Vision that resonates

Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan identified Tagore as a modern interpreter of India's spiritual inheritanceratherthan its guardian. Heunderstood Tagore's global vision not as a closed metaphysical system, but as alivingmoralorientation~ grounded in sympathy, truth, andlove. Radhakrishnan emphasized Tagore'sfaith in the unity ofhumanity and his refusal to lose confidence in human possibility even amid civilizational crisis. For him, Tagore's internationalism expressed a spiritual conviction that ethicalrenewal remained possiblethrough service, sacrifice, and responsibility toward all existence

- ABHIK ROY

At a time when nationalism is once again hardening into moral certainty, and violence is routinely justified in the name of history, identity, or destiny, Rabindranath Tagore's global vision speaks with unsettling clarity. More than a century after he articulated it, scholars across disciplines and generations continue to return to Tagore not as a nostalgic figure of the past, but as a thinker whose ethical warnings, educational experiments, and civilizational imagination remain urgently relevant.

What is striking in serious Tagore scholarship today is not disagreement about his global vision, but a remarkable convergence around its core principles. Thinkers such as Amartya Sen, Bashabi Fraser, Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan, Uma Das Gupta, William Radice, and Saranindranath Tagore ~ alongside biographers who situate Tagore in lived historical context ~ arrive at a shared understanding of Tagore as a moral universalist who placed responsibility to humanity above loyalty to nation, religion, or power.

The scholars are discussed here not alphabetically, but in a conceptual sequence ~ moving from ethical and philosophical foundations, through educational and institutional practice, to modern reinterpretations and lived cosmopolitanism ~ in order to reflect how Tagore's global vision unfolds from moral principle to everyday life.

Across these interpretations, Tagore's critique of aggressive nationalism stands as a central point of agreement. Scholars consistently emphasize that Tagore did not reject cultural rootedness or love of one's homeland; rather, he feared the transformation of national identity into a moral absolute. Nationalism, when fused with collective egoism and political power, threatened to eclipse ethical responsibility and normalize cruelty. This concern, articulated during the age of empire and world wars, now appears tragically prescient.