Rabindranath Tagore’s Critique of Nationalism

1. Background on Tagore and His Works

Rabindranath Tagore (1861–1941) was one of modern India’s most versatile and influential
thinkers. He was a poet, philosopher, novelist, playwright, composer, educationist, social
reformer, and painter. In 1913, he became the first Asian to win the Nobel Prize in Literature
for his book of poems, Gitanjali. Tagore's intellectual journey was deeply rooted in the Bengal
Renaissance and his family’s engagement with reformist movements, particularly the Brahmo
Samaj. His vision went far beyond the boundaries of nation-states and was marked by a
universal humanism that emphasized spiritual unity and the interconnectedness of all
cultures.

Tagore’s works include:

 Literature: Gitanjali, Gora, The Home and the World (Ghare Baire), Chokher Bali, Post
Office (Dak Ghar).

 Music: Over 2,000 songs, known as Rabindra Sangeet.

 Essays and Speeches: Nationalism (1917), The Religion of Man, Crisis in Civilization.

 Institutions: He founded Visva-Bharati University at Santiniketan in 1921, reflecting his

Tagore’s political thought evolved through interaction with Indian nationalist struggles,
colonial rule, and his travels to Europe, the United States, Japan, and China. Although he
supported Indian independence and opposed colonial exploitation, he was deeply critical of
the aggressive and mechanical form nationalism had assumed in both the East and West.

2. Tagore’s Idea of Nationalism: A Spiritual Critique

Tagore’s critique of nationalism stems from his spiritual and humanist worldview. He viewed
nationalism not merely as a political strategy for freedom from colonialism, but as a cultural
and moral question. His definition of nationalism differs sharply from the Western concept of
the nation-state. In his 1917 lectures delivered in the United States and later compiled in the
book Nationalism, Tagore described nationalism as:

"…a great menace. It is the particular thing which for years has been at the bottom of India’s
troubles."

He saw nationalism as a mechanical organization of people for economic and political

A. Nationalism as Mechanical and Materialist

Tagore saw nationalism as a Western import, rooted in industrial capitalism, colonialism, and
the expansionist politics of Europe. He argued that nationalism in the West had reduced the
individual to a cog in a machine, robbing people of their moral and spiritual values. The
nationalistic state, in his view, prioritized power, economic domination, and militarism over
human relationships.

In his own words:

“This Nation may have its flag, it is true, but it is a flag of conquest—a symbol of brute force
and of moral blindness.”

Tagore feared that Indians, in their struggle against British imperialism, were copying the very
tools of their oppressors, including blind nationalism.

B. Individual vs. Collective Identity

Tagore emphasized the dignity of the individual. He believed that nationalism submerges the
individual into the collective identity of the nation, often silencing dissent and creativity. For
him, the true identity of a human being was not as a subject of a nation but as a child of
humanity (Brahman, in the Vedantic sense).

This tension is explored in his novel Ghare Baire (The Home and the World), where the
nationalist character Sandip glorifies violent means for political ends, while the more spiritual
and morally grounded character Nikhil rejects violence and questions the moral cost of
political victory.

C. Nationalism vs. Internationalism

Tagore was deeply internationalist. He believed that human civilization must be built on
cooperation and mutual respect across cultures, not competitive nation-building. He often
criticized Japanese nationalism and Western imperialism for their mutual mimicry of
aggressive national expansion.

His visit to Japan and the US during the First World War shaped his views on how militaristic
nationalism was threatening the moral and spiritual values of humanity. He was particularly
disappointed with Japan’s turn to militarism despite its rich cultural heritage.
Tagore wrote:

“When this idea of the Nation, which has for its basis selfishness, and which thrives upon
others’ weakness, came to be regarded as the ideal of human salvation, it was natural that
Japan also should take to it, even though it be against her heart.”

He wanted Asia to offer a new moral vision to the world, not replicate the West’s errors.

D. Criticism of Indian Nationalism

Although Tagore supported the freedom of India, he criticized the forms nationalism took
during the anti-colonial movement. He was critical of the Swadeshi movement when it turned
into a boycott of foreign goods without deep moral reform or introspection. He feared that
such movements, while superficially liberating, could foster intolerance, xenophobia, and
internal violence.

Tagore clashed with Mahatma Gandhi on several occasions, especially on the Non-
Cooperation Movement and the Charkha (spinning wheel) as a symbol of nationalism. While
Gandhi emphasized mass mobilization and self-sufficiency, Tagore felt this approach was too
narrow and focused more on the external struggle than inner transformation.

However, their disagreements were respectful. Tagore called Gandhi "Mahatma," and Gandhi
called Tagore "Gurudev." Their debates reflect a deeper philosophical divergence between
moral-spiritual universalism (Tagore) and ethical-pragmatic nationalism (Gandhi).

E. Vision of a Spiritual and Cultural India

Tagore believed that India should not define itself in opposition to others but through its
unique cultural and spiritual history. For him, India’s strength lay in its ability to assimilate
differences, embrace diversity, and maintain unity in variety. He wrote:

“India has never had a real sense of nationalism. Even though from childhood I had been
taught that idolatry of the nation is almost better than reverence for God and humanity, I
believe I have outgrown that teaching.”

His idea of India was inclusive, pluralistic, and dialogical. He supported the synthesis of East
and West, but not on the basis of colonial subjugation or mimicry. Instead, he envisioned
cultural exchange, universal education, and spiritual freedom as the basis of India’s future.

F. Education and Visva-Bharati

 Education in the natural environment

 Respect for all cultures

 Emphasis on arts, creativity, and moral learning

 A global perspective free from the boundaries of state and nation

Visva-Bharati (meaning “the communion of the world with India”) became a center of global
learning where scholars from China, Europe, and Japan would engage in dialogue.

3. Relevance Today

Tagore’s critique of nationalism remains deeply relevant in the contemporary world. At a time
when aggressive nationalism, xenophobia, and populist politics are on the rise globally, his
ideas serve as a moral compass. He warns us of:

 The dangers of sacrificing human values at the altar of the nation.

 The risks of defining ourselves through exclusion and enmity.

 The importance of global solidarity, mutual respect, and spiritual wholeness.

In a world marked by war, environmental crisis, and identity politics, Tagore’s vision of a
borderless humanity grounded in love, art, and understanding, offers a compelling
alternative.

Conclusion

Rabindranath Tagore’s critique of nationalism was not a rejection of India’s freedom struggle
but a deeper interrogation of the moral and philosophical basis of political life. For him, the
nation-state was a construct that could easily slip into violence, pride, and repression. His
vision of universal humanism, ethical individualism, and spiritual freedom stands as a
powerful challenge to the politics of exclusion and domination.

Tagore reminds us that true liberation lies not just in political independence, but in freedom
of the mind, harmony among peoples, and love for all humanity. His legacy continues to
inspire debates on nationalism, cosmopolitanism, and the future of human civilization.