Talk:Jana Gana Mana/Archive 2

Sanskritized Bengali

I think we've discussed this before: there's no need to write "Sanskritized Bengali" for this poem, just as it's not necessary to write "Latinate English" to describe works of literature written in English with lots of Latin borrowings. Bengali, like many Indic languages, borrows heavily from Sanskrit (in addition to the inherited Sanskrit vocabulary) - this doesn't make it a "special" version of Bengali. This is especially true of Bengali literature from the early 20th century, when this poem was first sung. All Bengali literature from that time would have been written in this style, so the word "Sanskritized" would be irrelevant. Now, Vande Mataram is a different case, where Bengali grammar and Sanskrit grammar are intermingled to make a true hybrid of the two languages. --SameerKhan 22:36, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Another point: writing "Sanskritized Bengali" would imply that we should write "Sanskritized Bengalized Hindi" for the Hindi version, since the Hindi version is far more removed from colloquiual Hindi than the Bengali version is from colloquial Bengali. I say leave out all the descriptors. --SameerKhan 22:38, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I second this strongly. "Highly latinised english" --- like what? --ppm 06:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

As long as Hindi transliteration and devanagari script is there go ahead Sameer. I just dont want this to be cannon fodder for the other S (you know who I mean). We could just say Sadhubhasa, but whatever works for you guys is good.Bakaman _Bakatalk 19:55, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Sameer's logical suggestion. This song is not like the mixture of Sanskrit/Bangla as seen in Vande Mataram. Tagore wrote in Bangla, and at best, this song is an example of the literary Bangla used at the period (Some newspapers like the Ittefaq still uses this style of Bangla). So, I support Sameer's proposal for removing the descriptors altogether. --Ragib 20:00, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I am confused as to what this has to do with Hindi transliteration/translation. As far as I can see, the Hindi version is there because the Hindi version was adopted as the National Anthem. What does that have to do with characterization of the original song in Bengali?--ppm 20:28, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Sarvagnya was trolling on this page (see above discussions) citing the fact "it not a Hindi song, Wiki is not the Hindi Prachar Sabha, keep this free of nationalism, we should use chinese script, etc". He unilaterally removed Hindi from Jana Gana Mana, Vande Mataram, and Saare Jahan Se Achcha. Ppm, I know you werent involved in this, but SameerKhan and Ragib also had some reservations (albeit in a more civil and intelligent manner) about Hindi before we came to a consensus. Bakaman _Bakatalk 22:30, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Just for clarification, my agreement to the consensus on Hindi script is strictly based on the assertion, that the constituent assembly adopted it in its "Hindi version". Like ppm, I'd like to see the transcripts that support this assertion. --Ragib 22:35, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

As would I. --SameerKhan 00:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with the Hindi script as right now the consensus is that the Hindi version was adopted. My concern is different. My concern is that there seems to an effort to undermine the Bengali characterization of the original song, and seems like "Sanskritizing" somehow sanitizes the song from its abominable Bengaliness. I should make it clear that this by no means refers to Bakaman, I am just making a general observation.--ppm 01:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Your concerns are as usual , baseless. -Bharatveer 04:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

This is a really bad personal attack. See WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. Thanks. --Ragib 04:34, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Saying that an editor's concerns are without any basis will not constitute a personal attack .-Bharatveer 06:29, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

True, but this is not the case. Here, you said as usual implying that Shmitra's concerns are always baseless. Please comment on content and the discussion thread rather than making such characterizations of other users. See WP:NPA for a better guide to avoiding these type of personal attacks. Thank you. --Ragib 06:36, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Hindi Version

I removed the wording "Hindi version" from the article. The transcript I earlier provided is undoubtedly correct, see the references provided, a government published 12 volume proceedings of the constituent assembly, and an online version of the same on the parliament of India website. --ppm 22:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I know what your reference means. You know what it means. Arvind knows. So does Ragib. So does Sameer. And we all know that it is authentic and not a fake. But cant you see the discomfort you are causing a group of editors here? some of them with credentials as impeccable as this.

What will happen of the hindi script then? what will happen of the fantastic semantic gymnastics that some editors(read POV pushers) here took the pains to perform in a bid to buy hindi a backdoor entry into the article. how can anything that doesnt have a dab of hindi in it qualify as patriotic?? Apparently, daubing every article even remotely connected to India on en.wikipedia with liberal doses of hindi is the ultimate test in patriotism. And isnt en.wiki all about being patriotic towards India? Correct me if I am wrong. Finally, how unpatriotic of Tagore to have written this poem in Bengali. How unpatriotic of those leaders who couldnt find a true blue Hindi(or is it Urdu??) song for our 'Hindistan'!! Sarvagnya 23:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

To augment Shmitra's comment, here is a news item from IndianExpress that questions the same thing, and they also have verified the constituent assembly's resolutions independently. Interesting is that, the same sort of misinformation has been added to NCERT's class III textbooks, though the people from NCERT admitted that it is incorrect. --Ragib 01:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

The newspaper merely questions the same thing. But as it is now, as per Govt. of India, it should stay like the previous version. -Bharatveer 04:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

The newspaper report is interesting but not germane to the main discussion. The point is that the best reference to something done by the constituent assembly is official transcripts of the constituent assembly debates. --ppm 05:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Sarvagnya, are you still bitter over the fact that the "Hindi Prachar Sabha" had logical arguments to back up their statements as opposed to blind votestacking, meatpuppetry, and POV pushing on your side? Your sarcasm merely illustrated you have nothing better to do than fantasize about "Patriotic Indians" . Ragib is very much aware of my history of editing religious (read as "real POV pushing", you would last the better part of 5 seconds on the articles I used to edit) and of the fact that I have practically constructed the linkings and documentation of the Bengali renaissance and 19th century bengal history. The only thing you have on me, Sarvagnya, is a better command of Hindi. Bakaman _Bakatalk 04:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Hindi?? ahh.. ya i know one word that you taught me ... bakawaas or is it bakwaas? sorry am bad at spelling. especially when it is a foreign lang. and by the way, i really think you should look this up before you think that I made up something. Sarvagnya 05:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I hate to sound sanctimonious, but this is somewhat irrelevant. There is a civil and nuanced debate to be had about the inclusion of a Hindi translation without making it a larger issue than it really is. --ppm 22:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Point taken, if Sarvagnya didnt attack me in earlier statements, I would have responded in a kinder way. I will not cower when being attacked by other users. I was more civil with you, Antorjal, SameerKhan, and Ragib for that reason (and because I have worked many times with Antorjal and Ragib on WP Bengal/Bangladesh/W. Bengal). None of those users were happy to attack and make racist rants or be so quick to assign false motives. I had no problem with your edits ppm, if that was what you wanted to know. Bakaman _Bakatalk 05:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Well my comment was meant atleast as much (if not more) for Sarvangnya, so no need to take it all on yourself. Happy editing!--ppm 06:29, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Well Shmitra. I too hate to sound sanctimonious. But since you seem to be a late entrant to this talk page, let me request you to go through this, this, this and this.

Also go through these comments by Arvind --> this, this, this and this.

Notice how Arvind gives up and calls it yet another facutal inaccuracy on wikipedia before walking out.

Notice the chronology of the edits. Notice how far back I raised this issue and how long I've remained sane and civil in the midst of people whose opposition to my views very clearly stems not from any conviction about their own views(if they have any ie.,) but merely from their own prejudices and visceral hate against me.

Notice that the Devanagari transliteration was permitted by consensus on this article purely based on the absurd "Hindi version" premise that you've been removing. Understand the discomfort then, that you're causing some people here who know that their beloved Hindi transliterations will soon be zapped from this page.

And again, I really dont want to sound sanctimonious either, but you really should go through the entire talk page once. Hope you realise that "Constituent Assembly transcripts" issue you raise has been raised before and has been trashed by these extreme POV pushers by resorting to fantastic semantic gymnastics? Sarvagnya 07:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Cards on the table. Originally, many of us only agreed to including the Devanagari transcription of this song because we believed there to have actually been a "Hindi version" of the song. Now it seems more like there was no "translation" ever made, at least on any official level. Just because the song is sung in a non-Bengali way outside of Bengal, doesn't make it Hindi. I know this is just conjecture, but I would assume people would sing the song with the pronunciation appropriate for the language(s) they natively speak - and for most people, this would not be a Bengali pronunciation, even if the words to the song are Bengali (of course, most of the words ALSO have cognates in many other Indian languages, which makes it more accessible to the majority of Indians). The links that include audio/video of the song indicate that there are (many, I assume) Indians who do not pronounce the song in Bengali, so we can keep two transliterations of the song next to the Bengali text.

However, if it's true that there are no reliable sources indicating that this Bengali song was actually translated into Hindi or at least made into some sort of "Hindi version", we should remove the Devanagari transcription. People who want to see a Devanagari transliteration/"Hindi version" can quite easily access the Hindi Wikipedia version of the article, if it's found that this is solely a Bengali song often sung in a non-Bengali manner. This depends entirely on what sources we can collect and agree on the validity of. --SameerKhan 09:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I second these thoughts by SameerKhan. The previous consensus on inclusion of Devanagari transcription was purely built on the premises of "adoption of Hindi version by Government of India". Now that, it has been shown that( from Constituent Assembly transcripts) no such adoption was made, and now that the phrase "Hindi version" has already been removed from the article, the corresponding transcription should also be removed. The Hindi wikipedia interwiki for this article has been provided, and that should anyway give the Devanagari transcription for the reader. Thanks. - KNM ^Talk 18:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I think a succint version of SameerKhan's discussion here should be incorporated in the article itself. The fact that the song is accessible across India is a point that should be made. --ppm 13:39, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that the sarcasm of user sarbhagnya about hindustani transliteration is meant to arouse anger amongst a perticular faction of India and hence needs deletion. Plus, the article also needs at least a romanized pronounciation of the National Anthem of India as the national anthem is sung as jana gana mana and not just jono gono mono. Its just a matter of how you pronounce things but a Yankee may not want a British spelling of American national anthem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MdJinna (talk • contribs) 23:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

There is a Hindi translation of the song, which the INA prepared and used. I believe Bose himself played a significant role in its composition. It is quite different from the version we sing today (if memory serves right, it begins "Shubh, sukh, chain ki barhka barse, Bharat bhaga hai jaga"). I don't think there's any room for doubt that the lyrics we use today are Bengali. -- Homi Dastur 18:17, 9 February 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.62.18.38 (talk • contribs) 18:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

controversy pov

apart from being quite long, the controversy section has considerable pov. The notion that Tagore wrote the poem for the king is described as "unsurprising", while the arguments against such a notion is brushed aside with a "nevertheless" --ppm 20:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Romanization

At the moment the transcription does not depict how the song is sung by Indians. If the song is written using the full ISO 15919 according to Wikipedia:Indic transliteration scheme, this problem will go away. Can you do this? At the moment the page gives a wrong impression about how the anthem is pronounced, which I think should be corrected. I think it also is better to use an ISO standard system in an encyclopedia than a private one. -- Ponnampalam 01:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

You're absolutely correct. Wikipedia should use standard systems of romanisation. IAST / ISO 15919 is an established international academic standard, the one used earlier isn't. I've changed it now. Regards, -- Homi Dastur 17:36, 9 February 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.62.18.38 (talk) 17:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC).

Have just read some of the angry discussions higher up on this page, I hasten to add that ISO 15919 is an internationally accepted standard for transliterating / romanising all Indic scripts, including Bengali. Using it has nothing to do with the Hindi / Devanagari vs. Bengali debate - it is simply a question of adhering to academic standards. -- Homi Dastur 17:43, 9 February 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.62.18.38 (talk) 17:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC).

I don't understand. Replacing a non-standard romanisation system with an ISO standard which is widely used in the scholarly literature seems like a complete no-brainer, but it's greeted with an immediate reversion and a request to "discuss". I don't see anyone opposing Ponnapmalam's suggenstion of five days ago, and I do not see anything on this page which justifies using arbitrary systems of transliteration. Well? -- Homi Dastur 18:11, 9 February 2007

Right. I'm going to restore the ISO 15919 version and then leave to catch a plane. I'd urge users here to think very hard about what standards are and why they exist before deciding that they're of no use to them. It's amazing how Wikipedia can suck up your time when you think all you're doing is making a completely obvious change. -- Homi Dastur 18:29, 9 February 2007

I don't usually sit monitoring every change to this page, so I didn't catch the restarting of this older discussion until a change was made on the article itself. Anyhow, my issues with the change to the ISO "standard" are as follows:

• The ISO system of transliteration is based on the transliteration of Sanskrit, and largely follows the IAST system which explicitly serves as a Sanskrit transliteration scheme. By using it for languages other than Sanskrit, the transliterator assumes that the original script has the same phonological system as Sanskrit, with only very little room for variation. So when a word like তব is transcribed "tava" (when it is pronounced tôbo, IPA [t̪ɔbo]), or a word like বিন্ধ্য is transcribed "Vindhya" (when it is pronounced Bindho IPA bind̪ʰo), it would be really hard for any non-Bengali to know how those words are actually pronounced. The way the Eastern Group languages (like Bengali, Assamese, and Oriya) have evolved for the past several centuries has really changed their phonological systems while their written systems have changed very little, but we don't need to preserve all those irregularities in the written system for non-Bengali speakers. I can continue on this point but I'll move on for now.

• When the words "academic standards" vs. "private" are used, it makes it seem like Bengali experts all agreed on the ISO scheme and that other schemes are just random personal inventions. Neither of these claims would be true. As a Bengali linguist, I have read several articles on Bengali, usually including some sort of transliteration (since the articles are written for an English-speaking audience). The ISO system and other Sanskrit-based transliteration schemes have not been used for any linguistic work on modern Bengali in my experience. Instead, they use one of two transliteration scheme types: 1. the International Phonetic Alphabet, 2. the transliteration we have adopted here (with some minor changes depending on the typeface)... or a combination of the two. So "academic standards" is really misleading, unless we're talking about studiers of Sanskrit, and "private" is equally misleading, as it ignores the fact that (Bengali and non-Bengali) linguists representing Bengali speech use this transliteration scheme quite regularly.

• "Arbitrary" is another word I take issue with. This transliteration scheme has been developed over decades, going back to an IPA-influenced system set in the 1920s by Suniti Kumar Chatterji, a very highly-respected Bengali linguist of the early group of modern linguists. It has been slightly modified since then, with input from Bruce Hayes, Aditi Lahiri, Jennifer Fitzpatrick-Cole, Tanmoy Bhattacharya, Lisa Selkirk, and many other respected linguists. The Bengali-speaking Wikipedian community has also spent months deciding exactly how to represent this transliteration on the internet with the symbols available.

• "Internationally accepted": this is also misleading. Who around the world accepts this as a transliteration for Bengali? Not the governments of Bangladesh or, as far as I know, West Bengal - neither uses this system in transliterating Bengali into English texts. Not the newspapers from those regions, as they all have their own transliteration schemes. Not the linguists, as I mentioned earlier. Not the dictionary writers, who have adopted aspects of IPA when representing Bengali in English. So other than experts in Sanskrit and historical linguistics, who (in the Bengali community or the community of people working on Bengali) is pushing for this standard for Bengali?

• This Romanization is perfectly suited to represent the Bengali phonological system and is described (although I can expand if needed) on the Romanization of Bengali page. It has been used on virtually all pages on en-Wikipedia dealing with Bengali terms and names. Let's be consistent with Bengali Romanization (and Assamese Romanization, which has a similar history in linguistic research and on Wikipedia articles).

Anyhow, I can go on, but these are my main arguments against using the ISO system for Bengali. --SameerKhan 19:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Hindi version redux

From time to time, the argument for "Hindi version" crops up. As shown in the previous notes in this talk page, the constituent assembly transcripts never talk about a "hindi version".

It really is irrelevant how other language speakers sing the song. It is quite natural for a Tamil or Hindi or Marathi speaker to sing the song in a with a twang related to their language. However, that *does not* change the song's text to "Hindi". The song is an original creation by Tagore in *Bangla*. How other language speakers sing a Bangla song is irrelevant. If I go on singing a Hindi movie song with my Bangla accent, that won't make the song any more "Bangla".

So, the Hindi transliteration in this article is redundant, and quite irrelevant. This is the English language Wikipedia, and the Bangla version is relevant only to show the original text of the song, otherwise non-English scripts for source of the song are quite redundant in an English language encyclopedia. Thanks. --Ragib 20:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, the text I quote below is also ridiculous:

"Sung outside West Bengal is a version in "Hindi", or perhaps more accurately, Hindi-ized Bengali. That is, the song remains grammatically Bengali, but is phonetically shifted to Hindi"

Again, what is exactly a "Hindi version"? If I sing the Star-spangled Banner, will that be a "Bangla version" of the song because of my non-native English accent? Similarly, non-native speakers singing a Bengali song with an accent doesn't make that a "Hindi version" or "Tamir version" or "x-language version". There is also no such thing as "Hindi-ized Bangla", the song in its entirety is written in Bangla. Note that, there is a difference with "Vande Mataram", which has several stanzas written in Sanskrit, and several others in Bangla. That is not the case with Jana Gana Mana. --Ragib 20:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The transcripts do not explicitly mention "Hindi version", but that must be because it was assumed during those exchanges. Are you honestly making the absurd implication that those parliamentarians had "Bengali version" in mind, and expected that eastern jOno come out of the mouths of the people of this newly formed country, which was being built up, among others things, on a proposed foundation of a common link language of Hindi? Outside of West Bengal and the east, the utterance is a very much non-eastern jana, and this, along with the other governmental source stating that it is Hindi, makes true that point about "Hindi version" being non-explicit but assumed during those parliamentary exchanges and makes it necessary to note a "Hindi" version on this Wikipedia page.

As for the ridiculousness of the explanatory sentences I added, you're also wrong. I don't know if you'd know, but the difference between "Bharotobhaggobidhata" and "Bhāratabhāgyavidhātā" is not merely one of accent. It's not as if speakers of Hindi and the rest actually try to sing in Bengali, with all of its [ɔ]'s and double consonants, and occasionally let their Hindi-isms slip in; no, it's a systematic shift to the equivalent Hindi sounds. I remember talking to my Gujarati NRI parents about JGM being originally in Bengali- they did not know this.

It being Hindi-ized Bengali doesn't require some expert's citation, because that's what it is, and it's easy to see. If you simply sang the star-spangled banner in your Bengali accent, certainly it would be neither a "Bengali" version nor a "Bengali" version; but if you did go so far as to shift all the [ə]'s and [ʌ]'s to [ɔ] or [o]'s, as well as simplify clusters and do a whole bunch of other characteristic things in a systematic way, then yes, it could be called "Bengali-ized". Lastly, I don't see the point of your last two (vande mataram) sentences. Tuncrypt 21:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

And how did you conclude that Bhaaratabhaagyavidhaata is the Hindi-isation of BhorotObhaagyObhidata??! Sarvagnya 21:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Because those are the corresponding Hindi vowels and consonants. A Hindi-er would have no problem saying "Bharotobhaggobidhata", but they don't, and instead they say "Bhaaratabhaagyavidhaata". There is more at work in this, it is that they are not singing Bengali, in terms of sounds at least. Tuncrypt 22:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

And when did those vowels and consonants become exclusively Hindi's property? Sarvagnya 22:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I did not say that anything was "exclusive property" of Hindi. What am saying is that the vowel "a" [ə], plus some other stuff, isn't Bengali. I can speak in Bengali and say "shotto" (truth), but if I said "satya" then in terms of sound I wouldn't be speaking in Bengali anymore. Tuncrypt 22:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

And how did you conclude that you would be speaking Hindi! Sarvagnya 23:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Can we just get over this? Its been debated ad nauseam, and the consensus is against Hindi. Lets get back to editing wikipedia, and not argue constantly which languages we need. Tuncrypt, while I agree with your points, a better idea to promote hindi is to write the page in hindi wikipedia and get it to be better than this page. You have a wide knowledge of hindi, its a shame to get bogged down on an obscure talkpage not putting it to good use. Bakaman 00:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Bakaman I'm sorry but this reply of yours was total nonsense. I'm not going to get over this misrepresentation of data, despite ad nauseum debate and consensus. This is because I have brought up a point, or framed the issue in a way that nobody else has before. To your second vacuous and distracting sentence, I say that I never went away from editing Wikipedia, nor am pointlessly arguing which languages we need. There definitely is a point, which is writing a good and complete article about Jana Gana Mana, and to which end I am arguing for the inclusion of Hindi. Worst of all, you end with an insidious strawman, accusing me of being a Hindi promoter. That second last sentence doesn't even make sense. You say you agree with my points, yet how does your follow-up of it being a better idea to biggen the Hindi the page (or me having Hindi promotionist tendencies), end up nullifying this professed agreement, about the proven point to include a Hindi version on this page? Plz. Tuncrypt 01:19, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Tuncrypt, let's review this point by point:

• The transcripts (i.e. records of the discussions) do not mention any "hindi version" being adopted. Then, other than your "assumption", "personal opinion" etc., why do we HAVE to assume things that aren't there? The "Bangla version" phrase here is nonsense - the song WAS and IS written completely in Bangla. There is no regionalism here, merely adherence to facts and common sense. A song is a song, a poem is a poem, and Tagore wrote it in Bangla. No question about it. If the assembly adopted it, they adopted it as it is. If they adopted a "Hindi Translation", then please submit the transcripts of the session. Otherwise, we can't go on looking into a crystal ball and make up what they "must have thought".

• Again, people of India are singing a Bengali song. If a North Indian Hindi speaker is singing it, definitely he is going to sing it in his own accent. Again, singing a song in a different language, with an accent, never makes a "Hindi" version.

• "Hindi-ized Bangla" is pure nonsense (if not original research) as well, in the context of this song. The song is pure Bangla. Not a single word of the song is a non-Bangla word. Not a single sentence follows non-Bangla grammar. If non-Bangla speakers sing it and pronounce some words differently, then still they are trying to sing a Bangla song. Tagore wrote in Bangla, Sharat Chandra wrote in Bangla. If non-Bengali speakers are performing a Bangla drama by Tagore, and are trying to utter Bangla dialogues, they are not making a "Hindi version" of the song.

• As for your claim "Bharatabhagyabidhata" is proof of Hindi-ization (don't know what that implies), Bangla words are often transliterated using the common scheme for all south asian languages ... regardless of actual pronunciation. So, you transliteration of (ভারত) is "Bharat" , not "Bharot", হরতাল is "Hartal", not "Hor-tal". "রবীন্দ্রনাথ" wrote his name in English as "Rabindranath" (pronounced Robindro-nath), would you claim that by doing so, his name has been "translated to Hindi"? . In the same way, it is standard Bengali-to-English transliteration practice to write ভারতভাগ্যবিধাতা as Bharatabhagyabidhata", that doesn't "translate" anything.

• Bangla is one of the national languages of India, so I don't see the bias towards Hindi. This article is about a Bangla song adopted as the national anthem of India. I don't see at all why everything Indian must be associated with Hindi, even if that introduces ridiculous phrases like "Hindi-ized Bangla". We have discussed this elaborately in the past (see above), and are just wasting our time discussing it again.

Thanks. --Ragib 00:29, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, please don't add "Adopted in Hindi version" in the article unless you show the exact part of the transcript of the constituent assembly. I've been fooled by this fictitious argument before, but discovered this to be incorrect upon looking into the actual transcripts. Thank you. --Ragib 00:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

The point about "Vande Mataram" was a similar issue of having Hindi text there, and the question of "Sanskritized Bangla" arose there. It turned out, after analysis by a linguist wikipedian, that parts of the song was written using Sanskrit grammar. That, and the fact that Devanagari script is used for writing Sanskrit, justified having a Devanagari script version of the song there (still not a "Hindi version of Bengali song"). In JGM's case, the song was, is, and still will be Bangla. If the constituent assembly went as far as "translating" a whole song (albeit without translating a single word or grammar!!!), there must have been mentions of it in the transcripts. Which I, you, or anyone else cannot find! So, per WP:V, the force-feeding of Hindi into this Bengali song is unjustified, and ridiculous. --Ragib 00:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Here are my replies to your points:

1. This burden of proof ("explicit mention of Hindi in the transcripts or nothing") that you are setting up is unrealistic. What would defeat my point is an explicit mention of Bengali, which is not there in the transcripts. Instead there is nothing. We are left with a situation where we must deal with other positive proof, only in whose absence we can then fall back on a default of Bengali, which is what the song was written in (I don't know where you got the idea that I disagreed on this). This direct positive proof is the governmental site stating that it was the Hindi version of this song that was adopted. Again, the two sources do not contradict; rather one fills in on the other. "Bengali JGM adopted" + "Hindi JGM adopted" would be a contradiction. This is not at all the case with what we do have, "JGM adopted" + "Hindi JGM adopted". The second, more detailed source completes the first. We keep implicit/default "Bengali" just in case, but explicit "Hindi" ends up clarifying the matter.

[Interjected] Well, the song is Bengali, so if someone adopts a song, it is in the original language, *unless* otherwise specified. If there WAS a "Hindi version" the transcripts ought to mention it. I don't really buy the Indian govt site as there has been newspaper reports on this mistake too. Wikipedia standards suggest that we verify facts from original sources, and the transcripts are such. If you can show me the exact place in the transcript which talks about "Hindi version", please continue argument in this area, otherwise this argument that no explicit mention of Bengali is present is a fallacy. A song, written in Bangla, was adopted, and by default it is adopted in its original form.

And please don't keep talking about government sites made by people who didn't bother to read the original transcripts. If some one today claims the sun rises in the west, in a website, that won't make an untrue thing true. While the transcripts tell nothing about "Hindi", no number of ignorant webmasters can change that core fact. So, please come back on this issue when you show the text from the resolution. I have been fooled by the website once, but not again!! Wikipedia has to show verifiable things, and the original transcripts doesn't verify this claim. Case closed. --Ragib 04:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

While what's above is enough to seal it, there are two more indirect points. The first is the overwhelming improbability that the parliamentarians meant the original Bengali version to be the national anthem of India. A national was being built, and its builders chose (right or wrong) as one of its pillars of nationality a national language of Hindi, and as one would expect it to follow, a Hindi national anthem along with that. The second indirect point has to do with common knowledge, or common practice. A described Hindi version was made, and as far I know, this, with its [ə]'s, [ʋ]'s, and clusters is sung country-wide rather than Bengali with its [ɔ]'s, [o], [b]'s, and geminates, except perhaps in West Bengal and other areas with Bengali-related languages.

[Interjected] Please stop the handwaving and show the transcript versions. I don't buy into your opinion just because you say or think so. --Ragib 04:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Be it the first point alone, or the following two to support it, this article should say "Jana Gana Mana was officially adopted in its Hindi version by the Constituent Assembly as the Indian national anthem in January 24, 1950".

[Interjected] Well, wikipedia is not a place for opinions. This sentence is valid for your blog, not an encyclopedia supported by facts. The transcripts never say anything, and don't "invent" things. --Ragib 04:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

2. No, the people of India are not singing a Bengali song, they are singing a Hindi-ized version of a Bengali song. You have missed my point about the difference between simple accent and Hindi-iziation. If Indians were singing a Bengali song, you'd hear them singing "Jôno gôno mono odhinaeoko jôeô he Bharotobhaggobidhata", with any effect from accent minimal. But the reality is that they sing "jana gaNa mana adhinAyaka jaya he, bhAratabhAgyavidhAtA" where the Bengali sounds are actually shifted to their phonological equivalents in Hindi. Hindi "a" is historically equivalent to Bengali "ô" and "o", as is "v" to "b", "N" to "n", and "gy" to "gg". Indians sing not the Bengali version with an accent, but the Bengali song phonologically adjusted to Hindi. "bhAratabhAgyavidhAtA" is Hindi for Bengali "bharotobhaggobidhata". Without any change in grammar the Hindi version is more accurately called a Hindi-ized Bengali version.

[Interjected] Ha ha ha ha. Funny jokes aside, are you even claiming that Tagore wrote in Hindi? :). I don't expect non-Bengali speakers to speak Bangla correctly, but their accents don't make it "Hindi". --Ragib 04:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Thus the first sentence should be followed by, "However, what is known as the Hindi version isn't a complete translation; the song remains grammatically Bengali, and is only phonologically shifted to Hindi, the official language of India[4]."

[Interjected] I am sorry to say that this is linguistically nonsense. The song is Bangla, words are Bangla, grammar is Bangla. Where does the "Hindi" come in? --Ragib 04:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Showing references from decisions made by Indian parliament or constituent assembly can help. Handwaving won't help here. --Ragib 04:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

3. As I have shown that "Hindi-ized Bengali" is not nonsense, we can move on. None of these statements of regarding jOno gOno mono have I contended against: "The song is pure Bangla. Not a single word of the song is a non-Bangla word. Not a single sentence follows non-Bangla grammar. [...] Tagore wrote in Bangla, Sharat Chandra wrote in Bangla. If non-Bengali speakers are performing a Bangla drama by Tagore, and are trying to utter Bangla dialogues, they are not making a "Hindi version" of the song." They are true. But this sentence is false, "If non-Bangla speakers sing it and pronounce some words differently, then still they are trying to sing a Bangla song". As I have said, Hindi-ers & co are do not merely "pronounce some words differently". They say them differently in such a way and to such an extent that they are speaking a version shifted in its sounds, shifted to Hindi. But remember, "what is known as the Hindi version isn't a complete translation; the song remains grammatically Bengali, and is only phonologically shifted to Hindi, the official language of India[4]." I have made it clear it's not Hindi, but Hindi-ized Bengali. In the lyrics below I even wrote it as "Hindi" with quotations to illustrate this.

[Interjected] Please provide supporting arguments from linguists that shows accents are equal to translation. By your standards, the "Star spangled banner" should have German, Polish versions as well. --Ragib 04:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

4. I have never used Bengali's transliteration as a proof for Hindi-ization. I having been using pronunciation.

5. I never complained of a bias towards Hindi. I never said that everything Indian must be associated with Hindi. Your perception of and opposition to that doesn't matter either. What matters is this, "Jana Gana Mana was officially adopted in its Hindi version by the Constituent Assembly as the Indian national anthem in January 24, 1950."

6. (Your second message). As for Vande Mataram, the same applies and I think I'll go change it sometime. It isn't just written in Devanagari: बॉन्दे मातोरोम, but in something different: वन्दे मातरम. It should be noted as originally in Bengali and Bengali-ized Sanskrit, and then nationally spread in a form of Hindi-ized Bengali and Sanskrit. Tuncrypt 03:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

See above comment on hand waving. --Ragib 04:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Core questions

Ok, let's come to the core issues:

• Can you provide any reference to the transcript of the constituent assembly that shows "The song is adopted in its "Hindi version" as the national anthem"? Yes or No. No handwaving please. Just say whether you can show a reference or not.

• Can you provide linguistic evidence (not from just a website or so) that supports your claims that non-native speakers of a language singing a song in their own accent constitutes a "Translation" into that language? Yes or No.

So, please stop hand-waving, crystal ball gazing, and show me the proof. Otherwise, read the discussions on this above in previous threads. Thank you. --Ragib 04:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I have repeated it over and over, and on every point you continue to make the same old comments and ask the same old questions, failing to understand. It just doesn't get through to you. You have no legitimacy, and I'm reverting. Tuncrypt 05:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you have the reference or NOT? I have added citation request to original transcripts. A can say that B has something, but if examination of B shows otherwise, then A's veracity comes into question. You do not have a reference from the original text.

A constitution is not just another text, and parliamentary discussions/transcripts are not blogs or subject to arbitrary interpretation. If you can show links to original text, or later parliamentary interpretations, I'm totally fine with that. But once again, show us the text, or stop handwaving. I have repeated this because you have repeatedly failed to provide a reference. My position is not from any nationalist or ethno-linguistic viewpoint, and if you can provide a reference from the original resolution, I'm fine with that. Previously, when I was presented with the website reference, I assumed it was true, and agreed to Hindi text. But later, it was shown to be a lie, as original transcript says nothing as such. WP:V triumphs any nationalist viewpoints, and we need to have everything verified rather than yell about what we think history is. I am going to remove the "Hindi version" as it seems to be arbitrary personal opinion rather than the truth. Thanks. --Ragib 05:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

So, once again, do you have a reference from the original transcript, or not? Yes or no? No handwaving please. Unless you back up your personal opinions, I am going to remove the misstatement per WP:V. --Ragib 05:38, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

The reason you have asked repeatedly is because you are idiot who cannot read. I know this utterance is going to bite me in the ass and possibly lose me this fight, what this being Wikipedia and all, but you just are. Your moronic responses to my paragraphs, your repeated questions, your stupidass phrases ("handwaving!", "crystal-ball!" lol!) are just unbearable. The first paragraph of my reply states oh so clearly, that NO, the transcript doesn't mention Hindi, but the government website reference makes up for that, the facts on the ground make up for that. Tuncrypt 05:48, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

You don't have to stoop so low. For God's sake, please be civil. You haven't provided the references yet. Thanks. --Ragib 05:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, if you don't provide references, do not blank the citation request tags. Again, be civil in your choice of words. Thanks. --Ragib 05:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I am not going to edit the page today as I'm nearing 3RR, but it is far more better to resolve this by providing requested references. Thanks. --Ragib 05:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I HAVE provided the reference. The government website is the reference. OF COURSE it would be better for the transcript to have it, but the website does the job. Look at this ridiculous, cornyass video, by AR Rahman, for the whole country. What script do you see there? What sounds do you hear there?

:| Tuncrypt 06:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm tired, I'm going to sleep Tuncrypt 06:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Again, if X says Y has something, but in reality, Y doesn't, that just shows X is wrong. The transcripts are official Indian govt documents, the website is the work of webmasters who really didn't take their time to read the actual transcripts. As I said in the first sentence, if the website says that the constituent assembly did something, but the actual, official transcript says otherwise, then of course the website is incorrect. No matter of wordsmithing in the website will change something if the transcript doesn't have it to begin with. If the Indian parliament made any later resolution, please let me know. If you could get Tagore says so, please do!! Otherwise, be civil, and stop inserting original research. I don't need to see the rendition by any singer singing a Bengali song with an accent. Nor does it serve as a substitute for official documents and transcripts. Showing a reference from Indian constitution or a resolution of Indian constituent assembly would suffice. Thank you. --Ragib 06:13, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

When you make bizarre guesses like "the website is the work of webmasters who really didn't take their time to read the actual transcripts", that's when it all breaks down. We have no reason not to trust this source, and nothing in the transcript contradicts it. That's what I keep telling you, that the website supplements our facts. There is no "wordsmithing", "changing", or "saying otherwise". The second thing I've said about 3 times is that it's not an accent, but you are unable to comprehend. Tuncrypt 06:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Even if it is not just the accent, can you explain to me how it becomes hindi when o changes to a? I could argue that it becomes Kannada! Even Marathi perhaps. Or Telugu. Or a dozen other languages. And again, dont wave that website at me. I knew it was bullcrap even before I saw the transcripts(you can see my comments to that effect buried somewhere on this very page. sadly though, not many believed me then). Sarvagnya 06:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

It's Hindi because that's Hindi phonology, but importantly because that's the official fact. Do tell how you've figured that site out to be bullcrap. Tuncrypt 06:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

That's simply your personal opinion and original research. As for the website, lying about a resolution that can never be found in the original text just shows the error, and you should rather notify the webmaster about this fake information being added there. The transcript, on the other hand, is an official text part of Indian History, and a 12-volume printed source, also published by the Indian Govt. --Ragib 06:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

The national anthem was adopted by the constituent assembly. The transcript of that decision says nothing about Hindi. Now, if today, I or you or even the prime minister of India claims the constituent assembly did make that decision, and express this claim in a website, that still won't change what is on the transcript. You, in all the arguments above, are claiming that we should not trust the text of the constituent assembly, a printed legal document, but should rather trust the unverified website text. That goes against every principle of verifiability in Wikipedia. We cannot allow unverifiable claims. I am glad that you are not repeating your personal attacks this time. Thank you. --Ragib 06:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

GOD, I never said not to trust the transcript. It isn't unspecified, but the website IS specified, so it gives us information where we previously didn't have any. Again and again I must say this. As for your dismissal of the video, look, it was commissioned by the government. Tuncrypt 06:38, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

"Commissioned by the govt.," crap again. The website is commissioned by the govt too. btw, the national anthem ought to play no more than 52 seconds. The video probably doesnt even start till 52 seconds. Official? yeah right. Sarvagnya 06:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

If you have something sensible to say, do so. Otherwise stop spouting incomprehensible nonsense. Tuncrypt 06:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

And yet again, the transcript isn't really open for your personal interpretation. Indian lawmakers adopted a song. The song was and is in Bangla language. If there was any notion of a Hindi version, they would have said so. The website claims the Indian constituent assembly adopted it in its Hindi version. The transcript doesn't say so. QED.

As for AR Rehman, he isn't changing Indian constitution, right? So that's irrelevant. Let's talk about facts and (valid, original) references Thanks. --Ragib 06:43, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

The website has proven to be incorrect by making a claim that can be demonstrated to be false, per the original transcripts. So, it is not really reliable, though unfortunately the GoI made it. As I said, X claiming Y has something when Y doesn't say that at all just shows that X cannot be trusted at all. Thanks. --Ragib 06:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

The website hasn't made any false claim. The transcript doesn't say anything, but the website does, settling this matter. Tuncrypt 06:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

You're saying 0 + 1 = 0, I'm saying 0 + 1 = 1. Tuncrypt 06:59, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I am saying bogus claims = bogus reference. The website claims something about the transcript and the transcript doesn't say so. 0 = 0. Thanks. --Ragib 07:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

To be blunt about this:

• The website claims that the constituent assembly adopted the song in its Hindi version.
• The actual transcript containing the discussion and written transcript of the resolution of the lawmakers have no mention of this.

Which one do I believe? Obviously, if the website says the constituent assembly did something, but the very transcript of the assembly has not a single sentence on this, I come to the conclusion that the website is simply lying, or perpetuating the personal opinion or the misinformation of the webmaster who hasn't really read the transcript. As simple as this. Want to change it? Please come up with a resolution from Indian parliament. You cannot contradict the parliamentary documents, can you? --Ragib 07:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Like Sarvagnya below, I won't reply to any more nonsense unless you can answer my question placed above: Do you have any reference (other than the misinformation-filled website) from the transcripts of the Indian constituent assembly that made the decision? In particular, I'll gladly accept your "adopted in Hindi version" claim if you show that the transcript of the resolution says so. Otherwise, the matter for me is closed. I will add requests for references to any unverifiable claims or personal opinions or original research. Thank you. --Ragib 07:09, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I've told you a billion times already, I don't have any reference from the transcript stating it's in Hindi. But I have a website that does, filling in that gap. Both the transcript and the site are right, with one (site) giving more information (language of anthem). That's what this is about. Tuncrypt 07:13, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Using logic will help understand this. X says Y has something. Y shows no such thing. -> X is incorrect on that claim. No website can change the constitution. Please ask the Parliament to do so. Until then, have faith in the constitution, the supreme legal document in any country. The website, on the other hand, is no such thing. --Ragib 07:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, you can feed me unsupported misinformation a trillion times. But unless you go back 57 years in time, you can't change the constituent assembly's transcript (i.e. complete record of what they really did). gigabytes of misinformation from any website can't change that. --Ragib 07:20, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not changing anything in the constitution. The website doesn't change anything, it supplies info that wasn't there. Tuncrypt 07:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

That's exactly the problem!! The website claims something that isn't there. Your insistence on the website's veracity implies the transcripts are not correct. --Ragib 07:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

native accents?

Can you provide linguistic evidence (not from just a website or so) that supports your claims that non-native speakers of a language singing a song in their own accent constitutes a "Translation" into that language? Yes or No.

Let me answer this w.r.t my mother-tongue Konkani. Konkani has a lot of similarities with Bengali in terms of phonetics converting a to ô and o. For example pavitra is pronounced as povitr and man is pronounced as mon(i dont know the correct IPA symbol but it rhymes with pot only the o is stretched).

So if what you say is true that non native speakers sing Jana Gana Mana is their native accent then Konkanis should be singing it as "Jono Gono Mono" ,just as in Bengali. But that is definetly not the case. We sing it as "Jana Gana Mana", the same as the majority of Indians do!.

I don't really think all Bengalis (and related linguistic groups) sing the song in the same fashion. Many Bengalis , especially those who stay outside Bengal and speak multiple languages can easily give up this a-o conversion when speaking in another language. But hardcore Bengali speakers will carry it on to other languages even if they try not to. In fact in my school days we had to sing it daily and once we had a patriotic singing competition for which we were preparing. We had one Bengali in the group but I cannot recall whether he would sing it as Jono Gono Mono or Jana Gana Mana. Probably not considering that we had to sing in one voice. --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 06:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

This is really secondary, the main issue is whether the song is Bangla or not. I tried singing a Hindi song a few minutes ago, and my bungled pronunciation made it sound like Bangla. Will that also make it Bangla-ized version?

I am totally unable to comprehend this: the song was Bangla, the constituent assembly adopted the song. Full stop. Where is the "hindi version"? Constitution says so? Show us. A resolution in the parliament says so? Show us. Transcripts are legal documents published in print form by the government, and not subject to personal interpretations.

Incidentally, there was a similar movement in erstwhile East Pakistan to impose everything in Urdu. I hope that's not the case for India, with its respect for the plethora of different languages and cultures ... :) --Ragib 06:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

See, stuff like this explains your conduct and reveals your motives: "Incidentally, there was a similar movement in erstwhile East Pakistan to impose everything in Urdu." Tuncrypt 06:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Nope, you are wrong. Read a few threads upwards, I was totally fine when someone misled me into believing the fake claim put in the website. Again, if you have official declarations, show us. Printed official documents by Indian Govt are far more believable than a website that is demonstrably non-factual. --Ragib 06:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

The website makes no fake claim. Tuncrypt 06:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Just to point out whats already pointed out before on this very page. The constituent assembly adopted the Bengali/Bangla song as national anthem. And the constituent assembly didnt meet ceased to exist after that. Sarvagnya 06:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record, I wont be taking part in these discussions any more unless I see a citation from a reliable source that hasnt been presented on this page before. I however, reserve my right to revert at sight (upto 3 rvts) any nonsense added to the article. Sarvagnya 07:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Great. Get out. Tuncrypt 07:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Tuncrypt, you are crossing lines of civility. You already showed incivility above, which I didn't care about, but again, arguments are better than any filthy slang. See No personal attacks policy. Thanks. --Ragib 07:22, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Well the constituent assembly proceedings don't say that it had adopted a "Bengali song" as the national anthem either! --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 07:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

The song was and is Bengali to begin with. There doesn't seem to be any other form of the song. That "written in Bangla" part is beyond any question here. --Ragib 08:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks like this argument has degenerated into personal attacks; I really thought we were beyond this sort of thing, especially when we'd discussed it so many times before. I tried to read through every line so far but towards the end I didn't feel the urge to go through all the immature behavior. Putting personal remarks aside, let's bring the important points into focus:

(1) Comparison with another case of cross-language recitation: The Qur'an is unquestionably written in Classical Arabic, in terms of both grammar and vocabulary. However, when it is actually recited around the world, the reciter's native language phonology will naturally be a huge factor in the pronunciation. This is true both within Arabic-speaking nations and non-Arabic speaking nations. There is such a long tradition of reciting the Qur'an using non-Arabic accents, that certain mispronunciations have become accepted in non-Arabic speaking nations. Just to show one of many examples, the [θ] sound (like English "th" in "thing") is generally pronounced [s] by reciters in Iran, Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, and other neighboring countries. It has become a sort of accepted transformation. This does not make the Qur'an suddenly Farsi, Urdu, Hindi, Punjabi, Gujarati, Bengali, etc. It's still unambiguously Arabic, just pronounced non-natively. What's interesting to note is that this pronunciation did not come about because Bengali/Urdu/Hindi speakers misheard the native Arabic speakers. It's because they presumably heard Persians pronouncing the Qur'an using [s] for [θ], which was a change occurring in their language at that time. So the Urdu/Hindi/Punjabi/Bengali/etc speakers just accepted those changes, still recognizing that the language was Arabic, even if it had some aspects of Farsi accent in it. Similarly, when a non-Bengali speaker recites Jana Gana Mana, he or she may pronounce it using the phonology of his or her native language, or even using the phonology of languages other than Bengali or their own (just like the case of Bengalis using Persian pronunciations of Arabic). It doesn't make Jana Gana Mana less Bengali just because people are using influences from many other languages to pronounce it, just as it doesn't make the Qur'an less Arabic (for the same reasoning). We don't need to call it "Bengalicized Arabic". If we need to say something, we could just say "Arabic as typically pronounced by Bengalis".

(2) What makes something specifically Hindi? We should at least all agree that the song was written in Bengali. The writers used Bengali script, Bengali grammar, Bengali vocabulary. The song is undeniably Bengali, and the lines would not make sense in other languages without serious grammatical transformations. What's not so clear is what makes the song "Hindi" in the eyes of many people. We've made clear that there is no documentation (or evidence) for a "translation" to Hindi, or even an attempt to change the grammar somewhat to approximate Hindi structure. The only "evidence" I've seen on this page that the song has any "Hindi-ness" in it is the pronunciation. What some people seem to be ignoring is that the pronunciation that (for example) is used in the music video of the song linked on the page is not uniquely "Hindi". In fact, it could easily be the Marathi pronunciation, as Sarvagnya noted before. Marathi has a very similar, although not identical, phonology to Hindi. With respect to this song, pronouncing "Bharotobhaggobidhata" as "Bhaaratabhaagyavidhaataa" could be seen as 100% Marathi pronunciation. Similarly, it could also be Kannada pronunciation. There are a number of languages that would pronounce these words that way, and Hindi is no closer than the other languages I just mentioned in this respect. So when the grammar and the vocabulary are not Hindi, and the (non-Bengali) pronunciation is not uniquely Hindi, what is the justification for saying "Hindi-ized Bengali" as opposed to "Marathi-ized Bengali"?

What I can imagine adding to the article is just a small point about the fact that the song is pronounced differently across India, due to the great linguistic diversity of the country. There aren't just two versions of the song ("Bengali" and "Hindi-ized Bengali"), but several, forming a continuum from fully native Bengali pronunciation towards more non-native.

I would appreciate if someone could give me a clear argument addressing my two points before this discussion gets way out of hand. --SameerKhan 05:09, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

That which I am arguing to be added consists of two components: 1) Stating that (what's described as) a Hindi version was legally adopted, and 2) the linguistic observation/clarification that this Hindi version is actually just a Hindi-ized Bengali version. You have addressed the second point, and to that I (the "someone"!) will reply:

I know that the song was written in Bengali, and that the grammar and vocabulary are Bengali. About that I have raised no question. Please do not think that I have. But what is to be noted is that India happens to sing a different sort of version, a version that is nonetheless phonologically shifted from Bengali. In regards to this shifting, you bring up the point of Arabic spoken by Bengali Muslims, and how despite changes in pronunciation it's still Arabic, and thus in parallel despite any changes in pronunciation of JGM it's still Bengali. On this I disagree. Firstly, Bengali Muslims consider themselves learning Arabic and speaking Arabic, and secondly and most importantly, they are learning and speaking Arabic, as a foreign language; they're learning Arabic as it is (albeit with a little Persian influence), with all of its foreign sounds, pronunciations, and the like. After that a Bengali accent can factor in. Now this here is not the case with the version of JGM that I (a Gujarati) refer to, that the Konkani D'souza refers to, that you can see in that commissioned video, that many people have continuously tried to add to this article, that can be heard at appropriate functions and situations, and that's sung across India (except perhaps WBengal). Indians simply do not sing Bengali "Jôno gôno mono odhinaeoko jôeô he Bharotobhaggobidhata" nor do they consider themselves doing so or trying to do so. What they attempt to sing is not the Bengali verse which may get subjected to regional accents after the fact, but something that has been phonologically shifted or adjusted before the fact. The differences are pervasive and systematic. Default Bengali [ɔ] and [o] become [ə], b becomes v, gg becomes gy, and in certain instances sh becomes s and n becomes ṇ. This is in line with Hindi phonology. Again, it's not Bengali ভারত ভাগ্য বিধাতা being pronounced (with a possible accent) as भारोतोभाग्गोबिधाता. It's भारत भाग्य विधाता, and that's Hindi. The grammar and everything else is still Bengali, as I said, but phonologically it's Hindi. A better model for everything is thus: Bengali version written by Tagore → intentional phonological adjustment to Hindi and then standardization and proliferation as national anthem → possible natural deviations as per regional accents when people sing it. So in the end you have a Hindi-ized Bengali anthem which people are singing, though they may sing it a bit differently depending on where you go. Illustrating my point is another video, from a stupid bollywood movie. Click. Correspondingly, Original song: gôno → Engineered shift: gaṇa → The kid's singing: gana + English accent.

Now in your second paragraph you seem to have agreed on there being a change, if not actually agreeing then at least momentarily agreeing, for the purpose of raising another question, which is: Can this phonological adjustment be specifically one towards Hindi? The answer is no. You are right in saying that the different version, with its non-Bengali phonology, could fit into a number of languages, and not just Hindi. In this case I must backtrack and argue this one out. Whether I should have mentioned this in the first place (because I knew about it), I don't know, but either way it doesn't change anything because I can explain it away anyway. So, by an analysis alone of the "Hindi" version, it turns out to be admittedly more accurate to call it a phonologically Western/Central Indo-Aryan-ized version, with Hindi happening to be a member a of W/C IA, rather than calling it a strictly phonologically Hindi-ized version. That is, along with Hindi, it also fits in with the phonologies of Rajasthani, Gujarati, Marathi, etc. as you alluded to. In that case, the reason why we should call it Hindi comes not from looking at the "Hindi" result and seeing something uniquely Hindi about it, but instead from noting the point that subjecting it to a process of Hindi-ization was what was in mind for it, regardless of the end result of that Hindi-ization being quite ambiguous and being able to fit in with many other "-izations". As an example, lets say we were to stumble across a smashed apart vase. Now from our perspective all we know is that the vase is smashed, though the smasher can tell us that he dropped is from 3 meters. In that case we must call it a vase dropped and smashed from 3 meters, taking in the fact that he chose to bring about and did bring about this endpoint as he did, enough though what we see is front of use could just as easily be a vase dropped and smashed from 4 meters, or a vase dropped and smashed from 2 meters. Thus while we have a visibly general result (phonologically Western/Central Indo-Aryanized Bengali), one (phonological Hindi-ization) of many specific but equally affecting paths (phonological Hindi-ization, Gujarati-ization, Marathi-ization, etc.) was consciously taken to get there, and that must be noted, and in that way it is Hindi-ized Bengali.

Alright then. Sameer, you do not need to be general in talking about incivility, because lol, it was only ever me. I don't know, I guess I couldn't help it; something I'm used to on message boards. It was just that on some points Ragib, apart from showing me wrong or even merely saying I was wrong, kept on repeating and repeating the same initial comments and questions, as well as the same maddening "terminology" ("hand-waving", "crystal balling"). He probably still doesn't understand what I'm trying to say. Anyway, I haven't talked much on talk pages, though I'll of course try to refrain from being this way again. Personally I don't see what's so bad about it; if anyone wants to call me a fool, go ahead. lol. So yeah, I hope this matter can be worked out. On another topic, it is my intent to eventually ask you to evaluate and comment on my Gujarati pages. I'll be asking... ! Tuncrypt 17:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

See WP:NOR. Also, Handwaving. Thanks. --Ragib 19:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Stop throwing this NOR and handwaving at me, because I'm working off of established principles and research. See Masica, C.P. (1991) The Indo-Aryan Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. page 69 for the modern Indo-Aryan assimilation of the Sanskrit loanword satya "truth". In Hindi it's satya (no diff) while in it's Bengali shottô. This forms the basis of my point # 2: "the linguistic observation/clarification that this Hindi version is actually just a Hindi-ized Bengali version". Anyway it's Sameer's reply I'm waiting for. Tuncrypt 19:26, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

By the way, your "NOR" and "handwaving" against me has nothing do with the argument regarding my point # 1: "Stating that (what's described as) a Hindi version was legally adopted". What's more is that you calling the Hindi version "pure bangla! bangla grammar and bangla vocabulary" is just as much so-called original research as anything I've said. Tuncrypt 19:35, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Also please stop putting "Thanks" at the end of your replies to me. I never did anything for you. Tuncrypt 20:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

That's my habit from childhood ... I was taught not to curse people and always say thanks. Sorry, can't help it ... . Thanks. --Ragib 20:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Another thing, why is it that while calling the governmental link contradictory (which is not at all the case) and made by some inadequate webmaster, you don't object to it being a source for "A formal rendition of the national anthem takes fifty two seconds. A shortened version consisting only the first and last lines (and taking about 20 seconds to play) is also staged occasionally" and it's translation being almost exact to the one on this article? Tuncrypt 20:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Per transcripts, which record *exactly* all the discussions and decisions made by the constituent assembly. You can also try reading it. So should whoever added the lie to the Govt webpage. Thanks. --Ragib 20:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

There you go again, with another response that completely ignores (or misunderstands?) every single word I said. I said 'why is it that while calling the governmental link contradictory ([...]) and made by some inadequate webmaster, you don't object to it being a source for "A formal rendition of the national anthem takes fifty two seconds. A shortened version consisting only the first and last lines (and taking about 20 seconds to play) is also staged occasionally" and its translation being almost exact[ly the same as] the one on this article?' There's really no point in having an exchange with you. Tuncrypt 22:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

My point has been as clear as possible since the beginning, and it is: complete and exact transcripts of the proceedings exist, and are published by the Government of India in print in 12 volumes. The website contradicts the transcripts, claiming something is there, which cannot be found upon reading the transcript. When in doubt, we need to consult the original sources, and not some tertiary sources like the website, whose veracity is demonstrably questionable (through falsehood and contradiction of a printed legal document). As for your final comment - fine, thank you, I myself have come to that conclusion too as you have repeatedly flaunted a website whose misrepresentation of facts can be checked via the transcript. :) --Ragib 23:27, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Again. In my question I wasn't even raising a debate about the veracity or non-veracity of the website. I asked you this, 'why is it that while calling the governmental link contradictory ([...]) and made by some inadequate webmaster, you don't object to it being a source for "A formal rendition of the national anthem takes fifty two seconds. A shortened version consisting only the first and last lines (and taking about 20 seconds to play) is also staged occasionally" and its translation being almost exact[ly the same as] the one on this article?' To put it simply: even though you believe the website is false, why has it still been a source for two other items of information on this article? Tuncrypt 23:39, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

To put it quite simply, that first part makes a claim which has been shown to be false. I haven't verified the other parts. But we are not discussing those here. --Ragib 00:04, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

OK Sameer, I have no doubts that the song was written by a Bengali and that it was originally sung in Bengali style. But Sarvagnya's point that it could well sound like Marathi or any other language brings a big question in my mind: if the same song with minor accent variations(not vocab variations) can sound like it was written in any Indian language then can we say for sure that it was a Bengali song. I believe that at one point even you were at a doubt as to how much of it was Bengali and how much of it was Sanskrit? I don't know Sanskrit or Bengali. But the only deciding factor that went into claiming that this song was Bengali was that its creator was Bengali. Correct me if I am wrong.

Second point : Ragib says that native accents is secondary. I don't know how it became secondary because till now, the main argument to prove that it was a Bengali song and not a Sanskrit song was that it was a Bengali song sung by others in local accents. At least in the case of Konkani I can say for sure this is not true. Again accents as I have mentioned before are relative to the upbringing of a person. --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 05:33, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

You got both points wrong. Neither Sameer nor Ragib nor even I was ever in doubt about the Bengaliness of this song. The "is it Bangla or is it Sanskrit" debate was about Vande Mataram. Not JGM. This is a Bengali song because it is written in Bengali. Not because Rabindranath Tagore wrote it. Hope that clears things for you. Thanks. Sarvagnya 05:39, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

(Re: Deepak) Are you forgetting that Bengali "IS" a language, with distinct grammar and vocabulary? If a Chinese or German person speaks English with their own accent, will an English song cease to be English? Nope. This debate is getting ridiculous day by day!!! Please put some sanity into the arguments. Also, show us which other language has a grammar and vocabulary under which the song will be valid piece of verse. The song was and is and will be a Bengali song, no matter whatever distorted way someone sings it. --Ragib 05:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, are you even claiming that Rabindranath Tagore didn't write his literature in Bangla!!!! That claim by itself would be amazing!! --Ragib 05:53, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I really didnt want to reply to this nonsense but I have waited for 10 days and still cant get it out. especially since whatever you have written above constitutes a Personal attack. Firstly : did I say that Bengali is not a language. Why are you trying to put words into my mouth? Secondly, as far as sanity is concerned I made a simple and valid point: that the contention that people sing the song in their native accents is incorrect. There is a uniform way of singing it and that if anyone's MTI does slip in, it does not become a rule rather it is an aberration to the rule. A Texan may sing the US anthem with his/her drawl , that doesnt make it "Texan native accent version of the US anthem". And I never said that Tagore didn't write in Bengali. Another statement you are deliberately trying to force down my throat. All I wanted to say was that Tagore had studied Sanskrit too and can we be sure that he didn't write in Sanskrit at all, or that he hadn't inserted Sanskrit terms into this song. I dont know Sanskrit and my knowledge of Bengali is limited to being able to pick up a few words here and there. I never claimed anything! All I did was put a query , that too it was based on previous discussion. And you go ballistic and claim that I have made statemnts which I havent made. Compare your behaviour with SameerKhan's. He is just as tired as you are of discussing this issue, but he has maintained his cool. --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 05:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not claiming that the song is pronounced using Bengali phonology or even an attempt at Bengali phonology outside Eastern India. I'm aware that the way the song is pronounced across India varies, and that many (maybe most?) Indians might pronounce the words as if they were (at least an approximation of) Sanskrit. It's not that the song is actually in Sanskrit, but because of the number of tatsama words. Since people find similar tatsama words in their own language, they might try to undo the Bengali alterations to Sanskrit words and instead apply the phonology of either their own language or some other intermediate language (which very well may be Hindi, but it could of course also be Marathi, or some variant of Sanskrit, as mentioned before) when they come across the tatsama words. Still, the tadbhava words like mage and gahe are pronounced with an approximation to Bengali, as these words are not Sanskrit or Hindi or whatever.

Anyhow, like I said, I think there should be something noted about the fact that the song is pronounced differently across India, reflecting the linguistic diversity of the country. I do not, however, think we should label all non-Bengali variants as "Hindi-ized". As I said before, and as you (Tuncrypt) have also noted, the song clearly loses the Eastern India-specific rounded vowels and gains back the silent consonants that are written in Bengali but not pronounced. This is not necessarily an approximation of Hindi, but an approximation of some non-Eastern language. Your description of a Central Indo-Aryan language is closer, but not perfect, as there are even some Dravidian languages that have similar phonological systems to Central Indo-Aryan languages, and there are Central Indo-Aryan languages like Standard Hindi, which do not fit the pronunciation of the song as in the music video perfectly. For example, Standard Bengali and Hindi (as shown in the Bengali and Hindi articles) do not pronounce what's written as the retroflex nasal (ণ / ण) any differently from the alveolar/dental nasal (ন / न) when the nasal occurs between two vowels, like in গণ gôno. (Of course, there are some dialects of Hindi that do this, but not the variant described in most journals and on Wikipedia.) Despite this fact about Standard Hindi and Bengali, many Indians who speak languages that have the retroflex nasal between vowels pronounce it that way when singing this song (as far as I've heard from a Marathi speaker and from the music video on this page), probably because either their own language has that sound or because Sanskrit had that sound. They are most likely using neither Bengali nor Hindi phonology to pronounce that word, but some other language (either their own or Sanskrit or whatever). Because of (1) these minor inconsistencies between Hindi phonology and the pronunciation of the song across non-Bengali-speaking parts of India, and (2) the fact that some other languages (like some Bihari languages, and Kannada, as far as I know) are in many ways closer to the pronunciation heard in the music video than Hindi or Bengali phonologies are, I think we need to acknowledge the variation seen in producing this song, while not making any claim as to what languages affect those local pronunciations - we simply don't have direct evidence as to which of the many phonologically-similar languages helped shape the non-Bengali variation of this song's pronunciation. --SameerKhan 19:18, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Over a week of no discussion

Okay maybe the debate is less heated right now, so I thought I'd bring up the next natural question. We may or may not agree about what the exact nature of the non-Bengali pronunciations of Jana Gana Mana might be, but we probably should acknowledge that there is a variety in regional pronunciations of the anthem throughout the country. This will clarify that the original Bengali pronunciation is not necessarily the most common pronunciation heard throughout India, while not making false and/or unprovable claims as to what language(s) the pronunciation reflects. Unless it receives extreme backlash, I was considering adding a line in the beginning of the "Lyrics" section - something like "Although written in Bengali, the pronunciation of the anthem varies considerably across India due to the country's extensive linguistic diversity. The transcription below reflects the original Bengali pronunciation, in both the Bengali script and Romanization." What do you guys think? I'm open to suggestions. --SameerKhan 00:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the lack of any response. It's a combination of laziness and it being that it takes me massive amounts of to write detailed replies. As ridiculous as it sounds, this took me 4+ hours to write. Words just don't flow out as I'd like, and more importantly, I rewrite a lot. So yeah, I'll get back to you. Tuncrypt 02:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe that there are only two pronunciations. One with Bengali phonetics, the other without it. Mother tongue Influence in the non-Bengali version doesn't make it into individual versions of each linguistic group. As I said earlier there is a uniform way of singing it at any public ceremony etc --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 05:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Possible resolution to the Hindi/Bangla debate ?

I had posted this on my talk page in response to comments there. It may be better to cross-post it here too so that all interested editors can participate.

I have only skimmed through this long debate, so I apologize if I am misunderstanding the issue, but it seems to me that the basic problem is that two "apparently reliable" sources are contradicting each other:

• This GOI site says, "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." (emphasis added), while

• The available transcript of the Constituent Assembly does not contain a mention of the "Hindi version".

Now it is certainly possible (or even likely depending upon ones POV) that, as KnowledgeHegemony says, the Hindi version was stipulated to be the official anthem in some prior discussion of the Constituent Assembly (or one of its committees) and therefore is not explicitly mentioned on Jan. 24 1950. Alternatively, maybe a later act of the Indian parliament designated the Hindi version to be the "official" version. If that is the case, we need to provide a suitable reference that attests that to be true, since no amount of debate on wikipedia can turn "plausibility" into "verified".

One other point: I saw that there is much debate on the articles talk page about accent, languages, pronunciation etc. While I found them to be personally enlightening, (with all dues respect) they are irrelevant. If the Constituent assembly/ Indian parliament says, in all its wisdom (or lack thereof :-) ) that the "Hindi version of Jana Gana Mana" is the national anthem then it is so, even if all scholars unanimously contend that the language of a poem cannot be changed by decree.

So IMO what we need is evidentiary support for/against the Hindi version being the official one, rather than academic debates. Are there any off-line reliable sources on the topic ? If someone has a reference, I can try to look it up.

A possible resolution for now would be to retain the current Bangla version and its transliteration, while adding a sentence to the effect,

Some Government of India publications state that the Hindi version of the first stanza of the Bangla poem "Jana Gana Mana", was adopted as India's national anthem by the Constituent Assembly of India.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://india.gov.in/knowindia/national_anthem.php |title=National Anthem |accessdate=2007-05-18 |work= National Portal of India| publisher = NIC, [[Government of India ]]}}</ref>

Abecedare 20:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I've got to clarify my stance a bit once more. IF the Govt of India makes or made any decision or resolution asserting that it has adopted the "Hindi version" (whatever that is) of JGM as the national anthem, I have no problem with that. I had accepted this previously when I was told so (per the website) before User:Shmitra demonstrated that there is no mention of it in the transcripts of adoption. Government decisions, resolutions are almost always published and public information. Transcripts for all decisions exist. I just want to see *that* instead of just reiterating a Govt website that contradicts actual transcripts. So, if there was a decision, you will never have problems finding it. But I don't and won't believe this without a reference to the actual decision/resolution. The Bengali version is a constant factor here, as that is the original form of the song as written by Tagore. That is not subject to any disagreements here :) --Ragib 21:16, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Some Government of India publications state that the Hindi version of the first stanza of the Bangla poem "Jana Gana Mana", was adopted -

• and.. pray tell me, what on earth would 'Hindi' version of a 'Bangla poem' mean? And again, I want a sourced explanation. Reliable sources arent governed by the same rules that govern wikipedia articles. As a result, reliable sources can be full of cruft, POV, weaseling, peacocking and what not and yet qualify as RS simply because they have a ".gov.*" or a ".edu" or some such in their url.
• As editors of an encyclopedia, we should be careful only to glean the facts from the source and leave the commentary out. If there is ambiguity in the language a RS uses, and we arent able to offer a semblance of an explanation for the ambiguity, the ambiguity is better left out.
• Like I've said on KH's (or is it Abecedare's?) talk page, importing the ambiguity would only make the sentence a sitting duck for the {{unclear}} and {{confusing}} tags and probably a {{citecheck}} for the article.
• The best solution imo would be to put that 'hindi version' link in the "External Links" and be done with it. Let people read it and believe what they want to believe.

Sarvagnya 22:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

• Re. Sarvagnya: "'Hindi' version of a 'Bangla poem'" was sloppy wording on my part. Perhaps it is best to stick with an exact quote, i.e., "Some Government of India publications state 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'". I am not claiming to interpret, or even understand this, just making a factual statement that some GOI publications state this.

• Re. Ragib: there is no difference of opinion between what you wrote above and what I believe. If we are to claim that the Constituent Assembly adopted the Hindi version we will need a source which somehow explains why the available transcript for the day does not explicitly mention Hindi. Till then we can only include that as a claim attributed to a specific source, rather than as a verified fact.

I hope my points are clearer now. As far as I see, our positions are not that far apart. The only point of the current debate seem to be whether to add the apparent GOI position in the form of a sentence in the section, or as an External Link. Right ? Abecedare 22:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

• Abecedare, I actually didnt mean your wording. I meant the wording used by the GOI website. My point is that, the wording on that site is as sloppy and ambiguous as it can get and hence we shouldnt be using it, even if only to quote verbatim. It is not like we will be quoting Dr. Rajendra Prasad or some Judge of the Supreme court or something. Quotes are used when you're quoting somebody of overwhelming stature or someone who is an acknowledged expert or in some way intimately connected with the issue at hand. For all we know, the faceless author of this singularly ambiguous piece of prose might be some college student interning somewhere. Or it might even be a blooming blunder on the site. You cant choose to quote verbatim simply because you're having trouble paraphrasing it or even making sense of it. It is like you're saying, "hey guys.. i dont know what this means... pls figure this out yourself". If that is what you want to do, then ==EL== is the place to dump it. imo. Sarvagnya 22:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

• To put things in perspective, let me quote from another page from the same GOI site.

The long span of Indian history covering more than 3000 years and enumerating several civilizations has been a constant reminder of the country's rich multicultural extravaganza and world-renowned heritage. The people and their lifestyles, their dance forms and musical styles, art & handicrafts, and such other elements go on to reflect the varied hues of Indian culture and heritage, which truly epitomises the nationality of the country. This section attempts at showcasing all those elements, which act as a window to the culture and heritage of India.

• Now, tell me what chance does this quote have of making it into History of India? As is. Verbatim. Any chance?
• At the same time, I am sure similar flattery by some world renowned figure of historian might stand a chance of making it to the article. Hope you get my drift. Sarvagnya 22:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Sarvagnya, your points are well taken. If the "Hindi version" bit had been an official GOI position, I would have argued for its inclusion even if it not make prima facie sense, but that does not seem to be the case. The truth (see Indian Express article below) seems to be closer to to your "intern" scenario :-) Abecedare 23:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

This news article covers the issue. Given the suspect provenance of the phrase ("The publication department has put this, the textbook panel deals with the content. I’ll get it checked.") I now agree that the phrase should not be quoted uncritically. (If required, we can talk about the NCERT issue in the article, though that may be giving the "controversy" undue weight). I apologize if this NECERT issue has already been discussed before and is known to other editors here. As I stated earlier, I have come late to the debate and have read only part of the record. Abecedare 23:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Following words are taken from Indian constitution.[1]

343. Official language of the Union.—(1) The official language of the Union shall be Hindi in Devanagari script.

I support inclusion of Hindi version of the national anthem in this article. --Indianstar 07:05, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Very quickly, official language of union != "national language of country" and also, the indian constitution doesnt run wikipedia. The Indian constitution may be indispensible for India, but not so for wikipedia. Sarvagnya 09:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe official language gets more precedence than national language. Indian govt. publishes Official Hindi version in many sites as shown by Knowledgehegemony. Hindi translation is officially recognised by Govt. of India. It is used in Many Government functions. Wikipedia rules allows to capture in multiple relevant languages. --Indianstar 10:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Sarvagnya/Indianstar, the status of Hindi is not related to this discussion. As mentioned many times above, webmasters cannot take decisions for the Govt of India ... legislators and MLA's take such decisions. If a decision was reached about "Hindi version" (whatever that may be), there must be a reference to parliament or committee transcripts that made that decision. Currently, the transcript of the resolution do not mention any "Hindi version", thus contradicting the webmaster. Once again, if B claims that A has stated something, but A do not have that, it just shows B is not reliable. So, if there was another parliamentary or committee based decision C that talks about a "Hindi version", we need to see that. Thanks. --Ragib 17:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Why are you telling me? I for one, was the first one to write off the patent nonsense on the 'Govt., site'. And now, I was only replying to Indianstar's contention. If you didnt notice, Indianstar wants the the hindi transliteration in the article based on an entirely different(though not so new) argument. He says that the Hindi translation should be included because he thinks Hindi is India's national language. I was only replying to him that not only had he got his facts wrong, but also that such compulsions mean nothing to Wikipedia. We arent even talking about the 'Hindi version' link anymore. Sarvagnya 18:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Section break

To end this, I've added the Hindi version along with citations, hopefully in the neutral point of view. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:42, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry. All but one of the 'citations'(the white house one) you'd added had already been discussed at length here. The Govt. of India site is obviously wrong as the transcripts and the IE link prove. The whitehouse link says, "...the original hindi words..." when we all know that there are no Hindi words there!! And then, the 'Hindi version' itself doesnt mean anything except in the imagination of whoever wrote that thing on that GoI site. We cant import ambiguities and absurdities even if only from reliable sources. And in any case, there is no case for the so called 'Hindi' transliteration there. If people want it, they can look it up on the Hindi interwiki. Thanks. Sarvagnya 19:13, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I am reverting. Comprehensiveness, popular renditions and NPOV overrule what you are saying. =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

What? would you care to explain. pls. Sarvagnya 07:21, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a problem with adding Hindi? =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:26, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I have a problem with adding Hindi or Kannada or Tulu or Swahili or any language or stuff that doesnt belong to an article into the article. I view Adding stuff not relevant to the article as adding nonsense. And I am against adding nonsense. Thanks. Sarvagnya 07:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

To, answer Nichalp (though you were talking to Sarvagnya), I have a problem with adding Hindi, since the song is Bengali to begin with. As mentioned many times above, the "Hindi version" isn't really supported by actual resolution. I've been asking for the Government decision (committee, parliament, parliamentary convention or any such legislative action) that adopted it, but no one seems to have anything to show for this. If the Indian Govt really took such a decision, then there MUST be at least a document on that. Available government document (e.g. the transcript) do not support any "hindi version claim". Government decisions like this are not secret, or something not written down. So, I request a reference from the Government of India's official documents/ committee decisions etc. that says, "adopted in Hindi version". The often repeated lie from the Govt Website won't become a truth even if it is cited 1000 times, even if cited by CNN/ Whitehouse etc. On the contrary, if the Govt. of India and its honorable legislators decide in a single committee decision or parliamentary resolution, that will settle it at once.

So, please please, anyone ... provide where the honorable MLAs or ministers took the decision. This is per WP:V. --Ragib 07:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I understand your point about it not being official based on official government documents. But the Hindi rendering is popularly sung across India and cannot simply be excised away. This was my compromised version:

Though many sources, such as the Government of India portal state that the Hindi version of Jana-Gana-Mana was adopted by the Constituent Assembly as the National Anthem of India on 24 January 1950, no such records were ever mentioned in transcripts of the Assembly. [2][3] Nevertheless, the Hindi rendering of the anthem is sung at public events and in schools and colleges across India.

I fail to see why Sarvagnya has a problem with the inclusion. If it can be edited for further clarity, by all means please go ahead. =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:36, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

And what on earth is Hindi 'rendering' now? And how did u conclude that what is sung in 'schools and colleges across India' is the 'Hindi rendering'(whatever that means) Sarvagnya 07:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

See this: [4] -- It's a Class X book by the Department of Education of Kerala. =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I also invite you to improve the text. The compromise draft was added just before I logged off for the day. =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:42, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure what you want me to see there (in that pdf). But I have found some more info about this.. and I will discuss it tomm or in the next couple of days. Until then dont revert and unilaterally go against the consensus of months of discussion involving several serious wikipedians. I dont know what you think of me but for starters, I'd like to think that on this issue, I am in the same boat as Ragib, Arvind, Sameer et al. So dont make edits reversing months of toil on the talk page. Thanks. Sarvagnya 07:47, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, you asked me for a source that it is sung in schools, and I have given you a text book published by the education department of Kerala. The anthem is the English transliteration of the Hindi version. It may not be vocally sung, but it is certainly present in school text books. This lays to rest claims that the Hindi rendering is not widely used across India. I've illustrated the Kerala example, as Kerala is a non-Hindi speaking state. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The second point I wish to illustrate is that consensus among a few editors on this particular page does not override WP:NPOV -- Quoting directly from the page All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources). and The principles upon which these policies are based are non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Transliteration should be a better word. =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

It is neither 'rendering' nor 'translation' nor even 'transliteration'. What you are claiming is linguistically nonsense. These arguments have been refuted already on this page... and it is especially distressing to see a bureaucrat muscle through a contentious edit without bothering to spend any time addressing concerns on the talk page. More later. Sarvagnya 08:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

This link is from the Supreme Court of India mentioning that the National anthem was sung after the Constituent Assemby was convened and concluded. The text given is the transliteration of the Hindi version. The reason why it is not given in the transcripts was because it was sung after the meeting ended. =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:56, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Good link, but still it says:

The following is the transliteration i.e. the text of the National Anthem in Hindi:

It doesn't say at all that the song was adopted in Hindi. As mentioned earlier, if someone takes the drastic step of changing the language of a song by legislation, that ought to be mentioned in writing somewhere. We cannot make our own interpretation and claim someone must have taken that decision when we cannot see it in any legislative document. --Ragib 08:05, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Like Ragib pointed out, the link says The following is the transliteration i.e. the text of the National Anthem in Hindi. Now after that line, what follows is some text in Roman alphabets. So what does the sentence even mean? And if we were to assume that they were talking of a transliteration into English/Roman, then where does hindi come from. If you notice, the syllable "bha" in the words "Bharata" and "bhagya" is 'transliterated' differently! Is it "Jaya" or is it "jaya"? There are anamolies and contradictions galore in that so called 'tranlsiteration'. More later. Sarvagnya 08:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

And the transliteration didn't come from a Govt. legislative decision, rather the judge in 2005 cited another publication for purpose of showing the words from the song. That still isn't a proof that any Govt decision was ever made to adopt the song in its "Hindi version". --Ragib 08:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Besides, does it matter when the legislators sang it? The question in point here is whether the Govt. took the unusual step of adopting a Bengali song in its "hindi version", and taht ought to be written somewhere if it were actually taken. Strange and unusual claims need proof, per WP:V. (Note: Nichalp, I have no problem providing a paragraph about the controversy, but the claim that a "Hindi version" was adopted is unfortunately a claim not supported by any actual reference to a decision, rather everyone is saying something happened behind the scenes that isn't recorded in Govt. Documents. Governments do not work that way ... and per WP:V, we need a reference. --Ragib 08:10, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Another point to note that, the text of the song as given in many places would be the common way Bengali is transliterated in English. For example, ভট্টাচার্য is written as Bhattacharya even though the pronunciation in Bengali is Bhattacharjo. That doesn't make the name a "Hindi version" of its Bengali counterpart. So, even if I were to transliterate the text of the song in English/Roman letters, it would have looked the same. --Ragib 08:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not disputing the point if the Hindi version was legislated as official or not. We don't have the clinching citation at this juncture. What I am against is the blanket removal of the Hindi text under the guise of "nonsense and irrelavancy" by Sarvagnya, which runs contrary to NPOV. I have drafted the charge of POV because the Hindi version is *popularly recited* across India (official or not is another story). See the draft that I provided: It does mention 1. the controversy 2. that it is widely reported that Hindi was adopted and 3. no verifiable sources currently exist. If this can be further edited for clarity and neutrality, I have no issues. For NPOV we report, if pertinent, both sides of the story based on existing sources; and not remove it in entirety because the clinching reference is absent. =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:29, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

For the nth time on this page "WHAT DOES "HINDI VERSION" OF A BENGALI SONG MEAN?". And how did you conclude that the 'version' which is *popularly recited* across India is the *Hindi* version? Sarvagnya 09:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

In other words, WHAT in your *version* is *Hindi* and how did you conclude so? Sarvagnya 09:41, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Nichalp - read this past discussion first before you make absurd claims and push POV and OR in the guise of adding NPOV. Thanks. Sarvagnya 09:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

From a translation of the Anandmath by Julius J Lipner, available on Google books here, let me reproduce the following footnote on page 81 -

The author records Dr Rajendra Prasad's words to the const assembly as

“ It has been felt that, instead of taking a formal decision by means of resolution, it is better if I make a statement with regard to the national anthem. Accordingly, I make the statement... The composition consisting of the words and music known as jgm, is the natl anthem of india, subject to such alterations in the words as the Govt may authorise as occasion arises, and the song VM which has played a historic part in the struggle for Indian freedom shall be honoured equally with JGM and shall have equal status with it.(applause). I hope that will satisfy the members. ”

and then in the same footnote, the author 'infers' from the above that -

“ Note that the implication here is that the words of the jgm are subject to (authorised) change, whereas the words of the national song VM are not. ”

Now, given that inference, where is the evidence that such an "authorised" change was ever carried out? Such a change cannot be carried out without making the news or being recorded officially. if we are speaking of a "hindi" version, where are the 'changed' words which constitute "hindi"? And where is the verifiable source which proves that any such 'changes' are actually changes to the "words". And where is the evidence that such a change(fictitious as it is) even 'adopted' by the Indian parliament?

Also note that, there are several refs which just say that "Tagore's JGM was adopted as the national anthem". And apart from Bengali, Tagore only wrote a translation in English. Certainly, he didnt write any 'Hindi' version (whatever the hell that means) Sarvagnya 09:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Though the notion of a "Hindi version" without any actual translation of the song is nonsense, I won't have any problem to mention that *IF* any legislative body declares it. Popular beliefs are not legislative decisions. That x% of the Indian populations believes that the Govt. adopted a "Hindi version" is not relevant for the single argument: the Govt. needs to really adopt it , and we need to see something from the documentation of the decision.

As for Hindi script or text, why? The song is written in Bengali, and was adopted by the legislative assembly. Where exactly does "Hindi" come to the picture? (For clarification, I have nothing against any language). If you want to mention the controversy, that's fine, but to show a transliteration which would have been the same as the standard Bengali-to-English transliteration of the song, and say that this is a "Hindi transliteration" is wrong. People all across India are singing a song, which is Bengali. I don't expect a non Bengali to speak it just like a Bengali person. And because I might speak English with a Bengali accent, would that make my recital of Shakespeare's sonnets a "Bengali version" of the sonnet? Let's stick to proper official documentation rather than jump into the quagmire we have gone through in prior discussons. --Ragib 09:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Ragib, I understand your line of thinking, but mine is only slightly different. My concern is that the phrase "Hindi version"(irrespective of what sources we can produce and their veracity), is ambiguous. And even after reams and reams of discussions, none of the people who are pushing for those words have been able to explain to me what those words mean. That being the case, I cant see how we can add those words to the article as it will only leave the article vulnerable to a few {{unclear}} or even {{dubious}} tags. And like you've said, that so called "Hindi transliteration" that Nichalp has added is totally out of place(even if we give any credence to the "Hindi version" nonsense). Sarvagnya 10:12, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Ragib, I understand your point. The song is written in Bengali, with an English translation. Till here we are both on the same plane. The dispute arises over what exactly the "Hindi" rendition really is. As you mention, the "Hindi" is basically the Bengali song sung by a Hindi-speaking person. Granted, it is mostly correct -- The "Hindi" "version" is not truly Hindi, I concede the point. But, at the same time, the places mentioned in the song have been translated to the Hindi/Sanskrit names. The point which I am trying to state is that while there is no true linguistically "Hindi" version, it is this version (phonetically the Hindi dialect of the Bengali song) which is recited across India i.e. "Jana-gana-mana-adhinayaka, jaya he; Bharata-bhagya-vidhata.; Punjab-Sindh-Gujarat-Maratha rather than the pure Bangla version "Jôno gôno mono odhinaeoko jôeô he; Bharoto bhaggo bidhata". Removing the "Hindi" version is POV, but at the same time adequate information must be mentioned on the status, which I've invited everyone to edit. As for the WP:V claims of the "Hindi" "version" being recited, I have cited the Education Department of Kerala. I can provide more text books that mention the "Hindi" rendition. =Nichalp «Talk»= 11:08, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused over two things in your reply. a) "the places mentioned in the song have been translated to the Hindi/Sanskrit names" - what name have been changed? b) The Kerala book reference. I checked the 9 page pdf. What is the point you were trying to make? As I mentioned before, in common practice of Bengali transliteration in English, we'd see the exact English transliteration if you ask me to transliterate the song as pronounced in in Bengali. So, how does this support a "Hindi" rendition? --Ragib 11:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

To show an example for the 2nd question, see this, which refers to পার্বত্য চট্টগ্রাম জনসংহতি সমিতি as "Parbatya Chattagram Jana Sanghati Samiti". Note that, the name is pronounced in Bengali as "Parbotto Chottogram Jono Songhoti Somiti", yet standard Bengali-to-English transliteration is as shown. So, the argument that writing জন as "Jana" instead of "Jono" makes it "Hindi" isn't correct, as Bengali would also be transliterated in the same manner in common practice. --Ragib 11:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

A solution?

Sorry if this is a stupid point, but can't we just solve this by having two transliterations of the Bengali song in a table with three columns, without mentioning anything about a Hindi version? The first would be the more phonetic transcription we have, and the second would be a transliteration according to the National Library at Calcutta Romanisation. Since that is the official system of transliteration which the Indian government uses for all Indian languages, we should have it in an article about the Indian national anthem. And it also seems a bit strange if the transliteration on Wikipedia is different from the form of transliteration in every other place. Seriously, think about a schoolchild in the UK or US who in a class report says "The national anthem of India is "Jono gono mono odhinoyoko joyo he". Most teachers who don't know the details of sound shifts in Middle Indo Aryan will simply mark it down, because that is not what you will find in any book, atlas or encyclopedia. Since Wikipedia is intended to be for normal people, I feel it should at least reproduce something similar to the the conventional transliteration. There is also an advantage to having the National Library at Calcutta Romanisation. This is that for people who actually know about sound shifts in Middle Indo Aryan and the way Indo Aryan words are pronounced in Dravidian languages, that romanisation will very easily let them trace dialect differences in the way the song will be pronounced in different parts of India. So having the National Library at Calcutta Romanisation will be functionally the same as having the song in every single Indian script. It will give the same amount of useful information. If we then add the statement which Sameer Khan suggested, about how the song is pronounced in a non-Bengali way in accordance with regional pronounciations in other parts of India, we will have an article which conveys much more information than this one, and which is completely accurate, and we can also put an end to all fights.

I don't think there should be any mention about the national anthem as having been adopted or sung in a "Hindi" version, as that will be totally incorrect. In fact, there is a totally different Hindi version (a translation) of Jana Gana Mana, which was used by the Indian National Army. It was very well known in the 1940s, and if people had spoken of a Hindi version in 1949 or 1950 that would have been what they were talking about. But that is not the national anthem. Please note that even the government has said that the textbooks which speak of a Hindi version will be investigated.

Also, calling the pronunciation we use oustide Bengal the "hindi" pronunciation is wrong. People other than Hindi speakers do not pronounce the anthem in the "Hindi" way. In Maharashtra and AP (and also Karnataka, I think) people pronounce the "n" in "gana" the correct way, with the tongue curled back. Most Hindi speakers can't make that sound, except for scholars and pandits who have studied Sanskrit.

So I think we should have both the more "phonetic" and the more "standard" transliteration of the Bengali song, but no reference whatsoever to Hindi. -- Lexmercatoria 16:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

<edit conflict>

Ragib, if I understand you correctly

• "Jana-gana" is the "standard Bengali-to-English" transliteration, while
• "Jôno gôno mono" is the "Bengali Romanization"

Also, I believe the "Jana Gana" transliteration is used far more commonly in India (at least outside W. Bengal). If these observations are correct, wouldn't it make sense to include the "standard Bengali-to-English" in the Lyrics section, along with the Bengali and Romanization versions, without entering the whole "Hindi version" debate (that issue can possibly be mentioned in the controversy section) ?

IMO, one reason this issue is being perennially debated on this page is that many (non-Bengali) Indians are used to seeing the "Jana Gana" transliteration, and when they see the "Jôno gôno" Romanization they perhaps interpret it to be some sort of Bengali linguistic imperialism (I am speculating heere, not expressing an opinion!). So perhaps by including the "standard" transliteration we can both inform the reader and avoid these endless debates. Abecedare 16:42, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Abecedare, the problem is not people wanting to see *standard*, *most common* transliteration. The problem lies with people trying to brand that *most popular transliteration* as *Hindi*. Everything Indian is NOT hindi and neither does anything have to have an iota of Hindi in it to be called "Indian". Sarvagnya 20:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

This is how the table will look if we have three transliterations:

Bengali script	Bengali romanisation	NLK romanisation
জন গণ মন অধিনায়ক জয় হে ভারত ভাগ্য বিধাতা পঞ্জাব সিন্ধু গুজরাট মরাঠা দ্রাবিড় উৎ‍‌কল বঙ্গ বিন্ধ্য হিমাচল যমুনা গঙ্গা উচ্ছল জলধি তরঙ্গ তব শুভ নামে জাগে তব শুভ আশিস মাগে গাহে তব জয়গাথা জন গণ মঙ্গল দায়ক জয় হে ভারত ভাগ্যবিধাতা জয় হে, জয় হে, জয় হে, জয় জয় জয়, জয় হে॥	Jôno gôno mono odhinaeoko jôeô he Bharoto bhaggo bidhata Pônjabo Shindhu Gujoraţo Môraţha Drabiŗo Utkôlo Bônggo Bindho Himachôlo Jomuna Gôngga Uchchhôlojôlodhitoronggo Tôbo shubho name jage Tôbo shubho ashish mage Gahe tôbo jôeogatha Jôno gôno monggolo daeoko jôeô he Bharoto bhaggo bidhata Jôeo he, jôeo he, jôeo he, jôeo jôeo jôeo, jôeo he	Jana gaṇa mana adhināyaka jaya hē Bhārata bhāgya vidhātā Pañjāba Sindhu Gujarāṭa Marāṭhā Drāviḍa Utkala Vaṅga Vindhya Himācala Yamunā Gaṅgā Ucchala jaladhi taraṅga Tava śubha nāmē jāgē Tava śubha āśisa māgē Gāhē tava jaya gāthā Jana gaṇa maṅgala dāyaka jaya hē Bhārata bhāgya vidhātā Jaya hē jaya hē jaya hē Jaya jaya jaya jaya hē

-- Lexmercatoria 16:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I think I could support the plan proposed by Lexmercatoria. The NLK Romanization is used for Bengali as well as many other languages of the Subcontinent, and so it still recognizes that the song is entirely in Bengali while still shedding some light on the source of pronunciation differences across India. The NLK Romanization reveals the fact that many Indians must be signing this song based on what linguists call spelling pronunciation, where someone takes the spelling of a word from his/her own language or another language and incorrectly assumes that all the sounds should be pronounced. For example, English speakers that pronounce the silent "t" in "often" are using a spelling pronunciation. Similarly, Bengali speakers who pronounce two "l" sounds in the English word "fully" (when English speakers only pronounce one) are using a spelling pronunciation. Looking at the NLK Romanization, it seems clear that non-Bengalis are not listening to the Bengali pronunciation of the song and trying to copy it, but looking at the transliteration of the Bengali spelling, and trying to produce a spelling pronunciation. Including the NLK Romanization makes that pretty clear, and I would support including it next to the Bengali Romanization, along with including a sentence or two describing this situation. --SameerKhan 20:05, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Done. Sarvagnya 20:11, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I support Lexmercatoria's proposal entirely. The point about having a phonetic and also NLK transliteration is a good idea. I hope this settles the issue. --Ragib 20:27, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Great to see this issue being (seemingly) resolved at last!

Off-topic: The Romanization of Bengali article introduces a "Wikipedia Phonemic Romanization" scheme, which seems to be a violation of wikipedia's policies on original research. Can someone knowledgeable about the issue please take a look and make sure that, (1) the article talks only about romanizations that have reliable off-wiki sources, (2) discussion of what convention to used to romanize Bengali on wikipedia is in Wikipedia space (say, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Indic) and not mainspace. Thanks. Abecedare 22:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)