At a time when
interest in Rabindranath Tagore, also in the non-English speaking West, may be
said to be entering a new phase, with the promise of a wider readership both
inside and outside academic circles, all three of Uma Das Gupta’s books,
published in impressive succession of each other, carry a weighty significance.
From the point of view of contemporary global history too, which numerous
scholars across the board of humanities have rightly perceived as having
entered a new cycle of imperialism, Tagore’s idea(l)s offer much scope for
important reappraisal. The three books by Uma Das Gupta on Tagore, two of which
are biographies and the third an edited collection of letters, are an important
contribution in this direction.
For a Tagore
biography to succeed, however, there is yet another requirement. It is
suggested by Tagore’s own scepticism towards retelling life’s events as they
supposedly really happened. Even in
the case of autobiography, they are of necessity artistic recreations, in
Tagore’s case captivatingly so. A sensitive biographer is therefore urged to
adopt an approach that is concerned less with the chronicling of external
events than with elaborating ideas which informed the artist’s long and
creative life. Uma Das Gupta clearly takes this as her guideline in organising
the contents of both the biographies, a point she makes in her Introduction to Rabindranath Tagore: my life in my words:
“In the final analysis, [Tagore’s] life history is mainly a biography of ideas
and artistic creations.” Ideas, in Tagore’s world, take precedence over life’s
happenings, though his life was astoundingly rich in both. The main ideas
explored in Rabindranath Tagore; A
Biography are those of the poet as an educator and rural reformer and not
so much as a writer and poet. This choice seems in part pragmatic, dictated by
the author’s own area of expertise (her knowledge of the history of Tagore’s
institution of Visva-Bharati in Santiniketan). At the same time it is motivated by presenting the lesser covered sides
of Tagore and his many concerns[1].
Finally, there were the constraints imposed by the OUP biographies series, with
its objective that the life histories of men and women who contributed towards
building modern Thus in just over
a hundred pages of ten concisely written chapters, packed with information
(sometimes gleaned also from oral sources), the life of Tagore is portrayed through
a series of interrelated themes, such as nationalism, internationalism, lessons
from India’s history, the need for an alternative, world-encompassing
education, a search for self-esteem, to mention the main ones. What we are
presented with, is, in Uma Das Gupta’s formulation, “an indefatigable man of
action”: a founder of a school and a university, a pioneer in rural
reconstruction work, an untiring globe-trotter out on a mission, in other words
a man struggling every step of the way to make a difference in the lives of his
countrymen and “bring change”, in what small way he could, “to an unequal and
unjust world”. Oftentimes against great odds and little understanding both at
home and abroad, Tagore is seen to emerge as what another eminent scholar
William Radice has termed a “one-man counter-culture”. . If Uma Das Gupta’s
biography extends the portrayal of Tagore beyond the common perception of him
as a poet and writer – and the subject of Tagore’s creative writing is dealt within
fewer than ten pages – there is certain poetic justice in that she closes the
biography with a poem. The social consciousness in Tagore was never separate
from his artistic consciousness; the man of action was never far from the
contemplative man. The ethical source from which both drew was essentially the
same: “a universal humanist outlook”. This was the imaginative ideal, the
biography makes clear, in terms of which Rabindranath was ceaselessly moving,
with many twists and turns on the way, from occasionally quite traditionalist
beginnings, but over the years through ever-widening sympathies and
sensibilities as both a man and poet. Closing the
biography with a poem which bespeaks a strong a sense of remoteness, even failure,
in the face of the world’s vast impenetrable demands, serves also another
point. It shows Tagore at his most vulnerable and human. The poem’s selection seems
almost strategic in that it resists the temptation for a larger-than-life
portrayal of the poet, as it also importantly suggests a point of contact
between him and our own individual lives. “I believe that if we can inwardly
relate to this poem”, says Uma Das Gupta, “we shall find he is there as a
friend in our lives helping us to live with honesty in our weaknesses and our
strengths.” That is surely the best way to keep Tagore’s legacy meaningful and
alive. One of the many
strengths of this short biography is the wide assortment of citations, sourced
from Tagore’s own writings but also from those of others, with which Uma Das
Gupta weaves the threads of the main body of her text into a tight and
multicoloured fabric. Each and every chapter is preceded by at least two pithy
quotations, which help set the tone and drive her point home. It seems she
misses no opportunity to give Tagore – or anyone else deserving, for that
matter – a chance to speak. Even her decision to confine herself to selecting
letters for the Appendix from the
body of his letters written in English is guided by her desire “to represent
him in his own words”. Language too is no barrier: where English translation is
unavailable or inadequate, she resorts to her own translation skills and opens
another chink for the non-Bengali readers to appreciate Tagore more fully. There are as many
as 117 entries translated by her from the original Bengali, nearly all of which appear here for the first time
in English. Only a few of the letters to his wife and
children had previously appeared in Krishna Dutta’s and Andrew Robinson’s
translation in their Selected Letters of
Rabindranath Tagore. Those who do not read Bengali, but love Tagore and
want to access as much of his writing as possible will be extremely pleased by
this turnout. In the meantime, another important autobiographical work, Ātmaparichay, which Uma Das Gupta
draws on and translates from, has also appeared for the first time in a full
English translation. Having more than
one translation at hand to draw on is always useful. It gives a fuller, and
more contested, picture of what for non-Bengali speakers must remain an
unattainable original. The site of contestation opened up by the two different
translations of some of Tagore’s letters to his family, particularly to his
wife, is indeed interesting. It raises
questions that seem to divide opinion among Bengalis to this day. Consider this
example from one of the letters Tagore wrote to Mrinalini Devi. In Uma Das
Gupta’s translation, the passage reads: Please
don’t work any harder for my happiness. Your love is enough. But it would be
very nice if you and I could work together and think together with one mind. I
know that cannot always happen even if we wish it […] I don’t wish to leave you
out of anything. Everyone has the
right to do things their own way, as they would like to. It may not be possible for you to agree with my wishes and inclinations
every time – I would not worry about it. It is good enough if you spare me
sadness wherever possible, and sweeten my life the way you do with your love
(emphasis mine). While in Dutta and
Robinson, the same passage is rendered as: To
make me happy you need not try very hard – your sincere love is enough. Of
course, if you and I could be united in everything we do and think, that would
be best – but one cannot will such things […] I do not want to leave you behind in anything – but at the same
time I am afraid of forcing you. Each of us has his own separate taste,
inclination and ability. You do not
possess the power to make your own nature correspond with my wishes and
inclinations. Therefore, instead of torturing yourself about it, if you
sweeten my life with your love and care, and try to protect me from unnecessary
pain, your efforts will be precious to me (my emphasis). Every translation
is inevitably also an act of interpretation, but the two interpretations
emerging from the above passages are pulling in two quite different directions.
Telling your wife how much you value her love, hoping to transcend all
separation and merge in both thought and action, while realizing that is unattainable,
is quite different from telling you wife that she is incapable (you do not posses the power) of moulding
herself to your expectations, so she need not torture herself about it, for inevitably she will be left behind, something you deeply regret. The
interpretative thrust that guides Dutta and Robinson rests on their conviction
that “while Rabindranath was certainly affectionate towards [Mrinalini], his
feelings did not seem to have had the depth of genuine companionship”. Elsewhere
in their introduction the finality of their verdict is even more disparaging:
“Rabindranath’s simple affection for his young wife Mrinalini, and her lack of
sophistication, are clear from this letter, written on board ship to In contrast, Uma
Das Gupta’s reading evokes an altogether softer, more intimate, at times deeply
touching, voice. “His letters tell us how closely he communicated with her, how
much he wanted his family near him”. If
one interpretation places Tagore’s young family “at the centre of his life”,
the other sees his family to have been an increasingly subordinate part of “the
greater cause to which he felt his life was dedicated”. Inadvertently, as with
all translated texts, we find ourselves pondering how much of what we are
reading is the actual voice of Tagore and how much the voice of the translator.
Where do the two successfully converge and where do they pull apart? The greatest
challenge of any translation is in getting the author’s voice to come across as
authentically as possible in another language, and to resist the temptation of
imposing one’s own. It is an exercise in humility as much as in linguistic
aptitude. Through his own trials as a translator of his own writings, Tagore came
to understand the vital importance, as well as the difficulty, of achieving
both. Edward Thompson
(1886 – 1967) was born of Wesleyan
Methodist missionary parents and spent his first six years in He was a zealous
participant, sometimes over-zealous, and Tagore, having risen in stature
overnight and suddenly pulled into the vortex of public life, did not find it
easy to cope with Thompson’s eagerness to assist him. “When men thickly
surround me and clamour for their dues”, he wrote to Thompson in what must have
been more than a subtle attempt to ward him off, “they do not get my best”. Indeed,
in this exchange Tagore reveals a side to his character that those who desire
to see him as superhuman would prefer to ignore. There was certainly something
of a prima donna in the way he would engage Thompson when it suited him and
dismiss him when it did not. The ins-and-outs
of what came to pass between the poet, the translator-cum-proofreader circle of Tagore’s English collaborators, and the
Macmillan Company of
At times the commentary
seems almost more interesting than the letters, which often deal with the
practicalities of their working relationship, and are rather brusque and
factual. Certainly they are not as engaging as the letters Tagore wrote to William
Rothenstein or C. F. Andrews, his other two lifelong friends and associates. It
was only towards the end of their difficult friendship, once they had both managed
“to overcome national egoism, personal pain, and mutual annoyance” (Das Gupta’s
2003: 2), and were able to share their ideas with understanding that their
letters became more full-bodied. Tagore was able to appreciate more fully
Thompson’s “interest in international justice” and assimilate his harsh
criticism of his own translations in a moment of painful self-realisation: “I
have done gross injustice to my original productions partly owing to my
incompetence and partly to carelessness”. Thompson, on the other hand, gave
Tagore all the recognition he deserved: “[Y]ou stand for a new kind of man,
neither Eastern nor Western but a reconciler of the best of both”. If there is an air
of polemics surrounding this corner of Tagore studies (E. P. Thompson apart, we
can mention also William Radice, Harish Trivedi, and Mary Lago), Uma Das Gupta
chooses to steer away from these controversies. In her characteristic fashion
she prefers to present the facts and let them speak for themselves. References: Dutta, Krishna, Andrew Robinson (eds.), Selected Letters of Rabindranath Tagore,
Lago, Mary M., “ Kathleen O’Connell, Rabindranath Tagore: The
Poet as Educator, Kolkata: Visva-Bharati, 2002 Radice, William, “Preface to the 1994
Reprint” in Rabindranth Tagore; Selected
Poems, Radice, William, “Introduction” in Rabindranath Tagore; Particles, Jottings, Tagore, Rabindranath, Of Myself (Ātmaparichay), tr. by Devadatta Joardar and Joe
Winter, Kolkata: Visva-Bharati, 2006 Thompson, E., P., Alien
Homage: Edward Thompson and Rabindranath Tagore, Trivedi, Harish, “Introduction” in Edward
Thompson (1989) Rabindranath Tagore; Poet
and Dramatist, [1] With respect to presenting Tagore as an educator, another admirable
study which relates the poet’s personal background to his educational thought deserves
mentioning: Kathleen O’Connell’s Rabindranath
Tagore: The Poet as Educator.
Published in Parabaas May 7, 2007. |