Why India National Anthem has word "Sindh"

[SRK]

Why we continue to have word "Sindh" in Our National Anthem as its no longer part of India?

 

[InPhilTraitor]

Because it was written prior to Partition of India, and it was not edited or changed. The one funny thing is no "Hindi speaking state" was included in the National Anthem.

So you can interpret it any way you want to.. the most important thing is.. who is this "Bhaarata Bhagya Vidhata" ?

Some say its King George, some say it is Gandhi, I say its me

 

[bandit]

Why we continue to have word "Sindh" in Our National Anthem as its no longer part of India?

Because Sindh was a part of India when that song was composed. It was the rallying cry of all people who fought and died for Independence. Keeping that song unmutilated is a way to honoring their sacrifice and their ideal for that sacrifice although physically it has been mutilated.

 

[InPhilTraitor]

Because Sindh was a part of India when that song was composed. It was the rallying cry of all people who fought and died for Independence. Keeping that song unmutilated is a way to honoring their sacrifice and their ideal for that sacrifice although physically it has been mutilated.

Jana Gana Mana was never a battle-cry song. It was performed when King George came to India (at Gateway of India). The history is muddled, but it is a good song.

You are free to interpret what you want.

 

[bandit]

Jana Gana Mana was never a battle-cry song. It was performed when King George came to India (at Gateway of India). The history is muddled, but it is a good song.

You are free to interpret what you want.

I'm sorry but your info is wrong. There was a song sung in raise of King George on the second day of his visit but it wasn't Jana Gana Man. Some british papers had reported it incorrectly as being Jana Gana Man. Even Tagore had clarified that the song had nothing to do with the King.

I think I can find a source for it somewhere.

 

[InPhilTraitor]

The complete song:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jana_Gana_Mana_%28the_complete_song)

and commentary on interpretation.

 

[bandit]

The complete song:
Jana Gana Mana (the complete song) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

and commentary on interpretation.

So this is what Tagore has to say about the song he wrote...

On 10 November 1937 Tagore wrote a letter to Mr Pulin Bihari Sen about the controversy. That letter in Bengali can be found in Tagore's biography Ravindrajivani, volume II page 339 by Prabhatkumar Mukherjee.

"A certain high official in His Majesty's service, who was also my friend, had requested that I write a song of felicitation towards the Emperor. The request simply amazed me. It caused a great stir in my heart. In response to that great mental turmoil, I pronounced the victory in Jana Gana Mana of that Bhagya Vidhata [ed. God of Destiny] of India who has from age after age held steadfast the reins of India's chariot through rise and fall, through the straight path and the curved. That Lord of Destiny, that Reader of the Collective Mind of India, that Perennial Guide, could never be George V, George VI, or any other George. Even my official friend understood this about the song. After all, even if his admiration for the crown was excessive, he was not lacking in simple common sense."

Again in his letter of 19 March 1939 Tagore writes,

"I should only insult myself if I cared to answer those who consider me capable of such unbounded stupidity as to sing in praise of George the Fourth or George the Fifth as the Eternal Charioteer leading the pilgrims on their journey through countless ages of the timeless history of mankind." (Purvasa, Phalgun, 1354, p738.)

He himself debunked the allegations, now you don't beloeve him too?

 

[InPhilTraitor]

So this is what Tagore has to say about the song he wrote...



He himself debunked the allegations, now you don't beloeve him too?

A poem written in 1911, is explained in 1939. In the mean time Tagore accepted Knighthood and then rejected it. In 1911 INC was a moderate party only asking for participation in admin under common-wealth. By 1939 things have changed, and almost every one is asking for Independence.


I have respect, for Tagore, but think about it. "Adhinayaka" is rarely if ever would be used for God.

I may be trying too hard.. may be you are right..

On the contrary, I am claiming the title of "Bharata Bhagya Vidhata", I am not attributing it to King George. I just say, some interpret it as King George or Gandhi.

ps: when I say I am .. every Indian citizen is Bharata Bhagya Vidhata... that is my interpretation of thing..

 

[Humanist]

Whats the problem with word sindh... There are millions of Sindhi people living in India... Let think it as it is a way to respect that minority in a country of billion peole.........

 

[LaBong]

A poem written in 1911, is explained in 1939. In the mean time Tagore accepted Knighthood and then rejected it. In 1911 INC was a moderate party only asking for participation in admin under common-wealth. By 1939 things have changed, and almost every one is asking for Independence.


I have respect, for Tagore, but think about it. "Adhinayaka" is rarely if ever would be used for God.

I may be trying too hard.. may be you are right..

On the contrary, I am claiming the title of "Bharata Bhagya Vidhata", I am not attributing it to King George. I just say, some interpret it as King George or Gandhi.

ps: when I say I am .. every Indian citizen is Bharata Bhagya Vidhata... that is my interpretation of thing..

Those who know the iota about Tagore would know he could never have written it for King George. I think Tagore deliberately used those words to obfuscate the meaning as to not sounding improper to any sect or religion.

 

[LaBong]

Many historians aver that the newspaper reports cited above were misguided. The confusion arose in British Indian press since a different song, "Badshah Humara" written in Hindi by Rambhuj Chaudhary, was sung on the same occasion in praise of the monarch.

[India's National Anthem] Are we still singing for the Empire?

by Pradip Kumar Datta *

One of the many targets of Sadhvi Rithambara's infamous hate cassette -- which did so much to provoke feelings of resentment against Muslims -- was the national anthem. She described it as an act of 'gaddari' (treachery). Hindutva allegations against the Jana Gana Mana are not new. But they have begun to circulate anew with fresh intensity with the growth of the Hindutva brigade in the 80's. And have entered the conversational common sense which has begun to treat these as if they were established evidence. Quite recently a friend of mine abroad alerted me to pro-Hindutva websites such as FreeIndia.Org - India Site dedicated to freedom movement, education, culture, history and tourism that had convinced his otherwise secular students that the anthem had been originally composed for Emperor George V. Even more recently, another friend reported that she found herself isolated in a ladies party in Kolkata when she tried to defend the anthem from these charges.

The jingoism of the anti-Jana Gana Mana campaign is based on an appropriate irony. The charge actually rests on false evidence given by the pro-British press. The song was first sung in a session of the Congress in 1911. This session had decided to felicitate George V since he had announced the abrogation of the partition of Bengal, thereby conceding the success of the Swadeshi agitation, the first modern anti-colonial movement that had started in 1905. The day after the session the nationalist Indian papers normally -- and accurately -- reported that a Tagore composition had been sung. The Bengalee -- along with other Indian newspapers as well as the report of the Indian National Congress - reported that it was a "patriotic song". The following year the song was published as "Bharat -- Vidatha". A contemporary commentator in the vernacular Bharati described the song as one in "Praise of the Dispenser of human Destiny, whoÖappears in every age." He probably came closest to capturing its spirit. This song was to later become known as Jana Gana Mana.

The confusion about the song was stirred up by the ineptness of the pro-British Anglo-Indian press. Their inefficiency was not surprising (The Sunday Times once ascribed the authorship of Bande Mataram to Tagore and described Jana Gana Mana as a Hindi song!) On this occasion the Anglo-Indian press -- led by The Englishman - almost uniformly reported that a Tagore song had been sung to commemorate George V's visit to India. The reports were based on understandable ignorance since the Anglo-Indian press had neither the linguistic abilities nor the interest to be accurate. Actually, two songs that had been sung that day. The Jana Gana Mana had been followed by a Hindi song composed specially for George V by Rambhuj Chaudhary. There was no real connection between the composition of the Jana Gana Mana and George V, except that the song was sung -- not written - at an event which also felicitated the king. The Anglo-Indian press [luckily for Hindutva enthusiasts and unfortunately for secularists!] heard Indian songs much in the way they looked at foreign faces: they were all the same!

Initially the controversy seemed a non-starter. Contemporaries obviously found it hard to associate Tagore with servility. Tagore was known for this opposition to the government. Indeed, shortly after the Congress session the government passed a circular that declared Shantiniketan to be a "place altogether unsuitable for the education of Government officers" and threatened punitive measures against officers who sent their children there to study. Undoubtedly helped by these measures which shored up Tagore's nationalist reputation, the song steadily acquired wide acceptability among nationalists in all parts of the country - especially after its translation into English as "The morning song of India" by the poet in Madras. In a survey made just before the poetís death in 1941 at Mumbai, respondents felt Jana Gana Mana to have the strongest "national characteristics" although Bande Mataram was found superior on some other criteria. The dirt thrown by the pro-British press seemed to have been completely wrung out when Netaji Bose's Indian National Army adopted it as the National Anthem; this was followed by Gandhiís declaration in 1946 that "the song has found a place in our national life": that it was "also like a devotional hymn".

But it was not as if it was all smooth sailing for the story of Jana Gana Mana's popularity. The first round of controversy -- this time by the Indians themselves - had been stoked in 1937. But it became a much more general one from the late 1940's when a debate broke out over what was to be the National Anthem. A section within the Congress wanted the Bande Mataram, a song that was popularly associated with the national movement. But Bande Mataram was controversial since its invocation of the nation as a Goddess went against Islamic theology which forbade the worship of any God other than Allah. Also the Bande Mataram had been successfully converted into a sign of communal antagonism by Hindu communalists (with the enthusiastic participation of their Muslim counterparts who regarded the song as a horrible provocation) and even chanted it as a slogan in riots.

In the 1930's, a Congress sub-committee had short-listed some "national" songs that could be sung together with or instead of Bande Mataram. It was then proposed (on Tagore's initiative) that the first two stanzas of Bande Mataram could be sung. But this catholicity was not felt to be feasible after independence. Occasions involving foreign diplomatic missions or the Defence forces required that a single "National Anthem" be played by a band as a signature of the country. The Constituent Assembly was deputed to select the anthem. It was in the ensuing lobbying to knock Jana Gana Mana out of reckoning, that outworn and salacious bits of colonial misinformation about the song began to be recirculated.

Jana Gana Mana was chosen as anthem in 1950 over Bande Mataram as well as Iqbal's Sare Jahan Se Accha - although Bande Mataram was given "equal status". An important reason was that Bande Mataram could not be played by bands. Additionally Jana Gana Mana enjoyed an international reputation. It had been greatly appreciated in the United Nations at New York where it was first played as an orchestral arrangement in 1947. Many said that it was superior to most national anthems in the world. Within the country the overwhelming majority of the provinces supported its nomination.

But there is also an underlying reason that is really responsible for the controversy popping up at regular intervals. The words of Bande Mataram feature India as a homogeneous Hindu nation. Jana Gana Mana evokes the country as composed of a multiplicity of regions and communities united in a prayer to a universal lord. After all, Bande Mataram was composed by a colonial administrator who could only visualize the nation in Hindu terms: religious identity was the only available idiom for conceptualizing the nation then. In contrast, Tagore had seen the riots that broke up the Swadeshi movement and had divined the obvious: religious nationalism easily divided anti-colonial struggles. Jana Gana Mana can be seen as one of the fruits of Tagore's search to find an alternate inclusivist definition for the nation. Incidentally, it was one of the harbingers of a decade that was to see Hindu and Muslim politicians draw together. In short, the two songs embody different ideas, histories and aspirations of the country.

In fairness, the last word on the affair should really be given to the poet himself (incidentally he had composed the music for Bande Mataram). Answering a friend's query about the origins of the Jana Gana Mana in 1937, Tagore said that a loyalist friend had requested him to write a song in praise of the King. He had felt anger at his friends presumption about his loyalism. It was this anger that led him to compose Jana Gana Mana. He had written a song to a superior authority, the "Dispenser of India's destiny". Tagore concluded. "That great Charioteer of man's destiny in age after age could not by any means be George V or George VI or any George. Even my 'loyal' friend realized this; because, however powerful his loyalty to the King, he was not wanting in intelligence." I may add here that we normally sing the first verse alone: the third verse of the song refers explicitly to the eternal lord.

Tagore said that he felt too pained by the unjustness of the charge to come out with a public refutation. Perhaps he was wrong. He could have considered the issue of survival. Not just of his public reputation. But also the survival of self-confidence in some of his future citizens who believe that they venerate their masters fifty years after independence. And that they can sing songs to a King, dead for an even longer period.

Too lazy to bold meaningful portions rest of the article, read for yourself.

India: Are we still singing for the Empire? by Pradip Kumar Datta

 

[Awesome]

It is a big mystery why the Indian national anthem was adopted, while other more suitable, more Indian national songs existed.

Jana Gana Mana - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

he poem was composed in December 1911, precisely at the time of the Coronation Durbar of George V, and is considered by some to be in praise of King George V and not God. A deeper insight can be had after reading the entire lyrics, the newspaper reports of that day(both British and Indian), and Gurudev Rabindranath Tagore's own views in the wiki-article Jana Gana Mana (the complete song).

In July 1985 in the state of Kerala, some of the Jehovah's Witnesses' children were expelled from school under the instructions of Deputy Inspector of Schools for having refused to sing the national anthem, Jana Gana Mana. A parent, V. J. Emmanuel, appealed to the Supreme Court of India for legal remedy. On August 11, 1986, the Supreme Court overruled the Kerala High Court, and directed the respondent authorities to re-admit the children into the school. The decision went on to add: "Our tradition teaches tolerance, our philosophy preaches tolerance, our Constitution practices tolerance, let us not dilute it".[10]

It is obviously not Gandhi, its either King George or God, probably George. If its god it defeats India's claim of secularism.

Sindh is a problem as well and why only these states? Sindhi people cannot be used as a straightforward justification since the word is Sindh, the land, not the language or the people.

However the rigidity of Indians would never allow a revision in adopting a new Anthem.

 

[Ruag]

It is obviously not Gandhi, its either King George or God, probably George. If its god it defeats India's claim of secularism.

If its God, then how does it defeat India's claim of secularism? Is the anthem specifically implying that the God is Allah, or Rama, or Giant Spaghetti Monster?

The United States proudly writes "In God We Trust" on the back of its currency notes. Now you will claim the US is not a secular state.

Back to the topic, there was a petition to remove the word Sindh from the anthem and the Indian Supreme Court rejected it. It said

“National anthem is the representative of the ethos of the country. Any classic, once created, becomes immortal and inalienable; even its creator may not like making changes into it. Any tampering with the script of the poem would be showing disrespect to the great poet Rabindranath Tagore.”

http://www.telegraphindia.com/1050514/asp/nation/story_4738185.asp

Funnily, the court also imposed a cost of Rs 10,000 on petitioner Sanjeev Bhatnagar for “wasting the valuable time of the court” and termed his public interest litigation a “publicity interest litigation”.

 

[arslan_treen]

Sir USA being a Christian or a secular state is and always has been a disputable argument in USA , with the non conservatives suggesting that the Federal law is of Secular nature so the country is a secular state , with the conservatives suggesting otherwise . any ways back to the topic in hand , its actually a very interesting piece of subcontinent history that i did not knew about .

 

[notsuperstitious]

Sir USA being a Christian or a secular state is and always has been a disputable argument in USA , with the non conservatives suggesting that the Federal law is of Secular nature so the country is a secular state , with the conservatives suggesting otherwise . any ways back to the topic in hand , its actually a very interesting piece of subcontinent history that i did not knew about .

Similarly whether India is secular state or not is and will always be an argument between Indians and Pakistanis, all Indians agreeing and all Pakistanis saying NO