he delivered these essays in 1916/1917, throughout the world.

his perspective about the concept

of nation and nationalism changed after he observed the great war and its repercussions.

INTRODUCTION.
Before understanding Tagore’s idea of nationalism, it is necessary to understand what nationalism
itself means and for that we must first understand how is a nation distinguishable from a state
the reason these definitions are necessary is because they give us an understanding of the basis
of unity where state

I came across the difference between the two. Both the terms have different connotations as
opposed to its general perspective of carrying similar meanings. Now let me brief you about the
two:

Nation: Nation doesn’t actually refer to a country as it might seem to be. Rather, nation as an
entity refers to a group of people who are united through some very crucial factors such as: similar
language, ethnic identity, race or culture.

State: On the contrary, State refers to a geographical boundary existing on this planet Earth.
Important to note is, it requires some essential conditions to be fulfilled for being a state namely:
Sovereignty, Territory, Government and Population. India, for instance, is a state as it meets all the
requirements.

CONCEPT OF NATIONALISM:

Nationalism is a complex concept to understand. It is supposed to act as the force that breathes
life into the combined aspirations of the citizens of a country. The feeling of nationalism is usually
manifested in a pride for local culture and a certain amount of self interest governing the actions of
nations. If this is your idea of nationalism, then Tagore’s writings will give you a broader canvas to
build your thoughts on nationalism.

TAGORE AND NATIONALISM:

Tagore's foremost objection to nationalism lies in its very nature and purpose as an institution. The
fact that it is a social construction, a mechanical organisation, modelled with certain utilitarian
objectives in mind, makes it unpalatable to Tagore, who was a champion of creation over
construction, imagination over reason and the natural/organic over the artificial and the man-made:
''Construction is for a purpose, it expresses our wants; but creation is for itself, it expresses our
very beings''.

As a formation, based on needs and wants rather than truth and love, it could not, Tagore
suggests, contribute much to the moral/spiritual fulfilment of mankind. To him, race was a more
natural, and therefore acceptable, social unit than the nation, and he envisioned a ''rainbow'' world
in which races would live together in amity, keeping their ''distinct characteristics but all attached to
the stem of humanity by the bond of love.”


He took the view that since nationalism emerged in the post-religious laboratory of industrial-
capitalism, it was only an ''organisation of politics and commerce'' that brings ''harvests of wealth,''
or ''a carnival of materialism,'' by spreading tentacles of greed, selfishness, power and prosperity,
or churning up the baser(immoral and dishonest) instincts of mankind, and sacrificing in the
process ''the moral man, the complete man… to make room for the political and the commercial
man, the man of limited purpose.''
Tagore deemed nationalism a recurrent threat to humanity, because with its propensity for the
material and the rational, it trampled over the human spirit and human emotion; it upset man's
moral balance by subjugating his inherent goodness and divinity to a soul-less organisation.
Tagore found the fetish of nationalism a source of war and mutual hatred between nations. The
very deification of nation, where it is privileged over soul, god and conscience, cultivates fanaticism
and paranoia. Thus every nation becomes inward-looking and considers another a threat to its
existence, while war is hailed a legitimate, or even ''holy,'' action for promoting oneself as powerful.

Nationalism Essays.

One might think that Tagore's critique of nationalism, no doubt intellectually valid, is lofty and far-
fetched, or ''too pious,’’. But he was a practical-idealist, an inclusivist and a multilateral thinker. ''I
am not in favour of rejecting anything,'' he wrote, ''for I am only complete with the inclusion of
everything.'' He believed in the symbiosis of body and soul, physical and spiritual, wealth and
conscience. He was also an effective and efficient landlord; he was ascetic(Austere) and yet
worldly; he cherished seclusion at moments of creativity but still remained very much a public
figure, both at home and abroad.

Critics concur that nation is a necessity, it has laboured on behalf of modernity, and it helps to
structuralize the present civilization; as a political organisation it befits the social and intellectual
environment of present-day society. However, they hardly claim its moral authority, or its beneficial
role in the reinforcement of human virtue.

They also view the constructed aspect of nationalism as a weakness in the ideology. It is always
vulnerable to regressing into more natural social units of clan, tribe and race, or language and
religious groups. Its very formative process introduces a self-deconstructing logic in it. The process
of its formation/invention further makes it a potent site of power discourse;

although it is meant to stand for a horizontal comradeship and parity, exploitation and inequality
remain a daily occurrence in its body, and the nation never speaks of the hopes and aspirations of
its entire ''imagined community.'' In conceiving its overarching ideologies it often places the
dominant group at the centre, pushing the minority population to the periphery. Thus, instead of a
fraternity, it creates a new hierarchy and hegemony within its structure, and exposes the fracture
between theory and practicality.

——
Today's buzzwords are ''national security'' and ''national interest.'' Any action is legitimate in the
name of the nation, no matter how remote it may be from truth or justice. How many wars have
been waged in the name of the nation? How much innocent blood has it claimed? Yet people are
worked up into a frenzy when the idea of the nation is invoked. Given this present global crisis, in
which nations are flying at each other's throat, sometimes unilaterally and in pre-emptive action,
ignoring world opinion, perpetuating a logic of mutual hostility and fear, it may be appropriate to
pause for a moment and review in hindsight the anti-nationalitarian ideology of Rabindranath
Tagore. Tagore's alternative vision of peace, harmony and the spiritual unity of humankind seems
more relevant now than ever. What the world needs in the face of present widespread unrest and
agitation, is Tagore's healing message of love, simplicity, self-reliance and non-violence or ahimsa.
And this could only happen when self interest does not play a dominant role in the actions of world
leaders.
Though not anti-modern or anti-progressive, throughout his life Tagore
aspired to redeem modern man from the tyranny of money, matter and
machine. His vision of a free world, free from the fetters of materialism
and nationalism, is most passionately expressed in the following poem,
written in the form of a supplication for India but meant, by extension, for
all mankind:
Where the mind is without fear and the head is held high; Where
knowledge is free;
Where the world has not been broken up into fragments by narrow
domestic walls;
Where words come out from the depth of truth;
Where tireless striving stretches its arms towards perfection;
Where the clear stream of reason has not lost its way into the dreary
desert sand of dead habit;
Where the mind is led forward by thee into ever widening thought and
action
Into that heaven of freedom, my Father, let my country awake.

“PRIDE IN EVERY FORM BREEDS BLINDNESS AT THE END”

I would like to end with an excerpt from Tagore’s Essay, “Nationalism in India”,
“India has never had a real sense of nationalism. Even though from
childhood I had been taught that the idolatry of Nation is almost better
than reverence for god and humanity, I believe i have outgrown that
teaching, and it is my conviction that my countrymen will gain truly their
India by fighting against the education which teaches them that a
country is greater than the ideals of Humanity.”