What is secularism?

Probably all of us have known this word. In fact it would not be wrong to trust that this word is used more in India than anywhere else. It is ironic that most of the other countries label India’s secularism as flawed secularism. Why?

The exact meaning of secularism is debatable since world uses it differently. There are often two different meaning attached to word secularism.

Gandhi’s view of secularism was in essence –

equality to all religion. A design in which everybody is free to follow their own religious belief without being obstructive and malicious towards others.

While Nehru’s view towards secularism was more aligned to the perspective of countries like USA or France and that means –

The State should indifferent and non interfering in religious matters. This in fact implies that state will neither endorse nor interface in the religious matter. In short religion and state are two separate entity. Period.

Before we move I must clarify what I mentioned above was Nehru’s ideal view. Weather it reflected in his practice or not still needs to be discussed.

So which of the two is a better solution? And what have we adopted? While second definition is more popular with the international community, is it really feasible in a country which is both large and rich (read heterogeneous) in terms of number of religions. According to Max Muller :

In terms of religion and culture, India is the only millionaire.

The key question is can we really be neutral to religion? And what will the neutrality mean? Who will be considered secular? One who doesn’t belief in any religion or one who believes in every religion equally? And how many of us will really fit in either of the two definition?

If a secular person means he who doesn’t follow any religion can he really answers to the concerns of his countrymen most of who follow one religion or other? If secular means equal respect to all religion can a person who doesn’t respect his own religion really respect other religions? The key question is:

Can you be a true secular without being a true Hindu or a true Muslim or for that matter without being true to your own religion?

What have we adopted?

So what definition of secularism we adopted? Nehru, being the first leader of Independent India must have at least thought of implementing his own ideals over and above the dreams of the father of the nation.

But it was Nehru himself, who first initiated an attempt to enact and enforce Hindu code bill sought at bringing in reforms to Hindu community. The bill included several provisions aimed at improving so called flaws in Hindu practices and for the betterment of Women members of the society.

The need for such a code was first seen during British rule. But following their own non religious interference principle they couldn’t enact it until it arises from a demand from Hindu community, which was not the case.

When Nehru decided to enact this bill, the situation has not really changed much. In fact Hindu community in general felt offended as it seemed to be an attempt to single out Hindu religion as the only needing an improvement, which was not true.

While several improvements proposed by the bill are undeniably justified it posed three important questions with respect to our current discussion:

1. Is this not contradictory to non-interference to religions? Why the state should interfere and sought to improve a religion when it seems to be secular (and neutral to the same)?
2. If it is equality to all religions why a similar attempt was not made by the government to improve other religions in India where need to safeguard women’s right appear to be greater?
3. So on what definition Hindu Code Bill and secular credential of India go hand in hand?

Nehru faced severe opposition for this bill in the very first general election in India. However, instead of understanding the sentiments of people, opposition made him all the more adement and the bill was enacted in the year 1955-56.

Nehru faced opposition not only from citizens and opposition benches, his own long time colleague Mr Kripalani, on the floor of parliament, labeled him communal.

It was not as if Nehru was not aware of the real solution – Uniform Civil Code. While he agreed to the need in the parliament he dared not enact the same and just suggest the time has not come for such a bill. What does that mean? Time is not right for being secular? So much about the secular credentials of the first Prime Minister of Independent India.

Many years and government later a law was enacted interfering into Muslim laws also. However the famous Shah Bano case was far from protecting the rights of women.

So when we became secular?

That is probably one of the most interesting question to ponder. When India officially became secular? In 1947 on the day we achieved our Independence? Or on Jan 26^th 1950, when we embraced our constitution? Interestingly answer is neither. We added the word secular to Indian constitution by 42 amendment act in 1976. Indecently and ironically it was the time of national emergency when our constitution was virtually suspended. So India became secular when it was neither democratic nor republic. This leads to another set of questions:

1. Was India un-secular before 42^nd amendment? Is it that Mrs. Gandhi realized that her father forced India to become non-secular and she sought to correct it?
2. What was the status of India before Hindu code bill was brought to the table? Was it secular then or it was still un-secular?
3. Why secular word was not in the preamble of Original constitution?

If we go down in the roots it will not be difficult to realize that India has been a secular country as long as it existed.

Hindu belief has always been that of respect and tolerance to all religions. A glaring example to this aspect is the rise of religions like Buddhism and Jainism. Buddha stood against many of the core aspects of Hindu belief system – like cast and idol worship? So how Hindus reacted to Buddha? Fought him? Chased him? Crucified him? No. We simply accepted them as the 9^th incarnation of Vishnu.

In Gita, Krishna himself said : That to eliminate the deformity, to punish the wrong doers and to preserve the good I will incarnate whenever need will arise.

And so we respected every religion and preacher. We saw Krishna and Vishnu in them. We agreed to change systems such as sati and widow remarriage.

How can you offend someone when that someone can be the next incarnation of Vishnu?

It was its secular (non malice towards others religion) credential that first allowed Mugals and later Portuguese, French and British set their foot on this land.

As is clear to see that Hindu majority India can exist essentially in one form – As secular. Secularism (freedom to follow your religion; tolerance and non-malice to every other religion) was so deep rooted in Indian mentality that nobody really thought of explicitly mentioning it in the constitution.

So what was the need to bring this word by an amendment, specially at a time when most of the democratic provisions of constitution was suspended? Was it some of the actions of then or previous governments that ruled India that forced the explicit mention of this word?

What does Indian Constitution Says about Secularism?

First thing first, secularism in Indian constitution doesn’t just mean dharmnirpeksh, non-biased towards religions, it essentially translates to panthanirpeksh, non-biased toward different sects. It emphasis on no discrimination or malice towards any religion or sects. It further says:

Everyone is free to practice, preach and propagate religion of their own choice.

In essence, it means that you will still be considered secular if you respect your own religion, if you work openly towards its cause and propagation.

Is India really secular?

After nearly 66 years of Independence, we have still not dared to move and inch towards uniform civil code. We have ever increasing reservations which can’t really be considered as panthanirpeksha? We have several exemptions and subsidies on certain pilgrimage and several taxation on other pilgrimage doesn’t really amount to what we can call as Dharmnirpekhsa? We introduce reservations and laws to appease a certain sects doesn’t really amount to secularism?

What is the cost of Secularism?

In the year 1996, no single party in India achieved absolute majority. The single largest party was not allowed to form the government. Other parties hastily formed an alternative coalition. Reason? The single largest party was deemed to be non secular. As mentioned earlier the government comprised of parties who had fought bitter battles against each other. People voted in favour of one party essentially voted against the other. Democratic decision of the citizens of India was ignored. All in the name of secularism.

The alternative government since had no real democratic support fell after changing its head twice in as many years and India plunged into yet another general election that incurred cost of millions of Rupees which can otherwise be utilized for more productive purposes. All this in the name of secularism.

An indecisive government headed by premiers who compared themselves with Draupadi of Mahabharat (non secular, I suppose) was not only a disrespect to people’s verdict, but also retarded Indias growth.

Later, the democratic republic, that is India, choose the same non secular party to form its government again. This time with more number of seats to form a stable government that can last. The non secular government survived yet another term.

Is Secularism Worth the Price?

I am certainly not against the idea of secularism. I can’t be against secularism as it is in our blood. The question is what we are ready to trade off for secularism is it a fair price? Say in 1996 the pro secularist parties succeeded in ousting the non secular government; but still a government chosen by the people through a democratic process.

So now India is secular; but neither democratic nor republic. Have we forgotten the original preamble of the India’s constitution?

Phase 1 … Pre Independence

Shri Ramdhari Singh Dinkar, is often saluted as National Poet. He is well known for his motivational and national tone. First extract is from a poem written before India’s independence and as such motivates Indians (for that matter nationals of any country) for the ultimate sacrifice.

यह झण्डा, जिसको मुर्दे की मुट्ठी जकड़ रही है,
छिन न जाय, इस भय से अब भी कस कर पकड़ रही है;
थामो इसे; शपथ लो, बलि का कोई क्रम न रुकेगा,
चाहे जो हो जाय, मगर, यह झण्डा नहीं झुकेगा।

Mark our national flag- which is in the tight grip of a martyr, who is holding on to it even after death, so that no body can take it away. Now lets take a solemn oath that the sacrifices will go unabated but our flag will not bow down.

इस झण्डे में शान चमकती है मरने वालों की,
भीमकाय पर्वत से मुट्ठीभर लड़नेवालों की।

The flag is a reflection of the glory of those who died for it; those few who fought against the mighty mountain like opponents.

इसके नीचे ध्वनित हुआ ’आजाद हिन्द’ का नारा,
बही देश भर के लोहू की यहाँ एक हो धारा।

It is under this very flag we raised the slogan of “Free India”. It is under this flag we stood united and our bleed together.

जिस दिन हो तिमिरान्त, विजय की किरणें जब लहरायें,
अलग-अलग बहनेवाली ये सरिताएँ मिल जाएँ।

The day we will be victorious and the flag will be hoisted all rivers flowing on different path will merge together. The poet essentially referred to our multi-cultural, multi-religious, multi-lingual nation as different rivers and hoped to see all united under the national flag.

We indeed fought together. We Indeed were victorious. The Martyrs got us freedom and our flag is now glorious. But weather the things went as planned…?

Phase 2… Years later

Having achieved our Independence we set of the new path.How much successful we were were summed after seven years by the same poet in his poetry समर शेष है “The Battle is on…”. I have changed the word seven here to make it more contemporary.

समर शेष है

ढीली करो धनुष की डोरी, तरकस का कस खोलो
किसने कहा, युद्ध की बेला गई, शान्ति से बोलो?
किसने कहा, और मत बेधो हृदय वह्नि के शर से
भरो भुवन का अंग कुंकुम से, कुसुम से, केसर से?

I wonder, who suggested to set aside the weapons and that the war is over and its time to talk in peace? It is surprising that we have agreed to merry among ourselves and decorate our houses.

कुंकुम? लेपूँ किसे? सुनाऊँ किसको कोमल गान?
तड़प रहा आँखों के आगे भूखा हिन्दुस्तान।

But the question is how to merry? How to sing in joy when I see the Hungary starving India in front of me?

फूलों की रंगीन लहर पर ओ उतराने वाले!
ओ रेशमी नगर के वासी! ओ छवि के मतवाले!
सकल देश में हालाहल है दिल्ली में हाला है,
दिल्ली में रौशनी शेष भारत में अंधियाला है।

Those who are trying to portray the glorious picture of India and are trying to improve your image be clear – The whole India is suffering. You see shines only around you  (In Delhi) ?

मखमल के पर्दों के बाहर, फूलों के उस पार,
ज्यों का त्यों है खड़ा आज भी मरघट सा संसार।
वह संसार जहाँ पर पहुँची अब तक नहीं किरण है,
जहाँ क्षितिज है शून्य, अभी तक अंबर तिमिर-वरण है।

Beyond the artificial setup with glossy flowers and lively curtains, You still have the same miserable world. A world which is yet to see the promised sunshine (of opportunity) on independence.  Where there is still a vacuum in future and struggle for survival is still on.

देख जहाँ का दृश्य आज भी अन्तस्तल हिलता है,
माँ को लज्जा वसन और शिशु को न क्षीर मिलता है।
पूछ रहा है जहाँ चकित हो जन-जन देख अकाज,
सात साठ वर्ष हो गए राह में अटका कहाँ स्वराज?

It is terrible to see the current situation – Neither the Mothers get enough to wear nor kids enough to eat. Seeing the anarchy every one is asking the same quetion –“It has been seven sixty years… where is the Independence?”

अटका कहाँ स्वराज? बोल दिल्ली! तू क्या कहती है?
तू रानी बन गयी वेदना जनता क्यों सहती है?
सबके भाग्य दबा रक्खे हैं किसने अपने कर में ?
उतरी थी जो विभा, हुई बंदिनी, बता किस घर में?

Its time for Delhi (The government) to answer this question. How is it that you alone became prosperous and the people of India is suffering. You are responsible to find out who has grabbed the  fortune meant for Indians. The opportunity which was supposed to be for every one but is hoarded by few.

समर शेष है यह प्रकाश बंदीगृह से छूटेगा,
और नहीं तो तुझ पर पापिनि! महावज्र टूटेगा।
समर शेष है इस स्वराज को सत्य बनाना होगा।
जिसका है यह न्यास, उसे सत्वर पहुँचाना होगा।

The war is not over yet. The Ray will find its path ultimately. Those is power will have to pay for their guilt. We will make the dream come true and will have to give to due to the people. Till then The war is not yet over.

धारा के मग में अनेक पर्वत जो खड़े हुए हैं,
गंगा का पथ रोक इन्द्र के गज जो अड़े हुए हैं,
कह दो उनसे झुके अगर तो जग में यश पाएँगे,
अड़े रहे तो ऐरावत पत्तों -से बह जाएँगे।

The  path is obstructed by mighty (mountains) and their men (Elephants of the King). Let them take their call. If they bow now, they will share the glory; Else they will be wiped out like a leaf in the wave.

समर शेष है जनगंगा को खुल कर लहराने दो,
शिखरों को डूबने और मुकुटों को बह जाने दो।
पथरीली, ऊँची ज़मीन है? तो उसको तोडेंग़े।
समतल पीटे बिना समर की भूमि नहीं छोड़ेंगे।

The war is not over yet. Let the public movement take its call. Let power brokers be wiped out. Let the Mighty be drawned. There are obstrucles but we will get rid of them. And Not until we have our home rule, our socialism we are going to leave the battle field.

समर शेष है, चलो ज्योतियों के बरसाते तीर,
खंड-खंड हो गिरे विषमता की काली जंज़ीर।
समर शेष है, अभी मनुज-भक्षी हुँकार रहे हैं।
गाँधी का पी रुधिर, देश पर फुंकार रहे हैं।

The war is not over yet. March, O contemporary warriors. Let the evil chains of inequality be broken. The brutal forces are still out. After finishing Gandhi they are now attacking at rest of us (a word is edited here to make it contemporary and neutral)

समर शेष है, अहंकार इनका हरना बाकी है,
वृक को दंतहीन, अहि को निर्विष करना बाकी है।
समर शेष है, शपथ धर्म की लाना है वह काल
विचरें अभय देश में गांधी और देश के लाल।

The war is not over yet. We need to crush the arrogants. We need to take out their poisons. Let us vow to realize the dream of a time where Gandhi and rest of us can move without fear. (A word is again edited here to make it more contemporary and neutral)

तिमिरपुत्र ये दस्यु कहीं कोई दुष्कांड रचें ना!
सावधान, हो खड़ी देश भर में गांधी की सेना।
बलि देकर भी बली! स्नेह का यह मृदु व्रत साधो रे
मंदिर औ’ मस्जिद दोनों पर एक तार बाँधो रे!

The war is not over yet. Let us make sure that these pirates can’t create further havocs. Let us warn them that the worriers of Gandhi’s Army (In essence, We the people of India)  are ready. Let a sacrifice follow another. Let us bridge the religious gaps (which is a big political exploit) .

समर शेष है, नहीं पाप का भागी केवल व्याघ्र,
जो तटस्थ हैं, समय लिखेगा उनका भी अपराध।

The War is not over yet. But we Aware –

The guilt rests now only with those who are offenders; Those who remain neutral will also be tried for their crime.

On this sixty-first Republic day, I find this poetry still contemporary. I am not sure weather the poet, if were leaving today, would not had been happy about its relevance after sixty-three years. He would had been sorry (like rest of us) that.

The war is not over yet
समर शेष है

After six years of discussion, debate, brain storming and technical working, ICANN finally approved the use of Hindi and over a dozen of other international languages including Korean and Hebrew to be used as the domain name. A new TLD in Hindi will soon be a reality and Indians will be in a position to write their address in their national language – Hindi. (Read the detailed story here).

This is going to be a great moment for India and Indians. We are free again. We no longer need to use English characters for our website. I am not against the use of English but certainly the idea to have a website that will be completely in Hindi is thrilling.

The other Indian languages will soon follow the suite and make their presence on the top address bar.

The big question is  – As Indians are we going the feel the pride of our national language and make the event a grand success or we will wait with our narrow territorial mentality  and language prejudice and let the even pass on?

The Controversy

Jan 24, 1950 – Jana Gana Mana selected as the National Anthem; Vandemataram the national song

The Constituent Assembly, after a long debate finally choose Jana gana mana adhinayak … as the national Anthem of India. For generations to come the song will continue to infuse new spirit in the veins of every Indian.

Same day yet another song Vandemataram was given at par status and adopted as National Song of India. In fact generations of freedom fighters who died dreaming for Independent India were almost sure that one day it will be our national anthem.

Both songs had patrons, both had polarization and both team battled hard to see their get the grand position. And when the resolution was adopted, it was thought that it is a perfect win-win situation and will settle the issue once and for all. It just didn’t happen.

Unfortunately the two team are still batting; still throwing the mud balls, not realizing that they are insulting The Indian Nation.

December 1911

Gurudev Rabindra Nath Tagore, wrote the song Jana gana mana adhinayak. The song was sung by Gurudev himself on December 27th, 1911, on the second day of Indian National Congress Convention, Calcutta. Same day Indian National congress also extended their welcome to then Visiting King George V.  Few other poets actually composed song in praise of the Monarch and they too were recited the same day.

The event were highlighted in the leading dailies in the following manner:

December 28th,1911 – The Statesman

The Bengali poet Babu Rabindranath Tagore sang a song composed by him specially to welcome the Emperor.”

December 28th, 1911 – Englishman

“The proceedings began with the singing by Babu Rabindranath Tagore of a song specially composed by him in honour of the Emperor.”

December 29th, 1911 – Indian

“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 unanimously.”

They suggested the song was in honour of the the Monarch. That the word Adhinayak (the leader) and Bharat Bhagya Vidatha (the master of India’s destiny) referred to the Monarch. Incidentally the same press also attributed authorship of Vandemataram to Rabindra Nath Tagore and reported Jana-gana-mana as a Hindi song.

It was also later confirmed that some members of Indian National congress had approached Gurudev and requested him to write something in honour of the Monarch.

Gurudev apparently didn’t contradict the news paper reports and no body seem to relent either the press reports nor its non-contradiction; at least for some time. Well to be exact almost for a three decades.

All these decades, it continued to grow in its popularity.

1937 – 1940 and onwards

The controversy, started when Jana-gana-mana became a  candidate for National anthem. There were  unfortunate controversies surrounding the most popular Indian song Vandemataram that forced the search for an alternatives song. It must emphasised that the controversy related to vandemataram were both unfortunate and unjustifiable. It had sentiments and endorsement of millions of Indians both living and dead of all religions, sects and sections. It appears quite natural that the patrons of the vandemataram vented the anger against the other alternative that was being considered. However, it was carried out in as dirty a manner as the other one carried against Vandemataram.

Jana-gana-mana was condemned as being a praise for monarch and thus unsuitable for being the national anthem for India. So the news papers were dug out in an attempt to justify their stand and disgrace Jana-gana-mana. Worst the controversy is still being populated in year 2009 and on.

It seem only appropriate that the facts about the national anthem be kept straight and in its right perspective, lest new generations may easily be misguided to disgrace their own heritage:

Justification

December 1911

A High official in Indian National Congress approaches Gurudev and requests him to write something in the praise of Visiting Monarch. Gurudev felt quite disturbed at the very idea. In his own words:

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

It seem quite natural. You are asked to do a job against your conscience. And what do you do? You revolt and do something magnificent and exactly opposite way. This is what Gurudev did. He wrote a poem in praise of God – The real monarch. And the song was sung. But it still gives rise to several questions:

But How can we be so sure that it was not in praise of King?

There are several points which clearly highlights that it was not in the praise of the British King:

• Why was the controversy a non-starter in 1911? Because Gurudev was well known for his attitude towards the British Government. He was the first Indian to be honoured with Knighthood. Rabindra Nath Tagore returned that great honour in protest to Jalian wala Bagh massacre. Need we say more? A literary work can’t really be separated from the character of the author. Can it be?
• Anybody who has read the other works of Gurudev and most notably Gitanjali (that won him yet another highest award – Nobel prize) will constantly find the mention of divine monarch – The God and not the king of Britain. Once again Jana-gana-mana need to seen as one of the many works of Gurudev and not an isolated incident.
• Jana-gana-mana has 5 stanjas. In the third stanja he writes:

युगयुग धावित यात्री,
हे चिर-सारथी,
तव रथ चक्रेमुखरित पथ दिन-रात्रि

which refer to the same personality (as in rest of the poetry) to have held the reins of India’s chariot through ages (for the most ancient times), day and night, on the straight and the curve paths. Now, even King George, at this point, though may feel flattered,  won’t agree. Still there seem to be a section of people who took Gurudev as some stupid poet using his verse without intellect or intelligence. Gurudev lacked neither. If he really had to praise the King, he was sure to have chosen his words carefully.

How is it that all the leading news paper reported it as being sung in the praise of Monarch?

As already mentioned the same section news papers also attributed the authorship of Vandemataram to Rabindra Nath Tagore. They also reported Jana-Gana-Mana to be a Hindi song. What do  we learn from these mistakes? The basic idea that they didn’t had clear idea about Indian literary works and they often failed to distinguish one author from other and one language from other. Either they cared not or couldn’t understand the real essence of Indian culture and practices.

It has been years old Indian tradition to start any occasion and celebration, related to anything, with a prayer to God. The same thing happened on Dec 27th, 1911. Gurudev graced the occasion by a prayer to the almighty. Rest of the day was of course devoted in welcoming the King. Most likely the press missed out this subtle aspect.

If the newspapers presented Rabindra Nath Tagore in wrong light, how is it that he never contradicted it?

I will quote Gurudev, himself, on this issue:

I should only insult myself if I cared to answer those who consider me capable of such unbounded stupidity as to sing in praise of George the Fifth as the Eternal Charioteer leading the pilgrims on their journey through countless ages of the timeless history of mankind

Was it not that people had really accepted it as a praise to the Monarch?

Most of the contemporary leaders and visionaries and those whose love and alliance to the nation can not be disputed endorsed the real and essence of the song.

To quote Mahatma Gandhi :

the song has found a place in our national life (1946)

It may not be out of place to mention that Bapu, himself wanted Vandemataram to be the national anthem. He always considered Jana-Gana-Mana more as devotional hymn than praise to nation.  He also stressed that Jana-gana-mana is in true sense a Universal song rather than tied up just with India. Thus he always believed in the its true and inner meaning.

Netaji Shubhash Chandra Bose adopted Jana-gana-mana as the anthem for his Indian National Army. Yet another leader of the time who realized the true essense of Jana-gana-mana.

What If it were really a praise to the Monarch and was later justified other wise?

After understanding the personality of Rabindra Nath Tagore, His other literatures and the endorsements by other great undisputed leaders there isn’t really any room for this question. But the fact is that this question continues to cloud the minds of newer generations who know nothing of Gurudev or his works. So assuming (and its really foolish to do so) that it was in praise of king then? Does it make a difference? Is it really relevant as to what was the context?

The only thing that matters is the context and belief with which hundred million Indians sing the song and take the pride in doing so. If a hundred million can correlate the song woth India and its divine monarch (God), it truly becomes irrelevant as what one person (even the author) had in his mind while writing the song. Thus no matter what Jana-gana-mana remains the pride of India and any attempt to de-glorify the song is a direct attempt de-glorify India and its national heritage.

Coming Soon:

• Story of National Anthem Part II – The Pride
• Meaning and Full Text of Jana Gana Mana

Mahatma Gandhi adored it. Bhagat Singh and millions of other youth identified it with their cause, Chandrashekhar Azad died with the word on his lips.  Lala Lajpat Rai published journals with the name Vandemataram. Matangini Hazra’s last words as she was shot to death by the Crown police were Vande Mataram.

The first prototype of our national flag, designed by Sri Bhikaiji Cama,  in 1907 contained the word Vandemataram on the central band.

The chanting of Vandemataram terrified the then British government so much that they decided to suppress it with all their might. The banned the very utterance of it. Those dare to defy would be jailed; the song and its spirit continued to soar higher.

History of Vandemataram

Vandemataram song was composed by sri Bankimchandra Chatterjee in a mixture of Sanskrit and Bengali. It first appeared in his book title Anandmath in 1882. The book was about the love of mother land and revolution and fight against the foreign rulers. However, it was written much earlier in 1875. The creation was spontaneous and heart felt –

Sri Bankimchandra Chatterjee took a holiday to escape from the hectic life of Calcutta. He boarded a train bound for his native town Kantalapada. As the city left behind, there was greenery all around and his heart filled with joy. The contemplation of the motherland with her rich rivers, flowers, fruits and forests took him spellbound. He could feel the motherland – in all her richness, beauty and diversity. He could hear the voice from the earth and the air and the sky. It was spontaneous. And he penned it down; the depiction of motherland – India. Something that will continue to excite generations to come.

1896, Session of Indian National Congress, Calcutta – Gurudev Ravindra Nath Tagore sung Vandemataram. It was probably the first political occasion when the song was sung. It was just the beginning.

1901, Session of Indian National Congress, Calcutta – The song was sung again, this time by Dakhina Charan Sen.

1905, Session of Indian National Congress, Benaras –  Poet Sarala Devi Chaudurani sang the song  and it almost became a protocol to sing the song.

Since then Vandemataram continued to inspire millions of Indians, uniting them for the single cause – The Independence of India. Revolutionaries, thinkers, moderates, extremists all took pride in chanting Vandemataram. From Mahatma Gandhi to Chandrashekhar Azad, Shubhash Chandra Bose to Ram Prasad Bismil and Bhagat Singh to Rabindra Nath Tagore all were engrossed with the charismatic mantra – Vande Mataram – Salutation to Motherland.

Rabindra Nath Tagore talks with passion about vandemataram –

Vande Mataram! These are the magic words which will open the door of his iron safe, break through the walls of his strong room, and confound the hearts of those who are disloyal to its call to say Vande Mataram

Controversy

Vandemataram with its rich legacy seemed to be all set to become the national anthem of India. The father of the nation – Mahatma Gandhi himself adored the song and wished it be the national anthem. Even post independence Gandhi ji suggested:

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.

Yet that was not to be. Vande Mataram was denied its rightful privilege because of certain unfortunate reason. There were two major controversies:

Controversy 1: Vandemataram is a Hindu Hymn

In its original version, Bankim Chandra Chatterjee compared the motherland with Hindu Goddess Durga, Lakshmi and Saraswati.

त्वं हि दुर्गा दशप्रहरणधारिणी
कमला कमलदल विहारिणी

A section of leadership felt that in a country with Muslims, Shikhs, Parsis, Christens and a plethora of different religions and faiths, the mention of Hindu deities will not be acceptable. It seemed to go against the secular spirit. And over a period of time such resentments had grown more and more vocal; sometime violent.

It must be mentioned very clearly that the mention of Goddess Durga and Kali was comparison of the India with the powers of Goddess Durga and Saraswati. It was not prayer to Hindu deities. In the words of Sri Aurobindo –

Durga to whom it paid homage was none other than Bharata Mata symbolising Knowledge, Power, Greatness and Glory.

However, this subtle meaning was either missed or ignored. And the mantra which had motivated millions irrespective of the caste, colour and creed was thrown amid of controversies. However, the controversies were real.

Even Rabindra Nath Tagore observed in his letter to Shubhash Chandra Bose.

The core of Vande Mataram is a hymn to goddess Durga: this is so plain that there can be no debate about it. Of course Bankimchandra does show Durga to be inseparably united with Bengal in the end, but no Mussulman [Muslim] can be expected patriotically to worship the ten-handed deity as ‘Swadesh’ [the nation]. This year many of the special [Durga] Puja numbers of our magazines have quoted verses from Vande Mataram – proof that the editors take the song to be a hymn to Durga. The novel Anandamath is a work of literature, and so the song is appropriate in it. But Parliament is a place of union for all religious groups, and there the song cannot be appropriate. When Bengali Mussulmans show signs of stubborn fanaticism, we regard these as intolerable. When we too copy them and make unreasonable demands, it will be self-defeating.”

In a postscript to this same letter, Rabindranath says:

“Bengali Hindus have become agitated over this matter, but it does not concern only Hindus. Since there are strong feelings on both sides, a balanced judgment is essential. In pursuit of our political aims we want peace, unity and good will – we do not want the endless tug of war that comes from supporting the demands of one faction over the other

in 1937, The CWC appointed a sub-committee with Maulana Azad, Nehru, Subhash Chandra Bose and Acharya Narendra Dev as members to review the eligibility of Vande Mataram to the status of national anthem. The committee was to take the guidance of Rabindranath Tagore. And this sub-committee endorsed the CWC’s resolution to adopt Vande Mataram in its truncated form as the national anthem. The committee observed:

the first two stanzas began with an unexceptionable evocation of the beauty of the motherland, in later stanzas there are references where the motherland is likened to the Hindu goddess Durga.

As such CWC adopted the first two stanzas suitable to become the national anthem. The selected stanza is:

वन्दे मातरम्
सुजलां सुफलां मलयजशीतलाम्
शस्यश्यामलां मातरम् |
शुभ्र ज्योत्स्ना पुलकित यामिनीम्
फुल्ल कुसुमित द्रुमदलशोभिनीम्,
सुहासिनीं सुमधुर भाषिणीम्
सुखदां वरदां मातरम् ||

Controversy 2: Vandemataram is anti-Muslim

Even with the controversial stanzas removed, the critics of Vandemataram continued to agitate. The other argument was the context in which Vandemataram had appeared. As already discussed Vandemataram was first published in a book titled Anandmath. This book was a book on freedom struggle against foreign rule. And that foreign rule happened to be Muslims. Muslims felt. They felt that the novel had a anti-Muslim messages. Again the the clear point that the song had nothing anti-Muslim was conveniently ignored.

Controversy 3: Vandemataram doesn’t have rhythm and movement

The then Prime Minister of India, Pandit Nehru observed:

In regard to the national anthem tune, it was felt that the tune was more important than the words, and this tune should be such as to represent the Indian musical genius as well as to some extent the Western, so that it might easily be adapted to orchestra and band music, and to playing abroad. The real significance of the national anthem is perhaps more abroad than in the home country. Past experience has shown that Janagana tune has been greatly appreciated and admired abroad…VM with all its very great attraction and historical background, was not easily suitable for orchastras in foreign countries.. It seemed therefore that while VM should continue to be the national song par excellence in India, the national anthem tune should be that of Janaganamana, and the wording of Janagana be altered suitably to fit in with existing circumstances.

• Vandematram lack rhythmic movement?
  • When we have one of the highest numbers of magnificent music created on it?
• It doesn’t have International  appeal?
  • BBC voted it as the second all time popular song, internationally.

It can easily be understood, that the song was denied its rightful place in order to keep the situation under control and keep the unity of the country. If it is achieved, it seem to be a small price to pay for. I dare say If Vandemataram turns live; she would be ready for the sacrifice herself.

Final words…

The situation took an ugly turn when people in favour and against the song messed the national stage with ugly exchange of word degrading the two greatest songs of India. At this point Dr Rajendra Prasad, the President to be, intervened and presented the most amicable solution:

The composition consisting of words and music known as Jana Gana Mana is the National Anthem of India, subject to such alterations as the Government may authorise as occasion arises, and the song Vande Mataram, which has played a historic part in the struggle for Indian freedom, shall be honoured equally with Jana Gana Mana and shall have equal status with it. (Applause) I hope this will satisfy members. (Constituent Assembly of India, Vol. XII, 24-1-1950)

This became the final decision on the issue and was adopted. Thus Vandemataram, attained the status of the National Song of India at par with the national anthem.

Moreover:

Vandemataram is song that touches the inner cord of every Indian and irrespective of the status it continues to be favourite of every body Indian at heart.

In 2003, BBC conducted a poll to find out the all time most favourite song, internationally. Over 7000 songs were nominated and more than 155 countries and island participated. Vandemataram stood second in the list of top 10 all-time favourite songs. This is one of the greatest tribute to the song.

Further Reading…

• For the complete text of Vandemataram with its meaning see Vandemataram (coming soon)
• The Story of National Anthem see  The Story of National Anthem (coming soon)
• Meaning and complete text of the national anthem – Jana-gana-mana (coming soon)

What he did, how he became Mahatma, why was he considered the prophet of Peace and Non-violence and the ambassador of mankind is a history now. And may pages (read MBs) of literatures will only prove insufficient to express Mahatma Gandhi. When he died on Jan 30^th 1948, his death was unanimously considered as the second crucifixion of the history after that of Jesus Christ.

Who killed Gandhi ji? Nathu Ram Godse? Can a bullet kill an institution, a philosophy, a school of thought? Can Mahatma Gandhi die, if his thoughts, his philosophy continue to inspire? No. To Kill Mahatma Gandhi, or any one for that matter, you need to eliminate his ideals. And no one bullet, one man, or one organization can ever do it. So who killed Gandhi ji? Are we not among those who are crucifying Gandhi ji? And yes crucifixion is not complete.

Today, on his hundred and thirty sixth anniversary when I turned the pages of the newspaper I found a question, or rather a topic for debate – Is Gandhi still relevant? I am not shocked at the responses. Because if there is a question, there will be an answer. If there is a matter of debate there will be people to speak on the pros and the cons. So expectedly there are people who find Gandhi irrelevant. What vexes me is the question itself? And sadly this is not the first time we have put Gandhi ji to the dock to pass our judgment. We question Gandhi’s relevance. We question Gandhi’s deeds. We question Gandhi’s decisions.

But the important question – are we qualified enough to question Gandhi’s relevance, decisions or deeds? Do we know sufficient Gandhi to pass on our judgments? Do we know sufficient of India to pass our judgment? Have we really read even few of his own literature to know him better?

Let us today talk about his relevance alone. Let the discussion on his decisions and actions rest for another day. Now let us understand why Gandhi ji is no more relevant today:

Gandhi ji was for cottage industry and charkha. This is the age of globalization.

Charkha, the spawning machine, was not just the icon of cottage industry. It was the icon of self discipline; it was the icon of countries self respect. It was the icon of self dependence, self-reliance and faith in our-self and our country. Are these things irrelevant in today’s context? Sadly, but it seems, that in a race to prove Gandhi irrelevant, we are compromising with that self-respect, that self-reliance and love and faith for our country. How else could we explain our over joy over making India one of the biggest source of cheap labour? If Gandhi ji preached self-respect and we find self-respect costly; certainly Gandhi ji is irrelevant.

Somewhere Dalai Lama quoted – “India is known for exporting peace, harmony, warmth and dignity of soul. It’s a pity that we’ve stopped manufacturing all of these”.

In the Nuclear Age, Non-violence doesn’t stand a chance

There never had been a struggle without violence. Not before and not after the struggle of India’s Independence. From the beginning of human civilization and before violence had been an icon of struggle. And even when there was no nuclear weapon, there were weapons powerful enough to damage mankind. Non-violence was looked with all doubts even when Gandhi ji introduced it. It was reasonable then because there was not past reference in history. But can we still doubt it? After having a proof of it?

Gandhi ji selected non-violence, because, he felt, is the weapon of the strong and more civilized race. Even animals resort to violence. Is it not the time to distinguish ourselves from animals by resorting to higher methods? Has any violent method ever did any good to mankind. What good came out of World War 1, World War 2, the Iraq or Afghanistan war? Is there any real alternative of peace?

To quote Gandhi ji – “There is no way to peace. Peace is the way”. If we disagree, if we have any real alternative, yes Gandhi ji may have become irrelevant.

Epilogue

The irony is that Gandhi ji has become more relevant and a greater icon, than ever before, globally, and we Indians are questioning his relevance? The world leaders like Nelson Mandela and Dalai Lama finds him their inspiration. Albert Einstein, the icon of science and modernization, himself had said of the Mahatma: ”Generations to come will scarce believe that such a one as this walked the earth in flesh and blood”. Lord Mount Batten equated Gandhi ji with Jesus Christ and Gautam Buddha. George Bernard Shaw said “His death showed how dangerous it could be to be good”.

Apple computer made him the face of their Think Different campaign and another telecommunication company has made Mahatma the icon of globalization. Sad, we Indians still debate his  irrelevance.

(date of original publication on my other blog http://weindian.blogspot.com in answer to a question – Is Gandhi relevent?)

“India is the cradle of the human race, the birthplace of human speech, the mother of history, grandmother of legend, and great grand mother of tradition. Our most valuable and most instructive materials in the history of man are treasured up in India only”.

So what happened? How the cradle of Human race and the grandmother of legend turned into a dominated colony of British rule. The answer lies here. And I suppose, every Indian must know this …

Speech of Lord McCauley dated Feb 2nd, 1835 in British Parliament.

“I have traveled across the length and breadth of India and I have not seen one person who is a beggar, who is a thief. Such wealth I have seen in this country, such high moral values, people of such caliber, that I do not think we would ever conquer this country, unless we break the very backbone of this nation, which is her spiritual and cultural heritage, and, therefore, I propose that we replace her old and ancient education system, her culture, for if the Indians think that all that is foreign and English is good and greater than their own, they will lose their self-esteem, their native self-culture and they will become what we want them, a truly dominated nation”.

I dare say, that even Lord McCauley may not have guessed extend of success his proposal would meet. Britishers Left 58 years ago, but we continue to be fascinated with all that is foreign and English. We continue to be dominated. We read our ancient literature and the wisdom and science contained in them and we dismiss them as fables. We read Philosophy of Life in Gita and dare not implement it as a part of the education system. Ironically, the ‘west’ we follow are still seemed to be more confident about our culture, history and literatures.

Its time we try to reverse the damage caused by Lord McCauley and pledge to revive India to the glorious strature suggested by Mark Twain.