Rabindranath Tagore rebelled at that thought. He did not, as far as one can make out, put it in terms of the oft-used binary. But that is what his rebellion was about. Rabindranath (he writes o himself in the third person) ‘in his sphere of creativity stands alone, history has not bound him in generality’. He makes an incontestable point that he felt that in his inner life he had freedom, and that he was not ‘just a British subject in the domain of general history’. That is where his inner life was different from that his answer ‘comes from within where I am nothing but a poet. There I am the creator, there I am by the myself, I am free’. 110 He concedes that history brings into being the constituent elements which the creative writer works upon, and some of those elements are generated by the social environment, but the creator is not thereby created. The creator uses those elements and thus reveals his creativity. Tagore argues, or rather declares, that the essential act of creation is explicable in terms of ‘the opaque history of inner self’. Not in terms of external history. Thus Tagore reconciles Freedom and Necessity, demarcating freedom of the inner lif