Why it is wrong to pick on patriotism in Jana Gana Mana
Why this controversy over the national anthem after 67 years of independence and 104 years after it was first sung? Have we fallen short of research topics or would like to make little of the national sentiment to make our voice heard and presence felt? The questions are generic and can be easily understood by a sharp and discerning mind. My objective is not to comment on the implicit.
Unfortunately, today the national anthem, which has held symbolic value for us is being dissected and reinterpreted. Words are being picked up, dates and years are being assigned and the associated connotations are being ripped apart to provide a new association/meaning. It is being said that the inclusion and exclusion of certain regions in Jana Gana Mana clearly differentiates which territories were British-ruled and which were independent. The second sludge on our anthem is the use of the word “ädhinayak”.
The first criticism is based on flimsy grounds with little or no understanding of poetry and lyrics. Not anything and everything can be put in verse. To make poetry appealing there has to be a good mix of right-sounding or rhythmic words which add to the beauty of the verse, have symbolic value and build an emotional connection. If the premise on which we have built our argument is accepted, then is the inclusion or exclusion of territories in the verse coincidental or deliberate? More data and analysis is needed to validate the claim.
The word “ädhinayak” in the national anthem has raked up a controversy that has gained momentum in the last two to three days. Kalyan Singh and Markandey Katju claimed that the national anthem was created in praise of King George V and coincided exactly with the year of his arrival to India (1911). The very first line of the English translation of the nationaI anthem reads “Thou art the ruler of the minds of all people”. The link between “thou/ruler” and “ruling the mind of people” is clearly established. If “Thou/ruler” is King George V, then how does he exercise control over the minds of people? Can the mind and the spirit be captured and ruled? As an aside, it is probably this freedom of the mind and the spirit which helped Mahatma Gandhi create fear in the minds of the British and also oust them from the country.
The sentence “The saving of all people waits in thy hand” excites comment. Was there a war looming large? If the song was a eulogy sung in praise of the ruler (read, British) why is the word “waits” used? The “saving” of people of India has either happened or not happened. Finally, if the song was for King George V then the last line of the national anthem, “Victory, victory, victory to thee” is being suggested/stated/recommended for him. Which victory did the bard have in mind? Victory of the British over the Indians?
Discrepancies as these abound aplenty in the arguments being posited. It is a pity that we are fighting to attribute a new interpretation to the national anthem and assign a motive to the great poet that Rabindranath Tagore was. Ironically, it reminds one of Hegel and how true he was when he stated, “The condemnation which a great man lays upon the world, is to force it to explain him”.
A partisan review of our national anthem has raked up this controversy. It has to be shot down! Respect, love and symbolic values associated with the national anthem are to be reinforced.