype, or that of anti-nationalism, appropriately accommodates the individuality of Tagores concept of nationalism. The same caveat applies to the efforts of recent scholars who try to assimilate Tagores thoughts into their own version of post-coloniality (Collins 2013) or anti-modernism (Nandy 1994).

Dear Reader,

To continue reading, become a subscriber.

Explore our attractive subscription offers.

Click here


To gain instant access to this article (download).

INR 59

(Readers in India)

$ 6

(Readers outside India)

Support Us

Your Support will ensure EPW’s financial viability and sustainability.

The EPW produces independent and public-spirited scholarship and analyses of contemporary affairs every week. EPW is one of the few publications that keep alive the spirit of intellectual inquiry in the Indian media.

Often described as a publication with a “social conscience,” EPW has never shied away from taking strong editorial positions. Our publication is free from political pressure, or commercial interests. Our editorial independence is our pride.

We rely on your support to continue the endeavour of highlighting the challenges faced by the disadvantaged, writings from the margins, and scholarship on the most pertinent issues that concern contemporary Indian society.

Every contribution is valuable for our future.