INDO-EUROPEAN CONNECTIONS AND THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE IN INDIA Jari Lutta

Fairy Tales from Baltic Shores: folk-lore stories from Estonia. 1930. Translated and adapted by Eugenie Mutt, illustrated by Jeanette Berkowitz. Philadelphia: Penn Publishing Company. Kallas, Aino. 1996. Suurlinnade udus ja säras: Päevaraamat aastaist 1922–1926. Tallinn: Eesti Raamat. KM EKLA = The Estonian Cultural History Archives, Estonian Literary Museum. Mutt, Mihkel. 1984. My Fair Suburb. The Play: Short stories by young Estonian authors. Translated by Oleg Mutt. Tallinn: Perioodika. 165–172. Mutt, Mihkel. 2009a. Mälestused I: Eesti doomino. Eelmälestused. Fabian. Mutt, Mihkel. 2009b. Mälestused II: Võru tänav. Lapsepõlv. Fabian. Silvet, Marju. 2018. E-mails to Ilmar Anvelt, 25 and 26 Oct. Toots, Nora. 2020. E-mail to Ilmar Anvelt, 16 May. Tuglas, Friedebert. 1982. Riders in the Sky: A collection of short stories. Translated by Oleg Mutt. Tallinn: Perioodika. TÜR KHO = Department of Manuscripts and Rare Books, University of Tartu Library.

Jari Lutta

INDO-EUROPEAN CONNECTIONS AND THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE IN INDIA

Language school InterLink, Narva, Estonia

PART III

Can the Past Tense be changed into Present or Future? ● The streets of Calcutta with British flavour ● What has India gained from Great Britain and what did India mean to the British in both World Wars? ● Tagore as a self-translator into English ● Tagore and King George V as a ‘dispenser of destiny’ ● Controversial relationship between Britain and India: forced marriage, divorce and mature friendship

‘In the streets of Calcutta I sometimes imagine myself a foreigner, and only then do I discover how much is to be seen, which is lost so long as its full value in attention is not paid. It is the hunger to really see which drives people to travel to strange places.’ (R. Tagore, ‘My Reminiscences’)

Perhaps, this article would better start off with an advert of a ‘UV sanitizer travel wand’ for cleaning doorknobs and other unavoidable surfaces (regrettably, that’s a new reality we have to face). Well, humans can get used to almost anything, as we know from the world history. Just staying at home isn’t too much, it’s tolerable. Who knows, maybe people will see it suitable and a ‘capsule-like life’ will become normal, with a new form of existence having evolved, a socially distanced human, this time not only in Northern Europe?... But at the moment, in April 2020, staying in self-isolation during the devastating pandemic, we feel it’s all new for us and we are just preoccupied with the thoughts: ‘When is this seclusion going to end?’ and ‘What results are we expected to have after all this mess?...’ The worries are many, if we take into consideration the economic and social consequences of this unfortunate development, but we tend to forget the fact that nobody has ever guaranteed us stability and eternal peace in this temporary existence. It seems that we are now involuntary witnesses to another major historic rearrangement, and we have no other choice than just to accept it. Were we

Can the Past Tense be changed into Present or Future?

Somerset Maugham started his Razor’s Edge with these words: “I have never begun a novel with more misgiving. […] I have little story to tell and I end neither with a death nor a marriage.”

In this modest composition too, no one’s going ‘to die or marry’. Those who wished so or were forced ‘Indian Roller bird on sandalwood branch’ from the by natural circumstances have already done it, ‘Impey Album’, 1780. Minneapolis Institute of Art individually or countrywise. But speaking seriously, this third part of my article has been somewhat difficult for me to write, because apart from language topics it touches upon such a thing as ‘historical inevitability’ (be it a war or pandemic), and it might be sensitive or even painful in some ways. Not long ago, amidst the piles of my art stuff, I found a plaque with a witty saying in Finnish, which could be translated into English as: “If you’re able to forget what isn’t possible to change, then you can be happy.” I thought it was admirable and placed it on my wall among other queer things. History is all about that, I suppose: you’re not in power to change the past (just like in grammar); you can just make efforts to reconcile whatever is possible and do some changes in the present time. Past, Present and Future are inevitable daily companions of all teachers of English, and History gives us enough ‘food’ to think about the deeper meaning of these grammar tenses. History has no ‘happy end’ or ‘sad end’ simply because History never ends, and we hardly know where it’s going to turn next. The most enthralling games are those having features of unexpectedness and surprise (can anything be better than chess in this regard?). People are born, live their lives – ordinary, remarkable or great – and then move on somewhere further, but either we ‘marry or die’, the world goes on following its own surprising ways. Indians believe that souls just change bodies and thus, as a result, we would behold all different periods in history. It would be positively amusing, but so far, we have no empiric proof of that. Nevertheless, reincarnation might be the reason why people in India are so unhurried and rather cheerful.

In the previous part of the article, I tried to show the strong ties of Calcutta with Great Britain of the colonial times, but there’s still something more to be added. Calcutta is not only buildings and historical facts – it’s all about unpredictable destiny, human spirit and unstoppable yearning for freedom and truth. Each country had periods of its own historical ‘grindstone’, either being a ruler for others or a subject to others’ ruling. Each country has had to accept the consequences of that, be they favourable or adverse. (Could an average Roman living in the Pax Romana period, the golden age of ancient Rome, ever think that the great Empire would come to its end?) Nothing remains the same forever, that’s the nature’s law, and observing historical changes of different countries can be one of the most peculiar things for philosophical minds. Inevitably, language is also involved in this process. In case of Britain and India, both were studying each other in various ways, beginning with language, as the first means of communication, and then views, customs, beliefs and personalities. Both countries received something valuable from each other in the process of historical interaction. But before speaking about that, I’d like to to complete the overview of Calcutta, the capital of British India or ‘The City of Joy’, and add something that couldn’t be fitted into the previous part.

The streets of Calcutta with British flavour

The intrinsic ‘code’ of Calcutta is hidden not only in its sights but also in the names of the streets, often quaint or fanciful. In this city you can observe a blend of ancient Hindu heritage and British culture (remaining now in India only as a shadow or reflection). Walking around Calcutta, you hear an

English-sounding street name and try to match it with the Indian day-to-day reality around. Externally it’s a post-colonial ‘hodgepodge’ (a word liked by Indians) with a number of original British ‘artifacts’ staying intact. Among the streets with ‘British flavour’, the first to be mentioned is Park Street, a famous thoroughfare in the city centre, which got its name because it runs through what was earlier Deer Park of Sir Elijah Impey, the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court at the end of the 18th century. He was educated at Westminster School of London and Trinity College of Cambridge, then he was appointed for service in Calcutta where he lived for about 17 years (see Impey’s remarkable art collection called ‘Impey Album’ with fine drawings of birds, animals and plants by local artists; Johan Zoffany once painted a portrait of Sir Elijah Impey, which is now in the National Portrait Gallery in London). Park Street used to be British Indian elegance personified and an evening recreation zone for Calcuttans. Stately English mansions came up at this western end of the city replacing the shabby huts that had been here before. The area became known as ‘shaheb para’, ‘the place of foreigners’, or ‘the White Town’. Nowadays, Park Street remains Calcutta’s foremost dining district, with many restaurants and cafés (e.g. The Bridge, Mocambo, Peter Cat and Marco Polo), jazz musicians and various street performers. It’s also known as the ‘Food Street’ and the ‘Street that Never Sleeps’. Being on Park Street means life doesn’t have to be boring – you can easily see it on the faces of walkers. And if you happen to get there, you could observe the remnants of the British era, like the sign of the Oxford Book Store on Park Street letting us know that it was established in 1920 ‘by appointment of H.E. The Lord Irwin and H.E. The Lord Mountbatten’, both once Viceroys and Governor-Generals of India.

Camac Street is known for its high-end shopping, and it was named after Sir William Camac, a rich merchant of the British time. Theatre Road (later renamed as Shakespeare Sarani) is near Chowringhee and was called this way because the Theatre of Calcutta was located there from 1813 to 1839. The theatre burned down in 1839 and has never been rebuilt since. Sudder Street (just near Park Street) is where Rabindranath Tagore lived at times and wrote some of his best poems. It got its anglicized name after ‘sadar’ (a Queens Mansion, the crossing of Park Street court of appeal). Since the 1960s, this notorious and Russel Street, Calcutta street has been visited by European and American dreamers, including Allen Ginsberg, a celebrity of the ‘Beat generation’. He was interested in all kinds of odd localities in Calcutta while making attempts ‘to overcome the fear of death’, as he worded it. He captured the feel and rhythm of the place in his poem “Last Night in Calcutta” (1968):

If the brain changes matter, breathes fearfully back on man – but now the great crash of buildings and planets breaks thru the walls of language and drowns me under its Ganges heaviness forever.

Places like Sudder Street, where ‘unregulated’ and ‘outcaste’ foreigners like to hang out, are surely frowned upon and avoided by any typical ‘bhadralok’ (pious, traditional locals). Inexpensive guest houses and diners as well as proximity to all the main sights attract foreign tourists to stay in that area.

Lovelock Street has nothing to do with loving affairs. It was named after the British businessman Arthur Samuel Lovelock, one of the partners of Lovelock & Lewes Co., who lived in Ballygunge neighbourhood and died in the early 1900s. His house is still there, like many other buildings of the British era in Calcutta. No trace of novelty, to put it mildly, can be seen in them, but it still remains the evidence of the British elegancy of the past. Harrison Road (now Mahatma Gandhi Rd) was originally named so in deference to the then Chairman of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation, Sir Henry Leland Harrison (1837–1892) born in Dover, Kent. Waterloo Street was named, needless to say, after the famous battle of 1815 where Arthur Wellesley, the Duke of Wellington, along with the forces of the coalition, gained victory over Napoleon. Born in Dublin, the Duke of Wellington had sailed to Calcutta long before that, in 1796, to start his service in India where he had won several notable victories in battles and stayed till 1805. His elder brother Richard Colley Wellesley (Lord Mornington) served as Governor-General of Bengal in 1798–1805. Brabourne Road was one of the places for commerce. The foreign communities who came to make a living in Calcutta – Chinese, Jews, Armenians – all settled here and built their religious structures nearby. Harrington Street got its name after John Herbert Harrington (1765–1828), a notable judge and scholar of orientology. He was born in Salisbury and, at a very young age, he started his service in India where he lived for most of his life. Outram Ghat by the river Ganges was named after a brave British General, Sir James Outram (1803–1863). Kyd Street was named after Colonel Robert Kyd (1746–1793), an engineer and lover of horticulture, who lived on that street. He served in India as the Military Secretary of the Government of Bengal and had other positions of service. Robert Kyd was the founder of Royal Botanical Gardens of Calcutta. He was born in Forfarshire (Angus), Scotland, served for many years in Bengal and died in Calcutta. Other members of his family also served in India (in administration and shipbuilding) and for this reason one ofCalcutta’s large neighbourhoods was called Kidderpore. In the very centre of the city, there is Russel Street, which got its name after Sir Henry Russell, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in 1806–1813, who owned a house on that street. In Calcutta you may encounter even such strange names like Old Dog Racecourse Road. Dog racing was popular in that neighbourhood and so the street got its rightful name.

A few more names of Calcutta streets and places with ‘British flavour’ can be mentioned: Lansdowne

Road, Wellington Square, Cornwallis Street, Bentinck Street, Lyons Range, Wood Street, Lyndsay Street, Woodburn Park, Royd Street, Wellesley Street, Middleton Row, Minto Park, Elgin Road, Hungerford Street, Townshend Road.

In the last years, some of the streets with British names were renamed by the government of West Bengal (e.g. Park Street became Mother Teresa Sarani and Grey Street became Arabinda Sarani), but numerous Calcuttans haven’t appreciated those decisions and still use the old names, which are dear to them as historical to their ‘British-made’ city. Renaming brought much confusion, and so the locals say that ‘British Raj hangover stood the test of time’, meaning that simply renaming the streets couldn’t make Calcuttans less nostalgic about the names they were so familiar with since childhood. Every little street and lane speaks of Calcutta’s rich history connected with Britain, so perhaps right are those who think there was no need to change this city’s street names in favour of ‘Indianization’.

To its bad luck, the state of West Bengal was being ruled by the communist party of India for 34 years till 2011, so don’t be surprised to see the remnants of communist symbols painted in red colour on the walls of the buildings all over West Bengal, including Calcutta. The communist rule in this Indian state didn’t mean total control and absence of freedom like in some other countries with communist regimes, but it still brought many negative consequences for economy, culture and education of this Indian state. In 2011, the communist rule finally ended when the Trinamool party came in power. Despite the attempts of the Soviets in the 1960s and 1970s to propagate their ideas in Bengal by supporting local communist parties, the majority of population in this Indian state didn’t accept the communist ideology. For almost three centuries, India stayed together with the British, and this couldn’t remain without effect on the mentality of people.

When Indians speak about their former rulers, they sometimes use the word ‘Britishers’, which is an informal old-fashioned British English word (OED, Lexico 2019). In Indian languages the British people are called ‘Ingrej’ (English), and, in fact, any European-looking person is called this way by Indians. Even more amusing is when simple people call any white foreigner as an ‘American’. ‘Saheb’ is another word that a foreigner may hear when he/she is spoken about by Indians. In former times, it was a respectful address to Europeans, as this word came from Hindi/Urdu ‘sahib’ (‘master, lord’), originally from Arabic ‘sahib’ (‘friend, companion’). ‘Memsahib’ is the respectful form of address to a European woman.

The aforementioned judge Sir Henry Russell once sentenced the British cadet John Grant to death penalty because the latter was found guilty of maliciously setting fire to an Indian’s hut. The case attracted much attention at the time (1808). Announcing his judgment, the chief justice said: “The natives are entitled to have their characters, property and lives protected; and as long as they enjoy that privilege from us, they give their affection and allegiance in return.” Russell was an amiable British officer (it couldn’t be said about all colonial officers), and the Indian people, being very open and loyal to good rulers, never forgot such things.

Sir John Horsford, whose poem was the epigraph to the previous part of the article, not only became

British soldiers in Calcutta in the 1940s (the last known as a brave soldier who rose to the rank years of the British rule); Indian boys are giving of Major-General but also as a poet and a highly them some gifts from a local festival. The sign in the educated person, like a number of servicemen of background reads: ‘Hamilton & Co. Ltd. Jewellers Gold and Silver Smiths. By appointment to His Majesty the King.’ the British Army. His story was extraordinary as he abruptly gave up a fellowship at Oxford, and, without his reputed father’s knowledge, he enlisted for service in India with the East India Company under the assumed name of ‘John Rover’. Why he abandoned Oxford is not entirely clear, but he claimed that his pursuit of poetry ‘ruined him’, and, perhaps for that reason, he headed for India. Keeping somewhat low profile, John Horsford spent his first six years in the ranks of Bengal Artillery, until he caught the attention of its commander Colonel Thomas Dean Pearse.

One day, Horsford pointed out an error in a Greek quotation in some papers he was copying for Pearse, who immediately recognized him and called him by his right name. Pearse notified Capt. Watkin Thelwall that, from that day, the latter’s subordinate ‘Sergeant John Rover’ was appointed a cadet of artillery under the name of ‘John Horsford’. The matter is that Thomas Pearse, apart from his military achievements, was a learned man interested in languages and astronomy and conducted many surveys during his service in India. For many years, he faithfully served the British Crown and died on the Ganges in 1789. Pearse memorial column is located in the courtyard of St. Stephen’s school in Calcutta. It’s also an interesting fact that both John Horsford and Thomas Pearse, as well as Job Charnock (the founder of Calcutta), were married to local Indian women. Horsford’s anxiety towards his daughters born by his Indian wife led him to condemn discrimination against ‘Eurasians’ or ‘East Indians’ as mixed-race individuals were referred to in Britain at the time. He published a number of poems defending such inter-racial relationships.

He also lent support to the Bengal Orphan Institute founded by Lieutenant Colonel of the East India Company army James Achilles Kirkpatrick (another distinguished soldier and linguist simultaneously, who was born at Fort St.George in Madras in 1764, lived most of his life in India and

was also married to an Indian lady). In a poem called “Art of Living in India”, John Horsford praised the biracial ‘auburn beauties’ in the Howrah orphanage and encouraged young British men in India to marry them. Horsford, a ‘man of perfect integrity’, served in the military for forty-five years, during which it is said he never had a day’s leave from his duties. He published two books of his poetry in Calcutta: A Collection of Poems Written in the East Indies (1797) and Poems in Three Parts (1800). He died in Cawnpore (nowadays Kanpur, the state of Uttar Pradesh) in 1817.

What has India gained from Great Britain and what did India mean to the British in both World Wars?

If you asked educated Calcuttans about the British rule, you might get quite diverse opinions which range from national wrath to a calm and more sensible approach to the subject. I suppose, the latter is always preferable if we speak about India and Britain. The ancient culture of India is beautiful and admirable; its history is rich, but in the 18th century India was a rather chaotic pattern of separate princely states. We have to remember that most Indian states had been ruled by various Muslim dynasties for centuries, and for the Hindu population it wasn’t easy at all. The British overpowered the Mughals, gained a very strong position and brought something new and ‘progressive’. If we look at the positive side, India has gained a lot from the British: first, the system of education with schools and universities (in addition to its own system of knowledge, very different from the European one). The ‘Britishers’ arranged efficient administration, civil services and law system, formed a welltrained army, established postal service and set telegraph lines, trained judges, doctors and teachers, constructed railways and hospitals. And what is also very significant, they brought the culture of the English language!

India of today owes much to the institutions set by the British. One of the best things Independence strategists did was to adopt the ‘British-given India’ as it was, meaning that Indians literally copypasted many laws because they worked during the British rule. Was it sensible to drop them? Perhaps, Indians were lucky to get Britain and not some other empire to govern them in the era of colonialism, if ‘lucky’ could be the right word in this case. Indians were also fortunate to obtain independence at the proper time (exactly after the WW2) and have such wise leaders who could retain the best traditions set by the British. Along with that, they revised and reinforced their own national ideas, customs, and lifestyle.

The opinions on the British presence in India differ a lot, but the truth, as always, must be somewhere in the middle. Like everything we get in this life is not only bright and joyful but a bit baffling at times, India too has got its own pains and benefits. Let’s consider this: hasn’t Britain got its own pains and benefits through all the periods of its history? The British nation has also had its fair share of suffering, invasions, civil wars, famines and chaos. Indeed, is there any country in the world that is free from historical ‘injuries’? If you once happen to become an attentive observer staying in Calcutta at least for some time, you may acutely feel this controversial twist of history, witnessing the British and the traditional Indian heritage, which are so contrasting and inseparable at the same time.

Undeniably, any colonial rule means severe control and various hardships for the colonised. Only a few decades back, the planet overcame the downright colonial policies, and just recently the planet witnessed concentration camps, gulags and apartheid – after all, what is 50–60 years in terms of the long human history? Philosophically speaking, has the humanity made much moral progress by the second decade of the 21st century? Wars and exploitation continue till now, social disparity, vanity and greed for power still exist. At the same time, in democratic societies, everything looks much better in comparison with some other ones. ‘More developed’ nations have been able to give some help to those which are ‘less developed’.

In the period of the official British rule, Great Britain invested a few hundred million pounds in different areas of development of India. They brought in an irrigation programme, which increased the amount

of land available for farming by eight times. They developed a coal industry, which had not existed in India before. Public health and life expectancy increased under the British rule, mainly due to improved water supplies and the introduction of quinine treatment against malaria. Indian landowners, princes, the middle classes all gained in terms of job opportunities, business opportunities and careers in areas like law and education. The argument still continues about whether the British rule made much difference to the lives of ordinary Indians. Many historians think that the majority of Indians would have remained poor even if they had been ruled by their countrymen.

We could look at it from yet another angle: was the life of ordinary people in Britain any better than that of ordinary Indians in the 19th century? It seems, not much better – we can get a lot of evidence for that, and not only from the novels written by Dickens. When Thomas John Barnardo, the founder of a famous charity for children called ‘Barnardo’s’, arrived from Dublin to London in the 1860s to train as a doctor, he was shocked to find many children of London living in terrible conditions, with no access to education, proper food, medical care, etc. Poverty and disease were so widespread that one in five children died before their fifth birthday. So, even in the capital of the British Empire, destitute life was reality for many, what to speak of imperial colonies. Indian society has been famous for its caste system, but can we say that British society was devoid of the same when it was deeply divided by class? For much of the 1800s, an average Indian peasant had no more say in the way he was ruled than an average worker in the United Kingdom.

During the British rule, a tiny number of British officials and troops (about 20,000 in all) ruled over hundreds of millions of Indians. This was often seen as evidence that most Indians accepted and even approved of this rule. Needless to say, Britain could not have controlled India without the cooperation of Indian princes and local leaders, as well as huge numbers of Indian army recruits, police officers, civil servants, etc. Some historians point out that the British rule could exist because Indian society was so divided that it could not unite against the British. The foreign rulers even encouraged those local divisions (which is quite understandable, as the ancient principle divide et impera has always been highly effective in politics). The better-off classes of Indians were educated in English schools. They had good positions in the British army or in the civil service. They effectively joined the British to rule their poorer fellow Indians. So, injustice doesn’t depend on nationality; its roots are to be seen in imperfect human nature.

Sometimes, the British view tended to portray their rule in India as a sort of ‘charitable exercise’ – their people suffered India’s environment (e.g. climate and diseases) in order to bring a good government and economic development to India. Other historians point out that ruling India brought huge benefits primarily to Britain. India’s natural resources served the Crown to utmost extent. The huge population made India an attractive market for British industry. In the 1880s, for example, about 20% of Britain’s total exports went to India, and by 1910 those exports were worth £137 mln. India also exported huge quantities of its products to Britain, especially spices and tea, which were exported on from Britain to other countries. Then there were the human resources. The enormous Indian army serving the Crown was one of the greatest assets for Britain. Around 40% of India’s wealth was spent on the army, which was used by Britain all over the world, including the wars in South Africa in 1899–1902 and both World Wars. The Indian army was truly the backbone of the power of the British Empire. In 1901, the British Viceroy (Governor) of India, Lord Curzon, said: “As long as we rule India, we are the greatest power in the world. If we lose it we shall straightway drop to a third rate power.” For some reason, it is often forgotten that the number of Indian soldiers who fought for the British in WW1 was about 1,500,000, and in WW2 this number was almost doubled: 2,500,000! British Field Marshal Sir Claude Auchinleck asserted the British “couldn’t have come through both World Wars if they hadn’t had the Indian army.”

During WW2, the British Indian army’s action was centered mostly on the South East Asian theatre (particularly the Burma campaign) fighting the Japanese and Axis forces advancing towards India. Its second biggest action was in North and East Africa. Some Indian troops fought in Middle East and

also played a significant role in liberating Italy from Nazi control, being the third largest Allied contingent in the Italian campaign after the US and British forces.

Besides, being a British colony in WW2 was also a tale of sacrifice of a great number of poor Indian farmers in Bengal who gave all their crops to the Allied war effort but unjustly met their end in the great famine of Bengal that followed in 1942. That’s especially amazing if we consider the fact that the Indian National Congress party led by Mahatma Gandhi and other national leaders denounced Nazi Germany but wouldn’t fight it or anyone else until Indian infantrymen of the 7th Rajput Regiment of India was independent. Right in the middle of WW2 the British Indian Army on the Arakan front in (August 1942), the Indian Congress party launched Burma fighting against the Japanese, 1944. War the ‘Quit India’ movement which eventually turned office WW2 official collection, iwm.org.uk’ to be successful and allowed India to become independent from the British rule in 1947. An interesting part of history of that time is that Subhash Chandra Bose (Netaji), one of the most active nationalist leaders of the Congress party, started implementing his own plan: with his troops he sided with Germany in order to stop the British rule, but eventually his efforts were unsuccessful. The British had to quit India in 1947 because of Gandhi’s civil disobedience movement and other reasons. It was a bitter reality which had to be accepted by the Crown.

Tagore as a self-translator into English

It’s not possible to speak about Calcutta without mentioning its great citizen and poet Rabindranath Tagore (1861–1941). The air of this city is filled with his presence and legacy – the Indian genius was born and lived in Calcutta, and there he received love and adoration from both elite society and simple people. He became known to the world by his poems translated from Bengali into English by himself. The collection of poems called Gitanjali (Song-offerings, 1912) fetched him the Nobel Prize for literature in 1913. The preface to the English edition of this book was written by William Butler Yeats.

Tagore’s literary works were highly esteemed in the English-speaking world by Ernest Percival Rhys, Ezra Pound, Robert Bridges, Thomas Sturge Moore and other writers and poets of his time. Tagore’s own renderings of his works into English were regarded as ‘a miracle of translation’, despite the fact that even Yeats, his admirer, criticised his English, pointing out that actually “no Indian knows English” (Bhattacharya, 2001).

It’s doubtful that Tagore tried to compete in knowledge of English with native speakers. He is, first of all, a national poet and most of his works were written in Bengali. Tagore was not awarded the Nobel Prize for his English but for his sublime poetry shared with the world through English. Nevertheless, he wrote that he “had become world-famous as a writer in English” (self-translating) and therefore felt “extreme reluctance in accepting alterations” in his poems translated into English by others (Tagore’s letter to William Rothenstein, 1915; Dutta & Robinson, 1995).

For a poet it’s certainly afflictive to see any significant changes in meaning or style of his translated writings. Once, Tagore even refused to translate and send some of his short stories to famous Macmillan Co. (which published his Gitanjali) for the reason that “the beauty of the original can hardly be preserved in translation”, and the stories actually “required rewriting in English, not translating.” In his lectures on literature around the world, Tagore sometimes mentioned about retaining ‘dynamism’

of the original in translations (Das Gupta, 2017). Here’s one of Tagore’s most interesting statements on the subject: “Translations, however clever, can

only transfigure dancing into acrobatic tricks, in most cases playing treason against the majesty

of the original” (Dutta & Robinson, 1995). Tagore was really a polymath: a poet, a philosopher, an artist, a composer, a writer and a playwright. In the early 20th century, his works became rapidly known in Great Britain and worldwide. Apart from being a talented poet and writer, Tagore was also an educator. He founded Vishva-Bharati University in Shantiniketan, West Bengal, and all the money received for the Nobel Prize he contributed to the development of this educational institution.

Rabindranath Tagore at his desk In 1937, Tagore reacted positively to the Soviet experiment of eradicating lack of education (seeing this as a good example for India), but he warned of any attempt to curb “freedom of mind”. He wrote: “It would be an uninteresting and sterile world of mechanical regularity if all our opinions were forcibly made alike… Opinions are constantly changed and rechanged only through free circulation of intellectual forces. Violence begets violence and blind stupidity. Freedom of mind is needed for the reception of truth; terror hopelessly kills it.” Could it be said any better?

Tagore’s apprehension came true, as the freedom of mind was something deeply lacking in the theory and practice of the Soviet system, despite of its various external achievements. No ‘man of arts’ would ever exchange freedom of spirit for industrial progress of any extent. If education makes people’s minds template-molded and stereotyped for the sake of making population into small screws of an ideological machine or state system, then what is ultimately the use of such education? Obviously, this reminds of the anti-utopian novels like Zamyatin’s We or Orwell’s 1984 (the former lived under totalitarianism and fully experienced its ugly impact on human society, and the latter was significantly inspired by Zamyatin’s literary work to write his 1984).

Tagore simply didn’t fit into any external system. His relationship with the British Empire was also not that explicit: the poet, feeling loyal to his homeland and at the same time being ‘a man of the world’, occasionally had to take painful decisions. In 1915, by the will of the King (George V), Tagore was awarded the title of Knight, which he accepted with some degree of hesitance. After four years he renounced his knighthood and wrote a challenging letter to Lord Chelmsford, Viceroy of India.

Tagore with ordinary English people at a train station in London, the 1910s. National Portrait Gallery, npg.org.uk Tagore always admired talented and broad-minded British individuals, not only among the intelligentsia but also among government officers, and still he was reluctant to remain silent at political or social injustices caused by the foreign rule. The obvious evidence for that is, for instance, his open letter of 1941 to Miss Rathbone, a British MP, politician and campaigner, who charged Indians with “not giving enough support” to the British Army during WW2, though, in fact, the support was immense. Tagore answered Miss Rathbone in quite a straightforward and bold way, explaining the feelings of his fellow countrymen about the occupation of his motherland by foreigners.

At the same time, Tagore was averse towards rigid patriotism and, as a poet of sublime ideas, tended to have a broader vision of things. In his famous novel Ghore o Baire (The Home and the World), he reveals this contradiction within himself by showing two main characters as opposing to each other. The novel was translated into English by the author’s nephew with input from the author. Due to his conflicting feelings and thoughts about Indian independence, Tagore wasn’t unanimous with the contemporary national movement leaders, but simultaneously he couldn’t be called a ‘yes-man’ of the British rule (his letter to Miss Rathbone and Welcoming the Nobel Prize laureate in London, the 1910s. Topical Press Agency, gettyimages.com his abandonment of knighthood being the evidence for that). Rather he remained himself, with love for his motherland and respect for the culture and language of Britain. In his extensive travels around the globe, Tagore interacted with such thinkers as Henri Bergson, Albert Einstein, Robert Frost, Thomas Mann, George Bernard Shaw, Herbert George Wells and Romain Rolland, and he often addressed relations between Indian and British civilizations.

Tagore and King George V as a ‘Dispenser of Destiny’

There is an interesting account of the controversy around the anthem written by Tagore. The song “Jana Gana Mana” (“Thou Art the Ruler of the Minds of All People”) was composed by him in 1911 and was sung before King George V to welcome His Majesty during his first visit to Calcutta. The Englishman newspaper reported: “The proceedings began with the singing by Rabindranath Tagore of a song specially composed by him in honour of the Emperor” (Englishman, 1911). The words Bharat-bhagya-vidhata meaning ‘the Dispenser of India’s destiny’ were understood by the British as attributed to the Emperor, and supposedly for that reason George V bestowed the Knighthood to Tagore in 1915.

But Tagore himself later denied this attribution saying that he eulogized the Supreme and not the Sovereign. In 1937, Tagore wrote a letter to P.B. Sen about the controversy: “A certain high official in His Majesty’s service, who was also my friend, had requested that I write a song of felicitation towards the Emperor. The request simply amazed me. It caused a great stir in my heart. In response to that great mental turmoil, I pronounced the victory in “Jana Gana Mana” of that Bhagya Vidhata [Lord of Destiny] of India who has from age after age held steadfast the reins of India’s chariot through rise and fall, through the straight path and the curved. That Lord of Destiny, that Reader of the Collective Mind of India, that Perennial Guide, could never be George V, George VI, or any other George. Even my official friend understood this about the song. After all, even if his admiration for the crown was excessive, he was not lacking in simple common sense” (Mukherjee, 1946). In his letter of 1939, Tagore wrote: “I should only insult myself if I cared King George V and Queen Mary at the ‘Court to answer those who consider me capable of such unbounded stupidity as to sing in praise of George of Delhi’, Indian imperial ceremony and mass assembly, in December 1911. It was the very first visit of a British monarch to Indian soil. After their the Fourth or George the Fifth as the Eternal coronation in London six months earlier, George V Charioteer leading the pilgrims on their journey and Mary were proclaimed as Emperor and Empress through countless ages of the timeless history of India before the Indian princes and rulers.

of mankind” (Purbhasha, 1948). However, Tagore’s clarifications on the controversy came only after the death of George V in 1936, as Tagore himself didn’t want to contradict it during the lifetime of the Emperor. Why it was so could only be known to him.

Thus, learning more about this illustrious Calcuttan’s life and personality, we can observe the complexity in discourse between the British and Indian cultures, the strong ties and profound difference at the same time.

“I will not buy glass for the price of diamonds, and I will never allow patriotism to triumph over humanity as long as I live” (From Tagore’s letter to his friend A.M. Bose, 1908). Thus, it can be concluded that in a higher sense Tagore was more of a universal than national type of poet, with humanistic eternal values above all. For him, trust and love were a priority, be it a relationship between individuals or between nations. That’s the key message in his letter to Miss Rathbone and not a hateful feeling of one nation towards another as some choose to think. Like millions of other Indians, he was a subject of the British Empire, and he could clearly see the advantages and deprivations of being ruled by foreigners.

Rabindranath Tagore’s house and museum (‘Jorasanko Thakurbari’) is located near Girish Park on Chittaranjan Avenue in Calcutta. Should the respected readers want to know more about Tagore’s numerous writings in English, they can consult the corresponding publications listed in References.

Controversial relationship between Britain and India: forced marriage, divorce and mature friendship

Now, we can see the positive results of the former British rule for India of modern time. First of all, India is one the member states of the Commonwealth with Her Majesty the Queen as the Head of this free association. According to the London Declaration of the Commonwealth of Nations accepted in 1949 by eight states (Australia, Canada, India, New Zealand, Pakistan, South Africa, Sri Lanka and the United Kingdom), all the member states were viewed as free, independent and equal, having no legal obligations to one another, but connected through their use of the English language and historical ties. They recognized the then King (George VI) as the symbolic head of their association, known as the Commonwealth of Nations. Several dozen countries have joined since. Typically, joiners have a historical connection to Britain as its former colonies and part of the former British Empire, but other countries can also join if they demonstrate a commitment to democracy, including fair elections and representative legislatures, accept that intra-Commonwealth discussions happen in English and acknowledge Queen Elizabeth II as their ceremonial leader.

When countries had recently achieved their independence from the UK, it was important for them to stress the change in their relationship, from dependent status to equal partnership. The emphasis on equality has helped the association to play leading roles in decolonisation, combating racism, advancing sustainable development in less developed countries and achieving democracy and peace. Thus, the Commonwealth is a product of historical developments. Commonwealth member countries benefit from being parts of a mutually supportive community, aided by more than 80 Commonwealth organisations. The membership gives various privileges, e.g. hosting the Commonwealth Games. Commonwealth citizens have special rights when living in the United Kingdom – more than what any other immigrant would get. An Indian citizen who resides anywhere in the United Kingdom has the right to vote in local and national elections. If an Indian citizen travels somewhere without an Indian Embassy, he or she can get assistance at the UK Embassy instead. Drawing from the Commonwealth Fund for Technical Co-operation (which amounts to about £29 mln per year), the Commonwealth provides its needier member states with advisers on trade and land-use strategies, or consultants to help restructure public services, for example.

The Commonwealth is basically a big club or network. Commonwealth consultation is a continuous

process which takes place at many levels and in many ways in the fields of education, environment, finance, foreign affairs, gender affairs, health, law, tourism and youth. Thus, the Commonwealth has apparently been an honest attempt by the UK to come to terms with its colonial past. Certainly, such issues can’t be univocal, and, among the British themselves, there have been many disputes on their former colonialism and the status of the Commonwealth, especially in the context of Brexit nowadays.

India has become the world’s fastest growing economy with an 7.5% estimated GDP rate, though it still must overcome many economic, social, and political problems before it can be considered a superpower. Indian IT specialists, lawyers, teachers and doctors are valued around the world, as they are very diligent, patient and dedicated workers. Despite its social and economic problems, India is the largest democracy of the world (being the second biggest country on the planet). Haven’t Indians learned about democracy from the British? Sure, they have. India owns a great amount of natural resources, which they have learned to use and trade from the British.

A poor Indian street vendor selling images of King George V and Queen Mary, 1911

And it can’t be unnoticed that there is a great number of Indians living in the UK. They feel very comfortable in the country of their former rulers. British Indians are otherwise called ‘Indian British’ people or ‘Indian Britons’. This includes people of Indian descent born in the UK and Indian-born people who have migrated to the UK. Today, Indians comprise about 1.5 mln in the UK (not including those of mixed Indian and other ancestry), thus being the single largest ethnic minority population in the country. Some Indian Britons nowadays are the members of the British Parliament – could it be imagined in the 18th century or even a few decades ago? Many of Indian Britons keep the traditions and customs of their ancestors, at the same time being ‘normal’ British, as modern Britain is known for its traditions of tolerance and humanistic approach to all people. A study by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation shows that British Indians have the lowest poverty rates among different ethnic groups in the UK, second only to white British. According to the official UK Government figures, British Indians have had the highest employment rate of all ethnic minorities. Decent employment is inevitably connected with education, and so it cannot be overlooked that Indians have always had respect for knowledge and learning. As far as I could observe in India, plenty of educated Indians are happy and well-to-do people, who consider themselves a part of the world (mostly owing to their British colonial heritage and the English language) and who follow their own traditions.

So, there are enough grounds to conclude that both Great Britain and India have gained significantly from their ‘forced marriage’, then ‘divorce’ and later ‘mature friendship’. Should there be a dispute over who has gained or lost more? It would be rather imprudent The bronze bust of Tagore in Gordon Square, Bloomsbury, Central London, unveiled by the Prince of Wales in 2011. On either side of the plinth there are Tagore’s poems in English and his native language.

to judge this way, since history has no ‘subjunctive mood’, as we know. Time inevitably passes on, with its new turns and twists; all things change, leaving no hope for going backwards, and good people of any nation keep creating a ‘real history’ which is always on a wise and positive side. Da Vinci, Mozart and Shakespeare are remembered by humanity much more than those who invented weapons of mass destruction or who were guilty of violence. Luckily, this idea remains to be delight and justification of existence, notwithstanding some bitter sides of it.

In this journal for teachers, it wouldn’t be out of place to quote a noteworthy remark by Tagore about education, which could be most relevant in the modern digital world: “When material is in profusion, the mind gets lazy and leaves everything to it, forgetting that for a successful feast of joy its internal equipment counts for more than the external. This is the chief lesson which his infant state has to teach to man. There his possessions are few and trivial, yet he needs no more for his happiness. The world of play is spoilt for an unfortunate youngster who is burdened with an unlimited quantity of playthings.” (R. Tagore, My Reminiscences)

REFERENCES

Bhattacharya, S. 2001. Translating Tagore, The Hindu, Chennai, India. September 2. Commonwealth Network. www.commonwealthofnations.org Das Gupta, Subhas Chandra. 2017. Tagore on Translating Poetry. Visva-Bharati Quarterly Journal, vol. 25, no. 4. Das, S.K., ed. 1966. The English Writings of Rabindranath Tagore. New Delhi: Sahitya Academy. Dutta, K. and Robinson, A. 1995. Rabindranath Tagore: The Myriad-Minded Man. London: Bloomsbury, Ethnicity Facts and Figures: Work, pay and benefits: Employment. 2018. UK Government. Gibson, Mary Ellis. 2011. Anglophone Poetry in Colonial India, 1780-1913: A Critical Anthology. Ohio University Press. Kreling, Beth. 2009. India and the Commonwealth: A Symbiotic Relationship? The Round Table. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00358530802598239 Maugham, S. 1944. The Razor’s Edge. New York, Garden City: Doubleday, Doran & Co. Mukherjee P.K. 1946. Rabindra-jivani (Tagore’s biography) vol. II. Calcutta. National Archives of the UK. https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/empire/ ODNB, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. 2004. OED, Lexico.com. www.lexico.com Poverty rates among ethnic groups in Great Britain. 2007–2010. Joseph Rowntree Foundation. Purbasha journal. 1948. March. Tagore, Rabindranath. 1917. My Reminiscences. New York: Macmillan and Co. The Englishman, newspaper (Calcutta). 1911. Dec. 28.