What's new

Why India National Anthem has word "Sindh"

Status
Not open for further replies.
Oh now for god's Sake....its in SANSKRIT but people tend to pronounce it differently based on the state where they come from....and their mother tongue.........

I have to say, some Indian members here are ignorant and sometimes exceed their Pakistani counterparts which is a grand feat in my not so humble opinion..

Jana Gana Mana (Bengali: জন গণ মন, Jôno Gôno Mono) is the national anthem of India. Written in highly Sanskritized (Tatsama) Bengali.

Many Indians deserve better reading than being Keyboard Jockeys of the forum.
 
mataram means mother in sanskrit. So you probably mean Sanskrit flavour. But still mataram doesnt have anything to do with anthem.

We had already debated it on other threads about vander mataram and you know well None of you could prove it its not talking about durga.
 
I have to say, some Indian members here are ignorant and sometimes exceed their Pakistani counterparts which is a grand feat in my not so humble opinion..

Jana Gana Mana (Bengali: জন গণ মন, Jôno Gôno Mono) is the national anthem of India. Written in highly Sanskritized (Tatsama) Bengali.

Many Indians deserve better reading than being Keyboard Jockeys of the forum.

For your information Bro ....Tatsama words are Sanskrit loan words in Bangla....it is also called Shadhu Bhasha.....

so you can interpret it as having Sanskrit words and phrases or bengali ones .......

my post was a simple explanation to a taiwanese member who has no knowledge of Indian languages.....

no need to use any condescending language when you ve missed the point.....regards.....
 
We had already debated it on other threads about vander mataram and you know well None of you could prove it its not talking about durga.

hey why u so worried?? Afaik u aint an indian.....take a break...go worry about barbaric hindu ritualistic cow puja :azn:
 
We had already debated it on other threads about vander mataram and you know well None of you could prove it its not talking about durga.


A request: please don't be rude about other people's worship; vander mataram is clearly not accidental on your part, it is extremely uncivilised, downright coarse. Try to maintain some boundaries of behaviour.

I write this as an agnostic, and a secularist, so, a petition in advance, don't preach to the choir, and spare me the Hindutva jibes.

Also, it is moot whether the 'mataram' refers to the bias of the character in whose mouth it is put, or to Mother India personified, like Marianne for France, or John Bull for England. You may already be familiar, more than you wish, with Uncle Sam. If you are referring to the song in the book, it is one thing; if you are referring to the song out of the book, quite another.
 
Last edited:
A request: please don't be rude about other people's worship; vander mataram is clearly not accidental on your part, it is extremely uncivilised, downright coarse. Try to maintain some boundaries of behaviour.

I write this as an agnostic, and a secularist, so, a petition in advance, spare me the Hindutva jibes.

Unfortunately she is handicapped by her mental faculties in the art of logical thinking, so she has developed an aptitude in inflaming the disputants by her crude manipulation of language. Not her mistake entirely, the adroitness is partly a god given gift and partly attained by proper education, both parts sadly seem have been missed by the subject here.
May I suggest the use of an ignore feature available somewhere here to save yourself from the senseless diatribes.
 
Last edited:
We had already debated it on other threads about vander mataram and you know well None of you could prove it its not talking about durga.
I am guessing that you have never heard of something called 'metaphor'. Look it up.
 
As if they are already not imposing vandemataram on everyone :angel:

most of us dont even know the wordings as we have never sang it. It is sometimes shown in tv as ar rahman had made a nice version of it. Otherwise we see it in old black and white trailers of freedom movement with some people walking very fast. It is that rare. Now u can believe what u want. But in India nothing is imposed that is the truth. Even if lets say govt tries to impose something then also people do what they want. hamara raj janta raj... :-)
 
Hindi speaking state as in Bihar, UP and MP? UP was a princely state probably called Awadh and Bihar was included in Bengal Presidency at that time. Vindhya relates to MP and as some poster mentioned Yamuna and Ganga relates to Bihar, UP. Why do you think out of all rivers he mentioned Yamuna and Ganga specifically?


Yamuna and ganga are respected rivers (including maharastrians, south Indians, bengalies etc,), vindhya dosent cover whole of MP. and it falls more on maharastrian side
 
How have we gone from discussing Sindh place in the Indian National Anthem to discussing holy rivers? Talk about digressing

My opinion is that we South Asians have a combined history so theres no point in saying no, that happened in present day India so it is not part of our history for example the Muslim League was founded in Dhaka and one of its major bastions was the muslim areas of UP. The Ideoligical father of Muslim League, Syed Ahmed Khan was a scion of Mughal Nobility and lived and died in modern India yet he is for sure one of the most important figures in Pakistans history so just just putting it short, modern day borders dont decide a countries history. Indian Sindhis i am sure are keen to maintain their Sindhi identity despite not living in Sindh anymore so i see no reason why India should discredit and make them feel that they arent part of India anymore.
 
For your information Bro ....Tatsama words are Sanskrit loan words in Bangla....it is also called Shadhu Bhasha.....

so you can interpret it as having Sanskrit words and phrases or bengali ones .......

my post was a simple explanation to a taiwanese member who has no knowledge of Indian languages.....

no need to use any condescending language when you ve missed the point.....regards.....

I disagree, but lets keep it that way.. I was condescending.. I stand corrected.
 
'Wrongly sung' Indian anthem challenged in court


A professor in the Indian city of Mumbai has challenged use of the word Sindh in the national anthem - arguing that it is a province in Pakistan.

Prof Shreekanth Malushte told the BBC that Sindh should be replaced with Sindhu, the name of an Indian river.

The petitioner says the government accepted the change in January 1950 but the authorities have done little to create awareness of it.

Hence, he says, many well-known singers continue to sing the anthem wrongly.

Jana Gana Mana, written by Nobel laureate Rabindranath Tagore, was chosen as India's national anthem after its independence in 1947 from the British colonial rule.

"When the national anthem was adopted by the constituent assembly on 24 January 1950, the word Sindh used in Rabindranath Tagore's song was replaced by Sindhu in the national anthem," Prof Malushte told the BBC.

"This was done because Sindh province was transferred to Pakistan after the partition of India and the creation of Pakistan."

Prof Malushte says the song continues to be wrongly sung, even at government functions, including the Republic Day and Independence Day celebrations.

"The national anthem is sung in two different versions in the country. While some use the correct word Sindhu, several others continue singing with the wrong word."

He has compiled a list of artistes who have used the word correctly and incorrectly while singing the anthem.

Prof Malushte now wants the court to issue an order asking the government to clarify and use the correct word.

The court is due to hear the case on 15 September.

BBC News - 'Wrongly sung' Indian anthem challenged in court
 
Other thread was closed as I pressed reply, so here it goes.

The reason is that when this anthem was written by Rabindranath Tagore, the communal harmony of subcontinent hadn't been totally shattered by British and RSS nazis yet. It was written when Quaid-e-Azam was still member of Congress, advocated Muslim-Hindu unity to throw out the British, and to include an undivided Punjab, Sindh and Bengal in the Union of India post independence. It was years before he had joined Muslim league, let alone before the word 'Pakistan' came into existence, and was forced to demand separate electorates/autonomy to safeguard political rights of Indian muslims.

Thereafter, things just went downhill. Muslim league kept having deadlock after deadlock with Congress, and despite still pushing for cabinet mission plan up til the mid 40's, the other side (particularly Sardar Patel and Nehru) just wouldn't budge because they actually wanted as many Muslims to leave India as possible so the remaining ones could be subjugated and controlled more easily. Their plan worked, bloodshed ensued and scars linger not fully healed.

So at the time it was written and first sung, it seemed natural to everyone. However, the question you perhaps hint at is whether it was correct of India to keep and officially adopt the anthem in 50s & thereafter. their reasoning probably runs along the lines of massive migration of Punjabis and Sindhis, whose descendants probably number in tens of millions today. Personally I don't see it as any sinister plan to degrade or carry out some design on us in future. We're both separate and happy the way we are, apart from a handful of old, nostalgic grandparents on both sides.

In my opinion, Allama Iqbal's Tarana-e-Hind was a more beautiful song and suitable to be adopted by them. But to each their own, so long as India's anthem is unique and they are proud of it, then I'm more than happy.
 
Why we continue to have word "Sindh" in Our National Anthem as its no longer part of India?

Its another Incompetence by Indians.. They cant even get their anthem right...
 
Other thread was closed as I pressed reply, so here it goes.

The reason is that when this anthem was written by Rabindranath Tagore, the communal harmony of subcontinent hadn't been totally shattered by British and RSS nazis yet. It was written when Quaid-e-Azam was still member of Congress, advocated Muslim-Hindu unity to throw out the British, and to include an undivided Punjab, Sindh and Bengal in the Union of India post independence. It was years before he had joined Muslim league, let alone before the word 'Pakistan' came into existence, and was forced to demand separate electorates/autonomy to safeguard political rights of Indian muslims.

Thereafter, things just went downhill. Muslim league kept having deadlock after deadlock with Congress, and despite still pushing for cabinet mission plan up til the mid 40's, the other side (particularly Sardar Patel and Nehru) just wouldn't budge because they actually wanted as many Muslims to leave India as possible so the remaining ones could be subjugated and controlled more easily. Their plan worked, bloodshed ensued and scars linger not fully healed.

So at the time it was written and first sung, it seemed natural to everyone. However, the question you perhaps hint at is whether it was correct of India to keep and officially adopt the anthem in 50s & thereafter. their reasoning probably runs along the lines of massive migration of Punjabis and Sindhis, whose descendants probably number in tens of millions today. Personally I don't see it as any sinister plan to degrade or carry out some design on us in future. We're both separate and happy the way we are, apart from a handful of old, nostalgic grandparents on both sides.

In my opinion, Allama Iqbal's Tarana-e-Hind was a more beautiful song and suitable to be adopted by them. But to each their own, so long as India's anthem is unique and they are proud of it, then I'm more than happy.

Just to tag along with your very nice summation, Tarana e Hind is used by very many Indians as an anthem. You may recall that it was that song that the Indian astronaut quoted when Indira Gandhi asked him how things looked from outer space.

Another input: there is an opposite to the Tarana e Hind, Vande Mataram, which somebody very crudely parodied in the early days of this thread, which is controversial and not accepted by some. My own take on that is that it is a lovely song, as music and words go, though difficult to sing, given its high-flown language. Second, it was explicitly designed as a parochial song, put in the mouth of a religious lunatic, and IMHO a brilliant piece of writing by a much misunderstood author. Many people are averse to it because it 'deifies' the country,

Takes all sorts, among songs as well as singers.

Its another Incompetence by Indians.. They cant even get their anthem right...

Very true. Just look where our incompetence got us. A brilliant analysis. Keep it up.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom