@Pandit:

Provocative no doubt, but quite incorrect in many an interpretation I'm afraid. Lets take this up point by point.

First, this documentary is not an eulogy. I'd suggest you see the documentary first. It is not about Tagore or Gandhi but about the interactions of the two giants. - If it is your case that Tagore and Gandhi were not the intellectual icons of 20th Century India - I would in all humility beg to disagree with you.

Second, any famous person, particularly one of the stature of Rabindranath, will have to face a barrage of criticism, and an analysis of every word he wrote or spoke, often out of context. This set of quotes appear just that. Most of the articles themselves are not as critical as you post appears to have made them out to be.

Third, to say that Tagore was not a philanthropist is a travesty of truth. He may not have founded schools in the villages but he used all his own funds as well as income from his zamindari to found Vishwa Bharati. I'd say that is a far bigger act of philanthrophy and vision than a few small schools - even though schools are admittedly important.

Fourth, Tagore can be judged on his poetry and public statements, but when you discuss his personal affairs, you can't fully isolate him from the milieu he lived in. You seem to be judging the man from late 20th century ethical perspective quite forgetting that he was really a man of the late 19th and early 20th century.

Fifth, The implication that Tagore was communal is ridiculous. See Tagore's role in the partition of Bengal 1905. Every bit of his activity was inclusive and not separatist. His poetry may be full of Hindu imagery, but I have never found an overt criticism of Islam in it. Nor did he covertly or overtly support anti-islamist groups. He hated Hindu extremism as well. So what if he was a devout Hindu? Does secularism imply atheism? I don't think so.Also on this topic, anyone who claims that Tagore did not manifest the ideals of the non-iconic Brahmo Samaj probably has not read or heard his beautiful Brahmo Sangeet or is hell bent on proving something that simply did not exist.

Sixth, That Tagore was more influenced by Indian History than History of Bengal is something inevitable. This was the time when the History of India was being written. The time of Vincent Smith etc. How much of the past history of Bengal was known then? How much of history of Bengal do you find in the history books of 19th century when Tagore ws a student? Please be fair in your criticism.

Seventh, Sure the Tagores were as oppressive a zamindar as most others. True the Tagores indulged in arson and excessive taxation (although evidence suggests that Rabindranath himself was never as oppressive as his peers and that he did invest in his estates). What has his role as a Zamindar got to do with his creative genius anyway?

Eighth, Tagore never did set himself up as a national political leader. In fact he shunned active politics at all times except the Bengal partition of 1905. He was much more the poet philosopher. So when you become critical of his role in national politics, keep that perspective in mind as well..

Ninth, Tagore married a woman much younger than himself. And if tradition is to be believed, he loved the company of intelligent and pretty women. So what? Why do we raise a mortal to God-like levels? BTW in Tagore's time 15 was a very old age for women to be married. Also if it were not for the Brahmo Samaj, female literacy and freedom to work would still be in its infancy in Bengal. Finally, Tagore wrote one of the most devastatingly critical short stories on marriages (incl. child marriages) in his contemporary Bengal. Re-read Stree'r Patra and you will understand.

Tenth, Of course Tagore was ego-centric. So was Picasso, Gandhi, Alexander and every genius in history. If that is a besetting sin, then condemn every great figure of history to the dustbin. Each one of them, even Jesus and Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, had ego-centric moments.

Finally about 'Jana Gana Mana'. Don't forget it came after a bitter (and successful) struggle to get the partition of Bengal annulled. Don't forget also that this was one of the earliest instances of non-violent struggle against authority and came much before the Gandhi led movement. Don't forget that this was not a time when India demanded freedom. (It wasn't a formal demand till the Lahore Convention!) Don't forget that Gandhi too declared himself a loyal British citizen at one stage. Don't forget that even in 1935 the Congress and the League were just looking for Dominion Status not full independence. And finally, don't forget that Tagore didn't ask anyone to make Jana Gana Mana the national anthem of India. He died much before that decision was taken.

Its fashionable to criticise. Critical appreciation is also welcome because it sometimes brings out facets which would not be clear otherwise. But to criticise without taking into account "Sthan Kaal Patro" as we say in Bengali would be equally incorrect.

PS: Ovezealousness can work both ways :-)