DO THE ENDS JUSTIFY THE MEANS?
The decades long struggle for freedom in India also birthed many-an impassioned debate on the ways and means of achieving the same. Ordinary citizens were faced with questions of enormous impact based on which they even had to gamble their own lives. Rabindranath Tagore’s Ghare Baire tackled just such issues and was written as these events were unfolding around him. When Satyajit Ray made the film, he must have felt that those issues had relevance still, as there was a resurgence of those strong feelings among the public. This has only become more true in the years since the film.
The Seduction Of Easy Nationalism
Told rather innocuously through the tale of a love triangle, the film nonetheless doesn’t leave any doubt in the mind of the viewer that what we are witnessing are the currents of history on an intimate scale.
When Nikhilesh’s friend Sandip comes to stay for a few days, Nikhilesh’s wife, Bimala, has to get used to the presence of another male in the household (other than staff). This creates a level of discomfort, but also interest, in her. As a traditionally cloistered upper class housewife she is used to living under strict codes of secrecy and modesty, never revealing herself to outsiders, especially males.
Her husband doesn’t believe in these mores and actively encourages her towards Western education and progressive thinking. [It should be noted that even western values weren’t conducive to women’s liberty, but perhaps it was still a shade better.] He wants to bring her out of her shell, but he doesn’t seem to wish to cause her discomfort either. He is a soft-spoken man himself, and never behaves in a confrontational manner.
On the other hand, Sandip is a firebrand orator, whose purpose in visiting this village is to deliver a speech on the Swadeshi (translated as “of one’s own land”) cause. For the benefit of those who are unfamiliar with Indian colonial history, the Swadeshi Movement was a non-violent protest against British imported goods in India. By selling British-manufactured products in India, favoured by the policies of the British colonial government, much domestic wealth was drained away from the country. The Swadeshi Movement espoused the cause of discarding, even destroying, British goods in favour of locally produced ones. This was a strong show of civil disobedience and meant to pressure the British authorities to cease their monetary exploitation of Indians.
It is easy to see how much more attractive Sandip is than Nikhilesh, not just physically, but also in terms of charisma and nearly animal magnetism. He bristles with vitality and is blessed with the ability to make anybody he speaks to feel like they are the centre of his world. To use a colloquial saying: he can sell ice-cream to Eskimos. Wherever he goes he has a band of loyal followers ready to do his bidding. The news of his upcoming public rally sends waves through the community, as if it were a celebrity spotting.
On the other hand Nikhilesh comes across as positively limp, barely registering a protest when Sandip dominates every conversation. He doesn’t like how his friend is trying to fire up his tenants (Nikhilesh is a traditional zamindar, or land-owner) yet he meekly gives him permission to hold his event. He constantly has a look of pathos and powerlessness on his face. One even wonders if he can see his wife’s increasing attraction towards the visitor, and if so, then does he have the self-respect to put a stop to it?
But the events of the film go on to show that unlike at first appearance, Sandip is a man whose power of seduction is used for manipulation. When he senses his friend’s reluctance to donate money for his cause, he latches on to Bimala’s naivete in these matters to convince her of the necessity of funds to do his good work. She steals from her husband’s locker and gives the money to Sandip, which is what he intended. Despite living on the hospitality and permission of his friend, Sandip actively rejects his friend’s pleas and compromises his friend’s wife. Once again, Ray cast his favourite actor Soumitra Chatterjee in the role of Sandip, but this time using his good looks to demonstrate how exploitation can come to us with very charming, trustworthy face.
Bimala, as the woman in this love triangle, also stands in for the role of India (nations are very often given female personifications and referred to by feminine pronouns). Her husband, who Tagore wants to specifically show as being the partner who has been with the nation longer, represents the benevolence, non-confrontational idea of civilization. The newcomer, the one who lives only for the present, represents the spirit of revolution. But while Nikhil’s approach be the most balanced when other side is equally invested as you are towards compromise, it may not be practical for causes involving the destinies of hundreds or thousands of people. Those who bring political revolution aren’t enemies of the people, but those who want a spiritual revolution may be proved right in the long run.
As a nation trying to fight for liberty, India first had to wonder what form this liberty was to take. There were freedom fighters who believed in dialogue, above all else, as the way to achieve their ends. There were others who believed that only force could dislodge the colonial rulers. It is very difficult to speculate which of these two would offer the more effective outcome. Furthermore, even if one were to choose one of these paths, the question would then again become – is it better to let our fellow citizens choose, or to round them up to support our cause? In other words, does freedom precede independence or the other way around?
Upper Class Problems And Solutions
Nikhilesh represents the face of dialogue, and that too without forcing even his wife to agree with him. What may look to viewers as weakness, actually contains an immense reserve of strength. This is the man who will not consider forcing his opinion on even the woman he is married to against her will. He has always encouraged her to explore her own personhood, and if that means she wishes to leave him for another, then it would be hypocritical of him to tie her down. He is willing to sacrifice that much just to stand by his principles that each person should make their own choice and stick to it.
On the other hand, Sandip doesn’t think others have a right to determine their own path. This is shown not just in the case of how he manipulates Bimala, but also his work with the villagers. Many of them depend on selling British goods to make a living. Moreover, these goods are cheaper and easier to possess than home-made ones. There also lies an implicit lack of sensitivity in telling a hard-working farmer, or fisherfolk, or potter, to also start weaving their own thread and stitching their own clothes. The principle of Swadeshi was perfectly sound, but to burden the most hard-working ones just presents a different face of oppression to those people.
Both of these individuals belong to the upper classes, and as such represent the truth that the independence movement was led from the front by privileged, upper-caste, men. The common labourers and shopkeepers were expected only to follow along and not ask too many questions or refuse to cooperate. In fact, Sandip is willing to go so far as to burn crops, bomb boats, and cover up the killing of innocent Indians, just to cripple local opposition.
And it is here that one has to wonder, what does freedom mean to different people? From the time India won her freedom, did the poor suddenly become prosperous? Did women finally gain equality? Was casteism eradicated? If not, then why did the poor, the women, the low-castes, sacrifice so much? After all, those who were exploited then, are exploited even now. Does it make much of a difference that they aren’t being exploited by foreigners but by their own brethren? Does it matter to the potter if his money is drained away by the British or by corrupt local authorities?
By presenting Nikhilesh as the counterpoint to Sandip, Tagore seems to indicate that even the zamindar must do what his people want, at least when it comes to matters of the economy. He cannot consent to the burning of goods that comes at no cost to the one burning it, yet at a very high cost to the one whose inventory is being burnt. It may be a flaw in Tagore’s imagination that he doesn’t envision the people being able to fight back on their own without Nikhilesh’s help. This appears to infantilise them, but it could just as well be a reflection of the times. Hoping for a benevolent aristocrat to fight on their behalf was more realistic than rising up in open rebellion against their own upper classes.
Open The Doors
Tagore was an embodiment of the bridge between eastern and western cultures. He was a widely travelled, very well-read man, who was also steeped in the beauty and poetry of his home land. In his words and action, he balanced universal values of justice with local values of culture. Through it all was the belief that to truly understand the home, one needed to see the world.
When Bimala first experiences feelings of conflict in her emotions, it is because she has never lived her life unbounded. She questions whether she loves Nikhilesh because she doesn’t know any man other than him. She doesn’t even have close friends with whom she can share experiences. Later, if she knows love in her heart for her husband, it is only because that love has been tested and survived.
The nation too needs to know what the rest of the world is like before it can see which parts of its own identity are bringing strength and which are bringing misery. Unless one knows the many histories of the world, the many successes and failures, it cannot hope to flourish. When Sandip enters Bimala’s home, he forces her to then follow him outside, something she did not dare to do earlier. Only extenuating circumstances can shake us out of our complacence and force our spirit to develop the strength to weather these changes.
To give credit to Nikhilesh, and by association to Tagore, he seems to know he shouldn’t force his wife to accept change, because then the purpose of self-actualisation will never be achieved. If she has to know herself, she has to do it herself. This may take a lot of time but that’s the only way it will be earned.
It is tragic that in the society we see around us today, and even across the world, many people are attempting to set progress back because they never accepted it on their own. The lessons of humanity were never learned because they were forced on them. While one cannot have infinite patience with one group that resists change while inflicting cruelty on another group that needs that change to bring them out of their misery, it is also likely that any other form of change will eventually collapse.
It is difficult to fully agree with Sandip, because it leads to Nikhilesh’s death. And it is difficult to agree with Nikhilesh as his path seems inscrutably passive. Even Bimala’s passage from home to the world comes at such expense that it is hard to imagine she will not retreat right back into her little coop. To be exposed is also to be vulnerable.
Both the home and the world have been devastated. What remains then? What remains is the spirit to build a better future. This is the only way all the losses will amount to something. Bimala has to survive and go back into the world and continue her husband’s work, if that’s what she believes in, or forge her own path taking a bit from Nikhilesh and a bit from Sandip. Neither alone had the solution, so it could be Bimala who can synthesise the best of both worlds.
Ghare Baire is truly a very complex book and film, and it reveals social and political tensions in every breath. It is difficult for any single essay to cover it all with justice. But the complication is also why it is perhaps the most relevant for viewing even in the 21st century. There are many leaders who are trying to win our attention using just showmanship and charisma, promising easy solutions to national problems. And watching this film, trying to understand Sandip and Nikhilesh, and eventually Bimala, may be one very good way of understanding what we need from ourselves and the world. After all, for many of us what is the Nation? For us there is only home and the world.