Rabindranath Tagore’s Geetanjali is a very popular book in China and a bi-lingual edition is
available in all the major book shops. His relationship with China was rather turbulent and it might interest
readers to read some these mixed reactions to his visit to China in 1923, which I have
compiled from various sources.
The Jiangxueshe (Beijing Lecture Association) invited Rabindranath Tagore in
1923 to deliver a series of talks. Tagore visited China in 1924 and delivered a few
lectures. This Association was established in September 1920 in the wake of the
May Fourth Movement. Its main objective was to invite foreign scholars and to
arrange lectures by them for Chinese intellectuals. John Dewey (1859-1952),
Bertrand Russell (1872-1970) and Hans Driesch (1862-1941) were some of those
invited. Though they were exposed to a limited number of intellectuals, they
made a positive impact on the listeners and the public. The invitation to Rabindranath
Tagore created shock waves in the various circles in China and gave way to strong
hostility against him as well as against Liang Qichao (1873-1929), President of
the Association, by the radical student circles and some ultra left-oriented
political leaders.
An American scholar Stephen Hay writing about Tagore’s visit to China
considered it a failure and held Tagore responsible for it. Hay thinks, that
the failure was due to Tagore’s desire to play the role of a prophet rather
than a poet, He also projects the idea that Tagore went to China to propagate
an ideal of the Orient, an ideal of one Asia and the cause of spiritualism
against the materialism of the west. According to Hay, Tagore did not realise
that the idea of the Orient was a gift of the western Orientalist, which was
more a myth than a reality. Every Asian country had its own version of the
Orient and Tagore’s idea of Asia was different
from that of the Chinese. Tagore’s idea of a spiritual rejuvenation of Asia was rejected by both young and old according to Hay—by
the former with crude vehemence and the latter with gentle indifference. Had he
not gone to China as a
prophet and a spokesman of Indian spirituality Tagore would not have met such
humiliation, Tagore left China
with bitter feelings, Hay thinks, rejected by all the students, the scholars,
the politicians and the poets and the artists.
A volume entitled Lun Taige'er (On Tagore),
containing many articles on Tagore written by various Chinese scholars and
political activists during the period between 1921 and 1924, published by Zhang
Guangliang of the Institute of South Asian Studies of the Chinese Academy of
Social Sciences at Beijing in 1983 is a rich source of secondary research.
Ji Xianlin, the Director of the Institute places the
responsibility for this hostility and resentment on the organizers whom he
termed as political reactionaries. He felt that the organizers were trying to
exploit the reputation of Tagore and use him for their further political ends.
They were trying to find some support for their ideology. The inherent
contradictions that he perceived in Tagore’s work and philosophy according to
him created ruckus amongst the scholars and thinkers of the then trouble
wrought Beijing
society. Tagore was an anti-imperialist and intensely patriotic, but he was
also a religious poet and a mystic. His poems and songs did inspire the Indians
in their struggle against foreign rule, his poems and short stories indeed
breathed a universal spirit, but according to Chinese perceptions, strands of
escapism were gleaned in his writings. The Chinese admirers of Tagore wanted to
present him as a mystic without any concern for human suffering, as a writer
engrossed in a world of dream and ethereal beauty without any understanding of
the present reality. This interpretation of Ji Xianlin was partly prompted by a
desire to tone down the severity of the Chinese protest against Tagore.
However plausible such explanations were, they did not justify the extent of
Chinese hostilities against a foreign guest. Though Tagore arrived in China in 1924,
the controversy had broken out in 1923 itself, immediately after the invitation
was announced. Several poets and intellectuals, some of whom were outside China issued
strong words of criticism. They considered his writings a great threat to the
Chinese youth. They did not directly criticize the host organization. The
severity of the radical intellectuals criticism of Tagore makes one think that
either they felt Tagore’s influence on the Chinese youth was already quite
pervasive and that it must be stemmed immediately, or there was a strong
possibility of the Chinese youth being swayed away by the presence of Tagore.
This outlook is also contradicted by Krishna Kripalani, a biographer of
Rabindranath Tagore, who challenges the view that Tagore was known in China. He wrote
that Tagore was not that well known in China at that time. He attributed
the causes to the ignorance of the intellectuals.
Chen Duxiu and Shen Yanbing were amongst those who had translated Tagore
earlier and were the first to introduce him Chinese audiences. However, at the
crucial juncture when the controversy regarding Tagore’s proposed visit broke
out, they were unable to retract their earlier admiration and were almost
forced to issue statements denouncing Tagore to safeguard their own position in
those turbulent times. There were several who believed that Liang was out to
capitalize on Tagore’s visit. Another intellectual Zhang Junmai was also
expected to profit from Tagore’s visit. In spite of his established reputation
thanks to his work Das Lebensproblem in China
und in Europe, he had to issue a statement
that he did not know Tagore earlier and his visit would not benefit him any
way. He hastened to add: “I have come to know that his heart is full of love
and beauty”, he wrote about Tagore, and added that, “Mr Tagore and I have no
connection with each other, and he definitely did not come to China to assist
me.” These statements betrayed the anxieties of Liang and his associates with regard
to their opponents.
Xu Zhimo, a young poet was very enthusiastic about Tagore’e visit. Elmhirst met
him along with another philosopher and educationist Qu Shiying and discussed
Tagore’s possible visit. Xu Zhimo had something to look forward to. Having been
in Cambridge at the time when Tagore’s
reputation in England
was at its zenith and being a lover of Shelley and Keats and of Katherine
Mansfield, Xu Zhimo found in Tagore’s poetry a transcendent inspiration. The Crescent
Moon particularly appealed to him. He was one of the founders of the Xinyueshe
(The Crescent Moon Society) in 1923, launched a monthly journal in
collaboration with his poet friend Wen Yiduo in 1925, called The Monthly Crescent Moon. Even his own
Publishing house was named The Crescent House Publishing house. Xu Zhimo paid
the price for his open admiration of Tagore by being termed an anti-Marxist, a
dangerous tag to have in those days. He joined the ranks and file of the group
which Liang Qichao informally founded with Hu Shi, Xu Zhimo, Zhang Junmai,
Liang Shuming.
All this demonstrates the great stature of Tagore, the poet who obviously
challenged and posed a threat to the radicals. Dewey and Russell were
influential to a limited extent in China,
but Tagore being a poet and playwright, already popular in China, had
greater potentiality of influencing a larger audience. It was but natural that
a strong opposition to Tagore’s visit had to be made.
All the hostility did not stop Tagore from starting the Cheena Bhavan in Santiniketan.
Until today, it continues to be a leading Institution in India providing
students with education in Classical Chinese. That is another story and an
interesting one.
Prof Tan
Yun-Shan as I knew him—an Account by Lama Chimpa
Soon after joining the Visva-BharatiUniversity
in 1962 I had heard of Professor Tan Yun-Shan who was the main figure of
Chinese Studies at Visva-Bharati, than. Fortunately I was invited by him for a
tea party. Finally, a smiling sober gentleman received me saying "Welcome
Lama Chimpa!" on my bowing down to him, "I am Tan Yun-Shan, living
here, looking after this Cheena-Bhavan for a long time." Then he
introduced me to Madam Tan who was as dignified as Professor Tan himself. Both
of them talked nicely as if they were talking to a highly eminent person. Being
much junior to them I felt ashamed and could not say much. Madam Tan told me
about the difficulties to live in Santiniketan. She and Professor Tan reached
Santiniketan by bullock cart from Bolapur and she used to go to Bolapur, a
small township three miles away from Santiniketan just to buy some vegetables,
on foot. "But now we are very happy, we can ride a rickshaw wherever we
go, because of the newly constructed road by the West Bengal Government, one
can even drive a car."
At that time there was not a single car to be seen in
Santiniketan. While I was listening to the senior couple their younger children
walked very well mannered and disciplined in their behaviour. Like their
parents the children were so simple, having no sign of being the children of a
great man. One girl about 18 years wearing a locally made cotton sari,
barefooted, came to me, bowed down touching my feet. Madam Tan said: "This
is my daughter Tan Wen, quite good in her studies." Later on I read in
newspapers that she stood first in Bengali literature in the entire university.
Yes, not only Tan Wen, but all of her sisters and brothers have distinguished
themselves in their studies. On my departure Professor Tan said: As a new comer
let me tell you that you must speak less and that will make your stay here in
Santiniketan very happy."
The English Buddhists monk Sangharakshita remembered
Professor Tan in his book ln the Sign of
the Golden Wheel (Windhorse Publications, Birmingham, 1996, p, 47):
Professor Tan Yun-Shan wore the traditional black dress
of the Chinese scholar. He had been at Cheena-Bhavan since its earliest days,
having in fact been responsible for starting the school and being, even now,
the moving spirit behind the place. He had started it with support of General
Chiang Kai-shek and his Kuomintaug Government. With the defeat of Chiang and
the Nationalist forces by the Communists in 1949, and the former's withdrawal
to Taiwan,
Professor Tan had lost that support, and the nature of Cheena-Bhavan's position
in relation to the government of the People's Republic was unclear. Indeed,
like that of many overseas Chinese, Professor Tan's own position was unclear,
not to say ambiguous, it being rumoured that the new regime in Peking wanted to
replace Chiang Kai-shek's protégé with a nominee of their own. Naturally
nothing of this was said in the course of our meeting. Professor Tan showed me
the Bhavan's collection of Chinese books, the centrepiece of which, at least in
my eyes, was the Taisho edition of the Chinese Tripitaka, the one hundred
thick, closely printed red volumes of which were said to contain more than
1,600 separate Buddhist texts, both canonical and extra-canonical. The
following day I had tea with him, and he showed me his house and garden, which
he evidently had tried to make as much like the traditional Chinese scholar's
house and garden as Indian conditions permitted. Professor Tan had, it seemed,
put down roots in the land of his adoption.
Anyway, all the Santiniketan people know that Professor
Tan Yun-Shan was responsible for collecting the money for the construction of
the huge building Cheena-Bhavan. Elderly people of Santiniketan say that they
have seen Prof Tan physically working with masons standing in the hot sun,
saying, "this building must stand for at least 500 years." So the
noble man was right, even now one can see that not a small piece of plaster has
dropped from this building, standing like a steel construction.
Cheena-Bhavan contains a huge library and many smaller
libraries, class rooms, office and scholars' rooms, meeting halls, garden and
every facilities of a good independent complex. Prof Tan managed to fill the
libraries with good books, tasteful furniture and maintained it as a sacred
place of worship. One has to enter Cheena-Bhavan without shoes. A pleasant
fragrance of incense and disciplined clean surroundings used to welcome the
visitor.
Prof Tan was a good friend of Jawaharlal Nehru. Perhaps
through Nehru, he was invited to Beijing
by Zhou Enlai who presented him a huge quantity of rare books which are
preserved in Cheena-Bhavan.
After Madam Tan's expiry, Prof Tan became so lonely
with all of his children employed at some other places while he himself
retired, from the post of Visva-Bharati. But his evergreen spirit took him to
Bodhgaya where he again started building a huge complex with physical help of
some fellows who turned out to be very crafty and cheated him with much of his
money and in other ways. He expired in Bodhgaya turning his face towards the sacred
temple of the Buddha.