Tagore’s Ghare-Baire was published in 1916,
eleven years after the partition of Bengal and five years after its
reunification. The story revolves around the nationalist movement, Swadeshi, in
the backdrop of a partitioned Bengal. There are three main characters in the
story, Sandip the revolutionary, Nikhil the rich but rationalist landlord and his
newly emancipated wife, Bimala. Tagore has manifested his dislike for violent
nationalism in the story. Sandip, a dear friend of Nikhil, is a strong
proponent of Swadeshi and has a huge fan following. He wants to achieve his
objectives at any cost. So much so that he would not shy away from acts like
arson, sabotage and spreading communal venom. Nikhil on the other hand doesn’t
believe in violence as a means to achieve Swadeshi. While the ideological clash
is happening between Sandip and Nikhil, Bimala enters the plot and falls for
Sandip and his ideology. The ambitions of Sandip pushes the estate into
communal violence and in the end consumes Nikhil. Bimala, now a young widow has
realised her folly, but it is too late.
Satyajit Ray’s cinematic adaptation of the
novel by the same name was released in 1984 and was a huge success. Ray was a
lifelong Leftist and the story more or less served his ideology. Like most of
Tagore’s work Ghare-Baire is still very relevant. It resonates with readers
even though it is was written a hundred years ago. We still see Sandip around
us carrying on with similar agenda, not afraid of using violence as a tool to
achieve his goals. But India has changed a lot in the past hundred years. The
India of 2017 is polarised between the Left and the Right, between the
conservatives and the socialists/liberals.
Today we have TV debates on, who is a
nationalist and who is not? Who defines nationalism? Can nationalism be forced
upon us? And sure enough Tagore has been extensively quoted in the context. You
can read it here and here. Sadly the people who quote Tagore to drill
down the point that he was against nationalism, do not tell us that he was
against violent nationalism, not the concept per se. His writings were
influenced by the nationalist movements happening in Europe and the subsequent
rise of Fascism. European countries were carrying out war in name of saving the
nation and Tagore must have felt that the violent streak of nationalism in
Indian would probably destroy the multi-cultural, multi-lingual India. But this
selective quoting is hardly surprising. Media houses today are sharply divided
on ideological lines and the viewers/readers are left to do their own research.
 |
| Bimala, are you listening? |
Back to Ghare-Baire. The story portrays Sandip,
the revolutionary, as a selfish man. He would entice others to give up imported
food, clothing and accessories, while he himself is unable to give up imported
cigarettes. He puts up an appearance of a simple man with only national
interest at heart but prefers to live in luxury. He says, poverty drags down
the energy of leaders. But his charm is such that Bimala, who has recently, at
her husband’s coaxing, stepped out of the women’s quarter, falls for him. She
believes every word he says and goes to the extent to stealing money from the
family vault, to help him.
As I said earlier, all of Tagore’s works are
timeless. They will resonate with us, no matter when you read them. So is
Ghare-Baire. The three characters developed by Tagore are three categories, in
which most of us would fit in. The Sandips – activists, orators, messiahs of
the poor but at the same time extremely selfish and dual faced. The Nikhils –
rational, won’t fall for mass movements, take their own informed stand, would
not be popular with masses and would eventually succumb to actions of Sandips.
Bimalas – fresh arrivals into the real world, gullible, passionate,
impressionable, wannabe saviours and eventually disillusioned.
Since Tagore portrayed the nationalist side of
Sandip, let us try the other side. The Socialist Sandips. These are the D.
Rajas, Brinda Karats, Hardik Patels and Tessta Setalvads of today. They would
masquerade as mass leaders, the face of farmers, Dalits, the minorities and the
disenfranchised. They would take the stage and give a brilliant speech. They
would try hard to win over the Nikhils but would eventually make do with
Bimalas. They are the ones who would wear Khadi and cotton to public rallies
and would silently enjoy their single malts after a hard day at “work”. They
are the ones who would decry privatisation and American capitalism but would
send their children to American universities. They are the D. Rajas who appear
to be the representatives of the poor but claim 65 lakhs as air travel expense in a year. In the film,
when Bimala confesses to Nikhil about the theft from the family vault, Nikhil
says, “Now you know how difficult it is to say no to Sandip”. This is pretty
much what the Bimals of today experience. They know they are being cheated but
are so in awe of the Sandips that they simply brush aside such double standards
and follow them religiously.
The Bimalas of today are mostly university
students, the painters, the writers, the actors, the historians, the theatre
walas and other such. Mostly young, impressionable and wannabe saviours. They
want to save the world, from nationalism, Trumpism, capitalism, Fascism and
other isms. They all look up to the Sandips. They are ready to jump in at the
slightest nudge. They form self-help groups where they help each other by
sharing, loving, commenting, on the social media contents put up by the Sandips.
No matter how stupid, incorrect or immoral the content is, it gets widely
circulated and soon becomes popular. They are the Humans of Hindutva, The Wire,
The Scroll and such. Spreading pure hatred and claiming victimhood. Many of
these Bimalas end up disillusioned sooner or later. Remember the Bimalas of
Delhi who rallied behind Kejriwal?
Finally the Nikhils. They are the worst off. No
one wants to listen to them. Because they talk of taking a rational stand. And
that requires a lot of research and tough decisions. They tell people not to
blindly follow an ideology or an ism just because others are doing so. They
tell people not to believe everything that appears on the internet. They tell
people to see things in a context and make sense of it. But then The Nikhils
are asking for too much. If every one of us were so adept at rational thinking
we would not have seen outdated ideologies like Communism getting elected. We
would not have seen people getting hysterical about a cinema that they haven’t
even seen. Then we would not have seen people shamelessly defending Aurangzeb
for his ruthless and communal reign over India. But just like in the novel,
Nikhils are meant to die, metaphorically at least.
