This post is written in response to the idea that Rabindranath Tagore wrote the song ‘Jana Gana Mana’ (JGM) for the British monarch George V. First, I would urge everyone to study Tagore more extensively before making unsubstantiated pronouncements for a deep understanding of his philosophy of universalism & spiritual Oneness is essential to any analysis of his work.

And before anybody assumes otherwise let me deny quite categorically that I’m not an apologist for fallen heroes, nor do I seek to explain away the frailties that often accompany greatness. As someone who is still unresolved about what truly constitutes plurality, this controversy bothers me immensely.

I first learnt abt the JGM controversy via one of those countless chain emails that also claim that the U.S. invented the AIDS virus to obliterate the tribes of Africa & that Doomsday is the absolute reality for all but the most devout Catholics. Ok. Sure. 

So, Tagore wrote JGM in the praise of George V? Nothing could be farther from the truth. As with many of his puja or devotional songs, if there was a Divine entity to whom Tagore addressed many of his heartfelt yearnings for communion, it was a Monarch infinitely greater than any mortal King could ever aspire to be. The Lord of India's Destiny, to whom Jana Gana Mana is officially addressed, is the perennial Bhagya Vidhata of India who has, from the very dawn of civilization, guided India through great triumphs and tragedies; it is India's eternal guiding spirit, and could never be merely the king of a colonial empire. 

It is hardly necessary to point out that if Tagore had the slightest weakness towards the British monarchy, his staunch and steadfast opposition to British rule would seriously contradict it. His relinquishing of the Knighthood (received at the hands of the very same monarch to whom, according to the detractors, he supposedly offered such unabashed tributes) in protest against the Jallianwallah Bagh tragedy in 1919 is just one obvious example of his principles. 

The Story
 
His sincere belief in India's crying need to be freed of colonial oppression has been expressed profoundly and eloquently in vast and profuse areas of his writings, some of which can be traced back to his earliest works like ‘Balmiki Protibha’ & ‘Bhanusingher Bodaboli’. He had deep-seated disdain and contempt for colonial rule and rulers, although he had the highest regards for European civilization and culture. No one but only the most avowed right wing fanatic will read any contradiction in this. 

The charge that JGM was composed for George V 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 day after the session the nationalist Indian papers reported that a Tagore composition had been sung. The following year the song was published as ‘Bharat Vidatha’. A columnist in the vernacular Bharati described the song as one in "Praise of the Dispenser of human Destiny, who appears in every age." He probably came closest to capturing its spirit. This song was to later become known as JGM.

Initially the confusion about the song was stirred up by the ineptness of the pro-British Anglo-Indian press whose inefficiency was not surprising given the fact that The Sunday Times once ascribed the authorship of Bande Mataram (BM) to Tagore and described JGM as a Hindi song! 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 JGM 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. 

In Tagore's collected works, it is mentioned that the Indian National Congress requested that Tagore write a felicitation to the Emperor as an appeasement gesture to the British monarchy in response to the annulment of the Bengal Partition Act. Not only was he troubled by the request, he was downright offended by it. JGM was written more out of protest and rebellion than adoration towards the monarchy. An objective reading of the song should make it eminently clear as to whom the poet decided to offer his worship.

In a letter to Pulin Behari Sen, Tagore later wrote, "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” 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." Yeats, an ardent admirer of Tagore also supported his claims. I may add here that we normally sing the first verse alone while the third verse of the song refers explicitly to the Eternal. 

Why JGM & not BM?

Now we come to the second part of the controversy. Why wasn’t Bande Mataram chosen as our national anthem? Sublime and lyrical as it is, BM treats India as a Goddess to be worshipped. The words of BM feature India as a “homogeneous Hindu” nation (on the other hand India today is a proudly heterogeneous secular republic) and the lyrics are understandably controversial since its invocation of the nation as a “Goddess” goes against Islamic theology which forbids the worship of any God other than Allah. Further, BM had been successfully (very tragically) converted into a sign of communal antagonism by Hindu communalists who chanted it as a slogan in riots, with the Muslims responding with “Allah ho Akbar”! Despite being a Hindu revivalist, Bankim Chandra would have been horrified at this divisive use of his beautiful creation by Hindus, if this happened during his life time. 

On the other hand, JGM evokes the country as composed of a multiplicity of regions and communities united in prayer to a universal lord. BM was composed by a Hindu scholar who could only visualize the nation in Hindu terms: religious identity was the only available idiom for conceptualizing the nation then. Bamkim Chandra’s picture of India was essentially “Hindu India”, with other religious groups on the fringes. 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. 

To quote from a Freeindia article: "When the objection was raised to the adoption of VM as the national anthem on the ground that it was full of idolatry, Rishi Aurobindo said Durga to whom it paid homage was none other than Bharata Mata symbolising Knowledge, Power, Greatness and Glory." At a personal level it is fine to associate one’s country with god/goddess, but to view Mother India in the form of “Durga”, “Lakshmi” or “Saraswati” in a national anthem, that is expected to be sung by all religious denominations, is outright communal and exclusionist in its conception. 

To quote another section from the article: “It came as a great shock to the people that Maulana Md. Ali should object the singing of Vande Mataram (at the INC session). There was no doubt that this was an indication of a mentality of separatism which refused to identify itself with the mainstream of national life”. This statement is nothing short of being outrageous because it indicates that anyone who doesn’t associate him/herself with “Hindu” symbols is not a part of the national main-stream. If Maulana Md. Ali was communal, so is the writer of that article. 

Lastly, to doubt Tagore’s love for India is akin to questioning Joan of Arc’s courage. Also, Tagore was far more than a patriotic figure- he would be the first to protest any claim to patriotism, which, like nationalism, he opposed as an ethical or moral principle. He was perhaps the first universalist, even before Gandhi, one of the first perhaps to truly dedicate his life to that cause; yet, as he himself wrote late in his life, "I have traveled far and wide, and seen the many great splendors of people and places around the world. Yet, when all is said and done, I truly love India best."

(Readers interested in more information may look up the writings of P.Sen, Amartya Sen, Monish R Chatterjee, Pradip k Dutta, Vani Doraiswami & Shumon Sengupta some of which I have used in my post.)

This post is the result of much introspection after I had a minor misunderstanding with Nova on one of Dagny’s posts. Those interested may check the same here www.fropper.com/posts/11363

Needless to say, my comments on the Amchi Mumbai post were not directed at any particular individual or to hurt any sentiments. i don’t get my kicks that way. However, I do think my comments were misinterpreted without fully comprehending the underlying sentiment that prompted them. To even suppose that I regard the madness that has currently gripped Mumbai as banal is ridiculous. I could never imply that. Having said that, I do maintain that the majority of the posts that discuss the issue border on the banal & make for good examples of précis writing. 

I think the meaning & scope of the ‘blog’ has evolved so much in the last 10 years that it is no longer merely an online repository of existential angst. A recent Harvard Business Review study has shown that more than 17% of people across the world are using blogs today as a medium of information dissemination, an agent of change, an independent voice that can function sans government sanction & controls. For me there are 2 kinds of blogs – those that educate & those that entertain. I have absolutely nothing against people who share tales about their children, or list down 10 reasons why they hate men/women/dogs/bathing/sex…….. so long as it evokes laughter, employs wit & induces a feel-good sensation. Tall order? Wait till u hear next. 

I’m a lil more demanding when it comes to the former category of blogs, those that supposedly deal/discuss/dissect issues of great import. Unfortunately, my reading of them on frops, blogspot, wordpress has led me to the lamentable conclusion that most of them are pretentious, plagiarised, lazy & don’t accord the attention due to the serious matters they discuss. They are little more than a summary of what various newspapers/ columnists/celebrities are talking about with regard to any issue – be it the IPL, Tata Nano, or the U.S Elections. Most posts are almost xeroxed versions of the official or commonly held views with the blogger showing lil or no inclination to examine the issue from a different perspective or strive to dig a bit deeper into the surface to uncover other ways of examining it. For example, the IPL genesis must be read in terms of the 'prostitution of cricketing talent' theme. I have yet to come across a single blog here that is even interested in examining it as a model of free trade (which it is actually) or how it will free newcomers from the petty zone politics that has crippled Indian cricket for ages. 

Similarly, the story of the Nano has been discussed solely in terms of a for/against debate & nowhere have I come across a single piece talking about how the Nano is expected to dent Suzuki’s profits & capture its market share. While everyone is crying themselves hoarse blaming the Tata’s for precipitating traffic snarls, nowhere did I come across the simple & obvious logic that it is not the responsibility of the entrepreneur to provide roads. That is the government’s duty for which we pay taxes!! For me, that was the biggest drawback in any argument against the Nano. 

I recently commented on a blog here where the author merely summarized the 2008 Oscar winners. I mean, do I stay in a place where there’s no satellite TV or newspapers that I have to read THAT on a blog? When the blogsphere is inundated with posts screaming about the absurdity of Raj Thackeray’s divisive politics, the effect on me is pretty much the same as when my mom would rant endlessly, “You’ll never do well in exams unless you study hard.” Well, thank you mom but I don’t need you to tell me that. Why don’t you tell me if there’s any way I can ace those exams without studying? When you merely summarize the obvious & much discussed, are u not showing the utmost disrespect towards your mind? If the Maker saw it fit to endow us with diverse physical attributes, what right have we to be part of a herd where the only voice is that of a collective one? 

I know this is getting tedious & I’ll try & wrap up by reminding you that the pen is mightier than the sword. Good blogs & bloggers give me an opportunity to reexamine my views, reform my beliefs. They keep me reading till the wee hours of the morning & propel me to google facts & incidents endlessly, pore over data & then arrive at a clearer idea of the issue at hand than when I started out. They prompt thought. Period. Some of Vintagewine’s (with whom I perenially disagree) & Nike’s blogs have accomplished this. Many of Asylum’s comments (it’s a pity the lady doesn’t write) have led me to introspect & revaluate my opinions. I thought Dagny’s blog not banal because she chose to take a stand on the Thackeray fiasco in a manner that was so divorced from the ordinary; that showed character & that for me speaks volumes more than any number of pious denunciations of Raj Thackeray.