Hello and welcome back to this lecture series
on postcolonial literature.
Now, in all our previous discussions about
decolonisation, we had assumed that the quest
for decolonisation ends in a nation-state.
That is to say that decolonisation not only
involves the creation of a national community
but it also involves the creation of a sovereign
political entity or a state.
So, in today’s lecture I want to talk about
two individuals who in spite of their being
engaged with the politics of anti-colonialism,
were among the staunchest critics of the idea
of nation-state.
And we have to remember here that by the 20th
century, the idea of nation-state as the goal
of freedom was accepted almost universally
through the colonised world.
But these two people, that I am going to discuss
today, one is Rabindranath Tagore and the
other is Frantz Fanon, they spoke against
this general consensus which, as I told you,
was almost universally accepted by the 20th
century.
And now that most of the erstwhile colonies
have emerged as nation-states, I think we
should pay all the more attention to the criticism
that these two intellectual giants directed
against the formation of nation-states, or
in fact, the very idea of nation.
So let's start with Rabindranath Tagore.
Now, Tagore was born in Calcutta in 1861 in
an illustrious Bengali family which was not
only known for its wealth but also known for
its involvement with the socio-religious reform
movement called Brahmoism.
Tagore’s own involvement with various issues
pertaining to social reform began quite early
in his life and by his 20’s, Tagore was
already the author of several essays commenting
on the burning social and political issues
of the day.
Indeed, in the first decade of the 20th century,
Tagore emerged as one of the tallest leaders
of the Swadeshi movement.
And Swadeshi movement, as most of you will
know, was the first middle class led, mass-based,
anti-colonial movement in India and Tagore
emerged as one of its tallest leaders during
the early days.
Today, of course, Tagore is best remembered
as a literary figure and, more specifically,
as the author of the national anthems of two
nation-states.
One is, of course, India and the other is
Bangladesh.
And these two countries, India and Bangladesh,
emerged as nation-states from the once colonised
part of the globe.
But given this strong association that we
form in our mind between Tagore and nation-state,
it might come as a surprise that Tagore proclaimed,
and here I am quoting his exact words:
“Nationalism is a great menace.
It is the particular thing which for years
has been at the bottom of India's troubles.”
This quotation is from his essay titled "Nationalism
in India," which, along with two other pieces
titled "Nationalism in the West" and "Nationalism
in Japan," forms a kind of a triptych, which
were, sort of these three essays, were printed
together in 1971 in the form of a book which
was titled Nationalism.
Initially, they were delivered as lectures,
all of these three essays.
In our discussion today, we will be focusing
on these essays on nationalism to try and
understand some of the major features of Tagore’s
radical antinationalist stance.
Now, it is important to remember here that
unlike Gandhi’s views on anti-colonial nationalism,
which once he had stated them in his 1909
publication Hind Swaraj, remained almost entirely
unchanged throughout his life, Tagore’s
engagement with the ideology of nationalism
passed through various phases.
And, the period between 1905 and 1907 can
be used as a watershed moment here because
these were the years during which Tagore was
most actively involved in the anti-colonial
nationalist movement or the Swadeshi movement.
Now, the years leading up to the Swadeshi
movement, the years leading up to 1905, can
be regarded as Tagore’s pro-nationalism
period.
But post 1907, post- (that is to say) Tagore’s
withdrawal from the Swadeshi movement, (the
Swadeshi movement continued well beyond 1907)
but Tagore stopped being part of the movement
from around 1907 and after this period we
encounter, in Tagore’s writings, a person
who has become thoroughly disillusioned with
the Indian nationalist movement in particular,
and with the ideas of nationalism and nation-state
in general.
The 1917 essays on Nationalism are generally
considered as among the most elaborate commentaries
by this later Tagore, this post 1907 Tagore,
on the idea of nation and its inherent problems.
But before we start exploring these problems,
that Tagore mentions, let us pay attention
to how he defines nation in the first place.
So the question here is what is nation according
to Tagore.
In the essay "Nationalism in India," Tagore
categorically mentions that his opposition
is not to any one particular nation or the
other but rather his opposition is to the
general idea of all nations, which he defines
as, and I quote, “The aspect of a whole
people as an organised power.”
This means that for Tagore nation does not
simply mean or does not simply refer to a
sense of community and to a sense of fellow
feeling but it also refers to the organised
power structure of a state that a national
community seeks to acquire for itself.
So when a national community acquires for
itself the trappings of political power it
is that sort of bringing together of nation
and state that we know as nation-state, right.
So, for Tagore, nation always means nation-state.
So if you are reading Tagore’s essays, Tagore
doesn't use the word nation-state but he uses
the word nation.
But in order to understand his criticism you
will need to understand that, for Tagore,
nation is always, or almost always, nation-state.
Now, this definition of nation as nation-state
becomes clearer if we look at his other essay,
"Nationalism in the West," where Tagore states,
and again I quote, “A nation, in the sense
of the political and economic union of a people,
is that aspect which a whole population assumes,
when organised for a mechanical purpose.”
So according to Tagore, as this quotation
makes clear, nation is not just any union
of people but rather it is specifically a
political and economic union.
In other words, it is a state.
But the question here is- why does Tagore
refer to this union which we can use a shorthand
version 'nation-state' to refer to?
Why does he refer to nation-state as something
which is organised for a mechanical purpose?
And this is crucial if we want to understand
Tagore’s criticism of nation and nationalism
because Tagore frequently uses the trope of
machine and he uses the adjective mechanical,
quite frequently, to attack the idea of nation.
So let us try and understand.
Well, first of all, what is a machine?
A machine is something that is created, to
achieve some very specific purpose, right.
So, therefore in a mechanical process, everything
else is subservient to that one specific purpose
for which a machine is fine-tuned, okay.
So, but for Tagore, a nation-state works just
like a machine which has been fine-tuned for
a specific purpose and what is this specific
purpose?
Well, according to Tagore, it is the purpose
of creating maximum economic profit.
Now, as you can see, in this definition, the
political unit of nation-state is seen as
inherently connected with the capitalist mode
of economy and its profit-making imperatives.
And in making this connection, Tagore is not
entirely wrong because in the modern West
the rise of nation-state is inextricably connected
with the development of capitalism.
Therefore, Tagore not only connects nation-state
with the capitalist mode of economy but also
with the West.
And, in turn, he argues that because the idea
of nation-state is western, it is a western
importation, it is incompatible with our Indian
tradition.
Now, according to Tagore, this alien idea
of nation-state, by organising the human community
for the purpose of material production and
profit-making, transforms individuals into
one-dimensional men whose only reason for
existence is perceived as the creation of
surplus wealth.
In Tagore’s words, I quote, “the national
machinery of commerce and politics turns out
neatly compressed bales of humanity which
have their use and high market value.”
Now, this creates a number of problems.
Firstly, nation as a machine disregards the
aspects of human being which are superfluous
to the idea of profit making.
So, for instance, the natural human tendency
for altruism or self-sacrifice is disregarded,
according to Tagore, by the machinery of the
nation-state because self-sacrifice is not
plugged into the process of profit-making
in spite of the fact that altruism and self-sacrifice
forms the higher nature of a human being.
So, as I told you, the first problem with
nation as machine is it disregards a very
significant aspect of what it means to be
a human.
In fact, according to Tagore, it disregards
completely the higher nature of a man.
Secondly, man's position within the national
machinery reverses the natural relation between
man and machine and actually curtails his
freedom rather than enhancing it.
Tagore explains this point with reference
to man's relationship to an automobile, for
instance.
Now, automobile can give man the freedom of
mobility because the man is free to direct
it and guide its movement.
But as a machine automobile does not automatically
ensure this freedom.
For instance, it will not ensure this freedom
if the human mind guiding it, guiding the
automobile, is not free.
Now, nation, by making man useful and relevant
only as a producer and consumer of surplus
value, actually makes man un-free because
in such a scenario it is the national machinery
which is guiding the existence of human beings
and not the other way around.
So it is national machinery which is organised
towards profit-making, which is geared towards
profit-making, which transforms human nature
and which dictates human life rather than
it being the other way around.
So, it is like automobile directing your movement
rather than you directing the movement of
your car.
As I said, this is the second point.
Let us come to the third point.
Third point is that, nation as a machine,
fine-tuned for profit-making, disturbs the
sense of balance which should be at the core
of human existence and this, I would like
to quote from Tagore to explain this point
because Tagore does it really beautifully.
And here is what Tagore says.
“In all our physical appetites, we recognise
a limit.
But in the economic world, our appetites follow
no other restrictions, but those of supply
and demand, which can be artificially fostered,
affording individuals opportunities for indulgence,
in an endless feast of grossness.”
So, the national machinery, by prioritising
this economic appetite, takes away all sense
of moral limits and consequently robs an individual
of his higher nature and makes him an incomplete
man.
Now, apart from this mechanical nature, Tagore
also directs his criticism at the essence
of aggressive competition which underlines
the idea of nation and nation-states.
And this is the second major point of this
criticism.
The first major point was nation as a machine,
right.
We have discussed its various problems.
The second major point of Tagore’s criticism
is that nation is, or is imbued, with the
inherent spirit of aggressive competition.
So, according to Tagore, the organisation
of humanity in the forms of nation-states
which is geared at making more and more material
profit and, I quote him.
“Goads all its neighbouring societies with
greed of material prosperity, and consequent
mutual jealousy, and by the fear of each other's
growth into powerfulness.
The time comes when it can stop no longer,
for the competition grows keener, organisation
grows vaster, and selfishness attains supremacy.”
Now, if you remember, our discussion on the
scramble for Africa that broke out between
the European nation-states in the 1880s, you
will see that, it is the spirit of aggressive
economic competition between nations which
was largely responsible for the evils of 19th
and early 20th century colonialism.
And, according to Tagore, in a world where
greater geographical connectivity is daily
bringing people into closer proximity, if
nation-state with its aggressive competitiveness
remains the primary mode of organising humanity,
then the world can only end in an arms race
leading to a sort of conflagration of suicide.
That is how Tagore describes it.
So, to recapitulate, Tagore’s criticism
of nationalism and nation-state is two-fold.
His first argument is that nation-state, by
mechanically organising people for the sole
purpose of profit-making, destroys the human
depth of an individual and kills his higher
nature which is characterised not by a desire
to make profit but by altruism and self-sacrifice.
Tagore’s second argument is that the spirit
of competition and selfishness that informs
the idea of nation makes it an unsuitable
model for a modern world where the distance
between individuals and communities is ever
reducing, and where there is an ever greater
need for humanity to come together as a universal
brotherhood.
Now, if we carefully read Tagore’s essays
on nationalism, we will see that at the core
of his criticism is a capitalist mode of economy
because both the concept of profit-making
and the concept of aggressive competitiveness
are ultimately associated with that mode of
economic production, isn’t it.
But the problem is that this attack on capitalism,
per say, is never clearly spelt out by Tagore.
It remains all pervasive but it remains very
subtle.
In the writings of Frantz Fanon, however,
the economic criticism of middle class led
nationalism is more clearly visible.
Now, Fanon was born in the French colony of
Martinique which is in the Caribbean.
But he moved to France at the age of 18 to
fight in the second world war and after the
war was over, he studied psychiatry.
And then later joined the psychiatric ward
of a hospital as a doctor in Algeria.
And it was in Algeria that Fanon became involved
with the Algerian anti-colonial movement against
the French colonial rule.
Now, though Fanon died in 1961 at the young
age of 36 within this very short lifespan
he had authored two very influential books.
The first one is Black Skin, White Masks,
that is its English title and the second is
titled The Wretched of the Earth, in English.
And both of these texts have now become canonical,
even in the field of Postcolonial studies.
In our discussion of Fanon today, we will
be focusing on the later of the two books,
The Wretched of the Earth, which was first
published in French in 1961 and, more specifically,
we will be looking at the section titled "The
Pitfalls of National Consciousness."
And, we will be looking at its criticism on
the role of the middle class version of nationalism,
and its relation with decolonisation.
Now, in this text, Fanon argues that though
the middle class nationalist leaders play
a significant role in the anti-colonial struggle,
the moment the nation becomes independent,
they cease to exercise their role as a revolutionary
class.
Now, as I have discussed earlier, the process
of European colonialism of Africa was guided
by the requirements of the Industrial Revolution
that took place there.
Which means that the African colonies were
used as sites to procure raw materials to
feed the industries in the colonial mother
country and within this scheme of things,
the colonial periphery, which is Africa, is
therefore- and any colonial periphery, not
only Africa, also a colonial periphery like
India, which acted as a site of procuring
raw material, they remained industrially backward,
industrially deficient, compared to the metropolis
because that is how the economy was arranged.
The metropolis was where the industry was
concentrated in and the colonial periphery,
places like Africa, for instance, or India,
acted as, served as places from where the
colonisers procured the raw materials and
then dumped the finished goods in.
So, we were both the suppliers of the raw
materials and we were also the market for
the finished product.
But the industrial production took place in
the mother country.
And therefore, places like Africa and India
remained, throughout the colonial period,
industrially deficient.
Now, Fanon states that ideally the middle
class, which leads a country to independence,
should re-organise the means of production
of that country, so as to end its dependence
on the metropolis.
In other words, to break this relationship
between the periphery as a supplier of raw
material and the mother country as the site
of industrial production.
But Fanon argues that, after independence,
the middle class does not take any such revolutionary
steps to reform the means of production and
initiate a process of egalitarian distribution
of the country's resources.
Rather the middle class, having fought off
the European colonisers, come to occupy the
very positions of those departed colonisers.
And here we are reminded of Gandhi’s Hind
Swaraj because, if you remember, Gandhi was
also making a similar argument in Hind Swaraj
when he was saying that, okay, if we send
away the English, what kind of governance
are we going to have.
And, if the answer is that the English educated
middle class, who fashion themselves after
the colonisers, they will take over, according
to Gandhi, it will just be the English rule,
the continuation of the British colonial rule
without the Englishman, right.
And, Fanon here, is making a similar argument
in 1961.
Now, as Fanon said that, because the middle
class merely takes over the positions of power
from the departing colonisers, they do not
reform the colonial mode of economic exploitation.
They do not dismantle the colonial mode of
economic exploitation which is already there.
Indeed, because the middle class fails to
industrialise the newly independent country,
it continues to remain the supplier of unprocessed
raw materials to the industries of the mother
country even after independence.
So Fanon describes this economic dependence
and continuing exploitation of the colonial
periphery by the metropolis, even after political
independence, as a new form of colonialism,
which he terms as neo-colonialism.
Now, in this economic relationship between
the metropolis and the periphery, the middle
class of the newly independent country merely
acts as intermediaries or as the middleman
through whom the economic exploitation is
channelized and who, in turn, gets a share
of the loot, right.
So, the relation of economic exploitation,
which existed during colonialism between the
mother country and the colonial periphery,
continues, according to Fanon, even after
independence with the only change being that
the middle class, who led the anti-colonial
movement, now occupies an intermediary position,
the position of the middleman, who channelizes
and who sort of organises this exploitation
and benefits from it.
Thus, though anti-colonial struggle is organised
and led by the middle class in places like
India and Africa in the name of nationalism,
there is seen a very little attempt to really
forge a national community by elevating the
masses through revolutionising the mode of
economic production and through an egalitarian
distribution of resources.
Fanon also argues that this failure of the
middle class to form a truly national economy
and a truly national community, leads to a
degeneration and perversion of the nationalist
discourse which soon becomes the discourse
of racist chauvinism, which is used by one
African community to separate itself and to
exert an asserted supremacy over another African
community.
It is used by one African tribe to distinguish
itself and assert its supremacy over another
African tribe.
Thus, the bulwark of African unity, which
won the anti-colonial struggle, soon disappears
and it gives way to a thoroughly fragmented
landscape which might have become formally
independent but which still remains a site
of neo-colonial exploitation.
So, whereas Tagore argues in 1917, that nation
should not be the model of socio-political
organisation that we should adopt when we
formally do away with colonialism, Fanon writing
in 1961, argues that nation under the middle
class leadership remains an unworkable model
in the ex-colonies.
Thus, clearly, in spite of the current prevalence
of nation-states in the once colonised parts
of the world, there is a real scope to think
through the problems of the postcolonial human
community in a new way.
In our next Lecture, we will take up the writings
of Homi Bhabha, to see how this leading postcolonial
theorist, helps us re-conceptualise the world
order beyond the narrow confines of the nation-state.
Thank you.
