Tag indian national congress

Tagore’s Jana Gana Mana: How a British lie became India’s most persistent myth – Samik Bhattacharya

VOI

Rabindranath Tagore (1861–1941)

Jana Gana Mana was neither written for King George V nor sung in his honour. The misconception arose in the overlap between the Congress leadership’s eagerness to ingratiate themselves with the visiting monarch and the British propaganda apparatus, always poised to exploit an opportunity. – Samik Bhattacharya

Even today, many still fall for the British-spawned myth about Jana Gana Mana, a song that was always an ode to India’s soul. How did such a distortion come into being? It arose from the convergence of two forces: the Congress leadership’s eagerness to ingratiate themselves with the Emperor, and the calculated manoeuvring of the British propaganda apparatus. At the time, several Congress leaders wished that Rabindranath Tagore compose a song in honour of King George V, to be performed at the Congress session.

In the ceaseless churn of falsehood, even gods may fall from grace, so goes the old saying. But fewer know that, in a similar vortex of falsehood, Rabindranath Tagore himself was once cast as a “British loyalist.” The irony is that the old Congress ought to have known better, for it was their silent complicity that allowed the British press to malign Tagore so effectively. One hundred and fourteen years have passed, and yet that slander still drifts through our collective memory as a stubborn myth. Many continue to be ensnared by it; a Member of Parliament was its most recent victim. But the BJP, as a party, has never endorsed the notion that Tagore composed Jana Gana Mana Adhinayaka Jaya Hey in praise of King George V.

The year was 1911. From 26 to 28 December, the Indian National Congress held its session in Calcutta. It was there that Jana Gana Mana was first sung publicly. On the morning of 27 December, accompanied by Dinendranath Tagore’s musical arrangement and performed by a chorus of young boys and girls, the song resonated through the Congress pavilion.

It is true that King George V was visiting India at that time. But the song was neither written for him nor sung in his honour. How, then, did this misconception arise? It germinated in the overlap between the Congress leadership’s eagerness to ingratiate themselves with the monarch and the British propaganda apparatus, always poised to exploit an opportunity.

Many Congress leaders, wishing to please the Emperor, wanted Rabindranath to write a song honouring George V for the Congress session. This proposal reached Tagore through the barrister and Congress leader Ashutosh Chaudhuri. He was annoyed and indeed disappointed. He had no objection to writing a song for the Congress session, but to write one in praise of George V, he flatly refused.

And so, two songs were sung that day: in the morning, Tagore’s Jana Gana Mana Adhinayaka Jaya Hey; in the evening, Badshah Hamara, composed by Rambhaja Dutta Chowdhuri. A glance at their language makes it immediately clear which song lauded the Emperor and which did not.

Rambhaja Dutta Chowdhuri, a Congress leader from Punjab, happened to be Tagore’s nephew-in-law, married to Sarala Devi Chaudhurani. Since Tagore would not grant the request routed through Ashutosh Chaudhuri, another Congress leader within the extended family took up the task and composed a loyal hymn for the British “Badshah.”

If this is what truly occurred, how then did the contrary myth take root? It was, quite simply, a British stratagem. The morning after Jana Gana Mana was sung at the Congress session, three English newspapers—including The Statesman and The Englishman—published identical claims that Tagore had written the song in honour of King George V. All three were faithful mouthpieces of the colonial regime. Their synchronised reports forged a falsehood that, over time, solidified into “truth.” Thus, an empty fiction grew into a vast national myth, still alive in our discourse today. Even in independent India, several eminent figures repeated this error, unaware that they were only echoing a lie crafted by the British.

Tagore himself attempted more than once to correct the distortion. On 20 November 1937, in Bichitra, and again on 29 March 1939, in Purbasha, he wrote with a mixture of pain and indignation, compelled to dismantle the persistent falsehood. He confessed that he felt insulted by such wilful misinterpretation. “I did not write this song for any George the Fifth or George the Sixth,” he stated unequivocally. The song, he clarified, was dedicated to those eternal, illumined spirits who had guided India since the dawn of civilisation. Yet, despite his own testimony, the slander survived.

In the 1990s, I myself intervened to save a political colleague from repeating the same old error. I was then active in the youth wing of the party. At a national event, I heard someone invoke the fable linking Jana Gana Mana to George V’s visit to India. I corrected him on the spot. L.K. Advani was present on that very stage. Yet even today, some continue to perpetuate the mistake.

A carefully researched essay by MP Sukhendu Sekhar Roy also sets forth the true facts. The piece rests on firm documentary evidence. Another work, Jatiyo Sangeet-er Utso Sondhane, sheds further light on the matter. Anyone in doubt may consult these sources.

Let me restate the essence plainly. On the evening of 27 December 1911, Badshah Humara was sung at the Congress session in honour of King George V. But that morning, Jana Gana Mana, sung at the very same venue, had no connection whatsoever to the Emperor. Just as the “Aryan invasion theory” is an unverified myth, so too is the claim that Tagore composed his song for George V. Many remain afflicted by this myth. But as a party, we do not endorse it; it has never been our agenda.

And to those now raising a hue and cry over the personal opinion of one BJP MP, do they remember what their own party once did to Tagore after the Jallianwala Bagh massacre?

When news of the atrocity reached him, Tagore wished to travel to Punjab with Mohandas Gandhi. He sent a messenger, but Gandhi did not respond. Tagore then urged Chittaranjan Das to organise a protest meeting in Kolkata. Chittaranjan Das asked whether Tagore would preside. Tagore agreed. Later, he was asked whether he would deliver the principal address. He agreed again. Then Chittaranjan Das suggested that Tagore himself should organise the meeting. Irritated and disillusioned, Tagore ceased further communication with the Congress leaders. Instead, he renounced his knighthood, turning his protest into a thunderous moral gesture that echoed across the world. – News18, 5 December 2026

› Samik Bhattacharya is the BJP WB President and Rajya Sabha MP.

Tagore's translation of "Jana Gana Mana" on 28 February 1919, at the Besant Theosophical College.

Anil Seal: ‘Congress high command demanded Partition, not Jinnah’ – Udit Hinduja

VOI

Dr. Anil Seal

“If you did not have Partition, you would have to give the Muslim-majority provinces a degree of provincial autonomy.” – Dr. Anil Seal.

In a tightly packed conference room at the India International Center, the blame for India’s Partition in 1947 was placed firmly in the hands of the Indian National Congress.

“It was Congress who said they wanted Partition,” said Anil Seal, founder of the Cambridge School of Indian History, at a speaker session Between the Crown & Congress: Rethinking the Politics of Late Colonial India on 24 February, co-hosted by Caucus: The Discussion Forum, Hindu College. “Why? If you did not have Partition, you would have to give the Muslim-majority provinces a degree of provincial autonomy.”

The silence in the room was palpable after Seal’s declaration. He was met with stares and frowns from the audience, some of whom asked whether Muhammad Ali Jinnah was at least partly to blame.  

Holding court at the centre of a long table, Seal started off with a solemn, passionate speech on the cruel rise of imperialism in India, before transitioning to the national movements that were inherited from it. 

“Every country has to have an enemy,” said Seal. “Jinnah didn’t even know the Quran. I remember as a child, him coming to our house saying he had a bad day and needed a glass of whiskey.” 

Imperialism and politics

Anil Seal, a Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge, initially downplayed the impact of imperialism before proceeding to analyse its mechanisms.

He claimed there was one thing in common between the apologists and critics of imperialism—they both exaggerate its omnipotence. 

“Imperialism’s power to do bad, we’ve all heard about. Steal, rob, loot, rape—yes,” said Seal. “But to fundamentally reshape society—no.”  

He went on to explain how the British Empire, formed for “profit, power and prestige”, thrived in India. 

“The rule or dominance of the alien few over the indigenous many depends on the collaboration with people in whose interests it is to work with the British Raj,” said Seal. 

He was referring to princely states, prominent businessmen and landowners of the time, who decided to align with the British for their self-interest. 

Even neutrality, the keeping quiet of the many, helped solidify Britain’s chokehold on the Indian subcontinent.   

“If all of you, during the freedom movement, stood together and I said “spit”, you could have drowned the 3,000 British ruling India in a sea of phlegm,” said Seal, soliciting laughs from the audience. 

“There are more British running Cambridge University’s student body of 12,000 today than those governing colonial India in the 1900s,” he said, underscoring this point. 

Hindu College students, many of whom were Indian Administrative Services (IAS) aspirants, furiously took down notes as Seal expounded on just how the British maintained the neutrality of India’s population. 

First, they kept places localised and unconnected. “They didn’t rock the boat,” said Seal. “They left people sitting on their own thrones, whipping their own dogs.” 

And finally, to extract power and profit, the British could not govern a hundred different localities. Instead, they strengthened the chain of command from the district level, through provinces all the way back to their homeland. 

“That is why the British built all these roads, railways and telegraphs. Not for the benefit of the people, but to strengthen the centralised state,” said Seal,  emphatically slapping the table to drive home his point. 

Partition propaganda 

The British Empire’s decline, spread over nearly half a century, was caused by both international forces and internal pressure. 

During this time, pushback from national movements picked up, and India’s political movement employed a dual strategy, according to Seal.

“Agitation and constitutionalism are often put as choices. But they were two tactical sides to the same coin,” he said, before adding that non-cooperation, civil disobedience and the “Quit India” movement were not opposing forces to constitutional politics.

However, according to Seal, Indian politics until Independence and even after, have not been mass movements.

“The idea that Britain was driven out of India by mass movements is wrong,” he commented. “We are still waiting for a mass movement that energises the base of the pyramid.”

His focus shifted briefly to contemporary India, where he commented that even the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) and INDIA are a khichdi (mixture) of many different elements. To him, the broader an alliance’s base, the weaker its ideology becomes.

But it was the big question of the night—who was responsible for the Partition—that elicited an emotional response from Seal. He questioned whether the horrors, bloodshed, loss of lives and property could have been avoided.

“I am going against all the present things you are fed in films, propaganda,” said Seal. He also joked with the audience that they all may have to accompany him to jail for being “anti-national”.

“It was not what Jinnah had spent his life fighting for,” said Seal, absolving Jinnah of responsibility for the Partition. “It wasn’t even the Brits in the end game.”

According to him, Britain was bankrupt at this time. “Mountbatten was ready to lay anything on the table, including his wife, to get out of India quickly.”

It was the Congress high command who demanded Partition, afraid of the power from Muslim-dominated states that would challenge the central government, he insisted.

“The great prize for which every nationalist movement has been fighting is to inherit the one real legacy of imperial rule—the mechanism of a centralised state,” said Seal, arguing that this is what the Congress wanted, and what the BJP is striving for today.

He said it suits India’s political and national narrative to blame the Partition on Jinnah, which has fueled animosity toward Pakistan to this day.

“Change it. Challenge it. Look at the truth”, said Seal. – The Print, 3 March 2025

› Udit Hinduja is a journalist in New Delhi.

Nehru, Mountbatten, and Jinnah sign deed of Partition of India in 1947.

How the Nehruvian Congress manipulated Gandhi’s assassination to emasculate Hindu nationalism – Koenraad Elst

VOI

Had Nathuram Godse foreseen the consequences of the act he contemplated, he might have thought twice about going through with it – Dr. Koenraad Elst

There are some historical events that are momentous in nature but have not received the kind of attention and examination they deserved. The topic of Mahatma Gandhi’s assassination at the hands of Nathuram Godse on 30 January 1948 is one such incident. Though it comes up regularly for discussion, it is wantonly distorted to embarrass the RSS and the party associated with it, the BJP, which was actually founded in 1980, that too as a reincarnation of the Jan Sangh, which had equally been founded after the murder, in 1951. This then is the best-known long-term effect: The unrelenting allegation that anything smelling of Hindu nationalism, and certainly the RSS, necessarily leads to such crimes. But are we missing something?

Chitpavan massacre

The first consequence of the murder was immediate: Nathuram Godse’s own community, the Chitpavan Brahmins, was targeted for mass murder. The comparison with the mass killing of Sikhs by Congress secularists after Indira Gandhi’s murder is fairly exact, except that the 1984 massacre is well-known (even eclipsing the memory of the larger number of Punjabi Hindus murdered by Sikh separatists in the preceding years), whereas this one has been hushed up. The New York Times first drew attention to it, reporting 15 killings for the first day and only for the city of Mumbai (then Bombay). In fact, the killing went on for a week and all over Maharashtra, with V.D. Savarkar’s younger brother as best-known victim.

Arti Agarwal, who leads the research in “Hindu genocide”, estimates the death toll at about 8,000. On mass murders, estimates are often over-dramatised, but here we must count with a countervailing factor: The government’s active suppression of these data, as they would throw a negative light on Gandhism. But research on this painful episode has now started in earnest, and those presently trying to get at the real figures include Savarkar biographer Vikram Sampath.

Crackdown

The second consequence came right after: The government’s crackdown on the Hindu Mahasabha and the RSS. Their offices were closed down, their office-bearers imprisoned for a year or so, their stocks of literature impounded. It clipped their wings for years to come. The Hindu Mahasabha lost its president Syama Prasad Mukherjee, who went on to found the Jana Sangh. The Hindu Mahasabha would never recover from this blow. Its last MP was Mahant Avaidyanath, best known as a leader of the Rama Janmabhoomi movement and the guru of present UP chief minister Yogi Adityanath, defected to the BJP in 1991.

By contrast, the RSS did survive quite well, and even generated a whole “family” of like-minded organisations, including a new political party. In a numerical sense, it was to thrive; but in two other senses, it paid a high price.

The third consequence was a drastic change in the political landscape. After Partition, the Hindutva movement had the wind in the sails. All Congress’ assurances that warnings against Islamic separatism were mere British-engineered paranoia, had been refuted by reality. Gandhi’s promise that Partition would only come over his dead body, had proven false. The new-fangled ideology of secularism stood discredited at its birth. And yet, overnight, the Hindutva current was marginalised and Nehruvian secularism started its triumphant march. By his murder, Godse had smashed the window of opportunity of his own political movement.

Amputated backbone

Finally, the fourth consequence would only materialise over the long term: The Hindu movement began to lose its defining convictions. Rather than continuing to see India as an essentially Hindu nation, it bought into the secularist notion of a mere “Hindu community” juxtaposed to “minority communities” that were endowed with equal rights and increasingly with privileges vis-à-vis the Hindus.

When Jawaharlal Nehru was widely criticised for having facilitated the Chinese invasion, the RSS halted the publication of a Nehru-critical article by Sita Ram Goel in Organiser: Rather than clamouring that its guest author’s judgement of Nehru stood vindicated, it feared that if anything were to happen to Nehru, the RSS would again get the blame. As the Gandhi murder had shown, it wasn’t necessary to be actually guilty to still incur the punishment, viz, by “having created the atmosphere” for the crime. The RSS bought into the secularist narrative that the Hindu ideology had caused the murder and started amputating its own ideological backbone.

If Godse had foreseen these consequences of the act he contemplated, he might have thought twice about going through with it. – Firstpost, 27 July 2022

› Dr. Koenraad Elst is a well-known Indologist from Belgium.

Gandhi's death reported in the NYT.