WRT: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mukto-mona/message/27213

--- In mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com, "Subimal Chakrabarty " wrote:
> 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.

Some in the list indeed were very negative on Rabindranth. However,
I think there is a difference b/n "being negative about Tagore"
and "rejecting all works". The initial issue of our debate was on
how Rabindranath viewed women in general. Criticizing Tagore's one
position is "NOT EQUAL" to rejecting all of his work. We all are aware of his
contribution. Nobody here said that one should reject all of his work! Even
Humayun Azad who appeared as a great critique on the Tagore's feminism issue,
did not dare to say that
he rejected all of his literary work. The point you raised, I am afraid, is
merely irrelevant. How talented he was in his literary work is one thing and
what ideologies he upheld on different socio-political issues or women lib is a
completely different thing.



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.


Again the issue is irrelevant. Who suggested that Ahmed Sharif
can’t praise Tagore's contribution?


>
> 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.

So what's the point here? We are aware that Rabindranath was banned
in Pakistani period. But just because he was banned in Pakistani
period or just b/c Mullahs hate him does not necessarily imply that he should be
above all criticism. We should be able to do constructive criticism on anyone
without rejecting him. All the great people have been criticized that way in all
societies. Dont make Rabindranath a stagnant official doctrine. We sometimes
need Rabindra-criticism for our own development, don't forget it!

>
> 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.
>

I am at a loss to understand why the above issues are being raised.
We are aware of all the points quoted here. We were not in a duty to
judge Tagore's character - how good Tagore was or how bad he was in
this particular thread. We were discussing a particular topic
related to Tagore's view on women. It has no relation with
Jalianwalabag massacre or Bengal partition. Yes- One can protest
Jalianwalabag massacre at the same time can hold a very traditional
view towards women. These two are not mutually exclusive.

As you cited all his plus points, one could have also cited all his
negative deeds, I think if they are citing the true stories they also should
have the right to do that. One particular letter can be of your interest to
know the "peaceful" Zamidari face of Tagore family (ref. Robindottor Tritiyo
Projonme Rabindra Mullayon, Ahmed sharif,
Muktadhara, Dhaka 1393, pp 112):

http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/rabindra_probondho/letter_ahmed_sharif.htm

Dr. Mazumdar has already quoted an important reference for Tagore's
admiration for Satidaha. Examples are many. I am not going here in
gory details. These socio-political side of Tagore was not under
initial discussion, and I am particularly not interested at all at
this moment.

> 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.

May be this is your analysis. The conclusion you made -"After
reading Rabindranath, one is sure to turn into a better human
being " is subjective. One can be equally good (or bad) with or
without reading Rabindranath Tagore. The examples are many; and I
think the issue you raised is misleading under current context too.
Regarding your "ahead of time" issue, Bonna already showed very
clearly that at least in the context of women liberty, his view was
very much traditional, not at all progressive.

http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/bonna/rabindra_naaree.pdf

Several women members seem to agree with her conclusion. So let's
move forward leaving the issue behind.

and BTW, I am the one who admire Rabi Thakur's literary work. The title of my
first book "Alo Hate choliyache Adharer Jaatree" was taken from one of his
famous songs... "Tumee Ki keboli chobi".... , if you are not aware of it!

Again, I’ll ask all our readers to be careful about accepting and doing
criticism, criticizing someone on some particular issue does not mean rejecting
that person totally.


Avijit