Rabindranath Tagore (1861-1941) often asserted that his works had significance for the whole world despite these being restricted to India. He took a keen interest in developments both within India and outside, offering his views and at times, caveats. Throughout his life, he covered an extraordinary range of subjects within his framework of individualism, freedom, pluralism, science and humanism. He wrestled with the Jewish question too, since the Balfour Declaration of November 2, 1919, unequivocally stated British support for the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.
Tagore was asked for his opinion, while he was in the US, about Zionism and the Jewish-Palestinian problem by The Jewish Standard in 1924. He replied, taking note of all the complexities. When he was returning from Japan in 1924, he supported the spiritual side of Zionism. Later, he realised that the complications were aggravated by the intervention of British imperialism. In his perception, the British attempt was to divide the Jews and the Palestinians in Palestine in the same way as what they were doing in India among the Hindus and the Muslims. He cautioned the Jews that the Palestine problem could only be solved by their joint effort — not by the intervention of a third party — through a direct understanding between the Arabs and the Jews. If the Zionist leadership insisted on separating Jewish political and economic interests in Palestine from those of the Arabs, an ugly eruption would occur in the Holy Land.
To a question as to whether Tagore supported the demand for a Jewish homeland, his reply was similar to that of Albert Einstein (1877-1955), who said he supported such a homeland “as an effort to preserve and enrich Jewish culture and tradition”. Tagore added that it “implies appropriate physical surroundings as well as favourable political and economic conditions”. Most importantly, he insisted that Jews include “Arabs in their political and economic programme” (The Jewish Standard, November 28, 1930). He proposed a joint Palestine Commonwealth government as that would help in building a new Palestine. He reminded us that both the civilisations had rich ancient roots. Given the rigid stance of both sides, any attempt to subordinate or change would be infructuous. The best would be to allow both to retain their respective identities, traditions and belief structures in a commonwealth of partnership of both. He stressed on firmer accommodative unity within diversity as the only model in heterogeneous societies divided by race, religion, ethnicity and culture.
Tagore’s formulae anticipated the consociational theory of democracy propounded after World War II. His observations negated J S Mill’s belief that homogeneity was crucial to the success of democracy. He was one of the earliest from India to reflect on the aforesaid problem. The Congress party deliberated on it only in 1936. When Tagore came to know about the atrocities on the Jews in Germany, which included Einstein, he issued a letter dated June 17, 1934, criticising the crushing of “free individual on the steps of whose sublime heresies humanity has ever been rising upwards” (Israel’s Messenger, August 3, 1934). He has always condemned racism and sectarianism.
On November 9, 1938, the Palestine Royal Commission published its report recommending the establishment of separate nations of Jews and Arabs and the division of Palestine into three areas keeping in view economic considerations. Jerusalem would be the third area under the direct control of the British. This announcement led to the expression of serious discontent and protest in both communities. Taking advantage of the turmoil, the British continued with its old mandatory authority provided by the League of Nations. This intensified the resentment. Nationalist newspapers in India condemned it. Gandhi, despite knowing about Nazi Germany’s annihilation of the Jews, endorsed Nehru’s and Congress’ view that did not support the Jewish demand for a separate homeland.
Tagore thought that the Congress resolution on Palestine was one-sided as it concentrated only on Arabs and not on Jews.
He reminded that the two communities “throughout history lived on good terms and cooperated in all fields of human activities” (The Madras Mail, October 5, 1936). He was convinced that with the arrival of the Jews, many welfare measures would be initiated. Their work culture, brilliance and acquisition of European education along with Arab bravery would lead to a new era in Palestine, whose effect would be felt throughout the East. He emphasised that the Arabs and Jews ought to learn to live together and reminded them that when a new set of people of a new race settled down in a new country, protection of the local population was also of prime importance.
He keenly watched the progress of the new Jewish establishments in Palestine in the 1930s and, to understand its details, he sent two representatives, Kali Mohan Ghose (1884-1940) and Amiya Chakravarthy, to Palestine. Chakravarthy submitted a detailed report, which was published in Prabashi, praising the constructive work undertaken by the Jews and asserted that they had a legal claim in Palestine.
The writer taught Political Science at Delhi University
