In the midst of Anna Hazare's fast against corruption and mobilizing the nation into a rock star's fervor and the Indian Test Cricket team getting a sound thrashing in England it was possible to miss out on this snippet that slipped through into the newspapers without making much noise.That makes it no less relevant.
Reference: A PIL (Public Interest Litigation) filed in the High Court of Bombay, by Shrikant Malushte, Retd Professor of Photography, to amend the word “Sind’ in the National Anthem to the word “Sindhu” , Published in the leading dailies on 18th Aug 2011
Reference: A PIL (Public Interest Litigation) filed in the High Court of Bombay, by Shrikant Malushte, Retd Professor of Photography, to amend the word “Sind’ in the National Anthem to the word “Sindhu” , Published in the leading dailies on 18th Aug 2011
The Gist of the PIL
The petitioner Mr. Shrikant Malushte objects to the usage of the word “Sind” in the national Anthem and his insistence that it be changed to “Sindhu” are 1) The province of Sind is no longer in India and hence the Indian National Anthem should not carry the word. 2) By having & using the word Sind in the Indian National Anthem there is a “deliberate implication and attempt on part of the Indian Government ( according to the petitioner) to retain Sind as a province within India”.That's the message which is getting sent across is what he says.
Should a matter require screening before being defined/qualified as a PIL?
There are legal cases and there are legal cases, some of which come before the High Court. One needs to examine whether the matter placed on record really merits the time that gets spent on it. The courts are busy as such with a huge backlog of cases of both Civil &Criminal nature. It is a question that when the courts of the land are used to tend to matters frivolous should there be a penalty imposed on the people who wastes its time. The National Anthem case is one such.
Does this case deserve merit at all, is my basic issue? To refute the points of objection, one needs to understand what the significance of the creation is before it became a National Anthem.
- Jana Gana Mana was composed by Rabindranatah Tagore as an ode to the nation that was a unified province then. It was amongst two of the shortlisted songs for the National Anthem amongst the many patriotic songs written. The other one was Vande Mataram by Bankim Chandra Chatterjee. There is a popular anecdote which refers to the choice of Jana Gana Mana being done because the band playing it could not compose “Vande Mataram” during the flag hoisting of Independent India. These stories apart both are great creations and compositions by poets of repute. One is selected and is the National Anthem and the second one is also popularly sung, it did not get forgotten or lost in the anals of history.
- Tagore did not write the word "Sindhu" the river but "Sind" the province and we can easily see the reasoning when the sequence is sung. Punjab, Sind, Gujarat, Maharatta, Dravid, Utkal, Vanga. It is logical and yet poetic, plus it’s the poet’s independent creation. Does anyone have the right to impinge on this individual freedom of a creator just because he finds this one particular word offensive? And is it really that Offensive. Its intent is not offensive. Changing the word “Sind to Sindhu” which is a river one robs the rhyme of its logical beauty. Does anyone have this right? Creative freedom in a democratic society is a fundamental right, the right of expression.
- The 1950 ruling that gets referred to where the plaintiff mentions that the court had instructed the change to be made but it was never implemented can also be an erroneous judgment. Judges are human too and can make mistakes. If Mr. Malushte feels this is objectionable, he could petition the Courts and governments to change the whole National Anthem from Jana Gana Mana to some other song instead. That is certainly within his fundamental rights as a citizen of the country. But to change a song itself, is neither his right to ask for nor demand and certainly not within his right to petition the courts for. It is like having some Frenchman getting up to question why is the Mona Lisa smiling, and if she does have to smile why so enigmatically? That is not acceptable to me. She should not be smiling enigmatically, either paint her lips upward or erase the smileoff and let the rest of the painting remain. The person would be quietly escorted off the premises of the Louvre and told, gentleman please go home and don’t come back if you don’t wish to see it.
- On a teaser note to this article and demand by Mr. Malushte for his Sindhu, all our Veda’s and Upanishads, The Ramayana and Mahabharata have been composed and have supposedly also happened on the banks of the Sindhu and Saraswati rivers. Today all of these provinces are in the dominion of Pakistan, should there be changes made in Valmiki & Vyas Muni’s creations too today because they geographically do not suit us?
Today long after the poet is dead and gone and not around to defend himself and his creation; Mr. Malushte wakes up and takes this matter before the court of our land. This is when even our neighboring country Pakistan (if ever anyone had a case to do so it would be that Nation) has never officially expressed an objection to this word being a part of the Indian National Anthem. So does this PIL have any merit at all?
3 comments:
An ill- informed and factually incorrect piece. Is there any way you could be penalized for this ?
Please do your research well; recommend use the RTI to seek authentic information.
Sorry to say, but this information-loaded article has zero credibility, for its lack of correctnes.
At the outset thank you for visiting here and expressing your opinion. Your comment did go unnoticed primarily on account of the blog having marked it as spam and it sitting in that folder and I not having seen it, due apologies for that, hence the delay.
As to the facts of the matter, RTI or otherwise have already been presented before the courts hopefully in their entirety by Mr, Malushte, and the courts have ruled. So there lays the matter, Much more qualified people ( than yours truly) authorized to do so have dealt with the facts.
The question yet unanswered is of a moral nature and deals with artistic freedom. Without the consent of an artist, does anyone in a free society have a right to tamper with a creation; so what if the artist is not here and alive.
Art, culture its nurture and fostering is the sign of a civilized society. India sadly these days has not remained so. The M.F.Husain episode, the ransacking of the Bhandarkar institute in the James Lane episode, and scores of examples go to show the intolerance bubbling underneath surfacing itself in an ugly form. I lay the content matter of the basic case right here along with them. Mr. Malushte aimed to change Tagores creation not restore it. Shindu as the original Bengali version of the song written in 1911 and tuned in 1919 pronounces it refers to Sind the province. Some say To Maa toes, some say Tomayyto’s , it doesn’t change the fruit.
Second is it being labelled under Public Interest, what Public interest are we serving here? Pray I certainly would like to know that.
An opinion is always debatable and would welcome a different point of view because here agreement may not be achieved but a fresh perspective can certainly be aired. This is what matters. Big-deal if my opinions do not coincide with Mr. Malushte’s, his opinion about this matter does not concur with mine either.
Yes, the High Court has given its judgment. In a country like ours, where sentiments rule, the judgment in its spirit is respected. ‘Sindh’ and ‘sindhu’, both are correct, as per the Court.
In your reply, you mentioned about ‘facts of the matter’ and ‘artistic freedom’ .
Surprisingly, you haven’t made any effort to get the facts right. Let me give it to you:
1. The PIL filed By Mr. Sanjeev Bhatnagar in 2005, sought ‘substitution’ of the word ‘Sindh/Sindhu’ with ‘Kashmir’ .
2. After the partition, province Sindh became a part of Pakistan. ‘Sindh’ in our national anthem was then changed to ‘Sindhu’ by the GOI, thus singing glory for the river that flows through the Indus valley. This change was notified to schools and other relevant institutions. So it’s GOI that changed Tagore’s creation.
3. Mr. Malushte through the PIL filed in 2011, sought mere ‘restoration’ of Govt’s order (and not change), which would have brought uniformity across various platforms.
Have you heard of any corporate, institution with two different versions of mission statements, two brand logos, two brand names, two slogans? Am sure, no! Then, how can our National Anthem have two versions? But yes, a diverse country that we are: varying cultures, varying sentiments.
Regarding artistic freedom, have no fixed views. With reverence for creative pursuits, also believe it tags with it certain social responsibility. Any art that creates chaos or hurts, loses its charm. An artist experimenting with his creative freedom, am sure, is also aware of the response it shall evoke and be ready to fight it or face it.
Thank you and appreciate the exchange of views.
P.S. I don’t follow the blog. If this thread continues, please inform me at kadambarim2002@yahoo.co.in. Please mask my e-mail address, if you decide to publish the response. Thanks!
Post a Comment