Recent years have seen a surge in “patriotic feeling” across the US. One expression of this is the flag, which is now routinely seen on cars, shop fronts, windows, roofs, even jacket lapels. Many diehard patriots refuse to see the frequent immorality of US foreign policies abroad; criticizing them is held incompatible with patriotism in some quarters; questioning the war on terrorism is to flirt with treason. Zell Miller roared in the last Republican convention: “nothing makes this marine madder than someone calling American troops occupiers rather than liberators.”
The more thoughtful or liberal Americans might say that the above is clearly a crude and regressive view of patriotism, that there are other, progressive ways of being patriotic. They might say, for instance, that peace is patriotic (on lots of bumper stickers), or demanding transparency and accountability in US foreign policy is patriotic. Well-intentioned as these folks are, they are falling victim to the same conceptual trap. What they ought to change are the terms of the debate itself.
I believe there should be no room for patriotism in the mind of the thinking person. Patriotism, by definition, is exclusive. It shuts out some, focusing one’s loyalty on a smaller group based on territory. It’s even more incoherent in a multicultural state with lots of identities, disparity, and conflicts of interest. Just as a thinking person strives to rise above nationalism, so should he with its cousin, patriotism. British author George Monbiot has argued that there is no such thing as liberal patriotism:
And what, exactly, would a liberal patriotism look like? When confronted with a conflict between the interests of your country and those of another, patriotism, by definition, demands that you choose those of your own. Internationalism, by contrast, means choosing the option that delivers most good or least harm to people, regardless of where they live. It tells us that someone living in Kinshasa is of no less worth than someone living in Kensington, and that a policy which favours the interests of 100 British people at the expense of 101 Congolese is one we should not pursue. Patriotism, if it means anything, tells us we should favour the interests of the 100 British people. How do you reconcile this choice with liberalism? How, for that matter, do you distinguish it from racism?
In his courageous book, Citizens of the Empire, Robert Jensen observes: “patriotism is not only a bad idea but literally a threat to the survival of the planet. We should abandon patriotism and strive to become more fully developed human beings not with shallow allegiances to a nation but with rich and deep ties to humanity.” As Monbiot notes about his own feelings for his country,
I don’t hate Britain, and I am not ashamed of my nationality, but I have no idea why I should love this country more than any other. There are some things I like about it and some things I don’t, and the same goes for everywhere else I’ve visited. To become a patriot is to lie to yourself, to tell yourself that whatever good you might perceive abroad, your own country is, on balance, better than the others.… The world will be a happier and safer place when we stop putting our own countries first.
Patriotism is nothing but yoke for the simpleton and refuge for the scoundrel. The word belongs in a bin with other words like prejudice, racism, bigotry, chauvinism, sexism. There is no such thing as good patriotism.
28 responses to “On Patriotism”
You take chauvinism, jingoism and extreme nationalism and decide to call it patriotism. This is perhaps deliberate and intended only to provoke argument, but I’ll take the bait anyway. Monbiot, Jensen and you construct a straw man and knock it down. I can come up with several examples of non-exclusive patriotism:
* When China attacked India in 1962 or Pakistan attacked it in 1965 and 1999, many people either joined the Indian army or donated money and goods. What’s wrong with that kind of patriotism ?
* When Germany, Japan and Italy were the aggressors in WWII, people in many countries fought them, by joining armies and as parts of national resistance movements. Millions of Russians died in the effort to repel the Nazis. What was wrong with that patriotism ?
* Most national liberation movements against imperialism and colonialism were envisioned in patriotic terms. Surely an idea that can motivate large numbers of people to fight the evil of imperialism can’t be all that bad.
* I would consider both Gandhi and Nehru to be deeply patriotic people. Their patriotism never clashed with their deep sympathy for humanity at large and their openness to ideas from the entire world.
Taken to extremes, patriotism may mutate into ugly philosophies like jingoism, national socialism, racism etc. But The point is that these are mutant forms scarcely identifiable with patriotism. That is why we have different words for them. You dilute the quality of debate when you refuse to recognize these distinctions and tar all forms of patriotism with the same broad strokes.
Being against British colonialism and the Chinese and Pakistani attacks against India – and supporting the struggle against them – does not require one to be a patriot. Many non-Indians also shared that stance.
In his article, Monbiot addresses your point about taking sides in WWII: “There was no question that we had a duty to fight Hitler and, in so doing, to take sides. And the sides were organised along national lines. If you failed to support Britain, you were assisting the enemy. But today the people trying to kill us are British citizens. They are divided from most of those who live here by ideology, not nationality.”
In other words, take sides but prefer to do so based on universal moral principles. At times, the sides we pick happen to fall along national lines, even when one is not looking for the nation as the basis to pick sides. The problem is that patriotism, by definition, gives priority to one’s nation over universal moral principles. This ain’t a straw man but too many breathing, walking ones.
I think you are only proving my point. Defending your country against external aggression is clearly patriotism, by any reasonable definition. [It is true that other people in the world agree with you without being patriotic about your country, but that is irrelevant to your patriotism]. I submit once again, that there is nothing wrong with this variety of patriotism.
You say “patriotism, by definition, gives priority to one’s nation over universal moral principles”. This definition is entirely your own. It is clearly not Gandhi’s or Nehru’s patriotism, for example.
That is why I called it a straw man. You set up a definition first of an extreme kind of behavior and then you knock it down.
Maybe we are arguing about semantics. If you had complained about jingoism, or about the currently popular identification of jingoism with patriotism, I would have agreed with you. I think you are going a bit far in condemning all patriotism though.
Perhaps we are arguing about semantics. Let me add a few clarifying remarks.
Merriam Webster (MW) defines patriotism as “love for or devotion to one’s country”. Is that a good general basis for organizing one’s love or devotion? I maintain no. That said, some ways of doing so are certainly worse than others.
A better general basis is “love for or devotion to universal moral principles”. At times, this calls for defending your country against external aggression, even when you are not a patriot as per MW. You can also do it because the aggression was immoral.
The animating ideas are different in the two cases, even when the call to action may be the same. I see Gandhi more in the latter camp (i.e. he was not much of a patriot; he did some of the same work in S. Africa).
In response to a Washington Post piece on chimps living in the West African savannah having been observed fashioning deadly spears from sticks and using the tools to hunt bushbabies — a wag on slashdot writes:
Now that there’s reliable intelligence indicating that the chimps in Senegal are building weapons, an US led invasion should not be far.
There goes a patriot.
As an aside, note the ads for the business of patriotism on the right.
Great post. I agree that patriotism is outmoded. And sensible people all over the world need to talk about it openly. You are already doing that. You have courage. All the best.
Going back to Shunya’s comment on the business of patriotism. Would high quality Swiss knives or Japanese cars have evolved without the patriotic feelings of the plant workers who produced these products?
Manoj: Your question is an imponderable to me but I doubt that patriotic love of Japan is a major motivator for workers at Honda Corp. Do chip designers at Intel USA, fine textile workers in India, or wine makers in Burgundy operate out of patriotic feeling?
To me, patriotism is a warm feeling I get when they play the Star-Spangled Banner before a program… maybe it sounds corny, but it seems to be some sort of deep seated feeling of love that has nothing to do with my feelings about wrongheaded policies of my government. It has more to do with love of place, which one can have regardless of where one was born.
To be patriotic in the US means only one thing: to uphold the whole tenets of the US Constitution. Nothing more, nothing less. Contrary to popular belief the US Constitution is not a rights defining document for the citizen but rather chains and shackles to bind mischievious behavior of the humans occupying the public offices of the Federal government. To uphold the US Constitution (to be “patriotic”) then would be, to mention only several, to restrain the federal government from meddling and entangling in foreign affairs; to use the military only for protecting immediate borders from enemy invasion and the occasional foreign liberation of US citizens from crisis events abroad, etc, etc. The current “flag-waving” in support and non-contesting of, the present so called “war on terror” is not “patriotism” by any stretch of the imagination but simple ignorance and blatant stupidity on the part of partisan Republican’s in conjunction with the controlled mainstream media.
“but I have no idea why I should love this country more than any other.”
You must first know thyself, love thyself. Your county is your home, your mother – your being, who you are. Your claimed ability to love another is false on its face, you obviously have no heart. You seem only able to string together globalist homilies that doom the creativity of indiviuals and threaten civilization. Is it because they sound so “fair”? Fairness is an evil concept of man’s creation – one of the religious opiates. There is no fairness in Gods nature.
“The World is my country, all mankind are my brethren, and to do good is my religion.” – T. Paine
I think this discussion does hover on semantics
Nationalism means putting the interest of one’s nation above that of other nations, a crude, colonial concept that has no place in a liberal worldview. Patriotism represents the pride I take in the achievements of my native culture – the glow when India wins a world cup or when a much-confused barely-Indian Naipaul wins the Nobel and the (slight) embarassment when a Jhumpa Lahiri wins a Pulitzer. Patriotism may also mean putting the interest of one’s nation above one’s own (the concept of universal good that is amost a myth in this land) but this does not imply that a patriotic Englishman screw the Kinshasan in favor his fellow citizen, merely that he defend his country if the Congalese come attacking.
Note that I previously said NATIVE culture. I recently obtained US citizenship but still felt that tinge of disappointment when India was defeated by Bangladesh (Ironic, since Bangladesh represents my ethnic origin). The next time there is an Indian-US “conflict”, (nothing worth mentioning I can think of now), I will find out which brand of patriotism I happen to be currently yoked with.
Non-Descript:
In rejecting patriotism, we don’t have to also renounce our ties of family, clan, community, or culture (and stop taking sides in cricket games). These inescapable pillars of our identity often enrich life. But we should always remember that these are just that — subjective ties — and that others have similar ties no less meaningful to them. Always holding our values/interests superior to their values/interests — with our and their remaining static and framed by a border — is a belief I see at the root of patriotism. As the Merriam Webster notes, patriotism is “devotion to one’s country”. Devotion of course tends to be blind.
Note how patriotism is always infused with virtue. When they say on TV, “That man was a patriot,” they mean he was cool. To me, it is far more likely that he was a fool. Come to think of it, this falsely heroic idea of patriotism today is what makes many young men enlist for their militaries (most others do it partly because they have no other prospects), effectively subsidizing the cost of war for the rich. For clear-eyed mercenaries with other options in life, the financial incentive to fight a war would certainly need to be much higher. So “patriotism” serves a purpose similar to “paradise” of jihadis — on both sides, only deluded fools give themselves up for so little to further the interests of the rest.
I think we are still on semantics and on some aspects of “spin”. It appears that you are somewhat broadly extrapolating the M-W definition, and it is clear (to me) that the Bush administration (and the folks on TV who are selling patriotism) are spinning the word to push an agenda.
I don’t think that an us/them division of values/interests are at the root of patriotism. There is my brand of light patriotism and then there is the real thing. Think of patriots of yore who put one’s country before one’s life in the face of opression and injustice. The founding fathers (including T paine :-), and then so many of India’s freedom fighters (my favorite is Maharaj Nanda Kumar). It was not a dirty word those days and one wore it with pride. That has not changed a bit, when the factors remain the same. I think Bishop Pius Ncube (hopefully that’s the right reference) is an example of a patriot in today’s world – there are others I cannot name off-hand but we could find easily if we dig deep in places like India, Myanmar and China among many others. Not all are martyrs but for some it may be a matter of time.
I am not familiar with the works on Monbiot who you quote, but to me the term liberal patriot seems like a modern day media confection that is created to stir debate (and maybe sell books :-). Frankly, the piece above sounds from atop a slightly high horse. Is this gentleman a part of the anti Iraq-war brigade? That may explain his extreme stance — I believe that in these current times the “good people” of Britian and US are struggling to come to grips with what their national identity should be in the face of this mindless “juggernaut” invasion, with innocent Iraqis dying by the scores, their friends and family out in the battlefields and their complete impotence to do anything real about it. I am straying off the topic a bit, but man those NeoCons have it down check and mate !!
My point – there is certainly plenty of room and plenty of instances of good patriotism, the light kind I am clinging to and the real ones I mentioned above. In addition, to a liberal and right-thinking person, devotion does not have to be blind, it’s how you decide to practice it. If that’s what MW claims (I did not check), I suggest we find a new reference point.
“Think of patriots of yore who put one’s country before one’s life in the face of oppression and injustice.”
When one did this, was oppression and injustice the primary motivator, or was it love for one’s country? The former is worthy, the latter is not. What is Bishop Ncube doing you think? Much depends on our ability to distinguish the two motivations. Seems to me that you are conflating patriotism with things like struggle against oppression and injustice and then calling it good.
Yes, the definition is important, but every definition of patriotism includes allegiance to a country. I prefer allegiance to personal principles. Sometimes they make me take my country’s side, sometimes not. Patriotism everywhere has relied on provoking atavistic emotions for an abstract motherland / fatherland, rather than encourage “rich and deep ties to humanity”, or subjective, conscious loyalties. Allegiance to a political entity was never necessary to become a freedom fighter, many of whom simply reacted to the oppression and injustice of colonialism. How much of a patriot was Tagore? As Sen noted in his Nobel acceptance speech:
It is also true that patriotism can sometimes produce salutary results (esp. for the rest of us :-). That doesn’t make it respectable.
Going by source materials, America’s founding fathers were rather colorful men — conflicted, contradictory, and more ambivalent than they’re made out to be in the popular imagination today. They were hardly patriots since patriotism then would have meant loyalty to the Crown. 🙂
[PS: No greater pleasure than clubbing a Bengali on the head with a Tagore quote, is there? 🙂 ]
Ouch !
I think the clubbing was via a quote from Sen, not Tagore, but what’s one Bengali Nobel Laureate vs another. Same difference.
If you really wanted to club me with Tagore, you would have provided the full quote in re “narrow domestic walls”.
“Where the mind is without fear and the head is held high.. “ Check out the rest here.
Note that at the end, he indicates that it is where he wants his country to go. To love one’s land is to desire that it matches one’s views. To protest it’s actions when it conflicts is the action of a reasonable and courageous man. It does not mean he was not a patriot, just that he was a liberal one . (Take that, Mr. Monbiot !)
Tagore was against nationalism (semantics again). He was particularly against the “insidious” violence against the Raj by the likes of [SC] Bose, specially during the war. To me, one example of his patriotism was his rejection of knighthood. You will argue that it had to do with principles, but it primarily had to do with Jalanwallah Bag. If that had not happened, would he still have rejected it? The question is open, but there is a chance he might not have though the British certainly did stuff all over the world that would have gone against his principles.
Also, Nashto Neer, or Ghare Baire, cannot be trivialized by saying that Bimala went back to her husband because he was not “nationalistic”. It’s a lot deeper than that, so I think Sen stretched a bit to use that point to illustrate his example (Sorry, no scared cows, Bengali or otherwise, in my book). I think that Tagore’s letter to Abala forms the definition for liberal patriotism, where humanity trumps nationalism where needed.
Allegiance, devotion, love – it’s all good as long as it’s not blind. Same for patriotism.
Finally, all noble men of history have been shown to be ambivalent, so singling out the Jeffersons and Adams is not fair. Nobody is perfect. The founding fathers, as well as Nehru, Jinnah, Patel et al had a stake in the proceedings but when it all started, the end was not clear at all and they put their lives at risk for their country. I don’t know if the Bishop has a stake in the game, but for now, he is in Mugabe’s land and is on the maniac’s hit-list. That’s the kind of patriotism that warms my heart.
Post Script
“They were hardly patriots since patriotism then would have meant loyalty to the Crown”
Sorry, that is the Bush administration’s view of patriotism – allegiance to government as opposed to the good of the country and it’s citizens. Involvement in Iraq was never good for America, oil not withstanding.
A curious view of patriotism is emerging from your words. It even includes “[love of] humanity trumping nationalism where needed” and Bishop Ncube’s struggle against Mugabe’s oppression and injustice (was Gandhi a patriot in S. Africa?). This inclusive and largehearted view (from a self-avowed misanthrope! 🙂 leaves a lot less for me to object to. Except that this sanitized idea of patriotism begs to be called by a different name. It is not understood or practiced that way today (try sampling its usage in the world’s leading newspapers), and probably never was. You might disagree and we may well be at an impasse.
You are right on two counts
1> We are at an impasse
2> I am a self-avowed misanthrope, and a non-descript one at that 🙂
What surprises me is that the sampling you offered endorses my view (being proud of one’s nation/culture as opposed to expressing a desire to cause needless harm) if you take the American papers out of the list. I think my curious view of patriotism is at odds with your American view and Monbiot’s British view of the same. To be fair, this extreme view does form in the heart of other red-blooded folks during times of war and/or ethnic/religious tensions, but I can hardly call this the liberal masses.
And yes, Gandhi was a patriot since he put his life at peril for the benefit of his fellow Indians. One does not need to stand on native soil to be a patriot, it’s in one’s actions. And you can call this “sanitized view” whatever you like and roll this back to semantics.
Thanks for the civil debate. I’ll make this better than an impasse. I can see that your idea of patriotism spans love of community, culture, and native land/country, while also embracing global egalitarianism (Tagore style) as well as social activism and fights against oppression of one’s people. I concede that this is indeed liberal patriotism. (Take that, Mr. Monbiot!)
That said, liberal patriotism seems to me like liberal religion. And I am stuck with an attitude to it that is similar to an unbeliever’s attitude towards liberal religion — thankful that it is not worse but unable to admire it. You see, the stumbling block for me is the feel-good notion of love of community, culture, and country. My instincts have changed over time to resist oversimplifications that underlie such feelings (l don’t always succeed). They hide “fierce conflicts of interest between conquerors and conquered, masters and slaves, capitalists and workers, dominators and dominated in race and sex [and caste],” and all the other stuff that feeds misanthropes (you should know :-). As an ideal, I prefer liberal humanism, personal loyalties, and pride in human achievement, much as I aspire to no religion (however liberal) but to a personal, atheistic spirituality. Is it not time to also try and rise above the very idea of pride/love for a whole culture, country, and its citizens?
Shunya:
If at times the debate has skirted the lines of civility, it is only because I consider your blog a bulletin board for open discussion and thus different from the usual, rampant brand of “hold-hands and kumbayah, you like my blog I like yours”. On the flip-side, it would be bad if it ever descended to the old soc.cult.India levels; hopefully it did not get there.
Your “binning” patriotism as an ugly concept and rejecting all notions of liberal patriotism to me represented not a liberal view on your part but an extreme anti-conservative stance (“Mr. Bush, we are not with you”). I disagree with the current American media definition of a liberal as a staunch left wing-er. I strongly believe that a liberal can be fiercely anti-war on humanitarian grounds, but be able to acknowledge that people can love their country, culture, fellow-citizens and neighbors without becoming a threat to what we would consider as standard global values. Thus, I see your post above as not you “conceding” a point (and moving the result to the non-descript zone of the impasse) but rather your liberal thinking coming forward. From my side, I will re-emphasize that I never contradicted your claim that there are ugly forms of patriotism and it serves as the refuge for many a scoundrel (read – Bush Administration).
Remembering Led Zeppelin, I am gonna Ramble On 🙂
My 2 cents on religion – I come from a non-practicing family and thus have been irreligious” and viewed organized religion on the same plane as organized crime. However, I changed my non-liberal view over time, where I see the role of religion in the attainment of personal spirituality (not for me, but people in general), and I acknowledge that organized religion does play a part in providing a platform for people to practice (alliteration unintended!). Being misanthropic :-), I remain suspicious but I am far from a blanket renouncement of all these organizations.
I think it has always been the right time to rise above the very idea of pride/love for a whole culture, country, fellow-citizens and indeed family. However, this Vedic concept is applicable only when warranted, to transcend “narrow domestic walls”. I believe that cultural and ethnic identities/manifestations are severely endangered, more so today in the face of globalism. If we denounce such thoughts as ugly, then our only choices may well become NBA/NFL/MLB games, Hollywood movies and books in English. May this Brave New World never come to pass. I am positive that Tagore would have felt the same. As far as the “life before country” form of patriotism, I think this concept has been a cornerstone for the rise of civilization to the heights it has reached today.
Your gagging on the “feel-good notions” is understandable, especially for a misanthrope :-). I do think though that you need to work on it a bit more, merely to acknowledge that others may benefit from the same.
One point I resisted saying earlier, but want to slip in now. If you are going to club a Bengali on the head with Tagore, ensure that you read and interpret the poet first, and not rely on the model formed by an ageing rambling economist. The Nobel Prize acceptance speech excerpt that you provided was a shock to me, particularly the Ghare Baire bit. I am surprised no-one has gotten up and said “Omortyo, are you out obh your phu***ng mind ?”
Okay, I have taken up enough space here for this decade. See you 2010.
It must be that my brain is becoming feeble with age. I have followed this comment thread with some interest. I don’t quite see what real issues Non-Descript has with the broad points Shunya has made here. Shunya and I have clashed (albeit in a civil way 🙂 several times, perhaps along the same lines, about organized religion and its utility over at my blog. In the end, it always becomes clear that we agree more than we disagree and the differences arise more from the minutiae of the real and ideal situations. I am more of a hard hearted idealist in the “religious vs rational” sphere and Shunya, more of an accommodating realist. In this case regarding patriotism, Shunya is the purist and ND the realist. I see little if any, difference in what both see as the ideal.
To sum up what I understand, Shunya (like Tagore) does not deny or even denigrate the fact that we all feel tribal allegiances to family, community and culture. Just as I concede that some of us have superstitions about god and for some it serves a useful therapeutic role in their personal quest for peace and meaning of life. But the ideal we ought to seek for ourselves and others is one that rises above these sentimental considerations in formulating public policy at home and abroad. I don’t see that ND is refuting that ideal. Or is he? (I am assuming ND is a he. Correct me if I am wrong.)
As for Tagore’s (I say this as one who HAS read him in Bengali and not through Omortyo’s filter) position in that famous “prayer,” that ND links to, it is exactly what Shunya hopes for. Sure, Tagore wishes Bharat to reach the free, borderless, open minded state of statehood. That illustrates he loves his country and countrymen. But what is he aspiring to on their behalf? Precisely the model of global humanism which flies in the face of nationalism and even patriotism as commonly understood. And Tagore is much more forceful in invoking his “prayer” in Bengali than the rather mealy mouthed English translation would suggest. In the last line, he begs the heavenly father to rid his country of its limiting, narrow and fossilizing mindset by striking it with an “unforgiving” hand.
So, ND, in case you do come back here sooner than 2010, what exactly is your beef with Shunya’s post? As I have said to Shunya during our arguments over religion, sometimes it is futile to have a refined philosophical debate on such popular notions as patriotism and religion. The gross meaning of these sentiments for most folks translates precisely to jingoism, parochialism and tribalism. The debate does not rise very much above “My country can kick your country’s a– in war, peace, cricket and soccer,” or “My god/prophet/ holy book can leave your god/prophet/ holy book in the dust.”
As for Bimala going back to her husband in Ghare Baire, indeed it was more complex than what Sen makes it out to be. But why bring up Nashto Neer (widely believed to be fashioned after Tagore’s own relationship with his sister-in-law) in this context? Charulata was dealing with a whole different issue – of intellectual and emotional companionship which had nothing to do with nationalism or patriotism.
Thanks for summarizing, Ruchira. ND, my take on religion appears in two posts on Accidental Blogger (One, Two), so I won’t repeat it here. Tolerance for religion (and patriotism) is one thing, respect for it another. The former I often have, the latter I don’t. People will believe whatever they will, but recall that the argument “Pssst! Others depend so much on their atavistic beliefs; things might fall apart if they lose them” did not prevent the Buddha and Tagore from advocating reason for all. I suspect there is no disagreement here, but I thought of stating it just for the record. Also, I didn’t get your use of “this Vedic concept”.
“‘life before country’ … has been a cornerstone for the rise of civilization to the heights it has reached today.”
ND, this claim, besides being debatable, hardly befits a misanthrope (“heights”?). Are you sure you aren’t a closet philanthrope/optimist? 🙂
Boy, that decade went by fast! 🙂
Shunya, the definition of “heights” is a lot more relative than the definition of patriotism, so no debates will be started. If you want to know where I stand, I am 5’6”! Seriously, though, I think that the personal liberty I enjoy today does owe something to the patriots of yore. Had I now been an Indian ICS officer under British rule, I would not have been a misanthrope but an anarchist!
The thread has become confusing – I think it can be summed up thus: Shunya stated (since recanted) that patriotism is necessarily murderous or otherwise harmful factionalism. I say that patriotism (love of one’s land, fellow citizens and ethnic identity) has many good effects that are important to me but I acknowledge the presence of the bad ones as well. Whenever old friends like Shunya puts forth such an “exclusionary” view, I have a strong urge to challenge it (not to change his view – he is an intelligent man with well thought out opinions but that he may consider the possibility that the world outside his comfort zone does not consist of a sea of simpletons, yoked to mindless patriotism and blindly devoted to some God). Of course, Shunya is a tricky man – this may all be a front for debate. VP may have been onto something when he said “I’ll take the bait”. Elsewhere, I see Shunya saying:
The bottomline is that none of these differences mean anything per se, since the effect of our debate on racism, war, or malevolent foreign policy based on good, bad or ugly patriotism is exactly zilch.
The complaint about the translation is a common one among Bongs. My usual response – yes, the translations are awkward, but they were done by the author in the English that he was accustomed to (the one-time rumor of Yeats modifying them has been safely put to bed). Thus, it is safe to assume that there is not much lost in thought unless deliberate. My personal opinion is that he changed the last line to preserve the rhythm, but in the context of this debate, I can spin it by saying that he deliberately said it “mealy-mouthed” so that his words were not misconstrued to make him appear un-patriotic (since the Bengali version does not actually convey that message but demands a far greater love for his country). See how easy it was for Ruchira to paint it with an un-patriotic shade. Also, I don’t agree that Shunya (in his main post) wanted what Tagore advocates – Shunya is condemning a vast crowd, Tagore is all encompassing.
Nashto Neer — After reading the preposterous speech by Sen, I wrote a long rebuttal but hacked it down later. That is when I had rolled in Nastho Neer (since there is a similarity of theme as well as story line between the two). Without dragging the whole thing back, let me just ask, tongue in cheek — would Sen say that Tagore was not a patriot since he portrayed the “nationalist” Bhupati as the loser who neglects his wife and ends up a tragic figure in the end.
I was a little bewildered about the reference to Sen and Tagore in the debate about the definition of patriotism (as I am by the reference above to Kadambari Debi). However, I know that Shunya has a predilection for invoking Tagore and Sen (and occasionally Ray) when debating Bengalis, whatever the topic. I need to find a Nobel Laureate of his ethnicity to club him on the head :-).
However irrelevant, let me again say that Tagore was a poet, a romantic, a humanist with a great love for his country……. or a hypocrite
Shunya, I would translate but since Ruchira is a trifle fussy, I will let her do the honors. I know it will not be mealy-mouthed.
N_D and Shunya: You guys are old friends? I guess that makes it a bit awkward for an outsider like me to have stepped into this interesting but circular debate which seems to be unfolding more as a “debate for debate’s” sake which an inordinately large number of Bongs are very fond of.
I must admit that it is hard to argue with someone who puts words (wrong ones at that) in one’s mouth. Example: See how easy it was for Ruchira to paint it with an un-patriotic shade, whereas I was claiming something quite different. That Tagore wanted nothing but the best for his beloved motherland and its inhabitants – to rise above the trivial and aspire for the sublime. Anyway, hardly matters since as N_D sagely points out, our fulminations are unlikely to have any effect on the brutal reality on the ground.
As for religion, Mary Daly and the therapeutic / pharmaceutical way to do away with some of the non-sense, I will perhaps write a more nuanced version of where the common ground will lie between the “reason camp” and the “non-vitriolic” believers. But that remains a project for another day. Having said that, it still doesn’t make sense to me to fill up young impressionable minds with mush and patent falsehoods just because its been done for millennia and the self deluding logic of “what harm could come from teaching good things?”
Now I come to this:
However irrelevant, let me again say that Tagore was a poet, a romantic, a humanist with a great love for his country……. or a hypocrite
“Dhano Dhanye Pushpe Bhora
Amader Ei Boshundhara
Tahar majhe aache je ek shokol desher shera..”
Shunya, I would translate but since Ruchira is a trifle fussy, I will let her do the honors. I know it will not be mealy-mouthed.
A trifle fussy, am I? Mmm… okay! I don’t think I too would bother translating the above song /verse – mealy mouthed or not. Though my brain is too rusty for exquisite nuances and my memory a bit leaky, there are a few things that stay with us till the last breath, especially if like religion, one was exposed to them early enough in life. So, whoops! That song quoted here by N_D as a prime example of Tagore’s patriotic passions, is not by Tagore at all! It is another beloved song of Bengalis but this one was written by Dwijendralal Roy (D.L. Roy). [scroll down to 1903 when D.L. Roy started composing songs for the Swadeshi Movement]
ND: To find a Nobel laureate to club me on the head with, just visit the Nobel website. My tribal affiliations keep growing weaker everyday. 🙂
To me, your repeated invoking of “patriots of yore” indicates a simplistic, sentimental gratefulness to an idealized image of long dead people. Clearly, this is not about them. But hey, if it hurts no one, why complain? You argued your case well, but such talk from you worries me.
For the record, nowhere did I condemn “a vast crowd”, only their patriotism. Tagore too would’ve condemned the patriotism of “a vast crowd”. Being “all-encompassing” is a thoroughly questionable virtue in my book.
And since external change is not the only worthy yardstick, the impact of this debate has been greater than zilch for shunya. 🙂