Talk:Jana Gana Mana/Archive 1

Question

what is this? Does it belong here? --Magnus Manske, Wednesday, June 12, 2002

It's the national anthem of India -- Stepnwolf [04:33, 12 June 2002 (UTC)]

In Hindi

Could someone type it all in hindi? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aravindet (talk • contribs) 15:23, 22 June 2003 (UTC)

Done Ashish G 19:19, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Other National Songs

Shouldn't there be a note on this page or a separate article describing the official status of Vande Mataram and Saare Jahan Se Achcha? --iFaqeer 23:21, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)

Jana Gana Mana is the national anthem, Vande Mataram the national song and Sare Jahan Se Acchha a national song. Iqbal's song has no official status. --LordSuryaofShropshire 16:10, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)

Uh...I might be misreading you, but uh... Saare Jahan Se Achcha is by Iqbal... --iFaqeer 10:14, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)

Transliteration

I don't think the transliteration is correct at the end. It says "Jaya Hai," not "Jaya Hind." As such, I have changed it, but I'm curious how that got there in the first place or if I am mistaken. --RNJBOND 08:07, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

Idiot it IS Jaya Hai, there is no mention of Hind. Note that this song uses Bharat as a word for India —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.252.0.9 (talk • contribs) 23:06, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

The transliteration has changed significantly, and it doesn't seem correct. Could someone check it? the iBook of the Revolution 15:09, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I am not concerned with controversies here (and no name calling, we're not at Wagah), so leave me out of that tangent! But even when seeing the Devanagari, I have seen different variants. Believe me, I know about bindi vs. न् usage. It's just that I've seen an 'i' for an 'ī' and so on. But I chalk that up to error, and have every good reason to assume Ashish's version is correct. There is another issue of going from ঳াংলা-िहन्दी (Bengali-Hindi) that might be happening here but is beyond me because I don't know Bengali (let alone Sanskritized Bangla!). The one issue that comes to mind though is: is it हे (he=O!) or है (hai=is)? If I knew Bengali I would know what েহ (he) means, it would be a no-brainer. But as it is a patriotic song I can imagine it being the interjection (though sung more melodically than an अरे वाह!). Though an interjection following another interjection may sound stupidly redundant we are talking about a language full of useful word doubling. When learning Hindi, you don't usually tackle these issues of lyrical poetry. The last two lines in the Hindi version (or last line in the Bengali) is what particularly strikes me. Not the expert, but "O! victory!" makes more sense than "it is victory"! Anyway, I wouldn't even bring it up if I hadn't seen it both ways. Also, shouldn't द्राविण be द्रविड़ (it looks more like the word for melting now)? Or द्राविड़, but in my dictionary that's the adj. form (again, archaic usage, and/or lyrical issues?). When listening to the mp3 from the Lisbon site (kudos to whomever found that!) it was गाहे न 'गाये'. And I believe it was माँगे न मांगे though the fanciful English translation doesn't help - the singer was def. nasalizing. But the तव/तब in the 9th line I'm not sure about. It sounds like तब, but does that make sense (I'm dying for a literal translation at this point, because I only know 'तब' हिन्दी में और 'तव' मतलब 'thy')? As to the transliteration, it wouldn't hurt to have an academic transliteration (I opted out of using ṅ here, because it doesn't effect the sound, just the usage, e.g. - Hindī vs. Hiṅdī, plus it can be confused with ङ - though that's usually only an issue in Sanskrit), i.e.:

Jana-gaṇa-mana adhināyaka jaya hai (he?)
Bhārata bhāgya vidhāta
Panjāb Sindhu-Gujarāt-Marāṭha
Draviṛ-Utkala-Banga
Vindhya-Himācala-Yamuna-Ganga
Ucchala-jaladhi-taranga
Tava śubha nāme jāge
Tava śubha āśīṣ mānge
Gāhe taba* jaya gātha
Jana-maṇa-mangaladāyaka jaya hai
Bhārata bhāgya vidhāta
Jaya hai, jaya hai, jaya hai
Jaya jaya jaya, jaya hai

Also, does everything have to be hyphenated? This seems like an English convention which could just as easily be commas. Am I wrong here? I became suspicious only when mangala-dayaka was split up. And is there any standard Hindi punctuation for this song? Like at least a । या ॥? I ultimately had trouble with everything though for other reasons. Hindi sung sounds different than reported speech (i.e. women sing in a nasal manner where not only does हे sound like हैं, but so does everything else for that matter!). Plus the usual stylistic stresses and vowel shifts in glissandos, etc. The other reason is that this is like if Francis Key Scott had written "The Star Spangled Banner" in Old English à la 'Beowulf'. At least it seems that way to this frustrated Hindi student. Maybe Indians can understand the meaning of this song better than I. I would hope so anyway! :-) Khirad^talk 03:34, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

In Bangla েহ is often used like "O'", so the first line, literally translated, would mean, "The leader of people and mind, O' the decider of fate of Bharat". Also, েহ is definitely correctly transliterated as something that sounds like "hey".

Basically, these type of issues appear when a song written in one language is translated to another, and then to yet another. The song WAS written by Tagore in Bangla. There is no "special" form of Bangla called "sanskritized Bangla", I think the original person to put forward the comment meant that the song has a lot of Bengali words of "Tatshama" (from Sanskrit) origin. Any English Transliteration should be done from the original Bangla version and not the Hindi transliteration. Thanks. --Ragib 05:14, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi Guys,

I think the last line same as the first line is not the part of the official Jana Gana Mana. I am removing it from the hindi and phonetic part. Rohit 10:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I think this is more accurate (http://www.freeindia.org/national_insignia/national_insignia/page1.htm) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.197.169.20 (talk • contribs) 08:56, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Controversy

We are forever creating "Controversies" - Sind - Sindh? Sindhi? Indus? And now the National Anthem itself. The fact is that all these controversies are an excellent smoke screen for the real issue that no one has the integrity to tackle - illiteracy. And thereby child marriages, female infanticide, poverty, corruption, and anything else that can come safely under the head of social evils! Not to mention environmental issues, terrorism and all that is wrong in the world today. Integrity. That is what each of us human beings really need. And from that will flow the means. And I speak as a human being first, an Indian next. Swati Prasad Siddharth —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.227.182.132 (talk • contribs) 09:47, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Length of Jana Gana Mana

As mentioned in the introduction, the formal rendition takes approx 52 seconds but the mp3 file in the external links plays it for about 1 minute 40 seconds. I couldn't find a correct version conforming to the length. Can anyone load it please ? -- Wikicheng [09:29, 30 September 2005 (UTC)]

Sanskritized??

- "Jana Gana Mana ... is the first of five stanzas of a poem by Nobel laureate Rabindranath Tagore, written in the highly sansktitized Bengali language." - I assume that this writer meant something like "Sanskritized", but I doubt that there is such a word and I question whether there is such a concept.

Google gives no hits for "sansktitized" that aren't this article. It gives 12,300 hits for "sanskritized".

Therefore I'm going to change the spelling, but could we please decide whether it's appropriate to include this in the article at all? -- Writtenonsand 15:50, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with the usage of the word "sanskritize", in any spelling. Bangla is Bangla, and the words originating from Sanskrit are called "Tatsama" words in Bangla grammmar. The words used in Jana Gana Mana are not uncommon or obscure words ... Tagore has used them quite a lot in his other songs too. This is not like "Bande Matram" by Bankim Chattergy ... that can be termed Sangskritized Bangla as "Matram" is not a commonly used Bangla word. But in case of "Jana Gana ...", the words, the sentences are typical Tagorian Bangla, and not some obscure form of the language. So, the term is better removed altogether. Thanks. --Ragib 16:28, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh yeah... Tatsama (तत्सम) does bring back some middle school memories. Tatsama = exact Sanskrit words used in modern language. Tadbhava (तद्भव) = words originating from Sanskrit, but evolving with time, and Rudh (रूढ़) words not originating from Sanskrit. "Sanskritized" is a common adjective, though I don't know how formal it is. Vande Mataram is so highly Sanskritized that I used to think it was Sanskrit. Can't say the same about Jana Gana Mana. deeptrivia (talk) 16:55, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. It is indeed a weird usage. Its not that the song was sankritized compared to common written Bangla of the time. In fact in contains strikingly modern features such as "Ashish Mage". I guess the fact that the song contains an inordinate amount of proper nouns might give that impression. Bande Mataram, on the other hand, is just Sanskrit. --ppm 04:29, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

In fact let me change that last statement, it is part sanskrit, and part Bangla. --ppm 04:39, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Devanagari Script

Why is the poem written in Devanagari script? How does Devanagari fit in here? Sarvagnya 16:53, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Sarvagnya, why are you deleting the devanagari version again and again. What is your problem with that. You put the comment of your edits to "See Talk". I did not see anything in this page which prohibits the devanagari version and why it should in any case ?

I am reverting the changes. Please do not remove this version or provide a solid justification for your act. - Apandey —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.214.40.107 (talk • contribs) 20:03, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

On this page, just above, I have asked a question. Why do we need the Devanagari transliteration for this article? How does it fit here? I need answers for that. If not, the Devanagari transliteration has no place in this article. Sarvagnya 20:23, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I want to ask the same question to you. Why do YOU think Devnagri does not fit here? As everyone knows, the poem was originally written in Bengali. Now this being Sanskritized (Sanskrit-nishth) Bengali, everything fits the Hindi language too. If you do not agree to this, you do not understand the Hindi language.

Now whereas you do not have any problem providing an english transliteration to the text, why you should have a problem with the Hindi version.

Are you aware that Hindi is the national language (Rashtra-Bhasha) of India. What is the issue with you. Do you just hate Hindi (which will be shameful) or you simply do not understand? Do you know that when million of children (and adults) sing it on various occassion, they sing Jan Gan Man not Jono Gono Mono. Now this does not mean that they do not respect the original version. The simple fact is that in Bengali the pronounciation for a (as in sarvagnya) is o (sorvognyo). As a matter of fact I know Hindi, Bengali and Sanskrit all three languages, enough to understand that there is no conflict of interest here. Now please go and add the Devnagari version yourself.

Apandey [10:31, 4 September 2006 (UTC)]

You are only making empty assertions. First of all give me citations which say that Jana Gana Mana is in 'Sanskritised' Bengali(whatever that is). And then, even if it is Sanskritised Bengali, it doesnt mean we should use the Devanagari script here(see the Vande Mataram talk page and read SameerKhan's comments). Number 2, Hindi is NOT the national language of India. Much as you might like to believe so, it is NOT. This is not what I say, but this is what the Constitution of India says. Do some reading of relevant stuff before you make such assertions of your POV. As to why I dont have any problems with having the English transliteration, well, it is simply because this is the English wikipedia. As for the rest of your argument about children sing ing it with pride etc etc., they are not relevant to our discussion. And also, stop using words like 'shameful' etc., when all that you are trying to do is push your POV Sarvagnya 03:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I have added the devanagari script again. Bharatveer 11:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Unlike my understanding for possibly including the Devanagari version of Vande Mataram, which actually has lines written with Sanskrit grammar and can be considered a song written in Sanskrit (although it also includes lines that are purely Bengali grammar), Jana Gana Mana is mostly a collection of nouns connected using totally Bengali grammar. While some of the vocabulary can be considered archaic and heavily tôtshôm (what people have been calling "Sanskritized" here), the grammar is still Bengali, and thus the song is appropriately considered a Bengali-language song. Given the fact that the song was written in the Bengali script and using Bengali grammar, there is no reason to show the Devanagari version (unless of course, we want to be inclusive of all Indian languages and also show the Gujarati-, Gurumukhi-, Telugu-, Tamil-, etc.-script versions as well). --SameerKhan 04:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I read the Vande Mataram talk page and also saw your (Sarvagnya's) contribution and other talk pages to understand your POV. Even in that page all of you agreed to keep Devanagri, English and Bangla, all three. In fact it has a loosely translated urdu version also. Try to be INCLUSIVE Mr Sarvgnya and not EXCLUSIVE. If you want add a Tamil version also (if there is one ?) and none of us will have problems with that. -Apandey —Preceding unsigned comment added by Apandey (talk • contribs) 04:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I didn't really expect people to include Tamil, Gujarati, etc.- versions of the song. That would be far too long. This is an English-language article about a Bengali-language song. The only languages needed in the article are English and Bengali. The Tamil version is quite appropriate for Tamil Wikipedia, and the Devanagari version would be quite appropriate for Hindi-, Marathi-, Nepali-, etc.-Wikipedia, and so on, but not for the English Wikipedia. Also, please do not make this an argument of inclusive vs. exclusive. It is an argument of what is or is not relevant for the page. I don't think it would be appropriate or relevant to include Bengali versions of Hindi (or other Devanagari-script languages) songs on English Wikipedia in the same way I don't find it relevant to have a Devanagari-script version of a Bengali song on English Wikipedia. If we had a translation or transcription of every song into every language (even sticking to Indian languages) on English Wikipedia, the articles would become prohibitively long. If people want to see the Hindi or Sanskrit, etc., versions of a Bengali song, they should read Hindi or Sanskrit, etc., Wikipedia. --SameerKhan 04:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Sarvagnya : You asked for reference, so here it is. From the official website of the Government of India - http://india.gov.in/knowindia/official_language.php says Article 343 (1) of the Constitution provides that Hindi in Devanagari script shall be the Official Language of the Union.

http://www.india.gov.in/knowindia/national_anthem.php says that, The song Jana-gana-mana, composed originally in Bengali by Rabindranath Tagore, was adopted in its Hindi version by the Constituent Assembly as the National Anthem of India on 24 January 1950.

I don't think you should ask for more sources. As far as Sameer's comment about this being a This is an English-language article about a Bengali-language song , I just want to say that it is not just another song. It is the national anthem of India. I also understand what should go in what language version of wikipedia and all, but come on guys, this is the National Anthem. :::Apandey [04:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)]

Apandey, don't get emotional and take these personally. Whether Hindi is the National language or more correctly one of the Officieal Language of India is irrelevant as far as the Wikipedia articl is concerned. I totally concur with SameerKhan and Sarvagnya. We are talking about a Belgali lyrics of a song in the English language WP. If we go by your logic we need to include all 27 (or whatever the number of official languages India has) in this page. Hindi has no higher reason to be here than any other language.- Parthi 05:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Nobody is being imotional here. I am just trying to be reasonable. Did you visit the links that I provided. Hindi is THE official language of the union of India and the song which was originally written in Bengali was adopted in its HINDI version as the national anthem of India. What more reason you are looking for. Just be reasonable and add the Devanagari version there. :::Apandey [05:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)]

Whether Hindi is the one and only Official languge is irrelevant in the English language WP about a Bengali song. - Parthi 05:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Its not 'Just' any bengali song. Jana gana mana in devanagari script is the National anthem of India. Bharatveer 05:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Interesting debate. While most Bengalis sing it in Bengali most North Indians read it in Devnagari sometimes with little appreciation of what the words mean (because they aren't Hindi or Sanskrit). Also it should be noted that only the FIRST STANZA of Jana Gana Mana is the national anthem... the other stanzas are even more removed from Sanskrit and in colloquial Bangla. I would object to the Devnagari script but as a matter of reality, that's the way that many non-Bengalis read and PRONOUNCE the words. --Antorjal 06:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I do STRONGLY feel that the two transliterations are redundant and confusing. --Antorjal 06:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Antorjal: As I have said earlier, I (and for that matter most people) have full respect for the orignial Bengali song. As you also observed, the complete song consists of five stanzas. The first stanza contains the full version of the National Anthem. And with no disrespect to the original song or the Bengali language (or anything like that), I want to say that you have to honour the fact that the constitution of India says that it adopted the song (actually the first out of the five stanzas) in its Hindi version as the national anthem. So it got to be there. :::Apandey [06:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)]

[Interjected] Your argument and Bharatveer is not valid because Jana Gana Mana was not written to be the National Anthem of India. It was selected subsequently. The article is about the song Jana Gana Mana and should relate to the entire song. Mention must be made that this is the National song of India adapted by the Indian Government. The article should concentrate on the Bengali song and should only contain English and Bengali scripts. If there is a separate article called National Anthem of India then the mention of the devanagri adaptation may be made. - Parthi 07:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

You misunderstood me. I think the Hindi version should be there. It's the two transliterations in ENGLISH that I object to. --Antorjal 06:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Ant, Pls understand the difference between translation & transliteration. Bharatveer 07:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

You object to the English transliterations?!! Come on! This is the english wikipedia read by people all over the world. Can you imagine how irrelevant and senseless it will seem to a reader say, in the United States if the English transliterations are not there. The Devanagari script wouldnt make sense to anybody. I dont want to repeat what Parthi has already pointed out. But this certainly is a Bengali song, the first stanza(??) of which was adapted as the national anthem. So in all fairness, Devanagari has no place in this article. Sarvagnya 07:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I object to TWO transliterations. Why do you think I consistently use the word two? :-) One is adequate in my opinion. Veer... I am talking about the TRANSLITERATIONS not the translations. :) --Antorjal 07:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

parthy, No Personal attacks pls. See Civil. Bharatveer 07:34, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Parthi, your argument is totally bogus. This song deserves a place in wikipedia because it is the national anthem of India. There are millions and billions of songs written in Bengali and other languages, many of them by Rabindro Nath Tagore and the likes, but all of them do not deserve a separate article on wikipedia. The first line of this article itself says that it is the national anthem of India. First you guys asked for references and tried to force your POV. Later when we are providing you the official sites and other authoritative sources, you are just shouting and making unnecessary arguments. If you have contrary proofs then send it or else stop the debate here. The Hindi version of the song must be there as that it THE national anthem of India.  :::Apandey [08:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)]

Please see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Indic) and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Dharmic) for Wikipedia's policy on writing indian scripts onto articles. Thanks Gizza^{Chat ©} 11:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Agree?

According to the government of India, and according to facts we should be able to agree on:

1. Jana Gana Mana was originally written in Bengali in Bengali script (although some archaic Sanskrit borrowings are used as they often are in formal Bengali).

2. The Hindi version of Jana Gana Mana was adopted as the National Anthem of India.

Thus, an article written in English about Jana Gana Mana should (I consent) include three languages: English, Bengali, and Hindi, arranged possibly something like:

a. Original Bengali version

b. Romanization of Bengali to English

c. Adopted Hindi version (National Anthem of India)

d. Romanization of Hindi to English

e. English translation

How does this sound? If we agree on these facts (which are backed up by the references in the article), this is the most appropriate way to go, I now feel. --SameerKhan 23:28, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

• Based upon the references provided, this sounds very logical. --Ragib 23:38, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

• Fine by me, as long as the article takes the pains to point out (and if possible explain) the distinctions (if any) between the bengali version and the one that was adopted/adapted as the national anthem. Sarvagnya 00:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

No distinctions, except for pronunciation, which will be obvious when/if the pattern proposed by SameerKhan, having the Romanized versions in order, is put into place. I support it, as it sounds logical. I also support it because it tactfully neutralizes my objections (see above) to having both Romanized versions in one place which is confusing--Antorjal 00:44, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• This seems very reasonable. At last, the knowledge of all of us about OUR national anthem increased and we agreed to these points. No more ifs and buts. Thanks to all. --APandey 04:22, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I reformatted the text, showing a) Bangla and its transliteration b) Devanagari and its transliteration, c) English translation. I placed the (script, transliteration) pairs side by side. Let me know if that looks bad, we can follow Sameer's serial format. --Ragib 04:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

We have the "formal" Bengali thing dangling there still, which should go. --ppm 21:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Bias

I think everyone should know this: Go through Sarvagnya's contributions and talk pages and you will find that he has a Anti-Hindi and Anti-Devanagiri bias. One of his major contributions to Wikipedia has been the deletion of Hindi names and Devanagiri script from every India related article.

He has done exactly the same thing for three songs which are very important in India (Jana Gana Mana, Saare Jahan se Accha, Vande Mataram). The fact that Devanagiri is a major script in India and Hindi is the official language of India means that every Indian will want to read this article and hence it is necessary to keep the Devanagiri version. Just because of ONE POV-pushing Wikipedian we are indulging in an endless debate!

And why should ONE biased Wikipedian be allowed to hold Wikipedia to ransom? How can one persons opinion be greater than the Constitution of India. The Constituent Assembly which had representatvies from all parts and communities of India had collectively taken the decision. If Sarvagnya is unhappy with it, let him keep it to himself, why should Wikipedia suffer? --Deepak D'Souza 06:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

We have gone through this a lot of times, but the main point is, NOWHERE (at least verifiably) in the constitution of India is it mentioned that "Jana Gana Mana" has a "Hindi version", and that it was adopted instead of the original song. We have gone through the original resolution/transcripts of the constituent assembly, and couldn't find any verification of this claim. So, unless you can show the exact transcript that supports your claim, Sarvagnya is actually correct in this article. Also, Wikipedia is not a textbook for Indian children, so your argument for Devanagari version isn't really strong. Thanks. --Ragib 07:01, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Whats with the 'Constitution of India' drivel? The Constitution of India, even your misinterpreted version, is just that - the constitution of India. Wikipedia has its own constitution and the constitution of just another country in the world doesnt mean anything to it. Get over it. Sarvagnya 07:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello all. I feel that the Devanagari script is relevant to the article because it is titled: Jana Mana Gana, the Hindi version of the song. In most of North India, the song is sung in Hindi, even is states like Gujarat, where the official language is Gujarati. As a result, I have added the Devanagari script and the appropriate transliteration. Thanks! With regards, Anupam^Talk 03:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Please go through entire discussion in this page once. There is no Hindi version of our national anthem. Nowhere in the world the anthem is sung in Hindi. I'm undoing your edit. Gnanapiti 03:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

How is the name of the song "in Hindi"? It is common practice to write Bengali sound "ও" using "a". For example, "নারায়ণগঞ্জ" is written as Narayanganj (note that "onganj" part is written). Besides, the song has NEVER been "translated" in Hindi ... if you consider people singing "Star-spangled banner" with a spanish accent are singing a "Spanish translation", that will be as weird as this statement. The bottom line is very clear, Tagore wrote the song in Bangla, and it has been adopted as India's national anthem. How non-Bengalis sing the song isn't a factor here at all. By this argument, there would have to be tens of different "translations" of Star-spangled Banner in that page. As for the "Hindi version", transcripts of the constituent assembly shows that assertion is entirely untrue. Thanks. --Ragib 04:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Naming convention

Sandipani (talk · contribs) has continuously added the Devanagari script in the name of the song in the first sentence. While I have agreed on the consensus regarding the text of the song, as put forward by SameerKhan, I do have reservations about having Devnagari script in the name. According to naming conventions, the original script is to be used. Therefore, I do not think anything other than Bengali script is actually relevant in the first sentence of the article.

I therefore request Sandipani (talk · contribs) to provide his side of arguments, otherwise I'd remove the redundant script from the first sentence, as per naming conventions. Thanks. --Ragib 17:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

The very first sentence of the articles says it is the national anthem of India. you can find here [1] that Hindi version is adopted as the National Anthem and not Bengali. SO THE ORIGINAL SCRIPT OF OUR NATIONAL ANTHEM IS HINDI. I don't see any necessity of having Bengali name for India's National Anthem. The complete original song contains five stanzas, but the national anthem is only the first stanza. The name of the article is "Jana Gana Mana" and not "Jono Gono Mono". You can start a new article with title "Jono Gono Mono" and keep ONLY BENGALI name. Moreover, you can include bengali script for all stanzas. You are the one, who is continuously deleting the Devenagari script in the name. I did not feel necessity of Bengali name, but still I did not delete it. Because I think we should solve the issues and not create more issues. Hope my point is clear. --Sandipani 17:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

The song is written in Bengali, that's plain and simple. You didn't go back in early 1900s and force Tagore to rewrite it in Devnagari. You yelled that the "THE ORIGINAL SCRIPT OF OUR NATIONAL ANTHEM IS HINDI". Wow, what part of "original" applies to that? Adopting the hindi rendition as the national anthem doesn't change the song's original script.

India is a great country, an amagamation of many cultures, languages -- the continuation of thousands of years of civilization. You wrote that I don't see any necessity of having Bengali name for India's National Anthem. Why is the original script of a song to be thrown down the drain? Note that I do agree with SameerKhan's proposal above and have formatted the article accordingly, but this doesn't change the fact that the song is originally written in Bangla. UNLESS you show Tagore wrote it in other scripts, the naming convention applies here perfectly. Of course, unless the word "original" has other meanings :). You should also accept the fact that not all Indians speak Hindi as their native tounge, and other languages used in India are well recognized by the Government of India, and are not be banned from literature written in those languages. Thank you. --Ragib 17:54, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I am not a Hindi, and I am not a great of supporter of Hindi. I don't need to be told that India is an amalgamation of many culture. But I do acknowledge that Hindi is one of the India's official languages. One thing I know that HINDI VERSION OF THE FIRST STANZA OF ORIGINAL BENGALI SONG IS ADOPTED AS OUT NATIONAL ANTHEM. I don't think you will disagree with this. You have not done a great favor to anyone by agreeing to SameerKhan's proposal. It was quite natural. I did not see any necessity of discussing that issue at all. Rabindranath Tagore was a great poet. He is respected by not only Bengalis but by all people of India. If you are a Bengali, you should be proud that his song is adopted as India's National anthem.

But, at the same time you should be aware of the differences between original song and India's national anthem. With this there are only two options left.

• Change the title to "Jono gono mono" and include all five stanzas. With this you can use whatever amount of Bengali you want to use. No necessity of Hindi, and don't mention that it is the national anthem. You can, however, mention that the Hindi version of the first stanza is used as national anthem.
• Keep the title "Jana Mana Gana", which is our national anthem, and use Hindi script wherever necessary

--Sandipani 18:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Here I go repeating myself - so the fact that the title is written "Jana Gana Mana" and not "Jôno Gôno Mono" does not mean it is referring to the Hindi version and not the Bengali version. Bengali names, titles, songs (even modern ones), etc., are conventionally transliterated to English with the ô/o vowel written as "a", to reflect the Sanskrit pronunciation (who knows why!). The fact that Satyajit Ray's (Shottojit Rae) trilogy including Pather Panchali (Pôther Pãchali), Aparajito (Ôporajito), and Apur Sansar (Opur Shôngshar) are written with "a"s and "s"s instead of "ô"/"o"s and "sh"s doesn't make then less Bengali. That's just how Bengali words are typically Romanized in the real world (outside Wikipedia!). Jana Gana Mana *is* the normal way to Romanize what we on Wikipedia have been re-Romanizing Jôno Gôno Mono to represent the Bengali pronunciation. --SameerKhan 19:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Let's agree with your explanation that "Jana Gana Mana" is the normal way to romanize it. It still does not make original song and India's national anthem same. --Sandipani 20:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I think we are talking about Rabindranath's song here which was in Bengali. Changing the script to Hindi Devnagari (which is what has been done) does not make the song different if it is same word for word. If you believe that this this is a true translation then please cite the translator (from Bangla to Hindi). You cite that Bengalis should know the differences between the Hindi and the Bengali version. Can you please cite one single word that has been changed in the first stanza? Thanks. --Antorjal 21:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

No, we are not talking about the Rabindranath's original song. The first sentence itself says, it is the national anthem of India. And we know it is the "hindi version of the first stanza of original Rabindranath's song". When you refer to National anthem, then who wrote it? under what conditions?, are secondary things. BTW, I did not say, Bengalis should know the difference. I guess, many Bengalis do know the difference. I was responding to user Ragib (and it wasn't personal attach or anything). It does not matter if it is word to word same or not. If you are refering to Rabindranath's original song, then give the entire song. Don't mention it is the National Anthem. Just mention that "the hindi version of ......." (Not related to discussion, but in my opinion you are reducing the importance of our national anthem and also of Rabindranath Tagore) --Sandipani 21:37, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

This whole argument is a total waste of kilobytes. I would support the Devanagari traslation, but in the spirit of consensus, keep it out for now.Bakaman _Bakatalk 01:39, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Hindi version

Since we've agreed there should be a Hindi version, written in Devanagari, I've made a couple minor revisions to the Hindi text in the article. First of all, all the extraneous ṃs and ṣs were changed to their Hindi equivalents - these sounds may or may not have had distinct pronunciations in Sanskrit and some other languages, but they are no longer phonologically contrastive in Hindi to sounds like n/m and sh [ʃ]. Also, since there are only two phonologically contrastive sibilants in Hindi (s [s] and sh [ʃ]), there is no need to have extra diacritics for ś and ṣ, collapsing them into sh. Although many varieties of Hindi do not distinguish n [n] and ṇ ɳ, the audio version of the song available in the External Links includes the pronunciation of Lata Mangeshkar, who makes the distinction; thus, I kept these two sounds separate in the revision. Also, as per the transliteration used in the Hindi language article, I changed c to ch and thus ch to chh (in my opinion, using c for [tʃ] is not favorable anyhow in an English-language article unless its pronunciation is explained) and as mentioned before, ś and ṣ to sh.

Also, I changed the word Devanagari to Hindi at the top. Although both are obviously correct, the reason the Devanagari version is up there because of the Hindi version of the song. Notice that the Bengali version is not called Bengali-Assamese or Eastern Nagari even though that is the script that Bengali uses. Please let me know if you have any comments/objections. --SameerKhan 19:09, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

complete version?

should the complete version be included? The "Controversy" section includes statements that refer to events preceding the songs selection as the national anthem of India and clearly refers to the whole song --ppm 18:55, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Hindi vs Devanagari

Sarvagnya and Arya_Rajya_Maharashtra are again undoing/redoing Hindi to Devanagari. Can you guys discuss whats wrong. This talk page has enough information already about this whole issue. Just few lines above on this page Sameer Khan has provided some logic about some of his changes. So why this issue again ? What's wrong with Hindi and what's wrong with Devanagari either ? --APandey 13:14, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Calling these reverts "vandalism" isn't really sticking to Wikipedia policies, Arya_Rajya_Maharashtra. Please give your reasons for making these reverts - my reasoning for writing "Hindi" was given before, but I'll repeat it. On Wikipedia, the name of an article's title is normally given in the native language (if not English), and the name of that language is given next to that version. Note that it is not the script's name that appears but the language's name. For example, if someone looked up a Russian author, for example Tolstoy, the name would be given in Russian and labeled as "Russian". It is not labeled "Cyrillic", even if that's the name of the script that Russian is written in, and even if that would be more universal, as it would show how Tolstoy's name would be written in a host of other languages that use the Cyrillic alphabet, like Ukrainian and Bulgarian, for example. But still, the point is, the name is not shown in the Cyrillic alphabet just so that readers can learn Tolstoy's Bulgarian or Ukrainian name; it's only there so people can see his native Russian name, which is why it only says "Russian". Similarly, we should write "Hindi" to show that जन गण मन is the Hindi name of the song, even if it also happens to be the name in a number of other languages that use Devanagari. This would match with the use of "Bengali" written next to জন গণ মন, even though that is also the way to spell the name in Assamese, Chittagonian, Manipuri, etc. I'm not denying that जन गण मन is written in Devanagari - it's an issue of relevance (the name of the language that the song is sung in is what's relevant here) and consistency (other Wikipedia articles with foreign names in the title show the language name and not the script name). --SameerKhan 23:44, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Jana Gana Mana is a Sanskritized Bengali poem. Isn't it ? When the Indian state adopted it as a national anthem, did they translate it into Hindi and adopted it or did they adopt the Bengali poem in Hindi transliteration. If it is the first case, then let it be Hindi. But, if it is the second case, it should be Devanagari. I'll tell you why. Because it wasn't translated into Hindi, it was obviously transliterated into a script which Hindi uses. Now here in this particular article the script must be called "Devanagari". - AryaRajyaमहाराष्ट्र 07:08, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Of course, you can keep what you feel. I have no problems with "Hindi" being kept. After all, it's the "Rashtra Bhasha". I will not revert the version again. This is just a different view to the argument. And I also know that in all other cases, it should be language which should be named. - AryaRajyaमहाराष्ट्र 07:12, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know how seriously to take the wording on this reference, but it does say that "Jana-gana-mana, composed originally in Bengali by Rabindranath Tagore, was adopted in its Hindi version by the Constituent Assembly as the National Anthem of India on 24 January 1950." Now, the site might just be sloppy with their wording (and I do suspect this, since the song's words weren't really "translated" at all) but I am just going by that reference. I do understand why it seems arbitrary to name it Hindi when the song's grammar is not really Hindi. What little grammar overtly exists in the song is mostly Bengali, with lots of Sanskrit-derived vocabulary. --SameerKhan 08:02, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

The actual record of the proceedings of the Constituent Assembly for 24 January 1950 makes no reference to Hindi or Devanagari. All the debates are online here[2]. There are a few other references to the national anthem in the debates, but I've not been able to find any which discuss its language or script. So the government website is clearly wrong here, and I do not think we can place much reliance on it. In the debates for 13 October 1949, the President suggested that the Government had already decided on a national anthem (the comments a bit further down suggest quite strongly that this was Jana Gana Mana) - that government decision may have made a reference to a language, but since it was ostensibly the the President's announcement in the Constituent Assembly which constituted the official adoption of the anthem I suspect the government decision would not be determinative. -- Arvind 12:07, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Its surprising to see the citation provided by Sameerkhan.Jana gana mana hardly looks like Hindi. But since now it being proved, let Hindi transliteration be there.No need of Bengali transliteration;a bew article Jano Gano Mano,the orginal Bengali prose, can be created with Bengali transliteration. Mahawiki 11:47, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Arvind's reference is even more perplexing. If it's true that the government website is inaccurate, then the song is unquestionably not Hindi. There may be no need to have a transliteration of everything from Bengali to Hindi. --SameerKhan 03:24, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

That govt website certainly looks shoddy to me, always did. But in the light of arvind's link, I guess we can disregard the govt site and remove hindi transliterations. Sarvagnya 03:34, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I am no Hindi lover but Sarvagnya will; u stop being pompous and arrogant everywhere u go?Who gave u the right to say a reference 'shoddy' if does not suit to ur agenda?

Arvind the links u gave doesnt mention Hindi but they dont prove otherwise of govt website.So unless we have a concrete citation to prove Jana Gana Mana is not Hindi,let its transliteration find place in this article.

Mahawiki 11:41, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

It is very sad to see the proceedings on this page. I will not even try to reply to Sarvagnya's views because he is completely out of my comprehension. But I believe there are some other people here with due diligence who can understand things with a rational mindset without any BIAS. Let me tell you that http://india.gov.in is not a website created or found by me overnight using google. It is the official website of the government of India and its launch was advertised in the nation-wide newspapers. To question its authenticity just because it does not endorses your POV is utterly wrong.

Well, on the link provided by Arvind I saw the following-

STATEMENT RE: NATIONAL ANTHEM

Mr. President: There is one matter which has been pending for discussion, namely the question of the 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 is 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 Jana Gana Mana is the National Anthem of India, subject to such alterations in the words 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 the Members.

Now where does this state that it is not Hindi. Please see that it is not Jono Gono Mono. It is Jana Gana Mana. Now that said, this small paragraph does not mention the fact whether it is Hindi or it is not Hindi (although Jana Gana Mana is Hindi). It also says that subject to such alterations in the words as the Govt. may authorise as occassion arises. what about that. Who claims to know here that what changes were subjected to it on what occassions by which govt. Guys, it is just the summary of what they were discussing on that day. It might not even be complete. Only the recorded part is there with us. In view of all this, you have to go by the current website of Govt of India and see what they say about it.

In my strong opinion, the contents of the page were just fine. Hindi AND Bangla transliteration and English translation. No need to remove any of these. Thanks. --APandey 15:51, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Small comment, Bengali words জন গণ মন would be written in English as Jana Gana Mana, even though the pronunciation is Jono Gono Mono. Examples include Rangpur (pronounced Rongpur), Bordhhoman (written Burdwan or Bardhaman). --Ragib 16:06, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Upon looking in to more links (from what Arving has provided) I got the following at http://parliamentofindia.nic.in/ls/debates/vol10p6b.htm

...the question of the National Anthem. The National Flag was adopted by the Constituent Assembly; it was not part of the Constitution but it was adopted by the Constituent Assembly. Similarly probably the National Anthem, also will have to be adopted by the Constitution Assembly, but by a Resolution; but we have not yet taken steps in that direction. The government have already adopted a particular song as the National Anthem, but the Constituent Assembly has not yet accepted that. So we have not taken any steps in that direction yet; I do not know what to do, but we may have to consider that point also.

If you read the entire page you will find out that the president even allowed a committee to propose for a national anthem (even a completely new one). It means that at the time of these proceedings the status of the national anthem was under consideration and it was not even fixed to be Jana Gana Mana. Now how can this data be taken and the current data from the govt web site be ignored, I do not understand. --APandey 16:13, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Have you looked at the dates? The second statement you quote was made a little over three months before the statement of 24 January 1950, which announced the adoption of Jana Gana Mana as the national anthem. Quite obviously, the status was unclear in October 1949, when the national anthem was still under discussion, but was clear in January 1950, when Jana Gana Mana was adopted.

The GoI website is clearly wrong when it says that Jana Gana Mana "was adopted in its Hindi version by the Constituent Assembly as the National Anthem of India on 24 January 1950." The Constituent Assembly made no reference to a "Hindi version". The song as such, which is all the CA referred to, is a Bengali song. Just as we write "Rabindranath" rather than "Robindronath", we would normally write "Jana Gana Mana" rather than "Jono Gono Mono". Given that the Government website provides an incorrect reference, I don't think we can treat it as being reliable.

I have no opinion on whether we should include the song in Devanagari script on this page. I think that a profusion of scripts looks silly, but the English wikipedia is not my "main" wikipedia, so I'll go by whatever policies you folks come up with. I do, however, think the sentence in the introduction - that the Constituent Assembly adopted the Hindi version of the song - needs to be changed to explain that the Constituent Assembly did not do so, and that it was the Government that subsequently altered the song - assuming that the website is correct. I'd like to see an exact reference to the Government decision which used the power given by the Constituent Assembly to amend the song to turn it into a "Hindi version". -- Arvind 16:31, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Upon looking in to more links (from what Arving has provided) I got the following at http://parliamentofindia.nic.in/ls/debates/vol10p6b.htm

...the question of the National Anthem. The National Flag was adopted by the Constituent Assembly; it was not part of the Constitution but it was adopted by the Constituent Assembly. Similarly probably the National Anthem, also will have to be adopted by the Constitution Assembly, but by a Resolution; but we have not yet taken steps in that direction. The government have already adopted a particular song as the National Anthem, but the Constituent Assembly has not yet accepted that. So we have not taken any steps in that direction yet; I do not know what to do, but we may have to consider that point also.

If you read the entire page you will find out that the president even allowed a committee to propose for a national anthem (even a completely new one). It means that at the time of these proceedings the status of the national anthem was under consideration and it was not even fixed to be Jana Gana Mana. Now how can this data be taken and the current data from the govt web site be ignored, I do not understand. --APandey 16:13, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I found one more link, which I got while browsing http://parliamentofindia.nic.in itself. It is http://indiaimage.nic.in/nationalanthem.htm and it tells the same thing about the national anthem. Now guys, what surprises me is that, the text which talks about the proceedings of the constituent assembly is given so much importance and we are almost eager to ignore what came out of those proceedings.

And why are we agreeing that the first stanza of Jana Gana Mana (out of the five stanzas of the original song) does not look like Hindi. Guys, it is true that contemptory Hindi has a lot of borrowing from Urdu and other languages, but if you read the pure Hindi text, it will be like that. It will be difficult to understand. And many will argue that it can not be Hindi. Read Jai Shankar Prasad and Bharatendu Harishchandra, if you have not. There will be score of things that even a native Hindi speaker will not be able to understand. But that does not mean it is not Hindi. That means the person does not understand Hindi fully. My point here is that the first stanza of Jana Gana Mana, adopted from Bengali to Hindi, did not undergo any changes (read translation) and still is Hindi. So we need not worry too much about it not being Hindi, just because to us it does not look Hindi. Thanks. --APandey 16:37, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Edit conflict - so havent read a comment or two

Mr.Apandey, for starters, I was only echoing Sameer's and Arvind's(??) opinions. Stop judging me especially when you concede that I am beyond your comprehension. Neither are you qualified to judge me nor do i appreciate it. And by accusing me of being biased, you are indulging in a personal attack. I warn you not to do so.

As for 'shoddy', I called the website shoddy because it indeed is shoddy. There are enough incomplete pages and broken links out on that site to call it so. For a site that is the Govt of India's premier website, it is especially poor.

Also I think Sameer and Ragib have explained enough and more times why Jôno Gôno Mono in Bengali is Jana Gana Mana in English. Please dont keep taking this debate back in time.

As for the transliteration itself, I have no 'Agenda' here like somebody accused me of. I am for whatever the consensus(based on WP policies ie) is. And in arriving at the consensus I certainly have a right to voice my opinion. Take it or leave it. Sarvagnya 16:39, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Dear Arvind/ Vadakkan, Can you prove that the current govt website is wrong. Or just because you say so, we should agree. If you are talking about dates, even your referenced article is talking about the proceedings on 24th January 1950. Do you know what decisions were made in the next two days. Whatever you are referring is again, as I said, is the proceedings. Where is the result of the proceeding? Can you show me a page which talks about the FINAL resolution of the constituent assembly. The Govt. website can not be so utterly wrong and providing incorrect information. I am open for REASONABLE DEBATE. Show me links which can overrule the current GOV site and I will agree to whatever decision we take thereafter. Thanks. --APandey 16:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

• My name is Arvind. I "sign" as Arvind because I prefer to be addressed by my name rather than by an anonymous username.
• The Constituent Assembly met for the last time on 24th January 1950. I'm not clear what you mean by "the next two days".
• If you are familiar with using legislative proceedings as a source, the "final resolution" should be obvious. Dr. Rajendra Prasad began by saying that instead of a vote or formal resolution, he would simply make a statement as to what the national anthem would be. He made the statement. No objections were raised, which means that the statement was adopted by the House. In parliamentary procedure, this is called adoption by acclamation. There's no further "resolution" to look for.
• The statement makes no reference to Hindi, just to the song. Therefore the Constituent Assembly adopted just the song, not "a Hindi version" of the song.
• When I was in school, the fact that our national anthem was a Bengali song sung in accordance with Hindi pronunciation was actually discussed as an example of "unity in diversity". Perhaps it is different today. It has been a long time since I was in school.
• I have no idea what sort of proof you are looking for. The debates really do speak for themselves. I do not think I will have anything further to add on this point. -- Arvind 19:33, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

'Hindi version'

Without commenting anything about the credibility or quality of any source, I have a couple of questions about the india.gov reference.

• What does 'Hindi version' mean?
• Does it mean that the first stanza of the Bengali song was translated into Hindi?
• Does it mean that maybe the Bengali words were kept intact but the grammar was somehow changed to fit Hindi's?
• Does it mean that the song was simply transliterated into Hindi and called the 'Hindi version'?

These questions may or may not have a direct bearing on the contents and wording in the article. But I thought that the words 'Hindi version' was a little ambiguous. Sarvagnya 16:51, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Good question. Can anyone answer that with confidence. Here is my personal view on this.

As we all know that the Bangla and Hindi versions have the same text (i mean words). Now as I have said before, ALL these words are as much Hindi as they are Bangla. Example, Jana, Gana, Mana, Adhinayak, Vidhata, Ashish, Gatha etc. I again repeat here that many words are not used in contemporary Hindi, but they are Hindi. Ex. I have never used Adhinayak in my day to day life, but I know that it is Hindi. So I believe the second point above (third bullet) will be valid with the additional information that the words were not exclusively Bengali. They were fitting both Bengali and Hindi. Thanks. --APandey 17:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

In other words Jônogônomono-odhinaeoko became Janagaṇamana adhināyaka and Jônogônomonggolodaeoko became Janagaṇamangaladāyaka and so on.

I think thats all is meant there. Thanks --APandey 17:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, APandey, "ALL these words" are not "as much Hindi as they are Bangla". True, the song's words were not changed at all from the Bengali version when it was "translated", and the words are mostly of Sanskrit origin, which would be basically the same in their written form regardless of whether the borrowing language is Hindi or Bengali. In fact, the beginning and end of the anthem, mostly made up of nouns, could be either Bengali or Hindi. However, the grammar in the middle portion of the anthem is unquestionably Bengali. The words Tôbo shubho name jage/tôbo shubho ashish mage/gahe tôbo jôeogatha don't make any sense in Sanskrit or Hindi, but they are normal Bengali conjugations of verbs and inflections of nouns (nam-e = name-locative.case, mag-e = beg/pray.for-3rd.person.present, ga-(h)-e = sing-3rd.person.present, etc.). These were not translated at all to reflect Hindi grammar, archaic or modern.

Anyhow, if the song is considered by the government of India to be translated into Hindi, then there should be a Hindi (for all intents and purposes, Devanagari, here) version of the song alongside the original lyrics simply to show respect for the government of the country whose anthem this is. However, if you're asking about a linguistic opinion, no, there is nothing characteristically Hindi about the song, while there are some features (i.e. the small amount of overt grammatical markers) that are characteristically Bengali. --SameerKhan 18:56, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

To answer Sarvagnya more directly:

• Does it mean that the first stanza of the Bengali song was translated into Hindi?

• In terms of translating to Hindi words, no, since none of the words change form, even when the form is specifically Bengali.

• Does it mean that maybe the Bengali words were kept intact but the grammar was somehow changed to fit Hindi's?

• No, since the endings were not changed between the two versions, the small amount of recognizable Bengali grammar in there didn't get changed to Hindi grammar.

• Does it mean that the song was simply transliterated into Hindi and called the 'Hindi version'?

• In my opinion, yes, it looks like this is what was done.

Even though the language that this song is in seems very clear to me (Bengali grammar with Sanskrit and Bengali words), my opinion is almost irrelevant if the government of India thinks it's in Hindi. We should respect the beliefs of the government as well - so if they do believe it's Hindi, I would support keeping both versions. If they have made no such proclamation, then we can go with the linguistic evidence that it never changed languages. --SameerKhan 19:09, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Sameer. I thought we had gotten over this useless argument, sarvagnya. we might as well keep ststus quo as only one user seems to have issues with Hindi. Bakaman _Bakatalk 01:46, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Sameer, I am not an expert on these specific language issues like you are. And I do not have any problems with your arguments either. Your arguments might be correct (I do not know enough to judge you) but at the same time my arguments about ALL those words (well, may be not ALL, but a significant subset of ALL) being as much Hindi as Bangla are also true. Examples are the same, Jana Gana Mana, Adhinayak, Ashish, Gatha and so on. But as you said, they *might* not make sense starting Tav Shubh Name...

My only take is this: After a long debate earlier, we agreed to keep both versions on this page. That should be maintained. Thats all. If we go very very technically, we can disect and analyse what exactly happened. How much Bangla, Sanskrit and Hindi are there and so on. But the fact that GOV site is mentioning something, should be honoured by all of us unless we can cite some other solid references to the contrary. We should not dig too much in to it anymore. Thanks --APandey 04:37, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

On second thoughts, I feel that the words 'Hindi version' of Bengali song will seriously end up sounding ambiguous to the lay person. Unless somebody can conclusively explain what 'hindi version of a Bengali song' would mean, I think we will have to remove those words from the article. Afterall, WP articles are also meant to be understood by people who read it and should not merely be dumphouses of information.

Why I say this is because, I have never ever come across a case of 'x language version' of a 'Y language song' before. And I am sure, it will sound just as ambiguous to readers from around the world.

Just because ambiguous wording is used in a 'notable' source shouldnt be any reason we should reproduce that ambiguity in Wikipedia. If anybody can do more research and come up with other sources which conclusively explain what 'Hindi version of Bengali song' means, then we can have those words along with the explanation. Sarvagnya 22:03, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I have never ever come across a case of 'x language version' of a 'Y language song' before - 'version' means translation.In this article itself original Bengali 'version' is being translated to 'Hindi' and 'English' also. So Hindi version of Bengali song means its translation. Mahawiki 03:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

So Hindi version of Bengali song means its translation.

That's not correct .... the song hasn't been translated at all. --Ragib 03:33, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Just as Ragib said, the song doesn't change at all from Bengali to Hindi, other than the obvious change of alphabet and corresponding pronunciation. The grammar is not changed at all. The only parts of the "Hindi version" that can be considered "Hindi" are the words derived directly from Sanskrit (the tatsama/tôtshôm words), which are as Hindi as they are Marathi, Bengali, etc. All the stuff that is not directly Sanskrit-derived is Bengali-specific. But even the Bengali-specific stuff was simply transliterated into the "Hindi version". Thus, the "Hindi version" is made up of Sanskrit words (which is not uncommon for Hindi, Bengali, Marathi, etc.), Bengali words (not normally done in Hindi), and Bengali suffixes (also not normally done in Hindi). --SameerKhan 03:48, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreeing to the thoughts of both Ragib and Sameer, I would suggest changing this line:

"First performed in 1911, Jana Gana Mana was officially adopted in its Hindi version by the Constituent Assembly as the Indian national anthem in January 24 ,1950"

to

"First performed in 1911, Jana Gana Mana was officially adopted by the Constituent Assembly as the Indian national anthem in January 24 ,1950".

This would eliminate the question that might arise for any reader, "What is the meaning of Hindi version?". We need to note that, the version in question is neither according to Hindi grammar nor made up of actual Hindi words.

Also, as indicated by Sameer earlier in this discussion, the Hindi transliteration (that is, in Devanagari script) lyrics shall still remain in the article as a mark of respect for the Government of India. - KNM ^{Talk - Contribs} 05:35, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I can understand the arguments made above and may agree that Hindi Version might be a little ambiguous, but at the same time, if we remove the "in its hindi version" from the main page, then the same people (whose problem we are trying to solve for) may well understand that the original bengali song is the national anthem, which is not the case. The reason is the same, the song when sung, it is Jana Gana Mana... and Jono Gono Mono... So how we will reflect that point. It is very clear that the Hindi version is the national anthem. But what do they mean by Hindi Version is not clear. So the only point remaining is that why (as per Sameer's argument) some specific Bengali words and Bengali grammer was left as it is in the Hindi version. I believe the article should be left as it is and we all should try to get information on Hindi Version. May be writing to GOV site can get us a response.

My take was simple, Jono Gono Mono when adopted in Hindi version became Jana Gana Mana because the words being Sanskrit, they are as much Bangla as Hindi. But in view of Sameer's points that Tava Shubh Name Jaage etc. can not be regarded as Hindi *nor* Sanskrit, I can see the point about ambiguity.

Another question can also be asked however, if Tava Shubha Name Jage etc is *exclusively* Bengali, then what translation was possible for it to make it Hindi. Of course some translation could be done, but that may destroy the asthetic beauty of the song, which probably they did not want. Anyway this was just a thought. I am sure that if the constituent assembly could have guessed that there will be people (like the contributors on this page) after 56 years, who will analyse and dissect their work like this, they would have been more cautious :-) Thanks --APandey 05:52, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Like any legislative body, the Constituent Assembly was well aware of this - which is why they carefully recorded and published their debates. You should take a look at a few Supreme Court decisions to see how they used the CA debates to try and understand what the constitution meant, especially in the early years. The string of SC decisions about the precise scope of the President's discretionary power would be a good place to start. Anyway, I'm now taking this page off my watchlist because this discussion is going nowhere. The introductory paragraph is factually incorrect, but I suppose it can remain so. Yet another factual inaccuracy in Wikipedia does it no great harm. Best wishes, -- Arvind 10:11, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Question of Hindi transliteration again

• As all the above discussions show, my point is pretty simple. The words 'hindi version of Bengali song' are ambiguous at best and meaningless at worst. So until we find a 'notable' source that explains it properly, we should do away with those words.
• Also, without those words in the article, it would be meaningless and out of place to have the hindi transliteration too. So that will also have to be done away with.
• So, to sum up, until we find a 'notable' source which explains what 'hindi ver of bengali song..' means, we will have to do away with both that sentence and the hindi transliteration. Sarvagnya 08:03, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Please follow the discussion carefully to understand what is being discussed. The discussion above can not be summarised the way you want it, to fit your POV. We are not even talking about removing ANY transliteration. We are discussing what values does this sentence has: ... adopted the Hindi version of... . I have written above why there should not be any problems with this. If you have anything to add or cite, mention it here. Currently there are two transliteration on the page. They both are referring to the same song, but they only differ in the pronunciation of the words. Everything discussed till now point to the fact that this same difference is being referred as "adoptation in the Hindi version" by the constituent assembly. Now what we have (kind of) agreed now is that IF Sameer's explaination about the grammer etc. is correct, then it is not fair to call this as Hindi Version. Thats all. Noting more. But it does not get you a license to delete the Hindi version or anything else. Thanks. --APandey 09:03, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Let me refresh your memory. This whole debate started with the question, "Why do we need Hindi transliteration in this article?". The answer offered to that was, "... because gov.in website says, the hindi ver was adopted...". Now since those words are ambiguous and hence cannot be accepted for Wikipedia purposes(until better explanation from 'notable' sources and not 'original research' is forthcoming), the original question of, "Why hindi transliteration??" remains unanswered. And until that is answered satisfactorily(ie., per Wiki policies), Hindi transliteration will have to wait. Sarvagnya 09:17, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Sarvagnya, please remain CIVIL and do not make personal comments. You are digging an old grave. Nobody is discussing here what you think is being discussed. --APandey 09:27, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

What more 'notable' source one can produce when none other than Govt.of India says its Hindi version is adopted?It has been mentioned in clear words,so whats ambiguous?How can one term a Goverment of India source as meanningless?In fact I too doubt this song is Hindi and as someone pointed out Jana,gaNa,mana etc words are used in Marathi also.So unless we prove otherwise of govt. website we must retain Hindi transcription.Why does Bengali transliteration is used?Our National anthem is Hindi version of original Sanskrit,so include only Hindi.

A user said that 'tava shubh name jage..' kind of sentence is peculiar to Bengali,but I feel such modifications are used in Marathi also.I am not sure of this but I think I have read such words in devotional poems.'tava','tva' is surely used in Marathi.

And yes Hindi transcription should be included for the obvious fact the anthem is 'HINDI' version of original Bengali song. Mahawiki 10:18, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Tagore, as you might notice, was a Bengali poet, not Marathi. The original WAS and IS a Bengali song written using Tatsama words which are used as Bengali words all the time, and part of the vocabulary. --Ragib 13:59, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Why is the Bengali text/transliteration there? Because it's still a Bengali song! Even if there is a "Hindi version", that doesn't negate the fact that the song was written in Bengali and even in the "Hindi version", it still retains all the features of being Bengali other than the Devanagari script itself. What is confusing is what we should say about what the "Hindi version" is. I'm leaning towards saying it's just the way this Bengali song is sung in parts of India outside Bengal, more than calling it actually "Hindi". --SameerKhan 20:05, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Sameer, my opinions about what "Hindi version" might mean are very similar to yours. Infact, I'd go as far as saying, imo, the words, "...Hindi version...." is meaningless. In all probability, its just somebody's POV creeping in(on the gov.in site) either accidentally or even deliberately. Websites are after all built by people and people make mistakes. Curiously, even the govt., site doesnt have the Hindi transliteration.

Be that as it may, the point remains that, we do not have an 'official' or 'notable' explanation for those ambiguous words.

So my suggestion is we do away with both the ambiguous words and the hindi transliteration that it has engendered on the article page.

The Hindi transliteration can return, if and when a 'notable' explanation justifying its inclusion is provided. Sarvagnya 20:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Except one person here, nobody is discussing removing ANY of the transliterations. The Bengali version has to be there because the song was originally in Bangla. Similarly the Hindi version has to be there because the song is adopted in its Hindi version as the national anthem of India. We have discussed all this before and no point in digging this again. All involved, please read the text in the discussion above properly before commenting. Specially the section Agree? put by Sameer Khan earlier. We can not outrightly reject GOV site as not being authoritative just because someone thinks so. As far as Hindi Version is concerned, I would tend to agree to Sameer in addition to the fact that lots of text being Sanskrit are as much Hindi as they are Bangla. Thanks. --APandey 04:52, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Samir,I know that original song is in Bengali.But our national anthem is the Hindi Version of original song!Perhaps u are saying so because the article's title is 'Jana Gana Mana' and nor 'National Anthem of India'.

Hindi transliteration should not be removed unless we prove the song is not in Hindi.

Mahawiki 06:05, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes I also think both the Bengali and Hindi text should be there, given the references we have here. We shouldn't remove either script's version - however, we might just want to change the wording as to what is meant by "Hindi version", that's all. --SameerKhan 06:15, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Anti-National Users

What the fu*k is going on in this page ? People are directly questioning the Hindi translation of our national anthem. I request the concerned people to take strict action against these anti-Indians. People like Sarvagnya dont want Hindi script.

Sarvagnya and others, remember, noone can remove the Hindi script, because it is our national language. Have some respect for our national language. Sarvagnya should be banned from this article. He sis repeatedly questioning Hindi? I dont know why you are so anti-Hindi, but remember all Indians are Hindi !!! We are people of Hind, so we are all Hindi ! Beware if you speak anything against our beloved national language. No One will remove the Hindi script. Subuddhi 06:52, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Just because the words "India"/"Hind" and "Hindi" are related, doesn't mean all people who live in "India" are Hindi speakers or even relate to the Hindi language. India is not made up of one culture or one language or one religion or one ethnicity - that's what's so great about it! No one should be forced to submit to a different identity in India - if you speak Telugu, you speak Telugu. If you speak Gujarati, you speak Gujarati. If you practice Buddhism, you practice Buddhism. This is the spirit of India, which has been beautifully racially, linguistically, culturally, ethnicly, and religiously diverse for centuries and will always be. Supporting diversity and refusing to bow to hegemony is not anti-Indian - it is perfectly Indian. Whatever your opinion may be on Jana Gana Mana, please don't turn it into a personal attack. No one needs to be banned from this page unless they vandalize the article - and honest comments on the talk page do not count as vandalism! --SameerKhan 07:41, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Beautifully summed up Sameer. Subuddhi - much as I hate dignifying trolls like you with a response, I couldnt help but respond just this once. First things first, get this fact straight - Hindi is not India's national language. Infact, India has NO national language. Our constitution does not use the term 'national language' at all. All that it uses is the term, Official language. And when it comes to official language, India has close to two dozen official languages. Every language including Manipuri, Telugu, Kannada, Bengali, Gujarati..... all are official languages. Hindi is along with English the official language of the union govt.,. This does not make Hindi the 'national language'. If being the 'official language of the Union govt., can mean that Hindi is our national language, then by that logic, even English would be our national language.

India has a national flag, a national anthem, national bird, national musical instrument, national animal, national song... none of these are negotiable. That is to say, India has one and only one national animal, ie., the Tiger. Wherever in India you go, the tiger is our national animal. But when it came to languages, did you ever pause to think why the govt., scrupulously steered clear of calling any language National? It is simply because no language was ever meant to be national. There are only official languages and each state has its own official language. Even English is an official language in the state of Nagaland.

So what does official mean? Well official means that, the government will communicate with its citizens in the official language. In Karnataka that would be Kannada. And when governments communicate with each other, they are free to use either English or Hindi. With the exception of the Hindi belt, state governments in the rest of India use English. For example when the CM of UP writes a letter to the CM of Karnataka, it should either be in English or in Kannada. Since I wouldnt expect the CM of UP to write in Kannada, we settle for English. If the UP CM writes in Hindi, forget the CM, even if the PM writes to the Karnataka or Kerala or some other(Non Hindi speaking state) state CM in Hindi, the respective state CM will either trash the letter or simply return the letter without a reply. As a citizen of India, infact, you are even free to argue your case in Supreme Court in English or any language of your choice. In other words, Hindi is not binding on anybody. A citizen of India can legally choose to live his whole life in India without learning a single word of Hindi.

In Central govt., undertakings and in the Central govt., offices (mostly in Delhi) all correspondence should strictly be either in Hindi or English. Even there Hindi is not compulsory. If a central govt., officer does not know Hindi, he will have to be communicated with in English. This is the law.

Something National on the other hand, like I already said, is non negotiable. Whether you go to Assam or Kashmir or Kerala, the lotus will be our national flower and the peacock will remain our national bird.

Hope you learned something today. It is not a crime to be ignorant of something, but an intelligent person will look around for new things to learn everyday. And if you are intelligent, you would just have learnt something.

And, finally, even if(we assume for a moment that) Hindi is the national language it is foolish to expect everyone to know or learn Hindi. For somebody living in a village in Kerala or Karnataka, Hindi is just as foreign as English or German or French. Whether a language came to him from 2000 miles away or 10000 miles away is immaterial. It will still remain a foreign language for him and if you expect someone in Kerala to learn Hindi for your benefit, sad to say, but you're just being a third rate fanatic.

Remember, India is all about "Unity in Diversity". If you cant respect and protect the Diversity, Unity will go right out of the window. Sarvagnya 08:31, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Sarvagnya, without endorsing Subuddhi's POV I would like to remind you something. Please remember that this is the talk page of Jana Gana Mana. If you had problems with any one's comments, you should put that information on that user's talk page. You had given me the same advice a few edits before in the form of comments. That said let me say that you have gone overboard here and spitting venom against Hindi. I am forced to counter some of your arguments here on this very page.

Perhaps you forgot the discussion on Hindi page and my previous proofs. Please go through this again. Read it carefully. Also please see the references Hindi#_note-0 , Hindi#_note-1 and Hindi#_note-6. Download the pdf and understand what the constitution of India says. Let me repeat again that Hindi is the one and only official language of the GOI. English is NOT. Kannada is NOT. The citations provided above will tell you that central government allows the use of English for the purposes of communication but English has not been granted the status of Official language. And unlike you think, every languages including manipuri etc etc... they are NOT the official languages. They can be official languages in the respective states not for the UNION OF INDIA. I hope you understand the difference.

Your arguments are not only bogus, they are full of your POV, lack citation and refernces and have no value. I can't stop laughing at the fact that you can even predict how a gov official reacts (trashes) the letter if it is written in Hindi. This is extreme POV. Do all the govt officers come to you before trashing the letters. How do you know otherwise.

You say the in central govt. jobs, knowing English is important and IT IS LAW. This is another joke of the day. Knowing english can be a job requirement, just like knowing C++ can be a job reqt for a C++ engineer post, but that is not LAW. It is again an example of extreme POV and day-dreaming.

And when you are making all these provocative and baseless allegations, in the pretext of Unity in Diversity, it is again laughable. Grow up kid and read the references when they are provided during the course of a discussion. Thanks. --APandey 11:27, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I can't agree with APandey more. Sarvagnya is an extreme POV pusher (in other words, a Kannada Fanatic along with his friend Kannadbadi). He knows how to ask for citations for points which others make, but himself doesn't provide citations, but just like his friend, shows that Kannad glorifier Suryahat Kamat's book. Coming back into the context here, his statement that Kannada government officials trashes Hindi letters is not only POV but extremely childish. His anti-Hindi and anti-Marathi stance is known to all. Infact, the way they are pushing their POVs, it won't be long before he and his friend Kannambadi make "Kannada" as the Official Language of Govt. Of India in Wikipedia. AryaRajyaमहाराष्ट्र 14:03, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Karnataka CM trashing PM's letter????!!!!ROTFL!!!!

Sarvagnya needs to be reminded that Karnataka is still a part of India.Karnataka is not a sovereign state and Mr.Kumaraswamy still has to report to Delhi!

I do agree to Sarvagnya in some points but his post is clearly filled up of biases and hatred against Hindi language.Yes Hindi is not the sole national language but Hindi is the official and main link language of India.He is adviced to present his views humbly and not insult other languages.How's Kannada gonna be better by cursing Marathi or Hindi?I am afraid that Dineshkannambadi may land here with another Kannada fanatic source which says Kannada is national language of India and India's national anthem is in Kannada!

Mahawiki 15:07, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

SammerKhan, yes the words Hindi and Indian are synonymous. To tell you an example, why did Pandit Nehru say "Hindi-Chini Bhai-Bhai" ? Did it concern only the Hindi speaking people ? Or the whole of India ? That way, all Indians are HINDI. I thank Apandey for pointing out the fallacies of Sarvagnya. Sarvagnya, by calling me a "troll" you yourself have shown who is a Troll ! Especially, your trolling on Vande Mataram and Belgaon is well-known. I seriously doubt, whether you're a Hindavi Nagrik at all. HINDI TRANSLITERATION will remain. Subuddhi 03:15, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be a little bit confused with the term "Hind" and the language Hindi. Not the same terms, you might notice. --Ragib 03:21, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

They may not be same but they are related ! The point is, APandey has given enough citations to show that HINDI is our official national language and therefore, respect HINDI. Subuddhi 03:28, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Unless you have anything relevant to comment on, please do not patronize other users. This is not really a blog or a soapbox. Thank you. --Ragib 03:35, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh unfortunately admin has deleted my comments about Sarvagnya's anti-Hindi rants.So let me put them in mild language. Karnataka CM has to report Delhi so ur statement of 'K'taka CM trashing Hindi letter of PM' is hilarious.Plz tell Subuddhi what u wanna tell in a mild tone rather than the insulting Hindi. Its a request -respect other's POV and languages too.Thank you! Mahawiki 05:46, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I request Subuddhi and Sarvagnya to refrain from making inflammatory, and ultimately pointless posts. This is not a govt. of India website nor are all users Indian. Further, are there no better ways to channel emotions? If one cares so much about the Hindi language then I can point out a million articles that need to be created regarding it instead of spending so much energy on the talk page. Let us remember that wikipedia works because of the colllective efforts of editors. --Antorjal 04:38, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Antarjol.tell sarvagnya also to frame his sentences in mild language which will not sound against any language.Subuddhi seems to be new to wikipedia.When I was new here I was emotional too!And dont worry,GoI's citation in our hands I dont think Hindi transliteration shall be removed.Mahawiki 05:46, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I had missed Sarvagnya's post between Subudhhi's. Edited comment above. --Antorjal 14:25, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Finish the discussion

OK Guys, the discussion is going in some different direction now. Lets discuss only Jana Gana Mana here. Whosoever want to disuss about Hindi and its status, please see the Hindi article and its talk page and references provided there. If they want to have more discussion, either they need to discuss there or on specific user's talk page.

For now, this article is in a correct form. With official and authoritative references to every claim that is being made. Most of the users who have participated in the discussion also agree on the same. If anyone wants to make any change, please dicuss it here only if you have citations and authoritative references about it. No vandalism (removing of sections) and pushing of POVs will be tolerated. Many thanks to all. --APandey 08:02, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Sarvagnya, if you have comments, you should write it here. Do not edit my comments because it will mislead others who will see only the final version of this article. I think you need to see the Welcome and Introduction pages of wikipedia. Thanks. --APandey 08:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

work of art

Is there any wikipedia-wide template or format on how to deal with national anthems? Many national anthems do not include the whole work of art. There are wikipedia entries like Amar_Sonar_Bangla or God Save The King where the song is mentioned both as a work of art and independently as a national anthem. To me this seems to be a pertinent issue since for example Amar Sonar Bangla can and is sung in India as a Rabindra Sangeet and the same is true for Jana Gana Mana among non-Indian Bengalis. --ppm 21:40, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Gahe Tav Jai Gatha

Is Gahe Tava Jayagatha right or should it be Gaaea Tava Jayagatha? Swadhyayee 00:01, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

It is correct. The corresponding Bangla text is: গাহে তব জয়গাথা। Thanks. --Ragib 01:05, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Constituent Assembly

There is a full transcript of the Constituent Assembly proceedings here. Can someone check to see whether or not this is a definitive version? This version does not mention "hindi version" of the Anthem being adopted. --ppm 04:51, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I cannot confirm if this is the complete transcript, however it does not seem to be a hoax, since all the politicians and dates match up accurately to the best of my knowledge. Thanks.--Antorjal 01:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I think we discussed about this link earlier. Someone provided this link in the talk page above if I am not wrong. I do not have any comments however. This might be correct information but might not be complete. And we have an authentic link (GOV site) about it anyway. By the way, what are we looking for, by starting this new investigation. Thanks. --Apandey 16:08, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

We are looking to see if the "Hindi version" was adopted or not. The problem with the authentic link is that it is not detailed. --ppm 17:42, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Its quite surprising that this document is not verifiable! Aren't there printed versions of this document?--ppm 20:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Just for the record and further to shmitra's link, here's another. This link from the Parliament's official site says,

"...The Constitution of India was adopted on 26 November, 1949 and the hon'ble members appended their signatures to it on 24 January, 1950. In all, 284 members actually signed the Constitution. On that day when the Constitution was being signed, it was drizzling outside and it was interpreted as a sign of a good omen.

The Constitution of India came into force on 26 January, 1950. On that day, the Assembly ceased to exist..."

I shall be removing the hindi transliterations. Sarvagnya 05:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)