On Nationalism: http://www.gutenberg.org/files/40766/40766-h/40766-h.htm
A sampling of his poems: http://www.poetryfoundation.org/bio/rabindranath-tagore#about
“Tagore and His India,” Amartya Sen (gives an overview of many aspects of his life and work): http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/literature/laureates/1913/tagore-article.html
The Home and the World (novel, available in full online): http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/7166
In “Kabuliwala”, Rahamat treats Mini as his daughter. He makes friend with Mini and gives Mini gifts. At the beginning the narrator does not trust him, and he thinks Rahamat is a traveling seller and he wants to give money to Rahamat, but Rahamat rejects it. After Rahamat goes to prison the narrator and Mini forget hi m quickly. The turn point that changes the narrator’s perspective of Rahamat is that Rahamat visits his home and show him Rahamat’s daughter’s handprint on a paper. The narrator is shocked about this and he suddenly realizes why Rahamat treats Mini so nice and kindly. He finds out that though they come from different social class, they actually are same and equal as a father.
The narrator is not friendly to Rahamat until he sees Rahamat’s daughter’s handprint paper. The family of the narrator is not friendly to Rahamat from beginning to end. Why they don’t feel Rahamat’s love to Mini before he goes in prison? The narrator is a well-born Bengali gentleman, then why he says such ungracious words to Rahamat like “I told you there’s a ceremony in the house… You can’t see anyone else today.” I think it might because that as a well-born man, he actually looks down on a criminal. But after he realizes Rahamat’s sincere emotion, he does not think Rahamat is a criminal or a dry-fruit vendor from Kabul, he just thinks Rahamat is a lovely father. The nice affection of a father can weighs more than the social role.
I think that in this novel Tagore writes two symbolic father figures: the narrator and Rahamat. The narrator is not Mini’s biology father, but he loves Mini so deeply as his own daughter. When Mini asks him different strange questions, he is very patient and tries to give Mini answers, even when he is working on his novel. Rahamat is not Mini’s father, too, he is just a traveling seller, but he always talks with Mini in smile, and he gives Mini gifts and warm regard. After he comes out from the prison, the first thing he does is visit Mini. Rahamat has biology daughter, but he cannot come back to his hometown maybe because of some reasons. Therefore to some extent he treats Mini just as his biology daughter. Though these two fathers come from different class, they pay equal affection to Mini as surrogate father, and they are on the same level as a symbolic father. Tagore may indicate that a lower-class person also has sincere love, and he can be a great father, not only a great biology father but also a great surrogate father. There is always nice emotion in the world, and it is independent of money or social status.
Oppression of women is an ongoing conflict, especially in third world countries. Women there are given no value and no respect. They are suppressed by the empowerment given by men and do not have the ability to break society’s norms. If, by chance, they are able to break these barriers, then they are ridiculed, threatened, beaten, and abused for doing so, ultimately leading them back into suppression. They’re only escape from oppression is death. By experiencing death, these women achieve their freedom and independence. This claim is exemplified in the narration of, “Punishment”, where the brilliant author, Rabindranath Tagore, portrays the mass oppression and belittlement given to women and the manners in which they are perceived, stereotyped, and treated in a third world environment.
From the very beginning of the text, Tagore portrays one aspect of stereotypical behavior amongst women in local villages. He compares the “shrill screams” between two women to the “sun rising at dawn”. No one questions the rising of the sun and therefore no one would care to question the emotions of women. In other words, this behavior is apparent amongst women and so it was not a “violation of Nature’s rules” (893) because naturally, it is bound to happen. As mentioned earlier, women are suppressed by the empowerment of men in society. Men hold certain expectations against women. They seek for the women to have certain tasks accomplished and made ready. In one account of the story, Dukhiram was famished after a long days work and so was “expecting” his wife, Radha, to have made lunch ready. However, Radha was unable to provide for Dukhiram in that instant. The reason is not that Radha could careless for her husband. But, that her husband in fact did not provide the means for her to have made lunch ready. Additionally, in that same scenario, Radha tried to talk back. But, in this society, women do not have freedom of speech, they are unable to make their voice heard. They’re inability to project their voice is evident, and the moment they even try to speak back, it feels “like a spark on a sack of gunpowder” (894). That spark is their voice, which is denied in this society. That spark also signifies all of their emotions and overwhelming feelings that are bottled up inside. When they finally try to let their emotions out, the outcome becomes that “spark on a sack of gunpowder”. When they do talk back, it is viewed as disrespect, as a sign of rebellion. The moment they try to “rebel”, they become killed by men who are “raging with hunger” (894).
Tagore portrays another unjust attribution given to women. In the next claim, he shows women being used as scapegoats in society. “In their quarrel, Chotobau struck at Barobau’s head with a farm-knife” (894). The younger brother made a false claim in defending the real murderer, his older brother by putting the blame on his wife. He did not think for one second about this false accusation, and that this will get his innocent wife killed. He gave her up in a moment of a second. “A reply to Ramlochan’s question had come instantly to mind, and he had blurted it out” (894). An “instant” thought resulted into an “instant” blame and turned an innocent individual into an “instant” victim. This shows how undervalued these women are in society. They are deceived by even their “lover” in matters of misery and have no outlet from their own misery.
An ideal female figure emerged in Tagore’s, “Punishment”. She was the wife who was put on blame for the murder. Chandara was an ideal figure because although she was innocent, she took matters into her own hands and was able to stand her ground. “I shall give my youth to the gallows instead of to you. My final ties in this life will be with them” (897). Although many acts of reassurance were given by her husband, she knew that she had the ability to abolish herself from suppression. She knew that her husband’s words held no value. In accepting the blame, she performed an act of justice for herself. She was free from injustice, abuse, and suppression. She no longer had to cope with society norms and injustices. By accepting death, she became a “handful of mercury” (896) that was able to slip away from prejudice and blame given by society. The real punishment professed by Tagore was not the punishment given because of murder, but the punishment given to the women in society. Their abuse, mistreatment, and belittlement in society were what Tagore wanted to project in his work. The descriptions of Chandara were ideal to Tagore because that was how he wanted women to be perceived in society. Tagore also indicated in the passage, “The Deputy Magistrate…new rice-crop” (898), that these events and misdemeanors against women were an ongoing problem. Life must go on, but according to Tagore, life should go on in way that it should be equally blissful for people of the opposite sex.
From the story, the author, Rabindranath Tagore, uses of literature (in which presents in a narrative way) as a mean to examine the position of women in the society and its jurisdiction in India during the late 19th century. In this society, women’s positions are very similar to the western women in the essay, A Vindication of Rights of woman by Mary Wollstonecraft that we read before. Women are treated like men’s property, their duties are taking care children, obeying men’s orders and doing house work as the only reason to live on. More importantly Dukhirman and Chidam treat them as inferior and use Chandara as a tool to cover his guilt. For instances, Dukhirman kills his wife without any hesitating, then they decides to let Chandara to take all the responsibility. Later Chidam said that “if I lose my wife I can get another, but if my brother is hanged, how can I replace him?”(895) This conversation shows that men are more important than women because Chidam chooses to save his brother by sacrificing his wife. It also reveals the society in India, in which men have the dominating position and power over women since remarriage is not a problem for men.
As a reader, we clearly see the truth that Chandara is innocent and know that it is unfair. Well! The story is called “Punishment” implicitly refers the theme of unjust or unfairness. I define the term “punishment” as a penalty for people who committed an act of offense, fault or guilt. Chandara did not commit any of those but receives the punishment of death while the real offender gets free, hence the punishment is mistaken and unjust. The reason that it ends in this way also because of the unjust and failure of the justice system, the judge or the jury decides this case solely on the basis of eyewitness accounts, without any material evidence to prove the claim. Also due to the positions difference between men and women, the judge is also biased by the class and gender, bringing the story to its sad ending. Therefore, this type of justice system is unreliable and unjust.
The question that I want to ask is “Who or what is responsible for her death?” Is it her husband/ the society/ the justice system or others?
The underground man begins the second part of his narration by explaining events that occur to him in his young age. He describes that at the age of twenty- four he was already depressed and antisocial. He always feels isolated at this very early age not being able to look at anyone in the eye, and imaging that every one looks at him with disgust. “ I indulged in depravity all alone at night furtively, timidly, sordidly, with a feeling of shame that never left me even in my most loathsome moments and drove me at such times to the point of profanity.” (661) It is evident that the isolated feeling began at a every early age. He is anxious of being seen, he haunts mysteriously everywhere he goes. The underground man compares himself to a fly in the eyes of society, where he feels ignored and disgusting compared to the rest of the individuals of society. From this early age he considers himself to be smarter than the rest. His comparison to a fly symbolizes how he is “insulted and injured” by everyone whom he encounters.
This second segment exposes the narrator’s development from his youthful perspective, influenced by Romanticism and ideals of “beautiful and sublime.” This perspective is merely cynical about beauty, loftiness, and his passion of literature in general. The underground man was able to escape from his depressed state through the power of his dreams. His dreams were where those “escapes into everything beautiful and sublime” (666) could be possible. In his dreams he feels love, though he feels no need to apply the love to his real life. His dreams always end with artistic moments stolen from poetry and novels. After three months of dreaming, the happiness of dreaming makes the underground man wants to rush into society. The happiness encouraged in his dreams was a sort of turning point that allowed him to finally give humanity a chance.
After accepting humanity the underground man experiences serial events that forcefully make him let go of his cowardly ways and socialize with humanity. However, even though he has allowed himself into society he still withholds this battle within himself of not being good enough for others. The Underground Man’s separation displays itself in all kinds of relationships. The underground man experiences encounters with his former classmates and tries to liberate a young prostitute named Liza. The underground man is confused about social interaction with his former schoolmates still referring himself as a “ordinary house fly.” He blames the fact of this isolation is due to the baldy way he was dressed, “which in their eyes, constituted proof of my ineptitude and insignificance.”(668) Later that evening the underground man also tries to save Liza by stating romantic speeches about the dreadful destiny that is near her if she continues to sell her body.
Unfortunately, even though the underground man gained the courage needed to leave his isolated and depressed state he was still confused and disordered not understanding how to create relationships and interact sociably.
Existentialism and Behaviorism, or the ideas of looking at behaviors through the lenses of free will and extrinsic conditioning, have been conflicting rather than supplementing one another. This opposition was examined by Fyodor Dostoyevsky in ‘Notes from Underground’, specifically, when the Underground Man, an Existentialist who advocated the role of free will, was vehemently crippled of his functional abilities by all of his mental processes and idealistic fantasizing.
‘Notes from Underground’ has two chapters. The first chapter describes the misanthropic Underground Man’s mental processes and idealistic fantasizing, specifically, his conflicting rebuttals of the Enlightenment and Romantic ideas and his advocacy of Existentialism, or free choice. He wrote these refutations with zeal and bitterness but at the same time he was constantly contradicting himself, either through his language or through the very basis of his argument, leading the audience to question his credibility, objectivity and even sanity. He mocked the Enlightenment, Romanticism and even current thinkers through incessant sarcastic questioning of ‘two times two makes four’ and ‘the beautiful and sublime’ and ‘the gentleman of the nineteenth century.’ However, his rebuttals did not hold waters because of countless contradictions. Even he was not certain about his view of Existentialism, very ambivalent whether he had free choice at all? Thus, thoughtful and somewhat neurotic as he was, he failed to establish an ideal for himself. Yet, his fiasco came when he tried to interact with other people in the second chapter.
The second chapter, then, delineates how the same obsessive, neurotic and inept Underground Man was constantly at a failed war with himself and those around him, from the officer to Zverkov and the gang to Liza. First while pondering about the event at the tavern where one man was thrown out of the window, the Underground Man inadvertently blocked an officer who then silently moved him to the side and did not even seem to notice him (662). Infuriated, the Underground Man devised many schemes in his head to confront the officer but never had the courage to successfully execute them. In fact, whenever he was about to confront the officer, his nerve departed him immediately and he shrank and fell like a coward (665). Then there came the incident with Zverkov and the gang when the Underground Man was vehement in joining the party to prove his dignity but failed miserably. After a disastrous and embarrassing dinner he constantly paced up and down the room ‘from eight o’clock to eleven’ in the hope that Zverkov and the gang would notice him, but no one did (679). Next, his coup de grace ensued when he attempted to salvage Liza from prostitution through an eloquent, bookish and moving speech (684-694). However, when Liza came to visit him a few days later his little composure departed him completely and he threw a tantrum at her then attempted to treat her like a prostitute by unsuccessfully forcing some money into her hand (701-708). His tirade, coupled with his attempt to treat Liza as a prostitute completely exposed him of how cowardly and hypocritical he was in real life despite all his idealistic fantasizing and philosophical contemplation.
Could the Underground Man’s neuroticism have caused him to lose contact with reality and subsequently crippled him of his functional abilities? The Underground Man, in all of the three scenarios with the officer, Zverkov and the gang, and Liza, could confidently overthink all he wanted, but when it came to actually executing his schemes, he failed miserably. This conflict between his mental processes and functional abilities demonstrates the conflict between Existentialism and Behaviorism, or, free choice and extrinsic conditioning. The first chapter describes the Underground Man’s Existentialist conviction that he would rather act on his free will than believe in “the beautiful and sublime” or “two times two makes four” or even trying to be “the gentleman of the nineteenth century.” However, convinced as he was of his ideology, his reactions in all the three social interaction scenarios were completely driven by the situations and external factors with little to no chances for him to exercise his free will, proving that behaviorism is true to some extent that we are all bound by the circumstances. Thus, I believe that Fyodor Dostoyevsky has done a great job juxtaposing mental processes with functional abilities and question whether Existentialism can be harmonized with Behaviorism.
Now, I also believe that, through seemingly improbable, “Notes from Underground” actually advances the very dilemma of harmonizing our ideologies with our environment. Contemplation and adaptation, which is more important? And is ‘The Underground Man’ and inherent part of us, constantly torn and estranged, even though we pretend to be otherwise?
The Underground Man, the story’s narrator and his own worst critic, describes himself as a spiteful, proud, ill, and envious man. Yet, he later rebuffs that statement and says he was lying signaling the readers that they are faced with an unreliable narrator. There is no telling if what he says next will have any truth to it. Nevertheless, he continues his monologue, in a manner that sounds like a train-of-thought process voicing his opinions seeking the reader’s approval and understanding, even though he repeatedly states that he doesn’t care. His constant use of the word Gentlemen, is to continually hold the attention of the audience and appeal to them. At the age of 40 he doesn’t feel like a fulfilled person, especially when he compares himself to a man that wasn’t born from the bosom of nature, but was made from a laboratory test tube (p 640). He blames this loss of oneself on many things, but always comes back to ultimately blaming himself. The acute consciousness he refers to stops him from doing many things he believes a normal person would do. His memories from boyhood are summarized as “…no one was like me, and I wasn’t like anyone else.” (p 659) posing the question if, at 40 and still having the same outlook, he was unable to transition into a more mature individual and let go of his childish behavior.
His view on pleasure, although at first may seem slightly disturbing, describes a larger scope of human essence where not everything is ideal and pure, “…the pleasure resulted precisely from the overly acute consciousness of one’s own humiliation; from the feeling that one had reached the limit; that it was disgusting, but couldn’t be otherwise; you had no other choice – you could never become a different person; and that even there were still time and faith enough for you to change into something else, most likely you wouldn’t even want to change , and if you did, you wouldn’t have done anything, perhaps because there really was nothing for you to change into” (p 638). Dostoevsky’s exploration of the human psyche hits head on, describing a new type of generation. The generation that is tired of the ideas of Enlightenment, as the narrator speaks on his distaste for the laws of nature (p 641), and no longer taken with the ideas of Romanticism, where the narrator calls them stupid and often ridicules the “beautiful and sublime”. The question though still remains if this narrator really reflects any particular person, if he reflects humanity as a whole, or if a person like that is entirely fictitious. Notes from Underground is an early work of existentialism, where this dark side of humanity is exposed raw questioning the readers to consider if they share any similar qualities with the narrator. This unrestrained and realistic outlook on human thoughts presents a man in a limbo of existence, afraid to be seen but at the same time afraid to be forgotten, hating himself yet unwilling to change, feeling lonely and isolated but never escaping the social world. Are we the Underground Man? Or are we pretending that we’re not?
A Desertful of Roses: The Urdu Ghazals of Ghalib: http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00ghalib/
This site offers a huge catalog of ghazals by Ghalib–available in Urdu, as well as numerous different translations, that are interesting to compare.
When I read Ghalib’s “Now go and live in a place”, “I’ve made my home next door to you” and “It was essential”, the conflicting themes between emotional attachment and worldly death led me to notice how spiritually and emotionally attached Ghalib was to other people, particularly his wife, his adopted son and the Hindu courtesan, then these emotional strings were put to the test when three of them, one by one, departed him. In the end, he appeared to be seeking a sanctuary where his emotions and feelings could be alleviated by eliminating human contact.
In “It was essential”, Ghalib mourned the death of Arif, his adopted son through the use of ghazal and constant repetition of the phrase “for a few more days.” The question lingered on, why couldn’t Arif live for a few more days, why couldn’t Arif stay with him for a few more days, why couldn’t….for a few more days? On average, people live for years, yet death is just a moment, then eternity, so how long should we make of ‘a few more days’? And if Arif had indeed live ‘for a few more days’, would Ghalib surely wish for ‘another few more days’ of Arif’s existence? In fact, to Ghalib, a few more days or a few more years did not make a difference, because death is death, pain is pain, and loss is loss, and Ghalib felt them profoundly. He mourned over the fact that all of his beloved left him rather than he left them. “It’s my destiny/ to continue to wish for death/ for a few more days” (line 57-60) Ghalib knew that death is inevitable, himself not exception, but he could not refrain from the excruciating pain felt at the death of his beloved. How short life is, how much ‘a few more days’ could make a difference, and how emotionally attached Ghalib was to his beloved, but all of these will eventually have to yield to worldly death, an eternal separation.
Next, “I’ve made my home next door to you” was another attempt by Ghalib to immortalize his beloved, in this case, the Hindu courtesan, through the use of ghazal and the constant repetition of “without a word being said.” Two versions of the same poem do not differ much but the addressing subject. In the secular version, it was “she” and in the sacred version, it was “He” (capitalized). Could Ghalib be comparing his worldly courtesan to some form of God, thus immortalizing her and asserting his deepest feelings to her? Moreover, the phrase “without a word being said” at first seemed to imply how emotional attachment could eliminate the needs for words, or, it’s more important how people feel towards each other rather than what’s being said. However, as the poem progressed, conflicting themes begins to appear, as no one can apparently get away without saying ‘tormentor’ or ‘infidel.’ What are the words implying? Could the idea of the courtesan be ‘tormenting’ Ghalib, forty years after her premature death? Could the idea of an emotionally powerful relationship between the Islamic Ghalib and Hindu courtesan be a sin of ‘infidelity’? The only words that needed to be said were so painful and unfaithful. Either way, Ghalib was not only deeply and everlastingly pained by the courtesan’s death, but because of the many other conflicting attributes that he could not fathom for himself.
Finally, in “Now go and live in a place”, there is a deliberate mention of severing all human interaction and dying alone. Could this be the solution that Ghalib was seeking to end all the griefs and scars that death and separation had on human beings? He did not want anyone to ‘fathom [his] verse” (line 2), “share [his] speech” (3), “keep [him] company” (4), ‘keep [him] safe” (4) or “mourn [him] there” when he died. Indeed, after much sufferings from emotional attachment and eternal separation, Ghalib just wanted to a peaceful and solitary dead, no more sufferings for both himself and other people. Thus, the conflicting themes in his poetry proves Ghalib to be a person who was constantly torn between his emotions, ideologies and situations.
As influential and unique of a writer as he was, Ghalib “argued for a secular merger in shared ways of everyday life” and believed that “being human was more essential than, and prior to, being either Muslim or Hindu, believer or infidel”. What he is trying to convey, in my opinion, is that devoting life to religion and continuing to show affection to a divine deity is not the way one should live. Strong devotion to religion will only suppress an individual and refrain themselves from living a more prosperous life. Ghalib’s perception of a prosperous life is reflected by the numerous ghazals that he himself established. These ghazals adhere to the connection between romanticism and divinity. Conclusively, Ghalib provides the notion that romanticism can only be experienced with the hindrance of divinity and the art of devotion.
Life shouldn’t be driven by the dependence on God. Merely devoting one’s self to religion is immoral because God himself is “that Idol of an Infidel” (Line 18). In stating that “God himself is not faithful to the faith that focuses on him” (Footnote 5), why should the average man hold dependence and devotion towards Him? This question is explained thoroughly in, “My tongue begs for the power of speech”, where Ghalib transitions from praising the gifts that God provides man to the same gifts that torment and bring misery to their lives. The speaker accepts the gift of voice or the “power of speech” given by God. But, the power of speech is hindered by the simultaneous gift of silence. What Ghalib is trying to hint at is that this gift is contradictory along with the many gifts that God provides man. The reason being that through the power of speech, “silence gets its style of representation” (Lines 4-5). The gifts that God gives include the “melancholic weeping of disappointment” (Line7-8), “the blood of slaughter’s victims” (Line 17), “the flood of tears” (Line 22), and “the colors of grief” (Line 23). These “gifts” allude to the disappointment and sorrow-filled lives of humans. The contradiction stated above is envisioned through the fact that “devotion is the veil” (Line 31). In other words, if man continues to devote their lives to God, they can only expect more grief and agony. And what can God do in regards to these terms? He can only remain hidden under the veil, “hidden from human eyes”. Man’s devotion is compared to a “farce-like search for mercy” (Line 37). Because God is hidden under that veil, devotion is of no value, and it is only left to mockery. God does not hold the answers to life, He only, according to Ghalib, “keeps our hubris hidden” (Line 32).
Ghalib’s use of this highly structured form, ghazal, influences the meaning of his poems. The refrain concept of the ghazal, where a line is stated repeatedly, is evident in three significant poems, “My tongue begs for the power of speech”, “It was essential”, and “I’ve made my home next door to you”. These redundant phrases emphasize the general message that Ghalib seeks to convey. They are the foundation of his poems. The message that he wants to convey refers to his views on religion and his perspective on God. In staying alive “for a few more days”, Ghalib has the opportunity to critique his religion. In continuing to “wish for death for few more days” (Line 60), Ghalib is able to make his voice be heard and use “the power of his speech” to criticize the gifts that God provided for man, to unravel God from beneath the “veil.” The statement “Your gift to us” is the means by which Ghalib ridicules the devotion of man to God and God’s inability to provide for man. Ghalib establishes himself “without a word being said”. In adding to his critique, Ghalib does not seek permission from God in letting his voice be heard. He hints at the fact that man is superior to God when he states, “You still can’t find my whereabouts without my help, without a word being said” (Line 3-4). The ghazals are the transitions of Ghalib’s thoughts from one context to another. They stem from his desire in wanting to stay alive, so that he can criticize God and his devotees, and do so by the power of his own authority. This sheer brilliance of a man is what makes Ghalib unique. He has the ability to express his ideas across the borders of his poems. Normally, a poet’s thoughts and ideas are secluded in one poem. But, Ghalib breaks the barriers in shifting his ideas, in this case, across three different poems.
Ghalib’s love for poetry and his belief that this form of literature is exceptional to all others is also recognized in the works of Emily Dickinson. In poem 657, Dickinson “dwells in possibility”, which is a “fairer house than prose” because it is “more numerous of windows- superior- for doors” (Line 1-4). The poet views poetry as a means of opportunity, to bring oneself to light, and attain betterment. The metaphorical comparison made between doors and poetry, and not windows, alludes to the idea that poetry establishes a broad path in attaining that opportunity, whereas windows merely show a glimpse of that same opportunity and prevents one from properly obtaining it. In, “Petition: My Salary”, Ghalib definitively states that, “it’s a violation of etiquette not to praise poetry” (Line 31-32). Therefore, poetry holds a substantial value to Ghalib because it has the ability to “rain down pearls” (Line 30).