Cosmopolitan Modernity in Early 20th-Century India

The book under review certainly deserves to be recognized as a distinctive study on cosmopolitan modernity. It is distinctive in more than one way. First, it makes a new attempt to understand the meaning and significance of modernity. Modernity does not mean only the revival of reason and rationality associated with progress, the rise of technology, and the formation of nation-states. At its core, it is essentially characterized by a cosmopolitan thinking. Second, the idea of cosmopolitan modernity, instead of being discussed as an abstract topic of philosophical/literary discourse, has been explored in relation to some seminal thinkers whose works and lives exemplify the best of cosmopolitan thinking. They are the true representatives of cosmopolitan modernity. But who are these thinkers, the living testimonies of cosmopolitan modernity? This is where the author has done a tremendously important job. Except for one or two, the thinkers discussed in the book are no longer known figures. Historically, they probably never were well known because their contributions in promoting the culture of cosmopolitanism remained unrecognized, or undervalued as the author puts it. The great merit of this book is that it has brought these forgotten historical figures into the limelight with a detailed study, supported by archival materials, of their works and lives. This, indeed, is a noteworthy intellectual service that expands our horizon of thinking, since it enables us to see how these men approached the world without consideration of boundaries or borders. To see the totality expressed by the world is possible only when we believe that there is an essential unity of mankind. The key to this idea, as the book claims, is the cosmopolitan self that all these thinkers possessed.

The book begins by giving a theoretical explanation of cosmopolitanism. This helps readers to have a clear idea of what cosmopolitanism means, which subsequently enables them to form an idea of what constitutes cosmopolitanism in practice. Cosmopolitanism, although it can signify a wide variety of views in moral and social-political philosophy, has at its core the idea that all human beings should belong to a kind of universal community of world citizens that dispenses with national exclusivity and gender-, racial- or class-based thinking. It is both a way of thinking and a form of practice. The author has made amply clear the need for taking into account both theory and practice in the context of cosmopolitanism. The reason is that the lack of coordination between the two may lead to a lopsided, superficial, elitist view of cosmopolitanism. The six thinkers discussed in this book must be thus viewed as illustrations of cosmopolitanism in its full sense, a sense in which both theory and practice are combined in the best possible way.

The author clears some of the misconceptions associated with cosmopolitanism. First of all, it should not be identified with globalization. If the two are not distinguished, cosmopolitanism will then mean cultural globalization, which the author finds highly problematic on the ground that the true meaning of cosmopolitanism will be lost. Cosmopolitanism is focused on certain segments of society, namely, on the cultural profile of the metropolis. However, it is holistic in nature and thus makes room for all sections of people and social groups, including various ethnic communities and marginalized groups. In this effort, cosmopolitanism never takes tradition and modernity to be mutually exclusive but views them as complementary, thus allowing assimilation and integration between the two. All these internal dynamics as nurtured within the conceptual fabric of cosmopolitanism, as the author argues, allow the idea of a new form and a new conception of citizenship. He calls it cultural citizenship. Cultural citizenship, as evident from the author’s account, becomes the key expression of cosmopolitan thinking. But what is meant by cultural citizenship and how does it relate to cosmopolitan thinking? I think the author’s explanation here is innovative since it attempts to understand cosmopolitanism without resorting to clichés. The best way to understand the term cultural citizenship will be to see it, as the author suggests, in the multicultural context of societies. The two notions which are central to multiculturalism are equality and difference. The notion of cultural citizenship does not deny the differences existing among various social and cultural groups, but at the same time it recognizes them as equal. Respect for others is at the base of the conviction that there is a deep sense of identity running across different societies and cultures. This conviction becomes then the basis for our ethical engagement with the world, where the world is perceived without any form of discrimination, whether racial, gender or economic. Here, the author points out, one cannot fail to notice the component of universality that is implicit in cosmopolitan thinking. But the question here is: How do we understand universality? In this context, the author has made a correct assessment of the nature of universality involved in this cosmopolitan discourse. The notion of universality should not be understood in abstract Kantian terms. Its significance must be seen in relation to particulars. How would the universal demands of cosmopolitanism be contextualized in relation to particulars? That is, how could universality recognize multiplicity? The author rules out cultural relativism as an alternative since it may lead to parochialism. He has tried to answer this question in the light of tradition and modernity. Cosmopolitanism is an attitude of mind that embraces both tradition and modernity. It is a world view that subscribes to modernity, not without tradition but with an enriched tradition. In the author’s language, the “cosmopolitan self combines both tradition and modernity”. One may claim that the six thinkers that he has discussed in this study have uniquely synthesized both tradition and modernity within the fold of cosmopolitanism. The essence of cosmopolitan modernity in both its theory and practice subscribes to an inclusive view of life and culture.

The subjects of the book approached the world from their own standpoints, through their diverse interests. James Cousins was an Irish writer who came to India in the year 1915 and worked closely with Annie Besant because he was deeply inspired by Indian spirituality and Theosophy. Paul Richard was a French mystic, a man deeply committed to the spiritual unity of the world in terms of race, culture and religion. In 1914 he collaborated with Sri Aurobindo to initiate the philosophical journal Arya. Dilip Kumar Roy was a legendary musician who turned towards yoga and spirituality and became a disciple of Sri Aurobindo. Ananda Coomaraswamy was an eminent art critic and art historian who believed that art could bring nations together. Taraknath Das was an exiled Indian revolutionary with a larger vision of the world. And finally, there is Rabindranath Tagore, poet, educationist, world traveller, and Indian nationalist, who championed the East-West dialogue. The most admirable part of the book shows how the issue of cosmopolitanism has been approached by these thinkers in such diverse fields as poetry, art, mysticism, music, and even revolutionary praxis. All committed to a cosmopolitan approach, their methods were as different as their interests and inclinations. In both theory and practice, they exemplified cosmopolitan modernity in early twentieth-century India.

— Amitabha Dasgupta

Amitabha Dasgupta is a former professor of philosophy at the University of Hyderabad.

December 2015