Core Ethics Vol. 5 (2009)

研究ノート

A Comparison of Tagoreʼs Nationalism and Sun Yat-senʼs The Three
Principles of the People from the Perspective of Nationalism
NIU Geping*

1. Introduction
Rabindranath Tagore (1861-1841), a major Indian literary and intellectual figure, was the first Asian writer
to become a Nobel laureate,1 and is highly regarded as the spiritual guide of Indiaʼs national liberation
movement. Sun Yat-sen (1866-1925) is the founding father of the Republic of China and of the Chinese
Nationalist Party (or Kuomintang). Even after the establishment of the Peopleʼs Republic of China in 1949, Suncontinues to be lauded as ʻthe forerunner of the Chinese revolutionʼ.2 These two Eastern countriesʼ similar
situation of being oppressed by Western imperialism incited both Tagore and Sun to enquire into the essence ofWestern nation states and the mechanisms of their imperialist expansion, in order to find a solution for theirown countriesʼ problems. Tagoreʼs Nationalism3 and Sunʼs The Three Principles of the People4 ( 三民主義 ) are two
important works that resulted from enquiry into the West by early modern Eastern scholars.
Tagoreʼs Nationalism is based on lectures delivered during his visit to Japan and the US in 1916-1917. The
text consists of three parts: “nationalism in Japan”, “nationalism in the West”, and “nationalism in India”. Sunʼs
The Three Principles of the People is also based on a series of lectures, but to revolutionary soldiers and students
in Canton in 1924.5 Sunʼs work is also divided into three parts: “the principle of nationalism” ( 民族主義 ), “theprinciple of the peopleʼs sovereignty” ( 民権主義 ), and “the principle of the peopleʼs livelihood” ( 民生主義 ).
Though Sunʼs first principle is translated as ʻnationalismʼ, actually, the English word nationalism has a muchwider meaning than the Chinese word 民族主義 , and nationalism in its broader sense is present through out
the whole of The Three Principles of the People.
Notwithstanding various differences in style and methodology of these two works, we can recognize
essentially three common aspects in their thinking: their understanding of and attitudes towards Western
nation state; the relationship between the West and the East; the problem of the East and, in particular, that of
their own countries. It is in relation to these perspectives, that this paper will explore the similarities anddifferences between Tagore and Sunʼs conceptions of nationalism, in a broad sense of the word. We will startwith what is similar between their approaches before turning to the differences that separate them.

2. Similarities
2.1 The characterization of the Western nation state as a machine
Both Tagore and Sun regard the modern Western nation state as a ʻmachine,ʼ of which individuals
constitute the parts, and whose efficiency and strength explain in turn the strength of the nation.
Nation is the core concept in Tagoreʼs Nationalism, and he gives a clear definition of it. ʻA nation, in the

キーワード：タゴール、孫文、『ナショナリズム』、『三民主義』、ナショナリズム
＊立命館大学大学院先端総合学術研究科

2007年度入学

共生領域

463

Core Ethics Vol. 5（2009）sense of the political and economic union of a people, is that aspect which a whole population assumes whenorganized for a mechanical purpose.ʼ6 Or again, ʻWhat is the Nation? It is the aspect of a whole people as anorganized power.ʼ7 Tagore emphasizes that the Nation is a mechanical organization of the whole population. The
purpose of this mechanical organization is to become strong and efficient, and hence powerful. With the help ofscience, this political organization has gained its perfection and became the ruling force of society. Individuals
become parts of the machine, organizing themselves to gain wealth and power; they transfer their responsibility
to this machine, and feel a moral satisfaction at having done their job for the Nation.
Sun for his part does not resort to a unique term to describe Western nation states. He employs, instead,commonly used terms like ʻGreat Powersʼ, ʻpowersʼ, etc. In his sixth lecture on the principle of peopleʼssovereignty, Sun also describes the Western state as machine.

ʻWestern statesmen and students of jurisprudence now speak of government as machinery and of law
as an instrument. A great many Chinese books on government and law are translations from theJapanese. The Japanese have given government organization the designation of Chi-kuan (organ, or
bureau). Chi-kuan means the same thing as the common word “machinery” in China; ... But what is thedifference between political machinery and manufacturing machinery? Manufacturing machinery ismade entirely of material things... political machinery is constructed of human beings ...ʼ8

One of Sunʼs fundamental arguments is that a nation can only become wealthy and powerful when the stateʼsmachinery becomes complete, strong, and all powerful.

2.2 The injustice of the Westʼs oppression of the East
As far as the relation between the East and the West is concerned, both Tagore and Sun point out the factthat the East has been oppressed by the West, and strongly criticize the injustice of the Western Powersʼ
imperial invasion and domination of the East.
According to Tagore, the international system contains two types of relationships, those among fellow
Nations in the West, and those between Western Nations and Eastern No-nations. Tagore argues that Western
civilization has characteristics of exclusiveness and aggressiveness. Nations permanently try to keep each otherin check through armament and diplomacy. ʻEach nation has its own history of thieving and lies and broken
faith, therefore there can only flourish international suspicion and jealousy, and international moral shame
becomes anaemic to a degree of ludicrousness.ʼ9 Nations also fight among themselves for the control of
No-nations. Using the example of his home country India, Tagore strongly criticizes the Nationʼs colonial rule ofNo-nation.
ʻWhile the small feeding-bottle of our education is nearly dry, and sanitation sucks its own thumb indespair, the military organization, the magisterial offices, the police, the Criminal Investigation
Department, the secret spy system, attain to an abnormal girth in their waists, occupying every inch of
our country. ... the Nation of the West forges its iron chains of organization which are the mostrelentless and unbreakable that have ever been manufactured in the whole history of man.ʼ 10
Concerning colonial oppression of Indiaʼs economy, Tagore writes:
ʻThe nations have decreed that we must remain purely an agricultural people, even forgetting the useof arms for all time to come. Thus India is being turned into so many predigested morsels of food readyto be swallowed at any moment by any nation which has even the most rudimentary set of teeth in its
head.ʼ11
Sun also, talks of the Western political and economic oppression to which China has been subjected.

464

NIU A Comparison of Tagoreʼs Nationalism and Sun Yat-senʼs The Three Principles of the People from the Perspective of Nationalism

Politically, China has lost much of its territory to the imperial invasion by the Great Powers. According to him,
the military force of any one major Power is sufficient to destroy China rapidly and the only reason China still
exists as a country is because there is a balance of power among the Great Powers present in China.
Economically, China suffered great losses due to, 1) the invasion of foreign goods; 2) the domination of foreignbanks, 3) foreign freight charges, 4) taxes, rents, and land sales on settlements and ceded areas, 5) special
privileges of foreign private business, and 6) foreign speculation. This economic domination was backed up bypolitical imperialism when necessary. As a result, he writes, ʻthe living problems of Chinese people are daily
more pressing, the unemployed are daily increasing, and the countryʼs power is, in consequence, steadily
weakening.ʼ12
In late 1924 he gave a speech entitled ʻGreat Asianismʼ ( 大アジア主義 ) in Kobe, Japn, in which he strongly
criticizes Western culture as pa-tao ( 覇道 ) or the way of might. ʻEuropeans are oppressing our Asians throughforce of arms. And because of that, our Asia can not progress!ʼ13 ʻThe minority of four hundreds million(Europeans) are oppressing the majority of nine hundreds million (Asians), which is against the great way ofjustice!ʼ14

2.3 The morality of Eastern culture
They also both emphasize the moral value of Eastern civilization, in opposition to the utilitarian andaggressive aspects of Western civilization. According to Tagore, Asia developed its own civilization which isbased on the moral and spiritual ideals of man. ʻWe have our aspiration for a reality... that goes beyond death,giving it a meaning, that rises above all evils of life, bringing its peace and purity, its cheerful renunciation ofself.ʼ15 According to him, the history of India is that of constant adjustments and efforts to attain the spiritual
unity of all races there. Concerning the international relationships that existed in the Eastern civilization,
Tagore says, ʻI cannot but bring to your mind those days when the whole of Eastern Asia from Burma to Japanwas united with India in the closest tie of friendship, the only natural tie which can exist between nations.
There was a living communication of hearts...ʼ16 Tagore emphasizes that, ʻthe civilization, whose basis is society
and the spiritual ideal of man, is still a living thing in China and in India.ʼ17
Sun also argues that European civilization is only superior in scientific and material advances, not in
morality and political philosophy. Ancient China had already attained a high standard of morality, which
included loyalty, filial devotion, kindness, love, faithfulness, justice, love of harmony and peace, etc. China had
also invented a discriminating and comprehensive political philosophy, which calls upon a man to culture anddevelop “from within outward”.18 And Sun emphasizes that the morality of peace loving is a natural dispositionin Chinaʼs relations with foreign nations. In his lecture ʻGreat Asianism,ʼ Sun claims that Asian culture is thatof the royal way ( 王道 ), which does not oppress other nations but influences others by the morality of
benevolence and justice ( 仁義道徳 ).

3. Differences
Notwithstanding these similarities, there are clear and deep differences between the works of Tagore andSun. The most important one is that Tagore strongly criticizes nationalism, while Sun speaks highly of it. There
are major differences in regard to their attitude towards the nation state, their understanding of the nature ofWestern imperial oppression, as well as their views on the specific problems of their respective countries.

3.1 The attitude towards the mechanical character of the Western nation state
Even though both Sun and Tagore see the Western nation state as a machine, they have opposite attitudes

465

Core Ethics Vol. 5（2009）

towards it. Sun highly praises the efficiency and strength of the state machinery in the West. When discussing
the establishment of the United States and the role of Bismarck in the formation of modern Germany, he argues
that the US and Germany became the wealthiest and most powerful countries in the world, because theysucceeded in setting up strong central governments and uniting formerly separate regions into a single nation.
Sun believes that the welfare of the people depends mostly on the strength and efficiency of the statemachinery. Though he mentions the concern that this machine might grow too powerful to be controlled by thepeople, he assumes that this problem can be solved by a better system of democracy. He believes that throughhis own theory of democracy, ʻwe will be able to realize the ideal of an American scholar ― an all-powerful
government seeking the welfare of the people.ʼ19
Sun thinks highly not only of Western state machinery but also nationalism. Nationalism, he says, ʻis thatprecious possession by which humanity maintains its existence.ʼ20 According to Sun, the strength and power of
those great powers were built on their spirit of nationalism.
While being wealthy and powerful is the aspect of the Western nation which Sun praises, the inhumanity of
the Nation is the object of Tagoreʼs criticism. Though both Sun and Tagore see the fundamental role of science instate machinery, they have very different understandings of that role. Sun speaks highly of the progress ofscience in the West. He believes that scientific methods can further perfect the state machinery and allow us tosolve the problem of an uncontrollably powerful state. To the contrary, Tagore argues that scientificorganizations can only strengthen our power, but can not increase our humanity. Science can find the laws ofthings and put them to use, but science itself is not manʼs nature. ʻWe all know that intellect is impersonal. Ourlife and our heart are one with us, but our mind can be detached from the personal man and then only can it
freely move in its world of thoughts.ʼ21
For Tagore, the purpose of the Nation, the mechanical organization created by science, is to become strong
and sufficient, to pursue wealth and power. This is not too much different from Sunʼs understanding of thefunction of the modern nation state. The difference lies in that Sun evaluates that goal positively, while Tagore
rejects it. Tagore argues that when political and economic organization becomes all-powerful, the personal andmoral men are giving way to the political and economic man and reduced to ʻwar-making and money-making
puppets.ʼ ʻEverything becomes a revolution of policy carried out by the human parts of the machines, with notwinge of pity or moral responsibility.ʼ22 According to Tagore, in the absence of human ideals, power becomessomething too abstract; the living bonds of society are breaking up; the relationships of men become utilitarian.
As a result, conflicts arise between man and woman, capital and labor, individual and state, etc. Tagore says, ʻinthat state of intoxication we live in a world of abnormality where our strength is not health and our liberty is
not freedom. Therefore political freedom does not give us freedom when our mind is not free.ʼ23
Japan, an Eastern country which had followed the way of the West with success, was a special concern forboth Sun and Tagore. Sun lauded Japan as an excellent model for China. He says that Japan successfully
united the interest of feudal lords to form a Yamato race, and with the spirit of Yamato race, Japan havesuccessfully learned the scientific methods of state-building from the West and became as strong as other GreatPowers. ʻThe genius of the Yamato race has shown no decay; riding upon the advance of European civilization,
and acclimatizing themselves to the culture of the West, they have employed the new methods of science tofurther their state, and have become so modernized in half a century that they are now the strongest nation in
the East, on a par with the nations of Europe and America.ʼ24
Tagore also praises Japan for being the first Eastern country to break through the confinement of old
habits, thus giving hope to the rest of Asia. But Contrary to Sun, Tagore exhorts Japan to remain truthful to her
ideals of humanity and not to accept Western civilization with all its tendencies, methods, and structures.
ʻJapan cannot altogether lose and merge herself in the scientific paraphernalia she has acquired from the West

466

NIU A Comparison of Tagoreʼs Nationalism and Sun Yat-senʼs The Three Principles of the People from the Perspective of Nationalism

and be turned into a mere borrowed machine.ʼ25

3.2 Understandings of the nature of the Westʼs oppression of the East
3.2.1 SunSun uses the term imperialism to describe the Great Powersʼ oppression of weak and small nations. He
defines it as ʻthe policy of aggression upon other countries by means of political force.ʼ26 Sun argues that theGreat War (the First World War) was caused by the imperialistic rivalry of Great Powers, and ʻthe effect of thewar was merely the overthrow of one imperialism by another imperialism, what survived was still imperialism.ʼ27
Sun also interprets the Westernʼs powersʼ oppression of the weak nations of the East as the aggression ofwhite races on other races. Sun emphasizes time and again that under the Great Powersʼ oppression, the main
danger facing China is ʻthe loss of our country and the annihilation of our raceʼ. China, he says, has been in
history twice subjected by smaller peoples, the Mongolian and Manchu respectively, but both were ultimately
absorbed by the Chinese majority. However, the situation this time is much different. In the past one hundredyears, the population of the Great Powers has increased several folds, argues Sun, while that of China has notincreased at all. Sun warns that if this tendency continues, the Chinese people will become a minority andmight be absorbed or destroyed by other races.
China must find a solution to this pressing problem and, according to Sun, that solution is nationalism. As
mentioned earlier, he believes that it is nationalism that allowed Western countries to build united states andto become strong and wealthy. To the opposite, because China has lost its nationalism, the Chinese people
remain ʻa sheet of loose sand.ʼ Hence in order to survive and to become strong and wealthy, China must follow
the model of the West, it must revive its lost nationalism and build a united nation.
For Sun, nationalism is a precious possession, but imperialism is evil. It seems that once a nation has built
a strong state machinery and become powerful by following the Western model, it can then, as far as its
relationships to other nations are concerned, choose between imperialism and peace, between might or right.
Furthermore, only those who have succeeded developing into a strong state can have this choice. This is clear in
his attitude towards Japan. On the one hand, Sun applauses Japanʼs learning from the West and becomingstrong. He offers it as a model for other Asian nations to imitate. On the other hand, he urges Japan not tofollow the imperial route of the West, which leads to the oppression of other nations. At the end of his ʻGreat
Asianismʼ lecture in Kobe, Sun says, ʻthe Japanese people has already attained the culture of the way of mightfrom Europe and America, it is still maintaining the Asian culture of the royal way. As for the coming future of
the world culture, whether Japan will ultimately become the warrior of the Western way of might, or the
defender of the Eastern royal way, depends on you Japanese people to consider and chose.ʼ28
Sun highly praises socialist Russiaʼs fight against imperialism and capitalism for the cause of justice andequality. He predicts that there will be another world war, which will be a war between might and right,
between the oppressors and the oppressed.

3.2.2 Tagore
Unlike Sun, Tagore has not even mentioned the concept of imperialism. For him, nationalism is the culprit
of conflicts among Nations, as well as of the Western Nationsʼ oppression of Eastern No-nations.
Different from Sun, who emphasizes the positive role of nationalism in state building, Tagore sees the
manifestation of it more in the Nationʼs dealing with alien peoples. Tagore argues that the spirit of conflict andconquest is at the core of nationalism. Nationalism is sowing all over the world the seeds of fear, greed,suspicion, and moral shame. He describes the situation in the following way:

467

Core Ethics Vol. 5（2009）

nations fearing each other like the prowling wild beasts of night-time; shutting their doors of
hospitality; combining only for purpose of aggression or defense; hiding in their holes their trade
secrets, state secrets, secrets of their armaments; making peace-offerings to each otherʼs barking dogs
with the meat which does not belong to them; holding down fallen races which struggle to stand upon
their feet; with their right hands dispensing religion to weaker peoples, while robbing them with theirleft.ʼ29
Tagore describes the idea of the Nation as ʻone of the most powerful anesthetics that man has invented.ʼ30
Nationalism under the name of patriotism is poisoning the foundation of humanity and cultivating moral
blindness. ʻWhere the spirit of western nationalism prevails, the whole people is being taught from boyhood tofoster hatreds and ambitions by all kinds of means... It is holding up gigantic selfishness as the one universal
religion for all nations of the world.ʼ31 Filled with the arrogance of their own superiority and contempt forothers, peoples blindly go on harming other peoples without feeling any uneasiness bothering their conscience.
While Sun worries that Chinese race might be annihilated, Tagore does not seems to have the least concernthat the British Nation might destroy or absorb the races of India.32 Since the Nation has to feed on the
resources of the No-nation, its interest is not in destroying the No-nation, but in keeping it alive and weak
forever. What Tagore strongly criticizes is the inhumanity of the Nationʼs rule over the No-nation. According tohim, this inhumanity results from the nature of the Nation which is the organized self-interest of a whole
people. ʻThe government by the Nation is neither British nor anything else; it is an applied science andtherefore more or less similar in its principles wherever it is used.ʼ 33 With the scientific perfection andbloodlessness of the government by the Nation, each individual of the ruled country is in the relentless grip of
the Nation, and their power is atrophied at the root. ʻWhat comes to us in the shape of a mere bloodless policy
may pierce into the very core of our life, may threaten the whole future of our people with a perpetual
helplessness of emasculation...ʼ34
Thus for Tagore the origin of all evil is Nation and nationalism. In order to solve the problem of Nationʼsgovernment of No-nation, Nation as such must be denied. Tagore is against nationalism not only in Nations, butalso in No-nations seeking to escape the rule of Nation, including his home country India. ʻThe newly converted
fanatic of nationalism answers that ʻso long as nations are rampant in this world we have not the option freely
to develop our higher humanity. We must utilize every faculty that we possess to resist the evil by assuming it
our selves in the fullest degree.”35 This Tagore regards as the imitation of the worst aspect of the West.
Again, distinct form Sun who praises Japanʼs nationalism while rejects its turning to imperialism, Tagore
rather urges Japan not to accept as its religion the organized selfishness of nationalism. For Tagore,
nationalism will not only destroy the moral and spiritual ideals of its own people, but also will definitely lead toinvading other nations. Tagore also realized that this was exactly what was happening in Japan. ʻI have seen in
Japan the voluntary submission of the whole people to the trimming of their minds and clipping of theirfreedom by their government... The people accept this all-pervading mental slavery with cheerfulness and pride
because of their nervous desire to turn themselves into a machine of power, called the Nation, and emulate
other machines in their collective worldliness.ʼ36
Thus while Sun believed that the problem could be solved through weaker countriesʼ turning themselves
into nation states and then fighting against the evil nations in the West, Tagore completely denies thisjustification of Nation and nationalism. He says, ʻthe western nations are following that path of suicide, where
they are smothering their humanity under their immense weight of organization in order to keep themselves in
power and hold others in subjection.ʼ37 Tagore prophesies that this situation cannot go on forever. ʻThe
lumbering structure of modern progress, riveted by the iron bolts of efficiency, which runs upon the wheels of468

NIU A Comparison of Tagoreʼs Nationalism and Sun Yat-senʼs The Three Principles of the People from the Perspective of Nationalism

ambition, cannot hold together for long. Collisions are certain to occur.ʼ38 He sees the European War as the
beginning of further collisions.

3.3 Their social ideals and the understanding of their own countriesʼ problems
The difference between the attitudes of Sun and Tagore on nationalism is closely related to their different
social ideals and their understanding of their own countriesʼ problems.

3.3.1 Tagore
The social ideal of Tagore is not a political civilization, like that of the West, but social civilization, which hebelieves exists in the No-nations of the East. According to Tagore, social civilization is based not on science, buton the moral and spiritual ideals of man; its ultimate purpose is not the limitless accumulation of wealth andpower, but the harmonious growth and completion of humanity. In social civilization, men come into close
contact with one another through their higher nature of sympathy, and develop their social ideal in theirrelationships of mutual help and cooperation. For the harmonious development of man, the social ideals
regulate manʼs lower passions on the one hand, and cultivate disinterested human love on the other. Tagore
argues that the spirit of cooperation is the source of true greatness.
The real problem of this civilization, according to Tagore, lies in outdated social habits and ideals, whichhave their origin in the inertia of human mind. ʻThe tendency of mind is economical; it loves to form habits andmove in grooves which save it the trouble of thinking anew at each of its steps. Ideals once formed make themind lazy. It becomes afraid to risk its acquisitions in fresh endeavors.ʼ39 To solve the problem, men must havethe courage to break through the confinements of outdated social habits, and to evolve their social ideals
together with the growing and changing of life.
According to Tagore, the problem which India has been constantly facing is the race problem. Tagore argues
that India is ʻmany countries packed in one geographical receptacle.ʼ40 India has accepted, he says, with thespirit of toleration this racial diversity from the beginning of its history and had tried experiments to evolve asocial unity. ʻShe has tries to make an adjustment of races, to acknowledge the real differences between themwhere these exist, and yet seek for some basis of unity. This basis has come through our saints...preaching one
God to all races of India.ʼ41 Tagore emphasizes that India was a no-nation. Indiaʼs history is the history of its
social life and attainment of spiritual ideals, not that of the rise and fall of kingdoms. What truly belonged tothe people there were their homes, fields, temples, schools, and their village governments; thrones of the kings
were not their real concern.
Tagore also agrees that India has not achieved a full measure of success in dealing with this problem. The
caste system recognized differences but failed to realize the law of change; it gave the negative benefit of peace,
but not the positive possibility of expansion and movement. With time, the caste system had stiffened; life had
departed from it. The rigid boundary of class classification and tyrannical social restrictions were not only
imposing ʻthe galling yoke of inferiorityʼ upon those of lower castes, but also paralyzing the ʻliving natureʼ ofthose educated, making them insensible of the real needs of the society.
Tagore argues that its own social weakness explains why India could not cope with the invasion of Western
Nations. He criticizes Indian nationalists as socially conservative and politically radical. They have no
sympathy with the special problem of India, believing its social system is perfect and all miseries were caused
by outsiders. They are, he says, trying to ʻbuild a political miracle of freedom upon the quicksand of social
slavery.ʼ42 The weakness of a social system will become a source of danger in politics. ʻThe same inertia whichleads to our idolatry of dead forms in social institutions will create in our politics prison-house with immoveable
walls.ʼ 43

469

Core Ethics Vol. 5（2009）

Tagore argues that historically India remained aloof from politics, which was ʻa mere drift over her surfaceof life.ʼ44 ʻThe solutions of the life problems of peoples were thought out in seclusion and carried out behind the
security of aloofness, where all the dynastic changes and foreign invasions hardly touched them.ʼ45 According toTagore, this seclusion was lost forever when India was overtaken by the Nation. Thus, in order to solve Indiaʼsown problem, the worldʼs problem must also be taken into account. ʻNow the time has come when we must makethe world problem our own problem; we must bring the spirit of civilization into harmony with the history of allnations of the earth.ʼ46
In order to do that, India must remove its outdated social customs and ideals. It must also learn from theWest its rule of law and its ideal of ethical freedom.

ʻEurope has been teaching us the higher obligations of public good above those of the family and theclan, the sacredness of law, which makes society independent of individual caprice, secures for it
continuity of progress, and guarantees justice to all men of all positions in life. Above all things Europe
has held high before our minds the banner of liberty…ʼ47

Tagore argues that if India could assimilate what is universal and permanent in the West, it might bring about
the real reconciliation between the East and the West.
Tagore argues that Indiaʼs problem is that of the world in miniature. If India could solve her own race
problem, she might contribute to solving the world problem. ʻWhat India has been, the whole world is now. The
whole world is becoming one country through scientific facility. And the moment is arriving when you must alsofind a basis of unity which is not political.ʼ48 What Tagore advocates for the world is not a relation among thoseʻgigantic organizationsʼ but the spiritual unity of all human being.
ʻTherefore man will have to exert all his power of love and clarity of vision to make another great moral
adjustment which will comprehend the whole world of men and not merely the fractional groups ofnationality. The call has come to every individual in the present age to prepare himself and hissurroundings for this dawn of a new era, when man shall discover his soul in the spiritual unity of all
human beings.ʼ49

3.3.2 Sun
In contrast to Tagore, who considers that Indiaʼs problem is that of race, Sun believes that China, largely,
has no race problem.

ʻThe Chinese race totals four hundred million people; of mingled races there are only a few million
Mongolians, a million or so Manchus, a few million Tibetans, and over a million Mohammodan Turks.
These aliens races do not number altogether more than ten million, so that, for the most part, theChinese people are of the Han or Chinese race with common blood, common language, common
religion, and common customs---a single, pure race.ʼ50

It seems that, notwithstanding those 10 million minorities, Sun believes China is a ʻpureʼ race and ignores theessential ʻraceʼ problem in China. For Sun, Chinaʼs problem is political. Under the political oppression of theGreat Powers, China is threatened by possible loss of country and annihilation of its race. While Tagore sees
Indiaʼs social problems as the reason why India could not resist the Nationʼs rule, Sun argues that the reason ofChinaʼs weakness and of its inability to resist foreign invasion lies in its lack or loss of nationalism.

470

NIU A Comparison of Tagoreʼs Nationalism and Sun Yat-senʼs The Three Principles of the People from the Perspective of Nationalism

Unlike Tagore, who advocates a social civilization, Sun believes that the happiness and welfare of thepeople depends entirely on politics. His social ideal is to establish an all-powerful government, which would
seek the welfare of the people. This is based on his theory of social evolution. According to him, human society
has been evolving through several periods: the age of wilderness, the age of theocracy, the age of autocracy, andlastly the age of democracy. Human beings have now entered the era of democracy, and the advanced nations of
the West have practiced democracy for more than a hundred years. The problem with democracy, according toSun, is how to establish an all-powerful government that serves all. He refers, as we mentioned earlier to an
American scholarʼs who wrote that, ʻthe great fear of modern democratic states is an all-powerful government
which the people have no way of checking, but yet the finest thing would be an all-powerful government in theemploy of the people and working for the welfare of all the people.ʼ51 Sun believed that this problem could be
solved within the framework of his own theory which advocated separating the political power of the people
from the administrative power of government.
According to Sun, the principle of democracy is similar to the utopian ʻGreat Commonwealthʼ ( 大同社会 )advocated by Confucianism in ancient China. ʻConfucius and Mencius two thousand years ago spoke for peopleʼsrights. Confucius said “when the Great Doctrine prevails, all under heaven will work for the common goal ( 大道之 行 也、 天 下 為 公 ) ”. He was pleading for a free and fraternal world in which the people would rule.ʼ52
Traditional Chinese political thinking recommends to appoint as emperor one who is capable and has a highmorality, like Yao and Shun ( 尭と舜 , the legendary sage kings in ancient China), and to let him take thepolitical responsibility of organizing government and of seeking happiness for the people. The problem is that inreality most emperors in history lacked both capability and morality, cared only about their royal power andmade no effort to promote peopleʼs welfare. In the modern history of China, because its corrupted government
could not resist foreign domination, the Chinese people have been led to a situation of great destitution. Thus
the aim of the Chinese revolution, according to Sun, is to remove the autocratic emperor and to establish ademocratic government that promotes the peopleʼs welfare.
While Tagore says that the East should assimilate the Westʼs spirit of freedom and law, Sun argues that
China must absorb not the Westʼs ideal of freedom and equality, but rather their nationalism. According to Sun,in Europe before their revolutions, a feudal system was still prevailing. Noble titles were hereditary; common
people could not change their occupations and had no freedom of speech, movement, religion, etc. Thus,
European people fought for liberty and equality because they had been under the direct oppression of despotism
and were suffering from inequality and lack of freedom. To the contrary, China broke with feudalism two
thousand years ago. Only the emperorʼs rank remained hereditary (within the same dynasty). Professional
barriers have been entirely destroyed, and it was not totally impossible for a common person to become aminister. Chinese emperors were relatively liberal towards the common people. As long as their royalprerogatives were not challenged, emperors usually left people free to do whatever they desired. Apart frompaying taxes, the Chinese people had little direct relation with the government, and they did not really care
who was the emperor. The problem in China is not that Chinese people had too little freedom, but that they had
too much freedom, and that they lacked an adequate political consciousness. The Chinese people were notdirectly subjected to oppression; rather they have suffered indirectly from the weakness of government. Hence,
the aim of the Chinese revolution is in a sense opposite to that of revolutions in Europe. Its goal is not for the
freedom of the individual, but the freedom of the nation, and the people must sacrifice their personal freedom
for the sake of national freedom.
Sunʼs scheme for the Chinese future is to promote the political unity of the nation with the principle ofnationalism; to establish a strong democratic government resting on the principle of peopleʼ sovereignty; andthen to fight again foreign domination, repudiating unequal treaties, taking back custom rights; and also to471

Core Ethics Vol. 5（2009）

employ state power to promote industries, providing work for all workers. According to Sun, the state must takeresponsibility for providing the necessities of life to the people; and conversely, all people must fulfill their duty
to the nation.
As we have seen, in international relations Tagore advocates the spiritual unity of human beings. Sun, for
his part, calls for a world political civilization where morality reigns in international relations among nations.
According to Sun, after becoming a wealthy and strong nation state under complete, popular rule, China should
pursue “the royal way” in its relation to other nations: checking the strong and helping the weak, uniting theoppressed and fighting against the oppressors. It would thus contribute to the cause of supplanting European
cosmopolitanism (which is supported by force without justice) with the spirit of true cosmopolitanism, and to
the establishment of a world political unity. Contrary to Tagore, who calls on every individual to strive towards
the spiritual unity of humanity, Sun appeals essentially to those who ʻknow and perceive firstʼ, the few
originators or discoverers, to design for the people a complete and all-powerful benevolent government and aworld political order.53

4. conclusion
In conclusion, when nationalism is considered in a very broad sense, many similarities and differences canbe found between Tagoreʼs Nationalism and Sunʼs The Three Principles of the People. First, both insist on themechanical dimension of Western nation state. However, their attitudes towards this state machinery areopposite. While Sun emphasizes that a nation can become strong and wealthy only if its state machinery iscomplete and all-powerful, Tagore strongly criticizes the dehumanizing effect of this mechanical organization.
Second, both of them criticize the injustice of the Westʼs oppression of the East, but they understand the natureof this oppression differently. What Sun criticizes is imperialism, that is, the Great Powersʼ oppression of the
weak and small nations. In the case of China, what worries Sun, are ʻthe loss of the country and theannihilation of the raceʼ. It seems that for him nationalism is good while imperialism is evil. China should
revive its nationalism to build a united and strong nation state, and then to fight the imperialism of the West.
Unlike Sun, Tagore regards nationalism as the culprit of the injustice of the West. Conflicts among Nations aswell as the Nationsʼ suppression of No-nations originate directly from the nature of the Nation, which is thecreature of science and of selfishness. Thus Tagore is completely opposed to nationalism and urges No-nations
not to turn to nationalism for the solution of their problems. The two authorsʼ opposite attitudes towards
nationalism are clearly exemplified by their different commentaries on Japan, Tagoreʼs criticism of Japanesenationalism is in contrast to Sunʼs praise of Japanese nationalism and his cautioning against Japanʼs
imperialist ambitions. Finally, though both of them emphasize the morality of Eastern civilization, they havevery different social ideals and understandings of their own countriesʼ problems. Sunʼs social ideal is thepolitical unity of China, the establishment of an all-powerful government that seeks the welfare of the people.
Sun claims that after China has become wealthy and powerful, it will help the oppressed and fight the
oppressors, promoting an international morality among nations and the political unity of the world. Tagore
believes that there is no future for nationalism other than conflicts and wars among Nations. Tagoreʼs social
ideal is that of a social civilization which is based on the moral and spiritual aspiration of men. According toTagore, Indiaʼs problem can only be solved by removing its outdated caste system and renewing its social ideals.
In this process it is necessary to assimilate the spirit of law and freedom of the West. Tagore argues that bysolving its own problem, India will contribute to solving the world problem. Tagore advocates the spiritual unityof all human beings and urges every individual to strive for it.
In short, it seems that while both Sun and Tagore have realized that the world situation had fundamentally

472

NIU A Comparison of Tagoreʼs Nationalism and Sun Yat-senʼs The Three Principles of the People from the Perspective of Nationalismchanged with the coming into being of Western nation states and their imperialistic expansion, theirinterpretations are very different. Tagore completely denounces Western style nation state and nationalism,
arguing that India cannot solve its own problem separately without solving (at least in part) the worldʼs
problem. Sun, to the opposite, has a positive evaluation of nationalism, arguing that China should follow theWestern model of nationalism and build a strong nation state. While their similar understandings of the world
situation might come from the fact that both India and China were then similarly under the oppression ofWestern imperialism, their almost opposite attitudes towards nationalism seem to have their origin in theirdifferent social ideals: Tagoreʼs concern with the social and spirit ideal of men contrary to Sunʼs emphasis onpolitics.

Notes
１

Tagore was awarded the 1913 Nobel Prize for Literature, mainly due to his own translation from Bengali to English of his poem
Gitanjali (or Songs of Offerings).

２

And Sun is still called ʻthe Father of the Nation ( 国父 ) ʼ by Kuomintang government in Taiwan till now.

３

Tagore, Rabindranath. Nationalism. With an introduction by E. P. Thompson. (New Delhi: Rupa Paperback, 1992).

４

Sun Yat-sen, San Min Chu I The Three Principles of the People, translated by Frank W. Price, (Shaghai: The Commercial Press,
1929).

５

Canton (or Guangzhou), the capital of Guangdong province of China, was then the base of the revolutionary force. Sunʼs lectureson The Three Principles of the People were not finished as originally planned, due to his death in early 1925. Actually, the threeprinciples of the people, as the core and catchword of Sunʼs revolutionary theory, was proposed as early as 1905; and Sun constantly
revised this theory in the following two decades. See Marie-Claire Bergere. Sun Yat-sen. Translated by Janet Lloyd. Stanford,
California: Stanford University Press. 1998
６

Nationalism, p. 51.

７Ibid., p. 86.

８

The Three Principles of the People, pp. 320-321. Chi-kuan in Japanese is 機関 /kikan.

９

Nationalism, p. 70.

10Ibid., p. 60-61.

11

Ibid., p. 96.

12

The Three Principles of the People, p. 54.

13 『孫文・講演「大アジア主義」資料集』 陳徳仁・安井三吉

編

法律文化社

1989, p. 72. This text was never published in English

and all quotations are translated from the original Chinese text of the lecture by myself.
14

Ibid., p. 79.

15

Nationalism. p. 26.

16

Ibid., p. 23.

17

Ibid., p. 25.

18

The Three Principles of the People, pp. 134-135. Here, Sun talks mainly about the famous 8 words (17 Chinese characters) saying in

Confucian classic The Great Learning ( 大学 ) : ʻsearch into the nature of things, extend the boundaries of knowledge, make thepurpose sincere, regulate the mind, cultivate personal virtue, rule the family, govern the state, pacify the world ( 格物、致知、誠意、正心、修身、斉家、治国、平天下 ).
19

The Three Principles of the People, p. 360.

20

Ibid., p. 70.

21

Nationalism, pp. 67-68.

22

Ibid., p. 53.

23

Ibid., p. 93.

24

The Three Principles of the People, pp. 14-15.

25

Nationalism. p. 21.

473

Core Ethics Vol. 5（2009）26

The Three Principles of the People, p. 79.

27

Ibid., p. 84.

28 『孫文・講演「大アジア主義」資料集』 陳徳仁・安井三吉

編

法律文化社

1989

29

Ibid., p. 40.

30

Nationalism. p. 73.

31

Ibid., p. 37.

32

Moreover, as we will discuss later on, actually Tagore does not believe there is a unity of race in India.

33

Ibid., p. 57.

34

Ibid., p. 54.

35

Ibid., p. 63.

36

Ibid., pp. 62-63.

37

Ibid., p. 36.

38

Ibid., p.45．

39

Ibid., p. 18.

40

Ibid., p. 88.

41

Ibid., p. 78.

42

Ibid., p. 94.

43

Ibid., p. 94.

44

Ibid., p. 50.

45

Ibid., p. 29.

46

Ibid.

47

Ibid., p. 44.

48

Ibid., p. 78.

49

Ibid., pp. 80-81.

50

The Three Principles of the People, pp. 11-12

51

Ibid., p. 293.

52

Ibid., p. 169

53

The concept of equality that Sun advocates is the equality of political status. Sun believes that there is no natural equality as far
as individualsʼ natural endowments and gifts are concerned. He inherited the Confucian idea that there are three groups of man

according to their natural endowments, those who “know and perceive first”, those who “know and perceive later”, and finally thosewho “neither see nor perceive”. The third group is said to constitute the majority in a society.

Selected references
Tagore, Rabindranath. Nationalism. With an introduction by E. P. Thompson. New Delhi: Rupa Paperback, 1992.
Sun Yat-sen. San Min Chu I The Three Principles of the People, translated by Frank W. Price. Shanghai: the Commercial Press, Ltd,
1929.
Marie-Claire Bergere. Sun Yat-sen. Translated by Janet Lloyd. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press. 1998.
Benedict Anderson. Imagined Communities Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. London. New York: Verso. 1995.
R. タゴール；『タゴール著作集』第八巻；『ナショナリズム』蝋山芳郎

訳；

第三文明社

1981

孫文；『三民主義』；安藤彦太郎訳；東京 : 岩波；, 1961.
孫文；『孫文・講演「大アジア主義」資料集』；

陳徳仁・安井三吉

竹内好；『日本とアジア』；「タゴールと中国」；ちくま学芸文庫
竹内好；『竹内好セレクション II』；丸山哲史・鈴木将久

編；法律文化社

1989

1993

編；日本経済評論社

2007

西川長夫；報告：『差異とアイデンティティの闘争の先に見えてくるもの＿タゴールの反ナショナリズム論とイリイチの『バナキュラーな価値」を手がかりに』；国際シンポジウム：多文化主義と社会的正義におけるアイディンティティと異なり―コンフリクト / アイデンティ
ティ / 異なり / 解決？―；立命館大学、2008 年 2 月 17 − 18 日
孙中山 / 孙文；『国父全書』第一冊『三民主義』中国国民党中央党史史料編纂委員会編、台北 : 中央人物供応社 , 1965泰戈尔 /Tagore R；『民族主义』；谭仁侠译；北京：商务印书馆，1982

474

NIU A Comparison of Tagoreʼs Nationalism and Sun Yat-senʼs The Three Principles of the People from the Perspective of Nationalism
孙歌；「理想家的黄昏」『读书』1999 年 03 期
韩非；『韓非子校注』；[ 韓非子 ] 校注組校注；南京 : 江蘇人民出版社 , 1982
「于道泉和泰戈尔的故事」, http://www. people. com.cn/GB/paper83/4278/492195.html

475

Core Ethics Vol. 5（2009）

A Comparison of Tagoreʼs Nationalism and Sun Yat-senʼs The Three
Principles of the People from the Perspective of Nationalism
NIU Geping
Abstract:
This paper compares Rabindranath Tagoreʼs Nationalism and Sun Yat-senʼs The Three Principles of the People
from the perspective of nationalism, understood in a broad sense. The similarities and differences of Tagoreʼs
and Sunʼs conceptions of nationalism are explored from three aspects: understandings of the Western nation
state, the relationship between the West and the East as well as the connection between this relationship andproblems specific to their own countries. Concerning the first point, both Tagore and Sun describe the Western
nation state as a machine, but they have radically different attitudes towards it. Concerning the second point,
both criticize the injustice of the Westʼs oppression of the East, but they understand its origin differently.
Concerning the third point, both emphasize the morality of Eastern culture, but they have very different social
ideals and see their home countriesʼ problems differently. In conclusion, while Tagore denies the legitimacy ofthe Western nation state and of nationalism, Sun largely believes that China should follow the Western modeland develop its own nationalism in order to build a strong modern nation state.

Keywords: Rabindranath Tagore, Sun Yat-sen, Nationalism, The Three Principles of the People, nationalism

476