WRT: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mukto-mona/message/27113

"Sunil and Buddha may have changed their stand about
Tagore, but there are many scholars both in east and
west including Humayun Azad,-----,Bertrand Russell, et
al were very negative about Tagore life long."---AR

1. Were they "very negative" to such an extent that
they totally rejected Rabindranath and his works? I
don't think so. Dr. Ahmad Shariff has written an
article focusing on all the negative aspects about
Rabindranth's life and works. For example, he has
complained that Rabindranath, despite the ample
opportunity to meet Marx while both Marx and he were
living in London during a certain period of time,
showed no curiosity about Marx. However, in the same
article he has described his post-Nobel period of 28
years as the golden period of his creativity.

2. I know only two cases in which Rabindranath was
rejected completely. One, during Pakistan time, the
ruling coterie made an attempt to inspire Bengalis to
boycot Rabindranath completely although with not much
success. Second, Indian communists made a call to
reject this "bourgeios" writer. We know Vidyasagar was
also not spared.

3. It is possible to quote from here and there to
prove that Rabindranath was not a progressive man. But
a man and his works have to be judged from a greater
perspective. Can we really ignore these general
truths?
---His vehement protest against the Jalianwalabag
massacre.
---His active protest against the Bengal partition in
1905 and work for Hindu-Muslim unity.
---All his literary works criticizing caste system and
other religious sanctions that strip humans of all
dignities.
---His anti-imperialist stance (against Japanese
aggression, for example).
---He was impressed by the economic justice that the
Soviet system tried to implement.
There are more.

4. After reading Rabindranath, one is sure to turn
into a better human being. That's enough to prove that
he was definitely a progressive man and quite ahead of
his own time.

---SC