Jana Gana Mana - Do we know what it means ????
vika...@my-deja.com
I think it is high time we woke up from our slumber and found out the
real meaning of our National Anthem
Jai Hind
Since fifty years of independence has come to pass and now nearly 900
million Indians take pride in singing their national anthem, it is
amazing that most are not aware of its background and meaning. We would
like to bring to your attention the following facts of which you might
be unaware.
To begin with, IndiaĆs national anthem, Jana Gana Mana Adhinayaka, was
written by Rabindranath Tagore in honor of King George V and the Queen
of England when they visited India in 1919. To honor their visit Pandit
Motilal Nehru had five stanzas included, which are in praise of the King
and Queen.
In the original Bengali verses only those provinces that were under
British rule, i.e. Punjab, Sindh, Gujarat, etc. were mentioned. None of
the princely states were recognized--Kashmir, Rajasthan, Andhra, Mysore
or Kerala. Neither The Indian Ocean nor the Arabian Sea were included,
since they were directly under Portuguese rule at that time.
The Jana Gana Mana Adhinayaka implies that King George V is the lord of
the masses and Bharata Bhagya Vidhata is ôthe bestower of good fortuneö.
Following is a translation of the five stanzas which glorify the King:
1st stanza
People wake up remembering your good name and they ask for your blessing
and they sing your glories.
2nd stanza
Around your throne people of all religions come and give their love and
anxiously wait to hear your generous words.
3rd stanza
Praise to the King for being the charioteer, for leading the ancient
travelers beyond misery.
4th stanza
Drowned in the deep ignorance and suffering, poverty stricken,
unconscious countryŕ waiting for the wink of your eye and your motherĆs
(the QueenĆs) true protection.
5th stanza
In your compassionate plans, the sleeping Bharata (India) will wake up.
We bow down to your feet OĆ Queen, and glory to Rajeshwara (the King)
This whole poem does not indicate any love for the Motherland but
exhibits a bleak picture.When you sing Jana Gana Mana Adhinayaka, whom
are you glorifying? Certainly not the Motherland. Is it God?
The poem does not indicate that. It is time now to understand the
original purpose and the implication of this, rather than blindly
singing as has been done the past fifty years.
Nehru chose the present national anthem as opposed to Vande Mataram
because he thought that it would be easier for the band to play. Today
bands have advanced and they can very well play any music. So they can
as well play Vande Mataram, which is a far better composition and has
true spirit.
Wake up, itĆs high time!
Vikas
The transliteration of the original poem has been
attached for you to read:
Jana Gana Mana Adhinayaka Jaya He Bharata Bhagya Vidhata,
Punjab Sindhu Gujarat Maratha, Dravid Utkala Banga
Vindhya Himachala Yamuna Ganga Ucchala Jaladhi Taranga
Tava Shubha Naame Jaage, Tava Subha Ashish Maange
Gaahe Tava Jaya Gaatha.
Jana Gana Mangala Dayaka Jaya He Bharat Bhagya Vidhata,
Jaya He, Jaya He, Jaya He, Jaya Jaya Jaya Jaya He.
1) Aharaha Tava Ahvan Pracharita, Sunitava Udaar Vaani.
Hindu Bauddha Sikh Jaina Parsie Mussalman Christiani
Puraba Paschima Aashe, Tava Sighasan Paase,
Prem Haar Hauye Gaantha
Jana Gana Ailka Vidhayaka Jaya He, Bharata Bhgya Vidhata
Jaya He, Jaya He, Jaya He, Jaya Jaya Jaya Jaya He.
2) Patana Abbhudaya Bandhur Pantha, Juga Juga Dhaabita Jatri
He Chira Sarathi Tava Ratha Chakre Mukharita Patha Dino Ratri
Daarun Biplaba Maajhe Tava Shankha Dhwani Baaje,
Shankata Dukkho Trata.
Jana Gana Patha Parichayaka Jaya He Bharata Bhagya Vidhata.
Jaya He, Jaya He, Jaya He, Jaya Jaya Jaya Jaya He.
3) Ghor Timara Ghana Nibira Nishithe Pidhito Murchito Deshe.
Jagrata Chilo Tava Abichala Mangala Nata Nayane Animeshe
Dusshapne Aatanke Rakkha Karile Anke Sachmayee Tumi Maataa.
Jana Gan Dukkh Trayaka Jaya He Bharata Bhagya Vidhata.
Jaya He, Jaya He, Jaya He, Jaya Jaya Jaya Jaya He.
4) Raatri Prabhaatila Udila Rabi Chabi Puraba Udaygiri Bhale.
Gahe Vihangama Purna Smirana Nave Jiban Rasa Dhale
Tava Karunarunaraage Niddrito Bharata Jaage
Tava Charane Nato Maatha.
Jaya Jaya Jaya He. Jaya Rajeshwara Bhagya Vidhata.
Jaya He, Jaya He, Jaya He, Jaya Jaya Jaya Jaya He.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Dr. Dayal D. Purohit
new national anthem. It would be great if the national anthem were in
pure sanscrit. Vande mataram is okay, but I am sure we can write up a
better one.
<vika...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:7miu6o$sap$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> Hello Dear All
>
> I think it is high time we woke up from our slumber and found out the
> real meaning of our National Anthem
>
> Jai Hind
>
>
> Since fifty years of independence has come to pass and now nearly 900
> million Indians take pride in singing their national anthem, it is
> amazing that most are not aware of its background and meaning. We
would
> like to bring to your attention the following facts of which you might
> be unaware.
>
> To begin with, IndiaÆs national anthem, Jana Gana Mana Adhinayaka, was
> unconscious countryà waiting for the wink of your eye and your
motherÆs
> (the QueenÆs) true protection.
>
> 5th stanza
> In your compassionate plans, the sleeping Bharata (India) will wake
up.
> We bow down to your feet OÆ Queen, and glory to Rajeshwara (the King)
>
> This whole poem does not indicate any love for the Motherland but
> exhibits a bleak picture.When you sing Jana Gana Mana Adhinayaka, whom
> are you glorifying? Certainly not the Motherland. Is it God?
>
> The poem does not indicate that. It is time now to understand the
> original purpose and the implication of this, rather than blindly
> singing as has been done the past fifty years.
>
> Nehru chose the present national anthem as opposed to Vande Mataram
> because he thought that it would be easier for the band to play. Today
> bands have advanced and they can very well play any music. So they
can
> as well play Vande Mataram, which is a far better composition and has
> true spirit.
>
> Wake up, itÆs high time!
ven...@my-deja.com
vika...@my-deja.com wrote:
> Hello Dear All
>
> I think it is high time we woke up from our slumber and found out the
> real meaning of our National Anthem
>
else also bothered me for long time. Why
do indians say "Jai Hind" when they feel patriotic? If it sounds odd
and embarassing for me being a hindu, it must feel read awkward for
other patriotic indians who are not hindu. I have the same problems
with Hindustan. Should we just stick to Bharat and Jai Bharat?
Raghu Seshadri
: else also bothered me for long time. Why
: do indians say "Jai Hind" when they feel patriotic? If it sounds odd
: and embarassing for me being a hindu, it must feel read awkward for
: other patriotic indians who are not hindu. I have the same problems
: with Hindustan. Should we just stick to Bharat and Jai Bharat?
You seem to be under the mistaken impression
that 'hind' and 'hindustan' are religious markers.
They are not.
These names were used to refer to India by the
Persian conquerors. The reference is to the country,
not the religion. In Iran, in all of Arabia, in
Turkey, etc India is referred to as 'hind'.
'Jai hind' was a slogan coined by the great patriot
Netaji Subhas Bose, most of whose lieutenants were
Muslim. He wouldn't have used that word if it was
sectarian. It is not.
RS
sdivad
India. "Jai Bharat Barsa" is more appropriate. The hind or
hindustani or hindu is repulsive to the Indians who are not
hindu or hindi speaking.
**** Posted from RemarQ - http://www.remarq.com - Discussions Start Here (tm) ****
Nalinaksha Bhattacharyya
in the newsgroups. This issue has been debated a number of times in the
net. I reproduce (after my signature) a post by Arnab Gupta where he had
dealt with the Sangh Parivar propaganda very effectively.
--
Nalinaksha Bhattacharyya
http://finance.commerce.ubc.ca/~bhatta
"The lifestyle of the Indian elite is amazing...I've never seen
such opulence even in America"---Noam Chomsky in New Delhi in 1996
From: Arnab Gupta <gup...@er6.eng.ohio-state.edu>
Newsgroups: soc.culture.bengali,soc.culture.indian
Subject: Jana Gana Mana (Part I)
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 14:12:22 -0400
Organization: The Ohio State University
Abhijit Mitra wrote some time back in the thread "Vande Mataram"
>Nachiketa please ignore questions (1) and (3) of my previous post - I found
>answers to them on the web. I am still curious, however, as to A.R. Rahmans
>association with Vande Mataram.
>
>I am assuming there is atleast one Indian out there on this NG who is as
>ignorant as I am, so I am now posting some material about Vande Mataram. What
>follows is 1st a complete text of Vande Mataram, followed by various English
>translations, all of which is followed by a narration of events regarding its
>birth, the controversy surrounding it, and how Vande Matarams status as
>national song (and NOT national anthem) is just another symptom of the pseudo-
>secular decay gnawing at the root of our Bharat Mata.
>
I am glad that you brought this up. It reminded me of a commitment I
made in a similar thread a few months ago to bring into light the
other side of the story behind the controversy regarding our national
anthem. I got the book I was looking for a few days back. It's called
"India's National Anthem" and was published by Vishwabharati.
Unfortunately,
this book is out of print right now, though a new edition will come up
in a year or so as part of the birth centenary celebration of its
author Sri Prabodhchandra Sen. During the course of that discussion
on soc.culture.bengali and some other India related newsgroups,
Nachiketa
Tiwari and few others claimed to have provided evidence that
"janaganamana"
was written in praise of the emperor George V. Their source was from
a book called "Story of a Song" written by a person called Shivaramu
(which you have quoted below from a secondary source). Unfortunately,
the secularists are not so enterprising and eager to propagate their
views and opinions like their counterpart. So the same lie gets repeated
again and again in spite of protests that given the time (the first
decade
of this century) and other related incidents connected to Rabindranath
around that time, it is improbable that he would compose a song
eulogising
the Emperor.
In this post, I will go a bit beyond contradicting Shivaramu's proofs..
I will try to give a brief history of the song and the way it was
seen by some prominent personalities of the time. For a detailed account
I recommend the original book "Our National Anthem" to the readers.
*****************************************************************************
> W.B. Yeats is a great Irish poet. He was a friend of Tagore's, and a great
>admirer of his works. He wrote a beautiful introduction to Tagore's Gitanjali.
>Once an Indian disciple of Tagore met Yeats. In a letter to Lady Gregory in
>America, Yeats mentioned that he had told him that Sarojini Naidu's brother
>was unhappy that Tagore wrote a poem welcoming King George V. He also narrated
>to her an appetising story he had from the disciple warning her that it was
>strictly off the record. It concerns the circumstances in which Janaganamana
>was composed: ``The National Congress people asked Tagore for a poem of
>welcome. He tried to write it, but could not. He got up very early in the
>morning and wrote a very beautiful poem, not one of his best, but still
>beautiful. When he came down, he said to one of us, `Here is a poem which I
>have written. It is addressed to God, but give it to Congress people. It will
>please them. They will think it is addressed to the King.' All Tagore's own
>followers knew it meant God, but others did not.'' (The Indian Express, June 3,
>1968)
>
A similar story has been reported in the biography of Rabindranath "The
Myriad
Minded Man". This quote itself makes it clear that Rabindranath didn't
write
that poem in honour of the king. Following are quotes from
Rabindranath's
letters written to someone who asked him about this controversy.
***************************************************************************
Dated: 20.11.1937
A friend, influential in Government circles, had importuned me to
compose
a song in the praise of the King. His request had amazed me, and the
amazement was mingled with anger. It was under the stress of this
violent
reaction that I proclaimed in JanaganamanaAdhinayaka song, the victory
of
that Dispenser of India's destiny who chariots eternally the travellers
through the ages along the paths rugged with the rise and fall of
nations -
of Him who dwells within the heart of man and leads the multitudes. That
the Great Charioteer of Man's destiny in age after age could not by any
means be George the fifth or George the Sixth or any other George, even
my `loyal' friend realised; because, however powerful his loyalty to the
King, he was not wanting in intelligence.
Dated: 29.3.1939
I should only insult myself if I cared to answer those who consider me
capable of such unbound 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 timeless history of mankind.
***************************************************************************
For those who like to interpret the song in their own way and find
George V in it, here's a translation from the third part of the
original poem.
Third Stanza from the original poem (translated by Tagore himself):
"Eternal Charioteer, thou drivest man's history
along the road rugged with rises and falls of Nations.
Amidst all tribulations and terror
thy trumpet sounds to hearten those that despair and droop
and guide all people in their paths of peril and pilgrimage.
ThouDispenser of India's destiny
Victory, Victory, Victory to thee."
A little logic will help someone to realize that it is not possible to
refer
to King George V as "eternal" and driver of man's history.
Also, I suggest that readers read Rabindranath's works written around
that
time. That was his "Nationalist" period (he changed much of his views on
Nationalism later).
Now consider the following:
1. Around 1912, Santiniketan, Rabindranath and his school were
under government suspicion for being anti-government.
2. A few years before this Rabindranath participated enthusiastically
in the Swadeshi Movement and Shivaji Utsav. He was a "fearless
champion of Aurobindo Ghose who had incurred the wrath of the British
govrnment.
3. The idea of a "God of India Herself" and an Eternal Charioteer who
is the Dispenser of India's destiny was nothing new in this particular
poem. The idea is very much there in Gora (go ahead and call it a novel
in praise of the Emperor), in Bharat Tirtha (a beautiful poem which goes
like "Hey mor chitto punyo tirthey jago re dheere/ Ei bharoter
mohamanober
shagoro tirey") and in other songs (like "Deshe deshe Nandito hobey").
> The Calcutta Congress session began on December 26, 1911. The proceedings
>on the first day began with Vandemataram. The second day was entirely devoted
>to things connected with the welcoming of King George V, and this day the song
>Janaganamana was sung, and at the closing ceremony Rajbhuja Dutt Choudhary's
>'Badshah Hamara' was sung. On the third day Saraladevi sang her own composition
>'Namo Hindustan'.
>
> The news papers reports had the following comments on Janaganaman:
>
> ``The Bengali poet Babu Rabindranath Tagore sang a song composed by him
>specially to welcome the Emperor.'' (Statesman, Dec.28, 1911)
>
> ``The proceedings began with the singing by Babu Rabindranath Tagore of a
>song specially composed by him in honour of the Emperor.'' (Englishman, Dec.28)
>
> ``When the proceedings of the Indian National Congress began on Wednesday
>27th December 1911, a Bengali song in welcome of the Emperor was sung. A
>resolution welcoming the Emperor and Empress was also adopted unanomously.''
> (Indian, Dec. 29, 1911)
>
Shivaramu is clever here not to quote newspaper reports from prominent
Indian
newspapers and the official Congress report on that session. The words
have
been changed also to suit his point. Here the detailed reports on the
song:
1. Official Report of the 28th Session of the Congress
" The Proceedings commenced with a patriotic song composed by Babu
Rabindranath Tagore. [After this are reports of messages recieved from
friends and the passing of the loyalty resolution moved from the chair]
After that a song of welcome to Their Imperial Majesties composed for
the
occasion was sung by the choir."
The patrioitic song being talked about is Janaganamana.
This is what Sri Prabodhchandra Sen adds in his book:
" The first day's proceedings of the Indian National Congress held in
Calcutta in 1911 opened with the singing of `Vande Mataram'. That day's
sitting concluded with the speeches of the Chairman of the Reception
Committee and the President of the session. The second day's sitting
began
with the song `Janaganamana Adhinayaka' after which messages of good
will
from well-wishers were read out. A resolution was then passed welcoming
the royal couple and expressing loyalty to them. Following this was sung
*a Hindi song in praise of the king, composed specially for the
occasion*.
This was the song that had consoled the moderate leaders like the
`loyal'
friend mentioned above after Rabindranath had disappointed them.
Thereafter
ten other resolutions were passed, and the sitting then concluded. The
third
days sitting commenced with the singing of `Atita-Gaurava-vahini mama
vani
gaha aji Hindustan'. Later, with the passing of twenty-two more
resolutions,
the session came to an end."
2. Report from Amrita Bazar Patrika, 28th December, 1911
" The proceedings began with the singing of a Bengali song of
benediction
....This [the loyalty resolution] was followed by another song in honour
of
Their Imperial Majesties visit to India."
3.Report from The Bengali, 28th December, 1911.
" The proceedings commenced with a patrotic song composed by Babu
Rabindranath Tagore, the leading poet of Bengal (Janaganamana
Adhinayaka),
of which we give the English translation - `King of the heart of
nations,
Lord of our country's fate...' then [after passing of the loyalty
resolution] a Hindi song paying heartfelt homage to Their Imperial
Majesties was sung by the Bengali boys and girls in chorus."
4. The Englishman, 28th December, 1911
" The proceedings opened with a song of welcome to the King Emperor,
specially composed for the occasion by Babu Rabindranath Tagore...
This [loyalty resolution] was followed by another song in Hindi
welcoming
Their Imperial Majesties."
Note, how cleverly Shivaramu crops the second part of the report.
5. The Statesman, 28th December, 1911
" The proceedings commenced shortly before 12 o'clock with a Bengali
song...The choir of girls led by Sarala Devi then [after the loyalty
resolution] sang a hymn of welcome to the king specially composed for
the occasion by Babu Rabindranath Tagore, the Bengali poet."
Sri Prabodhchandra Sen adds:
" No mention has been made in this report of the composer of the
opening
song in Bengali. It admitted indirectly, however, that the song was not
a
eulogy for the king, had it been so considered, there could have been no
reason for not mentioning it. From the report that the second song was
composed by `Babu Rabindranath Tagore, the Bengali poet', it is clear
that
the Statesman was under the impression that this was also a Bengali
song.
This report partly contradicts the Indian reports like the Congress
Report
and partly also that of the Englishman. Apparently the Statesman
reporter
did not know that it was the opening song of the day that was composed
by Rabindranath. Hence the confusion."
Six years after this, Calcutta again hosted the Congress Session for
1917.
Here are the reports of newpapers on Janaganamana which was sung on the
second day.
1. The Bengalee, 30th December, 1917.
" The Congress chorus then chanted the magnificent song of Sir
Rabindranath
Tagore, Jana-gana-mana, Maharaja Bahadur of Nattore himself joining in
aid
of the instrumental music. "
2. Amrita Bazar Patrika, 31st December, 1917.
" The Indian National Congress sat at 11 A.M., the proceedings
commensing
with an inspiring patriotic song of Rabindranath as usual in chorus, the
Maharaja of Natore joining in instrumental music."
3. The Statesman, 30th December, 1917
" A national song composed by Sir Rabindranath Tagore having been sung
the
following resolution was moved..."
So there you have Statesman contradicting its own description of the
song
made six years ago.
In that same day's sitting Desgabandhu Chittaranjan Das paid high
tribute
from the platform of this song. The official report of the Congress
reproduced
Deshabandhu's speech:
" Brother delegates, at the very outset I desire to refer to the song
to
which you have just listned. It is a song of the glory and victory of
India.
We stand today on this platform for the glory and victory of India."
The Bengalee of 30th December, 1917, reports:
" Mr. C. R. Das...desired to refer to the song to which they had just
listened to. It was the song of the victory of India. They stood there
that day on the platform for the glory and victory of India.
> In the eyes of many leaders of the day, loyalty to the nation and loyalty
>to the Emperor were identical. King George V had proclaimed on Dec.12 the
>annulment of the partition of Bengal. There was therefore nothing unnatural
>or extraordinary in a Bengali poet, Rabindranath Tagore, composing or singing
>a song in praise of the Emperor out of gratitude. But differences of opinion
>were bound to arise when the question of its adoption as the national anthem
>came up. The choice of a national anthem should undoubtedly be one which can
>be a fountain of inspiration by the sanctity of its origin.
>
> Rabindranath Tagore did not contradict newspaper reports which characterised
>Janaganamana as a song composed in honour of King George V.
So the "proof" as claimed by Nachiketa Tiwari and others are:
1. Two distoted reports from Anglo-Indian press
2. He "thinks" it's not "unnatural or extraordinary in a Bengali poet,
Rabindranath Tagore, composing or singing a song in praise of the
Emperor out of gratitude.
3. Rabindranath Tagore did not contradict newspaper reports.
As far as the first one is concerned one can outright call Shivaramu a
liar and intellectually dishonest. The second hardly constitutes a
proof.
If it attempts to give circumstantial evidence I would suggest readers
to go through the life and works of Rabindranath around that time (I
have mentioned about it earlier in this post). The third has been best
addressed by Rabindranath himself in his letter quoted above.
Gradually the tide
>of nationalism began to affect the old values. Loyalty to the country and
>loyalty to the King became irreconcilable. Honour, devotion and love of the
>country not only ceased to co-exist with honour, devotion and love of King
>Emperor, but mutually antagonistic.
>
> Also the British government which was charging people with sedition for
>singing Vande Mataram extended high regard to Janaganamana. It was sung in
>Government schools, and in scout groups which fostered loyalty to the British
>throne. At the time British quit India, a fighter plane was presented by
>England to India, and on this occasion Janaganamana was sung. The British
>also praised the song. It is anybody's guess as to why they praised it?
>
Here I will quote something about the history of the song and how it
affected the Indians (I leave it upon Nachiketa, Dinesh Agrawal and
others to *prove* that Janaganamana was was extended high regard by
the British Government).
First, here's what Rabindranath himself thought about it:
" In the course of our history, India had once deeply realised her
geographical
entity; she established in her mind an image of her own physical self by
meditating on her rivers and hills...In my song of the victory of
Bharat-
vidhata composed a few years ago, I have put together a number of Indian
provinces; Vindhya-Himachala and Yamuna-Ganga have also been mentioned.
I feel, however, that a song should be written in which all the
provinces,
rivers and hills of India are strung together in order to impress upon
the
minds of our people an idea of geography of our country. We are nowadays
profuse in the use of the term National Consciousness, but what kind of
national consciousness can there be, devoid of actual geographical and
ethnological realisations. ?"
From Prabodhbabu's book:
" In the year 1919, during his tour of South India, Rabindranath spent
five days at the Theosophical College, Madanpalle, at the invitation
of Principal James H Cousins. There he sang the song `Janaganamana' at
some function. The audience was very moved by the tune and at their
request
he made an English translation of the song and called it `The Morning
Song of India.' ....Later in the year 1936, the translation mentioned
above was printed in the poet's own handwriting in the College
Commemoration
Volume and distributed widely, with a note that this `would become one
of the world's most precious documents....From Mandapalle Janagana has
spread all over India, and is admired in Europe and America.'
In the next year (1937), when a bitter controversy was raging
throughout
the whole country over the selection of India's National Anthem,
Principal
Cousins issued a statement to the Press (3.11.37) in which he stated:
My suggestion is that Dr. Rabindranath's own intensely patriotic,
ideally
stimulating, and at the same time world embracing Morning Song of India
(Janaganamana) should be confirmed officially, as what it has almost
twenty
years been unofficially, namely, the true National Anthem of India."
"The Congress and The National Anthem
The main portion of a resolution passed by the Congress Working
Committee,
sitting in Calcutta on October 28th, 1937, is given below:
Taking all things into consideration, therefore, the Committee
recommends that whereever the `Bande Mataram' is sung at national
gatherings
only the first two stanzas should be sung, with perfect freedom to the
organisers to sing any other song of an unobjectionable character, in
addition to, or in place of, the `Bande Mataram' song.
A sub committee was formed from among the Working Committee members for
selecting the songs that could be sung `in addition to or in place of
Vande Mataram'. In the Sub-committee were Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, the
then President of the Congress and Subhash Chandra Bose. Of the songs
to be selected by this Sub-committee it was stated by the Working
Committee
that
only such songs as are composed in simple Hindusthani or can be
adopted
to it, and have a rousing and inspiring tune will be accepted by the
Sub-committee for examination. The Sub-committee shall consult and
take
the advice of Poet Rabindranath Tagore.
The resolution passed by the Working Committee was then ratified by the
A.I.C.C., also sitting in Calcutta at that time. Possibly no such song
was ultimately selected. We find, however, that both Pandit Neheru and
Subhash Chandra later accepted `Janaganamana' as India's National
Anthem. When Subhash Chandra formed his Azad Hind Fauz in Germany, it
was
`Janaganamana' that was selected as the National Anthem. Later also
in South-East Asia this song was given the status of the National
Anthem.
At that time a Hindustani rendering of the song was made at Subhash
Chandra's
instance. In spite of the slight verbal alterations made in the
Hindustani
version, the tune and the spirit of the original remained intact. As a
matter of fact the Azad Hind Government considered the Hindusthani
version
the same as the original so that in the directions contained in the Azad
Hakumat-I-Azad Hind it has been stated that `Tagore's song Jaya-ho has
become
our National Anthem.'"
>ACCEPTENCE AS NATIONAL ANTHEM
>
> January 26, 1950 was set for the Indian Republic. The national anthem was
>to be chosen before the election of the President. The objection advanced
>Vandemataram was that unlike Janaganamana it did not suit band music, but
>Master Krishna Rao had solved the difficulty. He had given a demonstration
>before the members of the Constituent Assembly who had to decide the issue.
>Moreover, there was generous appreciation from experts in Bombay, both official
>and professional. It was therefore expected, that unless the technical objec-
>tion was a mere facade, the Constituent Assembly would adopt Vande Mataram
>as the national anthem. The Government's objections having been disproved,
>the nation heaved a sigh of relief.
>
> Mahatma Gandhi wanted Vande Mataram to be our national anthem. The song
>was invariably sung at his prayer meetings. After Vande Matram was sung on
>August 29, 1947, Gandhi ji said, ``Vande Matram should be set to music so that
>millions can sing it together, and feel the thrill. They should all sing in
>the same raga, with the same bhava. Shantiniketan or some other competent
>institution should design an acceptable raga.'' This wish of Gandhi ji was
>fulfilled through Master Krishni Rao's craftmanship.
>
> After this time, the whole of Bengal, under the leadership of its Premier
>Dr B. C. Roy, took up the campaign in favour of Vande Mataram.
>
Shivaramu has skipped a lot of facts here. Let me state them briefly
here
so that the readers can judge for themselves (in no way am I supporting
or opposing Vande Mataram as our National Song or Anthem). My only point
is the selection of Janaganamana had nothing to do with a conspiracy
going on `behind the scene'.
From Prabodhbabu's book:
" The proceedings of the historic session of Indian Constituent Assembly
at the midnight of the 14th August 1947 opened with the singing of
Vande Mataram and ended with Janaganamana, the two premier national
songs
of India at the time. Soon after Independence the Prime Minister of
India,
Pandit Jawaharlal Neheru, consulted the Provincial Governers and
Premiers
about adopting Janaganamana or any other song as the National Anthem.
All but two provinces signified their approval of Janaganamana. The
Prime
Minister himself was also in favour of this song. So the union cabinet
decided that Janaganamana should be provisionally recognised as India's
national Anthem, the final decision resting with the Constituent
Assembly.
Thereafter the song gained practical acceptance throughout the country
as our National Anthem. On 15th August 1948, the Sikh regiment Central
struck the tune of the song at the hoisting of the National Flag at the
first anniversary of Independence at the Red Fort in Delhi. Ten days
later
the Prime Minister made a statement in Parliament about the urgency of
selecting a National Anthem at an early date and gave his reasons for
preffering Janaganamana.
In the meantime the Constituent Assembly appointed a Committee to
make
recommendations about the final selection of a National Anthem. But
after
deliberations it was thought desirable to leave it with the President to
make a declaration in the Assembly on the question of adopting a
National
Anthem for India. Accordingly, when the constituent Assembly of India
finally met in the Constitution Hall on 24th January 1950 to sign the
Constitution, President Dr. rajendra Prasad declared his decision on the
matter in his opening statement:
There is one matter which has been pending for discussion, namely
the question of National Anthem. At one time it was thought that
the matter might be brought up before the House and a decision
taken by the House by way of a resolution. But it has been felt
that instead of taking a formal decision by means of a
resolution
it was better if I make a statement with regard to the National
Anthem. Accordingly, I make this statement -
`The composition consisting of the words and music known as
Janaganamana i the National Anthem of India subject to such
alteration in the words as Government may authorise as
occasion arises; and the song Vande Mataram whaich has played
a historic part in the struggle for Indian freedom shall be
honoured equally with Janaganamana and shall have equal status
with it.'
"
> In view of this background, the possibility of the members of the Constit-
>uent Assembly, inspired by sentiments of patriotism, adopting Vande Mataram
>as the national anthem was indeed strong. But things were happening behind the
>scene.
..[deleted]..
> Mahatama Gandhi called Janaganamana a religious hymn, not the national
>anthem, but he characterised numerous times Vandemataram as the national
>anthem.
This is what Mahatma Gandhi said:
"...They had just heard the national song he wrote, a song which has
found
a place in our national life. "How often is the inspiring refrain heard
from
the thousands of voices! It is not only a song but it is also like a
devotional hymn."
I hope to add Panditji's entire view on the song and its selection in a
separate post (here again Shivaramu has only quoted him selectively).
Let me add here two main reasons why some people thought Vandemataram
is not suitable as National Anthem (Once again, these are not my views).
1. There was difficulty in making the tune suitable to be played by
orchestral
and band music. (The book by Shivaramu addresses this point by
pointing
to the work of Master Krishna Rao.)
2. The original Vande Mataram was written with Bengal in mind and not
India. "sapta koTi kaNTha kalakala ninaada karaale" (or " Seventy
million voices are heard (praising you) in "kalakala" sound")
refers to Bengal and not India (whose population around that time was
seven crore). How many parts of India other than Bengal and Ganga
-Brahmaputra valley are "sujalaaM suphalaaM malayajashiitalaam.h/
shasya shyaamalaaM maatara.n ." ?
And lastly about some statistics. Shivaramu gives the result of a survey
in which 95% of the people supported Vande Mataram. I went through his
book
and could not find any source of this survey. Here's a result of another
survey of much smaller scale conducted in Bombay by Free Press.
*************************************************************************
FREE PRESS BULLETIN SURVEY OF PUBLIC OPINION
Song Most Tune Poetic Historical
National
Inspirisng Appeal
Jana Gana Mana 34.4 51.0 44.6 35.0 41.4
Vande Mataram 37.1 27.2 33.8 49.9 35.8
Hindustan Hamara 28.5 21.8 21.6 16.1 22.8
************************************************************************
He once again takes facts selectively when he writes:
>After this time, the whole of Bengal, under the leadership of its Premier
>Dr B. C. Roy, took up the campaign in favour of Vande Mataram.
Here's a quote from Neheru:
" Apart from the genral appreciation with which this tune was recieved,
there was at the time not much hoice for us, as there was no proper
musical
rendering avalable to us of any other National Song which we could send
abroad. At that stage, I wrote to all the Provincial Governers and
asked their views about our adopting "Jana-Gana-Mana" or any other song
as the National Anthem. I asked them to consult their Premiers before
replying. I made it perfectly clear to them that the final decision
rested
with the Constituent Assembly, but owing to the urgency of some
directions
being sent to foreign embassies and the Defence Services, a provisional
decision had become essential. Every one of these Governers, except
one (the Governer of the Central Provinces) signified their approval of
"Jana Gana Mana"....Subsequently the new Premier of West Bengal informed
us that he and his Goverment preferred `Vande Mataram'."
(from the statement made in reply to a short notice question in the
Constituent Assembly (Legislative), New Delhi, August 25, 1948.)
Hope this will help to counter some of the false allegations that have
been
directed against Rabindranath by some of our fellow Indians.
Thanks,
Arnab.
Raghu Seshadri
: India. "Jai Bharat Barsa" is more appropriate. The hind or
: hindustani or hindu is repulsive to the Indians who are not
: hindu or hindi speaking.
I have already explained that 'hind' does
not refer to religion, it refers to India.
Please read my other post.
About being repulsive to 'non-hindi speaking',
it is not a hindi word, it is Persian.
RS
ven...@my-deja.com
because we live in hindustan? what does hind mean in persia?
Are they referring to a religion or region?
Kulbir Singh
Raghu Seshadri (sesh...@cse.ucsc.edu) wrote:
: sdivad (anon...@web.remarq.com) wrote:
: : India. "Jai Bharat Barsa" is more appropriate. The hind or
: : hindustani or hindu is repulsive to the Indians who are not
: : hindu or hindi speaking.
: I have already explained that 'hind' does
: not refer to religion, it refers to India.
: Please read my other post.
: About being repulsive to 'non-hindi speaking',
: it is not a hindi word, it is Persian.
: These names were used to refer to India by the
: Persian conquerors. The reference is to the country,
: not the religion. In Iran, in all of Arabia, in
: Turkey, etc India is referred to as 'hind'.
Any compelling reason to continue the use of terms
which were coined by invading marauders?
: RS
Raghu Seshadri
: : These names were used to refer to India by the
: : Persian conquerors. The reference is to the country,
: : not the religion. In Iran, in all of Arabia, in
: : Turkey, etc India is referred to as 'hind'.
:
: Any compelling reason to continue the use of terms
: which were coined by invading marauders?
Respect for history, that's all.
But you have plenty of company in
Indian politicians, for whom changing names
is the principal activity every day.
RS
venki
it to Ind and thus India.
Venki
Jamil Raza
>
> sdivad (anon...@web.remarq.com) wrote:
> : India. "Jai Bharat Barsa" is more appropriate. The hind or
> : hindustani or hindu is repulsive to the Indians who are not
> : hindu or hindi speaking.
>
> I have already explained that 'hind' does
> not refer to religion, it refers to India.
> Please read my other post.
In actual fact "Hind" or "Hindustan" refers to Hindi-speaking regions
of North India. Classical Punjabi authors, for example, draw a sharp
distinction between Punjab and Hind. A Gujarati, Bengali or Tamil is not
a Hindusthani. Only Hindi speakers are Hindustani, regardless of which
religion they practice.
Jamil
> About being repulsive to 'non-hindi speaking',
> it is not a hindi word, it is Persian.
>
> RS
Raghu Seshadri
: In actual fact "Hind" or "Hindustan" refers to Hindi-speaking regions
: of North India. Classical Punjabi authors, for example, draw a sharp
: distinction between Punjab and Hind. A Gujarati, Bengali or Tamil is not
: a Hindusthani. Only Hindi speakers are Hindustani, regardless of which
: religion they practice.
:
: Jamil
This used to be true, but words are not frozen in time,
their usage evolves; we could say that the moment
Subhas Bose coined "Jai Hind", it had taken on references
to the whole of India, and has been used that way
ever since.
RS
Atanu Dey
> RS
Both Raghu and Jamil have a point. The word 'Hindustani' has different
meanings depending upon the context. For example, in the context of
Indian classical music, 'hindustani' is in contradistinction to
'karnatic' and together they form the two broad schools of the
Indian classical tradition. As a linguistic distinction, I have
heard my Bengali relatives from Bengal refer to us (born and brought
up outside Bengal) as 'Hindustani'. I suppose it is because Bengalis
like me speak Hindi.
Atanu
Jamil Raza
>
> Jamil Raza (ee...@sun.leeds.ac.uk) wrote:
> : In actual fact "Hind" or "Hindustan" refers to Hindi-speaking regions
> : of North India. Classical Punjabi authors, for example, draw a sharp
> : distinction between Punjab and Hind. A Gujarati, Bengali or Tamil is not
> : a Hindusthani. Only Hindi speakers are Hindustani, regardless of which
> : religion they practice.
> :
> : Jamil
>
> This used to be true, but words are not frozen in time,
> their usage evolves;
This is a truism. Of course, words only mean what a linguistic
community wants them to mean. There are many examples of words changing
meaning in the English language. But don't you think that it's a little
curious that after India was created by Gandhi and Nehru that not only
did it adopt Hindustan's language as the national language but also
adopted its name?
> we could say that the moment
> Subhas Bose coined "Jai Hind", it had taken on references
> to the whole of India, and has been used that way
> ever since.
If you were unaware of the correct usage of the term "Hindusthan" you
would end up a very confused person if you were trying to understand
historical chronicles or the works of the classical authors of the
subcontinent.
Jamil
Raghu Seshadri
: > This used to be true, but words are not frozen in time,
: > their usage evolves;
:
: This is a truism. Of course, words only mean what a linguistic
: community wants them to mean. There are many examples of words changing
: meaning in the English language. But don't you think that it's a little
: curious that after India was created by Gandhi and Nehru that not only
: did it adopt Hindustan's language as the national language but also
: adopted its name?
What is there to explain ? That they didn't
disturb the status quo ? The people were already
using it; they didn't go out of their way to
ban the usage. And if you knew their philosophies,
you wouldn't be surprised that they were
not big on forcible bans.
: > we could say that the moment
: > Subhas Bose coined "Jai Hind", it had taken on references
: > to the whole of India, and has been used that way
: > ever since.
:
: If you were unaware of the correct usage of the term "Hindusthan" you
: would end up a very confused person if you were trying to understand
: historical chronicles or the works of the classical authors of the
: subcontinent.
Again, 'correct' usage is time dependent.
'Classical usage' is not correct for modern times
anymore. Students of historical chronicles
should take the trouble to find out what the
word meant in those days, ofcourse.
In 1776, the U.S referred to the 13 colonies
only. Now it refers to 50 states. Is this curious
too ?
RS
:
: Jamil
Kulbir Singh
My argument for changing "Jai Hind" to something
else is as follows:
a) There is no reason why all the Indian
slogans: Jai Jawan Jai Kisan, Garibi Hatao,
Jai Hind etc. should be in Hindi, a language
many South Indians associate with North Indian
Goondas.
b) The word Hind was coined by invading marauders.
May be its time to have a slogan which is more
cosmopolitan, a kind of hybrid of Hindi and English.
How about 'Bye Bye Bharat'? This can fit well with
the personality of many super-patriot Indians. For instance
somebody like Chandraswami can end his emotional speech
as follows:
Hum Apne Shatru Pakistan Ko Atomee Shakti
Se Bhasam Kar Denge. Jab Humare Jawan Seema Par
Pakistan Ka Saamna Karenge Toh Hum Las Vegas
Mein Suzi Aur Jennifer Se Asharivadd Lene Kay Liye
Jayenge. Humare Senapati Ne Pakistan Ko Boll
Diya Hai Kee Agar Pakistan Ne Bharat Ke Agay
Atam Samarpan Nahi Kiya Toh Unko Humare Veer
Jawano Ke Krodh Ka Shikar Hona Parega. Iss Ke
Attiriktt Suzi Aur Jennifer Bhi Bahut Krodhit Hongi.
Hum Pakistan Ko Chetavni Detay Hai(n) Kay Kashmir Humare
Daddy Ne Hume Humaray Birthday Par Bhaintt Kiya Tha. Hum
Isse Kabhi Nahi Chorenge.
Bye Bye Bharat!!!!!
I think 'Bye Bye Bharat' sounds good and patriotic. Since
it contains both Hindi and English words, it can
also promote national integration.
Bye Bye Bharat!!!!!!
regards,
Kulbir Singh
: RS
Jamil Raza
>
> Jamil Raza (ee...@sun.leeds.ac.uk) wrote:
> : > This used to be true, but words are not frozen in time,
> : > their usage evolves;
> :
> : This is a truism. Of course, words only mean what a linguistic
> : community wants them to mean. There are many examples of words changing
> : meaning in the English language. But don't you think that it's a little
> : curious that after India was created by Gandhi and Nehru that not only
> : did it adopt Hindustan's language as the national language but also
> : adopted its name?
>
> What is there to explain ? That they didn't
> disturb the status quo ? The people were already
> using it;
But is that really true? I know for a fact that Punjabis and Sindhis
weren't calling themselves "Hindusthanis". They were just as
likely to call themselves "Norsemen".
> they didn't go out of their way to
> ban the usage. And if you knew their philosophies,
> you wouldn't be surprised that they were
> not big on forcible bans.
Oh, I'm very familiar with Nehru's "philosophy". How can I not be?
The subcontinent is still paying the price for it, and, alas, will
continue
to do so for many more generations.
> : > we could say that the moment
> : > Subhas Bose coined "Jai Hind", it had taken on references
> : > to the whole of India, and has been used that way
> : > ever since.
> :
> : If you were unaware of the correct usage of the term "Hindusthan" you
> : would end up a very confused person if you were trying to understand
> : historical chronicles or the works of the classical authors of the
> : subcontinent.
>
> Again, 'correct' usage is time dependent.
Rather like the full Schroedinger wave equation, you mean?
> 'Classical usage' is not correct for modern times
> anymore.
That is a matter of opinion. In West Punjab and Sindh the term
Hindustani is still used in its original and, as far as we're concerned,
correct sense. In fact, in another message in this thread Atanu wrote
that
even in India the word retained its original meaning.
>Students of historical chronicles
> should take the trouble to find out what the
> word meant in those days, ofcourse.
>
> In 1776, the U.S referred to the 13 colonies
> only. Now it refers to 50 states. Is this curious
> too ?
No, because 13+37=50. It did then, still does today, and
will do so in the future. You have yet to give a satisfactory
answer to why Tamils should call themselves "Hindustanis" any more
than Englishmen should call themselves "Hispanics".
Jamil
> RS
> :
> : Jamil
Raghu Seshadri
: > What is there to explain ? That they didn't
: > disturb the status quo ? The people were already
: > using it;
:
: But is that really true? I know for a fact that Punjabis and Sindhis
: weren't calling themselves "Hindusthanis". They were just as
: likely to call themselves "Norsemen".
The operative word is "were". I don't
disagree with you about "were". You seem
stuck in the past.
: > they didn't go out of their way to
: > ban the usage. And if you knew their philosophies,
: > you wouldn't be surprised that they were
: > not big on forcible bans.
:
: Oh, I'm very familiar with Nehru's "philosophy". How can I not be?
: The subcontinent is still paying the price for it, and, alas, will
: continue
: to do so for many more generations.
So what would you have preferred ?
That they should have banned these words ?
And I am puzzled about your insinuation that
using these words cost the subcontinent
a lot. Can you explain ? How did these words
cost anyone anything ?
: > : > we could say that the moment
: > : > Subhas Bose coined "Jai Hind", it had taken on references
: > : > to the whole of India, and has been used that way
: > : > ever since.
: > :
: > : If you were unaware of the correct usage of the term "Hindusthan" you
: > : would end up a very confused person if you were trying to understand
: > : historical chronicles or the works of the classical authors of the
: > : subcontinent.
: >
: > Again, 'correct' usage is time dependent.
:
: Rather like the full Schroedinger wave equation, you mean?
No.
: > 'Classical usage' is not correct for modern times
: > anymore.
:
: That is a matter of opinion. In West Punjab and Sindh the term
: Hindustani is still used in its original and, as far as we're concerned,
: correct sense. In fact, in another message in this thread Atanu wrote
: that
: even in India the word retained its original meaning.
The operative phrase here is "as far as we're concerned".
We in India are not concerned with what you are
concerned. We are concerned with what we are
concerned. As far as we are concerned, we are correct,
and as far as you are concerned, you are correct.
: >Students of historical chronicles
: > should take the trouble to find out what the
: > word meant in those days, ofcourse.
: >
: > In 1776, the U.S referred to the 13 colonies
: > only. Now it refers to 50 states. Is this curious
: > too ?
:
: No, because 13+37=50. It did then, still does today, and
: will do so in the future.
WHAT ???
Let me try again, this seems to have presented
you with some difficulty -
In 1776, the US = 13 states
In 1999 , the US = 50 states
Therefore the meaning of "the US" in 1776 != the meaning
of "the US" in 1999.
Is this clear ?
So if some man who has been snoozing since
1776 were to wake up and pick an argument with
today's people saying "in classical usage the US
means only 13 states", today's people would
give a kindly smile and say "things have changed".
And if he refuses to get it and keeps making
absurd arguments, they'd repeat it one last
time and hopefully quit.
: You have yet to give a satisfactory
: answer to why Tamils should call themselves "Hindustanis" any more
: than Englishmen should call themselves "Hispanics".
I am so sorry you didn't find
my answers satisfactory.
RS
ank...@my-deja.com
ee...@sun.leeds.ac.uk (Jamil Raza) wrote:
> Raghu Seshadri wrote:
> >
> > sdivad (anon...@web.remarq.com) wrote:
> > : India. "Jai Bharat Barsa" is more appropriate. The hind or
> > : hindustani or hindu is repulsive to the Indians who are not
> > : hindu or hindi speaking.
> >
> > I have already explained that 'hind' does
> > not refer to religion, it refers to India.
> > Please read my other post.
>
> of North India. Classical Punjabi authors, for example, draw a sharp
> distinction between Punjab and Hind.
Shah Mohamad in Jangnama writes " jang Hind Punjab da hon laga, doveiN
paatshahi faujaN bhariaN ne"
And even before him another notable line is by Waris Shah ji who while
describing Heer's beauty says "surma naina di dhaar vich khubh raheya,
charheya Hind te katak Punjab de ji"
There are many other references to the same fact in Punjabi literature
and thats how Punjabis felt about it before nehru/gandhi hijacked the
British Empire.
> A Gujarati, Bengali or Tamil is
>not
> a Hindusthani. Only Hindi speakers are Hindustani, regardless of which
> religion they practice.
>
> Jamil
>
> > About being repulsive to 'non-hindi speaking',
> > it is not a hindi word, it is Persian.
> >
> > RS
>
--
----------------------------------
Ankhila - A Proud Punjabi Gabhroo
----------------------------------
Jamil Raza
>
> Jamil Raza (ee...@sun.leeds.ac.uk) wrote:
> : > What is there to explain ? That they didn't
> : > disturb the status quo ? The people were already
> : > using it;
> :
> : But is that really true? I know for a fact that Punjabis and Sindhis
> : weren't calling themselves "Hindusthanis". They were just as
> : likely to call themselves "Norsemen".
>
> The operative word is "were". I don't
> disagree with you about "were". You seem
> stuck in the past.
Let me refresh your memory. You claimed that the term "Hindustani"
was being used all over the subcontinent by 1947, and that when Nehru
and Gandhi created India they didn't want to change the status quo so
they retained its use. My response was that it just isn't true that the
term was being used everywhere, because I know for a fact that Punjabis
and Sindhis never called themselves Hindusthanis. In other words, there
was no status quo. So why did this new country take on Hindusthan's
name, why did it adopt Hindusthan's language as the national language,
why does it aggresively promote Hindusthan's religious identity, and why
are non-Hindusthanis expected to shout "Jai Hind!", when you'll never
hear an Englishman say "Vive la France!"? Curious.
> The operative phrase here is "as far as we're concerned".
> We in India are not concerned with what you are
> concerned. We are concerned with what we are
> concerned. As far as we are concerned, we are correct,
> and as far as you are concerned, you are correct.
But you're not correct. In fact, you're very, very wrong. Atanu
wrote that his relatives in Bengal used the term only in its original
sense. For several years Nalakshina Bhattacharya has been writing on
usenet complaining of "Hindusthani" political and cultural domination of
the Indian Union.
> : >Students of historical chronicles
> : > should take the trouble to find out what the
> : > word meant in those days, ofcourse.
> : >
> : > In 1776, the U.S referred to the 13 colonies
> : > only. Now it refers to 50 states. Is this curious
> : > too ?
> :
> : No, because 13+37=50. It did then, still does today, and
> : will do so in the future.
>
> WHAT ???
>
> Let me try again, this seems to have presented
> you with some difficulty -
Indeed. Your arguments always present me with great difficulties.
Your logic obeys laws of its own.
> In 1776, the US = 13 states
> In 1999 , the US = 50 states
>
> Therefore the meaning of "the US" in 1776 != the meaning
> of "the US" in 1999.
>
> Is this clear ?
But the term "United States of America" makes no reference to a
particular ethnic or linguistic group. The whole of Latin America could
be incorporated into the US and it still wouldn't be incorrect to
describe it as the "United States of America".
On the other hand, Hindusthanis are a unique, well-defined
ethnico-linguistic community. Why would Tamils or Bengalis want to call
themselves Hindusthanis anymore than Englishmen?
> So if some man who has been snoozing since
> 1776 were to wake up and pick an argument with
> today's people saying "in classical usage the US
> means only 13 states", today's people would
> give a kindly smile and say "things have changed".
> And if he refuses to get it and keeps making
> absurd arguments, they'd repeat it one last
> time and hopefully quit.
We're not going to let you off the hook that easily, Ragu. :-)
Jamil
Gopala GANESH
>
> ven...@my-deja.com wrote:
> : else also bothered me for long time. Why
> : do indians say "Jai Hind" when they feel patriotic? If it sounds odd
> : and embarassing for me being a hindu, it must feel read awkward for
> : other patriotic indians who are not hindu. I have the same problems
> : with Hindustan. Should we just stick to Bharat and Jai Bharat?
>
> You seem to be under the mistaken impression
> that 'hind' and 'hindustan' are religious markers.
> They are not.
>
> Persian conquerors. The reference is to the country,
> not the religion. In Iran, in all of Arabia, in
> Turkey, etc India is referred to as 'hind'.
>
> Netaji Subhas Bose, most of whose lieutenants were
> Muslim. He wouldn't have used that word if it was
> sectarian. It is not.
>
> RS
Many of the Mughal emperors were known as "Emperor of Hindustan". I do
not think the connotation was religious. I believe it has a much
stronger link to the Indus (Sindhu) river!
- ganesh
gdr...@hotmail.com
Many of the Mughal emperors were called as *Conquerors of Hindustan*
and the cannotation was very much religious.
gdravid
>I believe it has a much
> stronger link to the Indus (Sindhu) river!
>
> - ganesh
>
Raghu Seshadri
: > : But is that really true? I know for a fact that Punjabis and Sindhis
: > : weren't calling themselves "Hindusthanis". They were just as
: > : likely to call themselves "Norsemen".
: >
: > The operative word is "were". I don't
: > disagree with you about "were". You seem
: > stuck in the past.
:
: Let me refresh your memory. You claimed that the term "Hindustani"
: was being used all over the subcontinent by 1947, and that when Nehru
: and Gandhi created India they didn't want to change the status quo so
: they retained its use. My response was that it just isn't true that the
: term was being used everywhere, because I know for a fact that Punjabis
: and Sindhis never called themselves Hindusthanis. In other words, there
: was no status quo.
Excuse me, Subhas Bose coined "Jai Hind" in the 1930s,
long before 1947. It had become an accepted slogan,
just like 'Vande Mataram ".
: So why did this new country take on Hindusthan's
: name, why did it adopt Hindusthan's language as the national language,
Because it was the majority language.
: why does it aggresively promote Hindusthan's religious identity, and why
It doesn't. You are uttering a falsehood here.
: are non-Hindusthanis expected to shout "Jai Hind!", when you'll never
Because Subhas Bose decided that, and it became
popular.
: hear an Englishman say "Vive la France!"? Curious.
Because Englishman are not part of France ?
If you are that curious, you'd have looked up
a map of France and a map of India. Why didn't
you ? Just curious.
: > The operative phrase here is "as far as we're concerned".
: > We in India are not concerned with what you are
: > concerned. We are concerned with what we are
: > concerned. As far as we are concerned, we are correct,
: > and as far as you are concerned, you are correct.
:
: But you're not correct. In fact, you're very, very wrong. Atanu
: wrote that his relatives in Bengal used the term only in its original
: sense. For several years Nalakshina Bhattacharya has been writing on
: usenet complaining of "Hindusthani" political and cultural domination of
: the Indian Union.
YOu may draw your reality from the net,
I will look to the ground realities.
: > In 1776, the US = 13 states
: > In 1999 , the US = 50 states
: >
: > Therefore the meaning of "the US" in 1776 != the meaning
: > of "the US" in 1999.
: >
: > Is this clear ?
:
: But the term "United States of America" makes no reference to a
: particular ethnic or linguistic group. The whole of Latin America could
: be incorporated into the US and it still wouldn't be incorrect to
: describe it as the "United States of America".
But the meaning has changed, no ? It didn't remain
static ? Correct ?
: On the other hand, Hindusthanis are a unique, well-defined
: ethnico-linguistic community. Why would Tamils or Bengalis want to call
: themselves Hindusthanis anymore than Englishmen?
As I explained before (and will do for the
last time now, as you seem stuck in a groove , unable
to adjust to new perspectives) words evolve, and
acquire new meanings. Subhas Bose christened the
whole country as 'hind', and derivatively its
citizens. You want language to freeze in the 17th c.
Sorry, language doesn't oblige you.
YOu seem to get upset at me for an impersonal
thing like language evolution. I wasn't responsible
for it. Whether you and I like it or not,
evolution marches on. There is little you can
do about it.
RS
Kulbir Singh
: Jamil Raza (ee...@sun.leeds.ac.uk) wrote:
: : > : But is that really true? I know for a fact that Punjabis and Sindhis
: : > : weren't calling themselves "Hindusthanis". They were just as
: : > : likely to call themselves "Norsemen".
: : >
: : > The operative word is "were". I don't
: : > disagree with you about "were". You seem
: : > stuck in the past.
: :
: : Let me refresh your memory. You claimed that the term "Hindustani"
: : was being used all over the subcontinent by 1947, and that when Nehru
: : and Gandhi created India they didn't want to change the status quo so
: : they retained its use. My response was that it just isn't true that the
: : term was being used everywhere, because I know for a fact that Punjabis
: : and Sindhis never called themselves Hindusthanis. In other words, there
: : was no status quo.
: Excuse me, Subhas Bose coined "Jai Hind" in the 1930s,
: long before 1947. It had become an accepted slogan,
: just like 'Vande Mataram ".
Just because Bose coined a slogan isn't a good reason to retain it.
As we know Nehru and Gandhi's perspective on World War II was
better than Bose's. Bose's success with his agenda could have been
disastrous.
regards,
Kulbir Singh
Raghu Seshadri
: : Excuse me, Subhas Bose coined "Jai Hind" in the 1930s,
: : long before 1947. It had become an accepted slogan,
: : just like 'Vande Mataram ".
:
: Just because Bose coined a slogan isn't a good reason to retain it.
India disagrees with you.
: As we know Nehru and Gandhi's perspective on World War II was
: better than Bose's. Bose's success with his agenda could have been
: disastrous.
What does that have to do with the slogan ?
RS
Kulbir Singh
: Kulbir Singh (kbh...@sfu.ca) wrote:
: : : Excuse me, Subhas Bose coined "Jai Hind" in the 1930s,
: : : long before 1947. It had become an accepted slogan,
: : : just like 'Vande Mataram ".
: :
: : Just because Bose coined a slogan isn't a good reason to retain it.
: India disagrees with you.
What is India?
I mean, is it Indian Parliament, Indian Judiciary, Congress, BJP/RSS,
Dalits, Sikhs, Christians?
regards,
Kulbir Singh
: RS
Raghu Seshadri
: Raghu Seshadri (sesh...@cse.ucsc.edu) wrote:
: : Kulbir Singh (kbh...@sfu.ca) wrote:
: : : : Excuse me, Subhas Bose coined "Jai Hind" in the 1930s,
: : : : long before 1947. It had become an accepted slogan,
: : : : just like 'Vande Mataram ".
: : :
: : : Just because Bose coined a slogan isn't a good reason to retain it.
:
: : India disagrees with you.
:
: What is India?
It is a country.
: I mean, is it Indian Parliament, Indian Judiciary, Congress, BJP/RSS,
: Dalits, Sikhs, Christians?
All that, and more.
RS
Kulbir Singh
: All that, and more.
Really? Please read the following and see if you are ashamed.
I am making this request because in your entire life if you
are ashamed of being an Indian even once -- I will consider
that a big achievement for India.
regards,
Kulbir Singh
***********************************************
Courtesy: The Telegraph, 7/18/99
Why is the thespian angry?
Vir Sanghvi
If you seek a measure of the success or failure of Indian secularism, then
you could do worse than look at the career of Yusuf Khan aka Dilip Kumar.
Almost anybody who has any acquaintance with Hindi cinema will tell you that
Dilip Kumar is one of the all time greats.
Moreover, his record in public life has been exemplary. Despite close
friendships with a series of politicians, he has never been involved in any
corruption scandal. Nor has there been any suggestion that he is at all
dishonest or money-minded. In fact, he is probably one of the poorer stars
in Bollywood: Shah Rukh Khan’s annual income exceeds Dilip Kumar’s net
worth.
In the Fifties, he was one of the first stars to use his celebrity for the
greater good of society. He offered his services to Jawaharlal Nehru who
used him to popularize a variety of causes. In the Sixties, he raised money
for jawans during the China war and the 1965 conflict with Pakistan.
Successive prime ministers of India have hailed his contribution to society
and each time he has been given a responsibility (he was sheriff of Bombay
20 years ago, for instance), he has always risen to the occasion.
If you want an example of the success of Indian secularism, Dilip Kumar
should fit the bill. He has been a truly patriotic Muslim. And India, in
turn, has honoured him by treating him as a legend in his own lifetime.
But of course, things are not that simple. No matter how successful he has
been, Dilip Kumar has never been allowed to forget that he is a Muslim.
It started with his name. Though he has always denied that the studio chose
a Hindu name for him to conceal his Muslim origins (I very nearly became
Jehangir. it was just that I preferred Dilip, he maintains), it can be no
accident that so many stars of that period played down their Muslim
parentage. The studios believed that in the India of that era, it helped if
people thought you were a Hindu.
For most of the Fifties, most of India had no idea that Dilip Kumar was
really Yusuf Khan. Newspapers didn't write much about movie stars, there was
only one gossip magazine (Film India, long since deceased) and there was of
course, no television with its diet of film based programming. All that fans
had were the performances. And these were enough to ensure Dilip became
Bombay’s top star.
Then, in the Sixties, the problems began. His film, Ganga Jamuna, ran into
unprecedented censor trouble. The censor board made it clear it would not
allow the film to be released unless he agreed to over 50 cuts. Not only
would these cuts have destroyed the movie, most of them were also absurd.
For instance, a scene where dacoits swooped down on a train was found
objectionable on the grounds that it might provide tips to would-be dacoits.
But the censors gave the game away when they objected to Dilip Kumar's last
words in the movie. Just before his character died, he said, "Hay Ram." That
had to go, said the censors.
Why, asked Dilip Kumar.
Because those were Gandhiji's last words.
But surely, any Hindu would think of Ram when he was dying.
Yes, said the censors. Any Hindu would.
Only the threat of legal action forced the censors to pass Ganga Jamuna,
which is now regarded as one of the classics of Indian cinema. Some people
suggested that Raj Kapoor whose Jis Desh Mein Ganga Behti Hai was in the
cinemas paid off the censors to delay the release of the competition. But
there is no doubt that Dilip Kumar believes that his religion had something
to do with it.
Worse was to follow. One day, a police party from Calcutta landed up in
Bombay and raided Dilip Kumar's house. He was a Pakistani spy, the police
said, and they were about to arrest him.
Dilip Kumar a spy? How could that make sense? And, anyway, what secret
information was he in a position to communicate to the Pakistanis? The vital
statistics of Vyjyanthimala?
It turned out that the Calcutta police had arrested a suspected Pakistani
spy. In his diary, they had found the names of many well known people. In
the finest traditions of the Indian police, they promptly concluded that all
the Hindus listed in the diary were contacts while the Muslims were enemy
agents. One such Muslim was Dilip Kumar.
It is a measure of how deep prejudice runs in our society that India's top
star a friend of Nehru who was then still prime minister was accused of
espionage on the basis of such flimsy evidence only because he was a Muslim.
If Dev Anand's name had been in the diary, it is extremely unlikely that
anyone would have bothered to raid him.
After several traumatic months, the police gave up for lack of evidence. But
rumours swept the city. Dilip Kumar had confessed. The police had recovered
a radio transmitter under his floorboards. He was a leader of a gang of
Muslim spies within the film industry. And so on.
It is to Dilip Kumar's credit that he bore no bitterness or illwill despite
such appalling mistreatment. Instead he was there, as always, ready to
support our troops in the war against Pakistan in 1965.
I mention all this lest you think — as many people with short memories or of
a certain age do that Dilip Kumar is being absurdly sensitive about Bal
Thackeray's campaign against him. To understand why Dilip Kumar has reacted
with such passion and force, you need to understand that he feels that no
matter what he does to prove his patriotism, there will always be those who
believe that it is not enough.
The problem with Thackeray has a historical origin. In 1967 when Dilip Kumar
was campaigning for Krishna Menon in North Bombay, Thackeray was busy
founding the Shiv Sena in its first avatar as a gang of Congress stooges who
beat up Malyalees who dared vote for Menon. Later, Thackeray revealed
himself to be India's filmi groupie number one. Movie stars flocked to the
Senapati’s residence and told him he was their Fan-apati while the old boy
stared goggle-eyed. Only Dilip Kumar had the dignity to remain aloof.
Thackeray never forgave him and by the time he had launched the Shiv Sena’s
Muslim-hating avatar, he seized on Dilip Kumar as a representative of all
that he loathed: a successful secular Muslim who saw no reason to pay court
to fascism, even when it was dressed up as groupiedom.
This explains why the Shiv Sena picks on Dilip Kumar again and again. During
the Bombay riots, it criticized him for daring to help resettle some of
those it had made homeless. When he said that he did not find the movie Fire
obscene, it sent a contingent of thugs who stripped down to their underwear
outside his house. A Shiv Sena member of parliament even said in Parliament
that he thought Dilip Kumar was a traitor. And now, Thackeray wants him to
return the Nishan-e-Imtiaz, the highest civilian honour in Pakistan.
From Dilip Kumar's perspective, enough is enough. He is in his late
seventies. He has proved his patriotism enough times. He is too old and too
tired to wage a solitary battle against Thackeray's persecution,
particularly when it is backed by the might of the Maharashtra state
government.
What does it say about Indian secularism that our country's most famous
Muslim should find, in the twilight of his life, that he is still regarded
with suspicion by an important section of our country? What must it be like
for a dignified Muslim of the old school who bought Nehru's dream of a
secular, progressive India to live in a Bombay which is now run by the
goondas of the Shiv Sena? And how humiliating must it be for Dilip Kumar to
go to Atal Behari Vajpayee and say, "Sir, I will do whatever you want?
It is to Vajpayee's credit that he has told Dilip Kumar to ignore Thackeray
and to follow his own conscience. But the episode as indeed, the manner in
which Dilip Kumar has been made to pay for being a Muslim throughout his
life shames us all as Indians.
If this is how we treat Dilip Kumar, who in the world will believe us when
we say that we treat our Muslims well?
: RS
Raghu Seshadri
: : : What is India?
:
: : It is a country.
: :
: : : I mean, is it Indian Parliament, Indian Judiciary, Congress, BJP/RSS,
: : : Dalits, Sikhs, Christians?
:
: : All that, and more.
:
: Really?
Yes, really.
:Please read the following and see if you are ashamed.
Why should I be ashamed ? My name doesn't figure
in that story, if you cared to notice.
: I am making this request because in your entire life if you
: are ashamed of being an Indian even once -- I will consider
: that a big achievement for India.
I might do that if you write a sensible
post atleast once, but neither is likely.
RS
sdivad
Kulbir? Did he fuck your sister or mother?
Kulbir is an Indian like you, but he does not like certain
hindu practices. Does that make him less Indian than you.
Motherfuckers like you are weakening our great country.
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Raghu Seshadri
: But aren't you in favour of retaining the slogan "Jai
: Hind" containng the word Hind which was coined by
: people who invaded our beloved motherland?
When did you start loving my motherland ?
Kulbir, are you going soft in your old age ?
RS
Kulbir Singh
: Kulbir Singh (kbh...@sfu.ca) wrote:
: : : : What is India?
: :
: : : It is a country.
: : :
: : : : I mean, is it Indian Parliament, Indian Judiciary, Congress, BJP/RSS,
: : : : Dalits, Sikhs, Christians?
: :
: : : All that, and more.
: :
: : Really?
: Yes, really.
: :Please read the following and see if you are ashamed.
: Why should I be ashamed ? My name doesn't figure
: in that story, if you cared to notice.
It is true that your name doesn't appear in the story.
But aren't you in favour of retaining the slogan "Jai
Hind" containng the word Hind which was coined by
people who invaded our beloved motherland?
regards,
Kulbir Singh
: RS
Kulbir Singh
: :
: : I am making this request because in your entire life if you
: : that a big achievement for India.
: I might do that if you write a sensible
: post atleast once, but neither is likely.
:
Raghu, I try very hard to post sensible stuff but end up
falling short of your high expectations. Somehow the fact that
Gandhi's charkha caused the collapse of British textile industry
doesn't sound convincing to me. But I will keep trying. Here
is another attempt:
FIGHTING BACK
INDIA'S UNTOUCHABLES ARE MOUNTING A REBELLION AGAINST UPPER-CASTE
PRIVILEGE. THEIR WEAPONS ARE EDUCATION, VOTES AND, INCREASINGLY, GUNS
BY TIM MCGIRK/KARISAKULAM WITH REPORTING BY FAIZAN AHMED/PATNA,
MEENAKSHI GANGULY/BELAUR, MASEEH RAHMAN/LUCKNOW AND R. BHAGWAN
SINGH/MADRAS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A village was on fire, and the wind that swirled the flames high above
the ancient banyan tree carried with it an unmistakable sound: a lone
woman crying over a corpse. It was grief at its most elemental, purer
than the wind and fire devouring this village in the dark night of
southern India. The woman wailed and shuddered while cradling her dead
husband. She is an untouchable, and so was her young husband, Perumal
Radhakrishnan. An invisible line divides this village, called
Karisakulam, and thousands of others like it across India, separating
the untouchables--those beneath Hinduism's rigid caste hierarchy--from
the upper-castes. Radhakrishnan had crossed that line. As a leader of
the village's untouchables, he had dared to defy the higher-caste
community of Thevars.
That evening, Radhakrishnan, a thin and bare-chested man, had ambled
over to the upper-caste side to watch the evening news on the village's
only TV, rigged up under the stars. While he sat there, four men from
the Thevar caste pinned him to the dirt while a fifth man pulled out a
sword and butchered him. Enraged by the killing, the untouchables burned
down the houses of all the Thevars in the village and slaughtered their
animals. They even smashed the TV; its fragments lay scattered next to
Radhakrishnan's corpse. Then the untouchables took fright--they were
afraid the Thevars would rouse the upper-castes from nearby villages and
seek revenge--and so they fled into a wasteland of thorn bushes, leaving
Radhakrishnan's widow alone, silhouetted against the flames as she
rocked her husband's corpse.
A few years ago, these untouchables would have dragged away
Radhakrishnan's body and cowered in their mud-huts, resigned to their
subhuman status. But now, scenes of defiance like the rampage at
Karisakulam are taking place throughout India. The country's more than
150 million untouchables (who prefer to call themselves Dalits, Hindi
for "the oppressed") are striking back. They are instigating a social
revolution that is long overdue, one whose aim is to topple the
2,500-year-old juggernaut of the Hindu caste system. Increasingly,
Dalits are challenging Hinduism's tenets that a person is condemned to
his caste--determining whether he becomes a doctor or a scavenger, whom
he marries, which village well he drinks from, and his social standing
in a complex, ordered hierarchy--all by his actions in a past life. In
this rebellion, the Dalit's main weapons are education and the vote. But
in some rural areas, where resistance to their demands for equality is
entrenched, they are taking up the gun. "Power was gradually slipping
through the hands of the dominant castes for several decades," says
Ashis Nandy, director of the Center for the Study of Developing
Societies in New Delhi. "It had already slipped down to the lower castes
and is now reaching the Dalits. This will help democracy." Or will it?
Consider the caste warfare and chaos now engulfing the northern states
of Bihar and Uttar Pradesh, where Dalits are trying to grab what they
believe is theirs after so many centuries.
Politicians and their promises offer little, however, to the most
radical Dalits. They would prefer an armed insurrection, and they are
willing to settle scores with higher-caste landlords using guns and
home-made bombs. Says Ram Prit, a 75-year-old Dalit laborer in Bihar:
"If you keep pouring water into a rat hole, the rats will come out
fighting."
Religious sanction has allowed this apartheid to survive Muslim
invasions, British colonialism and even 50 years of democracy. Defenders
of the caste system usually cite a verse from the Upanishads, Hinduism's
ancient sacred texts: "Those whose conduct on earth has given pleasure
can hope to enter a pleasant womb, that is, the womb of a Brahman or a
woman of the princely class. But those whose conduct on earth has been
foul can expect to enter a foul and stinking womb, that is the womb of a
bitch, or a pig, or an outcaste." A hymn from the sacred Rig Veda
describes how this human stratification came about: a cosmic giant,
Purusha, sacrificed parts of his body to create mankind. "His mouth
became the Brahman, his arms were made into the Warrior (Kshatriya), his
thighs the People (Vaishiya) and from his feet the Servants (Shudra)
were born." Through the centuries, these four main divisions (called
varnas), were slivered into more than 3,000 sub-castes, based on the
purity of their professions. A goldsmith is higher up the ladder than a
blacksmith, and a priestly Brahman, whose rituals bring him in touch
with the gods, is highest of all. The untouchables, however, are off the
ladder completely. By origin, many were India's dark-skinned first
inhabitants, conquered by Aryans and assigned such awful tasks as
burning bodies, skinning carcasses and removing "night soil"--human
excrement--from latrines. For thousands of years, outcastes were
burdened with these denigrating chores.
In many villages, untouchables still live in poverty and subjugation.
They are forbidden from entering temples or drinking from the same wells
as upper-castes. It was customary for higher-caste landlords to deflower
a Dalit bride on her wedding night, before her helpless groom. (To
cleanse himself after such a dalliance, according to the more than
2,500-year-old Laws of Manu, an upper-caste man must give alms and make
"daily mutterings" of prayers.) These Hindu rules are far from
even-handed: even today in some parts of India, if an untouchable is
caught sleeping with a high-caste woman, both he and the woman are
executed. A Dalit also can be considered too uppity, and risks a
beating, if he wears a wristwatch or trousers instead of a traditional
dhoti or loincloth. In some places in the south, Dalits aren't allowed
to use an umbrella. Some roadside tea stalls refuse to serve them out of
ordinary cups, and often Dalit children are warned not to try sharing
classrooms with upper-caste kids. In some villages like Vembakkotai, in
Tamil Nadu, the Dalits are forced to live on the leeward side to prevent
the wind that touches their bodies from defiling the upper-castes.
Faced with such persecution, Dalits are finally running out of patience.
What's surprising is that it took them so long, Their emancipation began
only in this century, behind the efforts of India's two great social
reformers, Mahatma Gandhi and Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar, an angry,
brilliant Dalit lawyer and politician. Through a scholarship from the
Maharajah of Baroda, Ambedkar, an impoverished village boy, was able to
study abroad and eventually earned several degrees. He worked as a
financial adviser to the Maharajah but quit in disgust because the
prince's upper-caste servants would fling documents onto his desk,
rather than hand them to him, for fear of contamination. Yet his genius
was unstoppable, as was his grit. "Nothing can emancipate the outcaste
except the destruction of the caste system," Ambedkar once declared.
"Nothing can help to save the Hindus and ensure their survival in the
coming struggle except the purging of the Hindu faith of this odious and
vicious dogma." As an author of the Indian constitution, he secured
guarantees for the advancement of outcastes. For decades, these promises
were often blocked by upper-caste bureaucrats, but a new generation of
Dalits inside the civil service is helping their downtrodden people. In
Uttar Pradesh, for example, 150 positions are held by Dalits in the
elite 540-member Indian Administrative Service. The government gives
Dalits a lift by reserving 15% of all government jobs and college places
for them.
Many of these educated Dalit bureaucrats are infuriated when, on visits
to their villages, they are mistreated by upper-caste neighbors poorer
and less educated than they. Man Dahima, a Dalit who is one of the most
senior civil servants in Bhopal, capital of Madhya Pradesh state, says
he still encounters "feudal harassment" when he goes back to his
village. "Even today, we're not allowed in some temples," he says.
"There are no signs outside, but these things are well understood."
Other urbanized Dalits seethe when being served out of coconut shells
instead of teacups or when forced to sit at a village Brahman's feet.
Says Ezhilmalai, a Dalit politician in Tamil Nadu: "The Dalit would
rather die than live without self-respect. And when he prefers to die
for honor, what is there to care for?"
Ambedkar wanted to destroy the caste pyramid through democracy, but the
rule of law has been slow in reaching many villages where upper-caste
landlords, often in league with local police, are keeping the Dalits
down. In such places, many Dalits are opting for armed resistance. "The
condition of the Dalits in the villages is so bad that the concern for
most is how to gain minimum self-respect and security," says a senior
state official in Uttar Pradesh. "What they want today is not jobs, but
to be able to live without being humiliated and harassed." In Uttar
Pradesh, Bihar, Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh, caste conflict is rife,
and it has spread to other states such as Madhya Pradesh and
Maharashtra. Many Dalits, along with forest-dwelling tribals, have
signed up with armed leftist groups like the Maoist Communist Center,
Liberation and People's War Group, which go around shooting or slitting
the throats of feudal upper-caste landowners and policemen. This
communist insurgency, which flared in the 1970s, still rages in the
backward regions of central and eastern India.
Not surprisingly, the upper-castes are hitting back. In Bihar,
high-caste landowners raised a private army called the Ranvir Sena, and
hardly a day goes by without caste killings. Even Rabindra Chowdhary, a
Ranvir Sena leader, concedes that the landlords had cruelly exploited
the Dalits. "We were abusive and did not treat these people well," he
says. "We do not believe in killing. But if we do not kill, they will
think that we are weak." Tension runs high, and even the most
nonsensical incident can trigger a bloody outburst. In Tamil Nadu, a
game of tag between Thevar and Dalit schoolboys led to the beheading of
a Dalit and the revenge killing of 13 people, both Thevars and Dalits,
many of them dragged off a bus and hacked to death. In Bihar's Belaur
village, a tiff over a pack of cigarettes led to a mini-war between
Dalits and the upper-caste Bhumihars that ultimately left 16 dead and
dozens wounded. Even today, that feud festers: more than 350 Dalit
families have deserted the village, and the Bhumihars--who patrol their
village at night with guns and spears, ready for attack--cannot hire
laborers for their fields. Some Dalits are even refusing to carry out
their repugnant jobs. "My generation is fighting," says Sri Prakash, a
Dalit whose house was set ablaze in a caste feud. "We've told the
Thevars we're not going to cremate their dead any more. Let them do it
themselves." Says Sociologist Nandy: "The Dalits are much more
aggressive. Now that they have tasted power, they don't want to be
denied it."
A mini-partition based on caste lines is taking shape in areas where
Dalits are especially politicized. In some districts, police say, Dalits
are probably better armed and organized than their upper-caste
adversaries. It has become too dangerous for a Thevar family to live
among the Dalits. Thevars are migrating to villages where they are in
control, while Dalits are moving to places where they are in the
majority. A Thevar knows better than to wander into some villages in the
Srivilliputhur district, where Dalits humiliate upper-caste strangers by
making them walk through the village with their sandals on their heads,
ridiculing Vedic order by putting the lowliest on top. Dalits toiling in
stone quarries and match factories have allegedly pilfered enough
explosives to gain a lethal edge. Says Mahboob Batacha, a Tamil social
worker in Madurai: "There's no village around here where the Dalits
aren't armed. Now, more Thevars are getting killed than Dalits."
Envy is often the spark for caste warfare. It is not usually the
top-rung Brahmans and Kshatriyas who clash with the Dalits but rather
the castes lower down: those slightly above the untouchables, such as
the Thevars in Tamil Nadu and the Yadavs in Bihar and Uttar Pradesh. As
Dr. K. Krishnaswamy, a prominent Dalit politician in Tamil Nadu,
explains, "Some Dalit youth are climbing fast through reserved
government jobs. Others have gone to the Gulf for employment, and they
are all bringing back TVs, refrigerators and vcrs. This is causing a lot
of heartburn among the other castes." Krishnaswamy's own life is an
illustration of this jealousy. When he was granted a scholarship to a
prestigious college, the upper-caste postman pocketed his admissions
letter, and Krishnaswamy never found out that he was accepted until too
late. Eventually he made it to medical school and, after leaving, set up
practice near his village. Many of his patients were Dalit women who
wanted abortions after being raped by upper-caste landowners. "I went to
the upper-caste men and told them this wasn't right. They should marry
these girls," he says. It was not a popular idea; a mob of 1,000
upper-caste men besieged the doctor's house one night, attacking him and
his family. After a month in the hospital, he returned, full of fight.
"It made me angry, more determined than ever," he says. Today,
Krishnaswamy is one of only a few Dalits elected to Tamil Nadu's
assembly, even though Dalits comprise about 20% of the state's voters.
His life has been threatened so often that, while driving through
upper-caste-dominated areas of the state, he is accompanied by two armed
bodyguards. Says Krishnaswamy: "The political parties are the real
culprits for keeping the caste conflict going."
But caste politics is alive and well, and is contributing to a
stirring-up of anti-Dalit sentiment in Bombay. In July, slum-dwellers
awakened to find that their statue of the bespectacled Ambedkar had been
garlanded not with the customary flowers but with a wreath of dirty
sandals. That was all it took to start a riot. Hundreds of angry Dalits
poured onto the streets, hurling stones and setting up roadblocks with
burning tires. Fearing the rioters would set fire to a parked gas
tanker, police started shooting in the shanty lanes, killing about a
dozen people. Once news of the deaths spread, Dalits began protesting in
the neighboring states of Gujarat, Karnataka and in the capital, New
Delhi.
The police shootings also revived antagonism between the Dalits and
Maharashtra's ruling Shiv Sena party. Its militant Hindu leader Bal
Thackeray has often attacked job reservations and the renaming of a
university after Ambedkar. The Bombay incident also revealed the Dalits'
disillusionment with their own leaders. When a former State Minister and
Dalit leader visited the shantytown the day after the killings, he was
attacked and had to run for his life. The funeral procession for those
shot by police was attended by 150,000 Dalits, but not one Dalit
politician dared to show up. Says Savita Ambedkar, the 81-year-old widow
of the Dalit leader: "If we can stay together, we have the power to make
a party succeed. But it's a great disappointment that the movement has
been captured by people who cannot really lead it properly."
A doctor and a Brahman who became Ambedkar's second wife, Savita now
lives alone in a shabby house in central Bombay. She has written a
biography of her late husband, but because of her high caste, she was
never really accepted by Dalits. Ambedkar's grandson Prakash hasn't
fared much better. Ambedkar died in late 1956, soon after founding the
Republican Party of India, but grandson Prakash, who now leads one of
its many factions, lacks his visionary fire.
Desperate, the Dalits in Bombay's slums are flailing for an alternative
leadership--or at least a godfather. Shortly after the funeral of the
slain Dalits, a lower caste Bombay underworld chieftain named Arun Gawli
offered himself as their savior. When the gangster called a Bombay
rally, thousands of Dalits flocked to it. Says social worker Sushoba
Barve: "After the killings, many Dalit youth felt that the only way to
protect themselves was to ally with someone who could give them
protection."
Elsewhere in India, Dalits are feeling equally deceived by the national
parties, which are top-heavy with high-caste politicians. Dalits have
yet to unite. "All that keeps India from having a bloody revolution is
that we Dalits are a divided lot," says civil servant Dahima. Even among
the Dalits, strong caste rivalries exist; one study discovered 900 Dalit
"sub-castes" in the country. Basically, everyone is squirming not to
fall to the bottom of India's massive pile of humanity. Predicts one
Dalit official: "As benefits trickle down, the conflicts between
sub-castes are bound to sharpen." Lately, a number of regional leaders
have been trying to bring unity to lower-caste aspirations. Several
could easily cripple their state capitals with 100,000-strong
demonstrations. So far, the only Dalit politician to challenge the
mainstream parties is Kanshi Ram, 63, a former technician at a
government defense laboratory. Armed with wiliness and an ability to
survive in the venal world of Indian politics, Ram has no qualms about
forming alliances with his high-caste adversaries if it brings his
Bahujan Samaj Party to power. His abrasive protege Mayawati governed
Uttar Pradesh for six months in alliance with the Hindu nationalist
Bharatiya Janata Party, many of whose followers adhere stoutly to Manu's
ancient law. During her term, Mayawati ordered 13,000 statues of
Ambedkar and began work on a $30 million park in Lucknow in honor of the
Dalit leader. She also reshuffled 1,400 bureaucrats and police officers.
Dalit civil servants, whose promotions had been mothballed by their
high-caste superiors, were elevated to top posts. State funds and
projects for roads, schools and electricity were channeled to neglected
Dalit villages. Above all, Dalits were treated to the
spectacle--unimaginable a few years back--of an acid-tongued Dalit like
Mayawati ordering around upper-caste grandees in the administration who
in the past had either bullied or, at best, ignored them.
Mayawati made plenty of enemies, though. She arrested thousands of
low-caste political opponents, while her own Dalit-run administration
was accused of corruption. Some Dalits proved as nasty as their one-time
tormentors, and police were often used to settle old grievances against
the upper-castes. A law meant to check atrocities against Dalits was
mis-used to send scores of innocent people to jail. Bail was denied, but
bribes were gladly accepted. One former bureaucrat recounts how his own
Brahman servant was accused of banditry back in his village even though
the servant was then in Lucknow, hundreds of kilometers away. "It turns
out the police officer in charge was a Dalit," the former bureaucrat
explains. "This militancy," according to sociologist Nandy, is "the
price we have to pay. We are seeing an attempt by the Dalits to reaffirm
their dignity. I won't say they're being provocative, but they are no
longer turning the other cheek."
All national parties are now appealing to Dalits, which is perhaps one
reason why Narayanan's bid for the presidency (a largely symbolic post)
went unopposed. The President is the fourth of seven children born to a
father who practiced traditional medicine in Kerala using herbs and
plants. Often, his parents could not afford school fees, and Narayanan
was punished for missing class until his father scraped up the rupees.
He rose to become India's ambassador to the United States before
entering politics. "A diplomat," Narayanan once said, "should have a
thick skin. I got mine through experiences such as standing on a bench
in front of the whole class." Narayanan likes to see himself as the
President of all Indians, but many Dalit militants fault him for not
using his exalted office to help lift his downtrodden community.
Not surprisingly, many Dalits have tried to escape caste fetters by
converting from Hinduism to Christianity, Islam and Buddhism, which
preach that all men are equal before God. Ambedkar led the way in 1956,
when he organized a public rally at which he and nearly half a million
of his followers publicly left Hinduism to become Buddhists. Pointedly,
he held this mass conversion in Nagpur, headquarters of a right-wing
Hindu movement, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh. Dalits also complain
that the caste system has crept into other religions, so that a Dalit
convert is not treated as well as, say, a Brahman or a Kshatriya. Some
Dalit activists insist that Dalits should try to erase Hinduism's
prejudices against them from inside the faith. Says Krishnaswamy:
"Religious conversion is not an escape. It's a temporary shelter. We are
the original owners of this country, so why should we lose our
identity?"
Despite past attempts at reform, Hinduism's phobia against the Dalits
runs deep. A Dalit girl named Kumud Pawde once heard Vedic hymns coming
from the home of high-caste neighbors. She stopped, transfixed by the
oceanic chants, the lamps, the fragrance of incense. In Poisoned Bread,
an anthology of Dalit writing, Pawde describes how a woman in pearls and
brocaded sari emerged from the house and yelled: "Hey girl! What are you
staring at? Here, take a ladoo [a sweet] and be off!" Pawde was so
entranced by the Vedas that she decided to study Sanskrit, braving the
taboo that forbade all but Brahmans from learning the sacred language.
She is now one of India's few Dalit professors of Sanskrit. She recalls
the despair on the faces of some high-caste students as they asked
themselves: "In what former life have I committed a sin that I should
have to learn Sanskrit even from you? All our sacred scriptures have
been polluted."
Many Hindus felt just as scandalized when a Dalit, Suryavanshi Das
Tyagi, was made priest of the elegant Mahabir temple in Patna, the
capital of Bihar. He is perhaps the only Dalit priest among northern
India's 300 million people. "When I was appointed, there was enormous
resentment," says Tyagi, 55, "But now, even the Brahmans touch my feet."
Nonetheless, Brahman priests tried to bar Tyagi from the temple until a
senior official intervened. All around India, Dalits are demanding free
access to their gods. Not far from Patna, Kunti Devi, a woman from the
much-despised Dalit community known as Musahars, the rat-eaters, strode
into a temple devoted to Durga, the Hindu goddess who slayed an evil
demon. Kunti had her own demons to slay. By simply laying an offering of
flowers before Durga, she effectively opened up the temple to her fellow
Dalits. "The upper-castes knew I'd gone in," she boasts. "But they
didn't dare say anything. They knew I had supporters who would beat them
up."
Instead of risking confrontation, many Dalits are heading for the
cities. For them, the urban centers offer hope, an escape from some
caste barriers. As Bindeshwar Pathak, a New Delhi social worker, says,
"Can we check who cooked the meal in a hotel, or who sat beside us on a
bus? Can we stop someone from living next door?" But the choice of jobs
for illiterate newcomers is grim. In Bhopal, Munni Bai, mother of nine
children, earns $22 a month emptying 40 latrines a day. She carries the
excrement on her head, in a wicker basket she carefully lines with old
newspapers. And the smell? She shrugs. "Just to fill my belly I've had
to do these things," she replies. Munni Bai at least has some freedom.
She probably considers herself better off than the Dalits of Khajuri,
just 20 km from Bhopal, who have never heard of the great emancipator
Ambedkar, who can't read or write and who are paid about $14 a month
toiling for their upper-caste landlord. "There's a terror in the
village. We can't speak against them or we'll be beaten," whispers one
old man.
Money is breaking up caste prejudices faster than any law can, and
therein lies India's hope of shedding its ancient, shameful yoke of
discrimination. Even by doing such menial jobs as washing dishes or
sweeping factory floors, the Dalit in the city is better off than many
of the higher-caste folks back in his country village. He may not be
able to read or write, but his children will. One Dalit returned to his
Rajasthan village on a break from his city job. "The priests stop us
from going into the temple. But their sons come into our house because
they want to watch TV," he says. "For years they said we were dirty. But
now we look much cleaner than they do.
: RS
Raghu Seshadri
: Raghu, I try very hard to post sensible stuff but end up
: falling short of your high expectations. Somehow the fact that
There is a mistake here ,Kulbir. I don't have
any "high" expectations of you at all. In fact I
expect you to post nonsense, and so far
you have fulfilled them just fine. Please
don't change. I wouldn't want the sun to start
setting in the east.
RS
Kulbir Singh
: : people who invaded our beloved motherland?
: When did you start loving my motherland ?
: Kulbir, are you going soft in your old age ?
Respected Raghu Uncle Ji,
I love your motherland dearly.
This is the reason why I strongly opposed your proposal
to bomb nuclear-power Pakistan; this is the reason why
I try to counter your lies and disinformation; this is
the reason why I raise my voice for the voiceless people;
this is the reason why I suggest that there should be defence
cuts in the region; this is the reason why I say that India is a
screwed-up country which needs radical reforms; this is
the reason why I don't find your claim of Gandhi's charkha
causing the collapse of British textile industry convincing;
this is the reason why I suggest you not to worry about ISI and
Gurdwaras in Pakistan.
regards,
Kulbir Singh
: RS
Kulbir Singh
: : Hind" containng the word Hind which was coined by
: : people who invaded our beloved motherland?
: When did you start loving my motherland ?
: Kulbir, are you going soft in your old age ?
Raghu Seshadri
: : : But aren't you in favour of retaining the slogan "Jai
: : : Hind" containng the word Hind which was coined by
: : : people who invaded our beloved motherland?
:
: : When did you start loving my motherland ?
: : Kulbir, are you going soft in your old age ?
:
: I love your motherland dearly.
You are even more confused than I had supposed,
Kulbir. You need clinical help fast. You have written
atleast 500 articles claiming India never existed
and needs to be eliminated.
Try taking a long vacation. Like, for about
2 years.
RS
Kulbir Singh
: Hey Raghu Seshadri, what the fuck is your problem with
: Kulbir? Did he fuck your sister or mother?
: Kulbir is an Indian like you, but he does not like certain
: hindu practices. Does that make him less Indian than you.
: Motherfuckers like you are weakening our great country.
Dear Sdivad,
There is a simple unwritten rule of debate. The
person who is the first to personally attack
the opponent loses the debate.
I am not suggesting that you have lost the debate to Mr.
Seshadri because you have never discussed anything
with him. I can see that Mr. Seshadri's excesses
over the years have made you a bit emotional but
it is not him we need to attack. It is his flawed
vision which needs to be exposed. When we know that
our opponent has an inherently weak vision it becomes
more important to be polite and magnanimous.
regards,
Kulbir Singh
: * Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
Kulbir Singh
: : : : people who invaded our beloved motherland?
: :
: : : When did you start loving my motherland ?
: : : Kulbir, are you going soft in your old age ?
: :
: : I love your motherland dearly.
: You are even more confused than I had supposed,
: Kulbir. You need clinical help fast. You have written
: atleast 500 articles claiming India never existed
: and needs to be eliminated.
For the record, I haven't written 500 articles claiming
that India needs to be eliminated.
What I have said is that India in its
present form was created by the British for
administrative convenience. This is perhaps the first
time in the history of the region that Assam and
Punjab are a part of the same administrative structure.
I have also said the following a few times:
a) India is a totally screwed-up country.
b) India is an artificial entity held together
by brute force.
India will remain a screwed-up artificial entity till
it doesn't abandon the colonial model of administration,
government and resource management.
It is not India which needs to be eliminated.
It is the people who stand to gain from
the misery and suffering of Indians who need
to be defeated. Indians are merely innocent
victims of patriotic machinations of various
shades. As Indians our first loyalty should
be towards the Indian people and not with any
patriotic mumbo-jumbo created by the vested
interest.
regards,
Kulbir Singh
: Try taking a long vacation. Like, for about
: 2 years.
: RS
Atanu Dey
> It is not India which needs to be eliminated.
> It is the people who stand to gain from
> the misery and suffering of Indians who need
> to be defeated. Indians are merely innocent
> victims of patriotic machinations of various
> shades. As Indians our first loyalty should
> be towards the Indian people and not with any
> patriotic mumbo-jumbo created by the vested
> interest.
Amen to that, brother!!!
I could not agree with you more.
Atanu
Raghu Seshadri
<blah, blah>
I accept Atanu's advice, and will no longer
continue this fruitless tete-a-tete.
Bye !
RS
Atanu Dey
> I accept Atanu's advice, and will no longer
> continue this fruitless tete-a-tete.
> Bye !
> RS
At your own peril you accept my advice. People have been known
to suffer after taking my advice. So the usual disclaimers apply.
Your mileage may vary. Some assembly required. Batteries not
included. Product may settle during shipment. Avoid using product
close to an open flame. Do not use while showering. May explode
if improperly disposed off.
Atanu :)
Kulbir Singh
: <blah, blah>
: I accept Atanu's advice, and will no longer
: continue this fruitless tete-a-tete.
Dear Sir,
Why do you say it is fruitless? You have one vision for
the region and I have another. What is wrong in discussion
so that readers can find out which one is better?
A few months ago you declared amidst fanfare that Sikh Gurdwaras
in Pakistan had gone under the control of ISI. At that time
you couldn't produce any evidence. I am wondering if you can
produce some evidence now.
In case you cann't, would you show the decency
to apologize for spreading rumours on the net?
A few days ago you said that Gandhi's charkha caused the
collapse of British textile industry. Could you
please explain how it happened?
What is the production capacity of a charkha?
How much fabric was produced annually with charkha?
regards,
Kulbir Singh
: Bye !
: RS
Kulbir Singh
: Amen to that, brother!!!
What I wrote doesn't imply that India is not a screwed-up
artificial entity.
regards,
Kulbir Singh
: I could not agree with you more.
: Atanu
Atanu Dey
Kulbir Singh clarified his position when he wrote:
> What I wrote doesn't imply that India is not a screwed-up
> artificial entity.
> Kulbir Singh
I again agree with you completely. India is a screwed-up artificial
entity. There is nothing 'natural' about a nation. Nature does
not create nations spontaneously. Termite colonies and coral reefs
are natural. Mountains are natural. Roads are artificial. As are
institutions such as markets, the judiciary, the transportation
system, educational institutions. They are all artificial. They
are the result of human action following some human ideas and
ideals. India, like other nations, is artificial since it too
is a human institution.
The second part of your contention -- screwed-up -- is beyond
a shadow of a doubt true. Anyone who does not recognize that
India is screwed up is brain dead and needs to be taken off
life support immediately to conserve resources.
That does not in any way imply that other nations such as
Pakistan or the US or Rwanda or whathaveyou are not also
screwed up. They may or may not be screwed up. But the basic
fact is incontrovertible that India is a screwed up place.
One can reasonably debate the extent of the screwup or how
screwed up it is in relation to other nations. That we can
debate. We can also debate how we can un-screw the nation.
But you will not get any argument from me if you were to
forward the proposition that India is a screwed-up entity.
Hope this helps in understanding where I am coming from.
Atanu
sdivad
with Raghu, you are being a pain in the butt by not being
clear in what you are trying to say and very few including
Ragu is understanding what the fuck you are trying to say.
Answer the following fucking question:
1. Are you an Indian?
2. Do you want India to remain undivided and strong?
3. Do you want hindus, mulims, sikhs, christians, jews to
live in harmony in their own ways in India?
4. Do you want J&K to be an integral part of India?
If the answer to any of the above is no, then eat shit and
die and rot in hell.
Manu
>
> Hope this helps in understanding where I am coming from.
> Atanu
sdivad
migrate to India (West Bengal) before migrating to US. He
is of the belief that Bangla will be East Bengal + West
Bengal, and that the combine population of Bangla will be
90% muslims, 10% hindus after all the hindus get butchered
by the muslims or migrate to US. Nice excuse to seek
political asylum in US.