This weekend, my wife and I headed over to the latest 'blockbuster' release Jannat. We were watching it at Gold Adlabs in Kalyaninagar, Pune. The movie was packaged trash. There was promise but it under-delivered.
However that is not what I am writing about. Just before the movie started, Gold Adlabs asks everyone in the auditorium to stand up for the national anthem. We did too. What played was our national anthem only as far as the lyrics were concerned. The tune was changed from a rousing, pride-instilling one to one that was right out of a Jagjit Singh gazal. I have all the respect for the great AR Rehman but tinkering with the tune of the national anthem is not justified.
We have a code of honor for the Flag. No disrespect is allowed in any form. Specially if it is used as a garment. Rightly so. I think there should be a similar code of honor for the national anthem. The code should disallow any modification to the original tune. This is akin to having a Jana Gana Mana remix. I strongly object.
Why stop at the national anthem? It should extend to the national song, game, animal, bird, and monument too. On my part, I have sent an email to Adlabs on this issue. Let's see if there is any response from them.
8 comments:
I'm not so sure about this. So long as the new version was respectful, I don't see the harm done.
I know we have this concept of some things being sacred and best in their original form. But we very rarely stop to question why. A friend didn't like a version of the national anthem because it was longer that the permitted time. While on the other hand, people question why we should even have the 'Jana Gana Man' as national anthem when it was written for the British King and Queen.
Given Rabindranath Tagore's own anti-nationalist stance, the poet himself would probably not agree with you here.
I have to disagree with you here.
Tagore an anti-nationalist? He may have critiqued some of the methods used, but that does not make him any less a nationalist! The national anthem was not written for the British King and Queen, but rather as a tribute to the God of Destiny. I find this to be a befitting reply by a poet to imperialism. This is what Tagore himself wrote about Jana Gana Mana.
"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."
He was a critic of the British Raj in his own way!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabindranath_Tagore
The other aspect of the National Anthem - Where do we draw the line at being respectful and disrespectful? A friend of yours finds a version disrespectful because it is longer than the original. I find this version disrespectful because the tune is different.
Someone may not find a disco-remixed Jana Gana Mana disrespectful. In cases such as these there is only one absolute. The original tune and lyrics. Adhering strictly to that is the best path.
I wonder how many other countries allow for their National Anthem do be disfigured?
I'll give it to you on the "What is respectful and what is not?" aspect. Although I still believe that if someone wanted to come out with their version of a song, because it meant so much to them, they cannot be stopped by laws. Artistic expression and all that. We can, of course, stop them from offending others by playing it in public forums.
But on the Tagore front - Tagore was definitely anti-Imperialism. What I meant was that it was written when the King and Queen came here, not that it refers to them as 'Bhagya Vidhata'.
But Tagore was also definitely anti-Nationalism. This is from his own speeches and writings -he strongly held the belief (that I agree with) that the concept of a 'nation' is just people dividing themselves into groups, for selfish reasons (self-aggrandization, as Tagore put it).
Which is why I think it's unfair that we've taken one of his works and made it a symbol of our Nation. Here I mean, not fair to the poet.
But even the process of deciding - THIS particular song will be our Anthem, is rather arbitrary. Why should I feel for a song simply because I was told to revere it? I'd much rather feel for a song because it speaks to me on its own.
Agree. Tagore did deeply criticize the Nationalist movements in Japan and other countries. He believed that true freedom lay on the path of education and upliftment.
The definition of 'nationalism' is what needs to be scrutinized. I think he was more anti-jingoism than anti-nationalism! But anyway the lines are always blurry and so was Tagore's political views.
The National Anthem was chosen by the Constituent Assembly in 1950. That was as close to a democratic process as could be at that time. So really can't complain about that either!
Well, I think Tagore was anti-any groupism. What is a nation when you come down to it? What is India and how was it formed? Is being born in the same political boundary enough to bind us all together?
And yes, I still can complain. My complaint being - I cannot be told to revere something. It must come from within me. Our government is democratically elected. Doesn't necessarily make it the most loved and respected government.
Don't get me wrong - I love India. I love our culture, I love our history and everything that it stands for. But I don't love India because I was told to, I love India for itself. And if I find another Indian who does not love India, I will defend her and try to prove her worth. But I will not say 'You are unpatriotic!'.
What I'm defending here, is the freedom of choice. And my freedom to think for myself. My freedom to choose whether or not I respect the anthem, or the flag, or any other symbol.
Well, well. Its good we are having this extended conversation. There are 2 aspects that you bring up.
1. Freedom to choose
We have the freedom to choose. People who chose the National Symbols in 1950, were chosen by the electorate. In effect, the people, chose the national symbols.
What you bring into question is, why a generation or an individual, who was not part of this 'process', be forced to revere such symbols not chosen by them.
Well all I can say is that, these choices are made once in the lifetime of a nation, and the lucky generation that got to make these choices, made it. We MAY have to live with it.
2. Revering National Symbols
About the aspect of revering national symbols. Collective behavior has been always society's way of functioning. Whether we like it or not, we 'have' to revere God, elders, flags, anthems, books, scriptures, buildings, etc etc. Freedom of choice takes a backseat here. Unspoken, arbitrary rules that may help society function.
Again, I'm not so sure that society, as we know it, will cease to function if we stop revering symbols that in everyday life mean nothing to us. How many of the populace even knows what the national animal is? What the national bird is?
I think it is not the best idea to try and come up with symbols for a nation as diverse as ours, except maybe a symbol that signifies diversity - like the rainbow.
And reverance is one of those things, like respect and love, that you cannot force yourself to do. It has to be earned.
The most you can ask is that people not express their lack of reverance. But then, we'll be treading on the freedom of speech....
Yes, I know this discussion has gone on longer than would be expected. But this is just one of those things that I cannot let go of, without clarifying what I'm trying to say. :)
Post a Comment