The Tagore Mania: Identity Crisis and Anti-Bangladesh Syndrome
Taj Hashmi
I simply pity these people along with those who regard Rabindranath Tagore as the best poet, lyricist, short-story writer, novelist, essayist, Nobel Laureate, Zamindar, master, human being and what not! Those among these fanatically blind Rabindra-Bhaktas, who do not believe in God, consider him as one and all his writings as the substitute for the Bible, Quran and the Vedas. They are no better than the most fanatic mullahs, Hindu revivalists and the Neo-Cons in and around Washington D.C. All of them are dangerous to human dignity, peace and civilization. Their role vis-à-vis a sovereign Bangladesh, which has NO reason to be merged with West Bengal or India to become their slave (again?), is simply vicious, heinous and all Bangladeshis should be aware of it.
India has already captured our market. Do these India-Bhakta Tagorites want physical merger with India? I would not be surprised if this is in their hidden or not-so-hidden transcript!
I do not dispute the fact that Tagore was a good poet, much better than most of his contemporaries in undivided Bengal. But please give me a break; one who died in 1941 at 80 should be still regarded as the most relevant poet, essayist, novelist and lyricist! While English-speaking people have profound regard for Shakespeare and Byron, Keats and Shelley, Whitman and Tennyson, Bernard Shaw and Bertrand Russell they do not stick to these luminaries' ideas considering them indispensable unlike what these Rabindra-Bhakta buffoons do with their ONLY idol. While Frank Sinatra and Pat Boone, Dean Martin and Dionne Warwick, the Beatles and ABBA (and even Michael Jackson) had their hey days, now Western music lovers have other icons and favourite singers.
Tomorrow's generations will have their own favourite writers and singers, poets and philosophers. And this is called progress. The way Rabindra-Bhaktas glorify Tagore songs and whatever came out of his mouth or pen during the last two centuries establishes nothing but their cultural bankruptcy and inferiority complex.
With hindsight, I blame Ayub Khan, his Information Minister Khwaja Shahabuddin and his clownish Governor Monem Khan for this ongoing Rabindra-Mania in Bangladesh since 1967. Since the Pakistani ruling elite tried to impose a ban on Tagore song (which was a foolish, undemocratic move) during the ascendancy of Bengali Nationalism in East Pakistan one year after the introduction of the famous Six-point Programme of the Awami League and Sheikh Mujibur Rahman (which was not meant for secession but greater autonomy for East Pakistan), it simply backfired and Tagore became the symbol of Bengali Nationalism. It was nothing but a negative support for Tagore to defy and eventually overthrow the Ayub regime for the restive Bengali nationalists. Consequently those who could hardly understand anything about Tagore song, started patronizing and singing his lyrics. Chhayanat and similar music schools proliferated afterwards. And the rest is history.
Even the radical maverick, brave and honest Professor Ahmed Sharif (my guru for various reasons, especially his integrity, courage and scholarship) would privately tell us: "Ei Rabi Thakurer 'tumi' ta ke re bapu, eta to bujhlam na." He was also critical of Tagore's opposition to the Dhaka University proposal and his feudal, anti-people, pro-British stand most of the time up to his seventies.
Those who deny Tagore's anti-Muslim, anti-East Bengali, anti-peasant, anti-communist and out and out pro-Zamindar, pro-Bhadralok (Hindu professional classes) and pro-Mahajan (moneylender)
stand, at least up to the 1930s (in his seventies), are in a state of denial or totally ignorant of the facts. Why did the Hindu Zamindar-Bhadralok-Mahajan triumvirate oppose the Partition of Bengal? Was not the main reason for their concerted opposition to a separate province of Eastern Bengal & Assam due to their apprehension of losing out their Zamindari estates in East Bengal, legal profession and jobs eventually to the majority Muslim community? Those Bangladeshis who deny these facts are either die hard fanatics or supporters of United Bengal (as former slaves often suffer from the a perpetual sense of devotion or Bhakti for their former masters – I am NOT making this up, one may check with the vast literature on social-psychology, cultural anthropology and history, especially writings by Ranajit Guha and other "Subaltern" historians).
In view of the above, Tagore's opposition to the Partition of Bengal (1905-11) and the Dhaka University proposal (1914-20) had nothing so "patriotic" about it. He was not at all different from fellow Hindu Zamindar – Bhadralok who preferred to live in the urban comfort of Calcutta to the rural discomfort of East Bengal but by exploiting East Bengali peasants and working classes as landlords, lawyers and moneylenders. They also opposed the Partition and any move to establish a university in Dhaka, which they rightly envisaged, would eventually strip of their undue privileges and advantages as the hegemons of East Bengali masses. Calcutta based Hindu lawyers did not want another High Court in Dhaka, let alone another university to produce East Bengali Muslim graduates to compete in the shrinking job market, legal profession and in the arena of politics. One Fazlul Huq and one Suhrawardy were too much for them to swallow in the 1930s and 1940s.
With hindsight we realize that had there been no Partition of Bengal in 1905 and eventually in 1947 (the second one mainly due to Hindu Bhadralok opposition to united Bengal as Hindus would be perpetually a minority there against the Muslims) there would not have been any Bangladesh in 1971 or later. So, those who regard Tagore as the "dreamer" of Bangladesh a la Iqbal as the "dreamer of Pakistan", are simply misinforming themselves and others by romanticizing history with no regard to facts and figures.
History tells us without any ambiguity that the anti-Partition Swadeshi Movement (1905-11) in Bengal was out and out a Hindu movement (only a handful of Muslim initially supported it while a fraction of them continued their support till the annulment of the Partition in 1911). Muslim elites and even peasants and working classes took a leading role against the Swadeshi Movement and villages in Mymensingh and Comilla witnessed bloody Hindu-Muslim rioting during the Swadeshi days over the Partition. In Jamalpur and elsewhere in greater Mymensingh, Hindu terrorist Swadeshi volunteers, who took oath at the alter of goddess Kali and sang Bankim's anti-Muslim Bande Mataram, attacked Muslim supporters of the Partition with Ma Kalir Boma (Mother Kali's Bomb).
Sumit Sarkar has beautifully narrated these events in his History of the Swadeshi Movement. One should read Nirad Chaudhuri's Autobiography of an Unknown Indian and Abul Mansur Ahmed's Amar Dekha Rajnitir Panchash Bachhar to find out the truth about the communal nature of the Swadeshi Movement. And Kabi Guru Rabindranath was among the ardent supporters of the Swadeshi Movement. He wrote "Amar Sonar Bangla, Ami Tomay Bhalobashi" to inspire the supporters of the Swadeshi Movement. He wrote "Jana Gana Mana Adhinayaka Jaya Hey" in 1911.
While some historians think he wrote this song in praise of King-Emperor George V out of gratitude as he declared the annulment of the Partition in 1911 at the Delhi Durbar, others allude it to Tagore's love for the Indian "Jana Gana" as the "Bharata Bhagya Bidhata". Although I am very skeptical about the second assertion, yet I am not being judgemental as I do not have any evidence to substantiate either of the assertions. However, it is most likely that he wrote the song eulogizing George V as the "Bharata Bhagya Bidhata" (determinant of the fate of the Indians).
Now, those who think Tagore was not an anti-Muslim communal person by citing examples from his short stories and fictions where he portrayed some Muslims as noble characters should re-read the following Tagore poems: Nava Barsha, Shivaji Utshab, Ma Bhoi and Brahman. What type of "non-communal" Maha Rishi (Great Saint) could glorify Hindu and Brahmin supremacy and the inhuman and barbaric Sati (Suttee) or burning of Hindu widows alive on their husband's funeral pyre? His Shivaji Utshab was horridly a glorification of Hindutva as this poem not only eulogized Shivaji the Maratha nationalist against Mughal paramountcy (I have no problem with that) but it also contemplates the vision of "one religion in one country". Was it very dissimilar from Hitler's one race in one country or the fascist Shiv Sena's and RSS's advocacy for unadulterated Hindu supremacy in India?
We have Tagore apologists everywhere, in every forum, print and electronic media both in South Asia and beyond. One of them (Mesbahuddin Jowher) in a recent posting to the Mukto-Mona on May 8, 2006 wrote an apologia for Tagore in Bengali, "Was Tagore a Communalist?" According to him, Tagore only toyed with Hindutva and anti-Muslim expressions up to the early 20th century and afterwards he was a changed man. This is not at all true. In early 20th century Tagore was in his forties and fifties. He opposed the Dhaka University proposal during1914 and 1920 (joined a rally at Garer Math in Calcutta and put his signature to the campaign) when he was 53-59 year-old. We should not thrust any greatness on someone who in his forties and fifties continued to use very objectionable, racist and hateful expressions like javana, mlechha, nerey to denote Muslims a la Bankim style. Tagore was sort of a civil person vis-à-vis his public stand towards Hindu-Muislim problem in his seventies. By then it was too late, too little to glorify him as a saint and what not!
He was not that different so far as anti-Muslim public assertions are concerned from Bankim and Sarat Chatterjee. While Bankim considered Indian Muslims "unclean skin head foreigners" (mlechha javana nerey), Sarat Chatterjee publicly demanded the expulsion of Indian Muslims for the sake of a better India (in 1926 at a public meeting organized by the Hindu Mahasabha – see Joya Chatterjee's Hindu Communalism and the Partition of Bengal), Tagore was sometimes more subtle in venting out his anti-Muslim sentiment.
Those Tagore apologists who defend his opposition to the Dhaka University proposal as a device to "save Calcutta University" (what a rubbish of an argument!) totally ignore the fact that Tagore in his Nobel Acceptance Lecture in 1913 (or 1914?) announced that he was going to establish a university at Bolpur (Shanti Niketan University) with the award money. Would not another university not far from Calcutta be detrimental to Calcutta University? Why could not he establish a university in East Bengal for the children of his exploited tenants? Why did not he establish anything worth mentioning other than the Patishar Bank (very similar to Grameen Bank but interest free for his tenants in Naogaon district in North Bengal not long before his death) for the poor in East Bengal? No Rabindra-Bhakta has any satisfactory answers to these questions.
In sum, let Tagore be in peace. Let people sing and listen to Tagore song, read his poems and other writings and let scholars and laymen write volumes after volumes in evaluating his literary genius. I have no problem with that. We cannot accept any assertion portraying Tagore as the most humane, non-communal, benevolent Zamindar (an oxymoronic expression like a "kind butcher" or "Hitler, the great lover of the Jews"), a "dreamer of Bangladesh", a promoter of education (yes, almost exclusively for Hindu Bengalis) and an anti-imperialist etc.
I am very puzzled at Bengali communists' (mostly the hitherto Muscovites also known as the "Harmonium Party") adoration of Tagore, who in his fore-word to Pramatha Chaudhury's book, Ryoter Katha (Calcutta 1928) compared communism with fascism and condemned those who wanted to abolish the Zaminadari and Mahajani ( usurious money-lending) systems. He sarcastically described the communists as "lalmukho" (red-faced) Russian agents and jeered at their programme: "Ei dharoni nir-jamidar nir-mahajan hoilei jeno shanty ashibe" [paraphrased] or "as if this world will be a blissful place without the Zamindar and Mahajan around." Tagore was 67-year-old when he defended the extortionist Zamindari and Mahajani systems. And our Rabindra-Bhakta friends still consider him a great humanist friend of the poor and oppressed and "dreamer of Bangladesh"!
http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/taj_hashmi/tagore110506.htm
On Rabindranath Tagore
Rabindranath was a Bhrama, in theory I would rather say. But again, the whole Tagore family were great hypocritical bunch of people. They followed all Hindu rituals in their daily life, observed 'Durga Puja' in their homes and loudly professed 'Bhrama' theories outside their enclaves. You can learn a little bit about it if you just read 'The Myriad-minded Man' by Andrew Robinson / Krishna Dutta. I do not dispute that Rabindranath was a great Bengali intellectual and there is none like him in the Bengali literature. I have also read a lot of his write-ups and even today I listen to his songs now and then because we have none like him.
But it does not make him my idol because he was, the records candidly prove, not a decent man. He was a cruel Zaminder, a communal Hindu and indeed a great devil if we compare him with Bidhasagar. Bidhasagar was the greatest human being Bengal ever produced. Rabindranath deliberately cultivated communalism whereas poor Bankim Chandra got all the blames because he used Muslim characters in his novels to speak against the British. Man like Rabindranath was the cause of division of India and communalism thrived under the hidden blessings of these sorts of men. And you spoke about Nazrul? He was an angel, fully non-communal and hundred percent human.
I assure you that he would not have supported division of Bengal. His nationalism was Bengali nationalism and any good Bengali could admire it. You would hardly find any other literary figure in Bengal so human and so non-communal. He can be safely compared with Bidhasagar. Nevertheless I would not recommend any of his song for adopting as national anthem of Bangladesh on the same ground as I reject Rabindranath's song. None of them believed in Bangladesh and none should be given this honour or dishonour (by snatching their songs and putting it in something in which they did not believe).
This is my personal view. Bangladesh national anthem should be written by someone who believes in Bangladesh's nationalism and territorial integrity. That is common sense and I advocate it for Bangladeshi people. Then, if you ask me if I am a nationalist, I say clearly and loudly 'NO' and I do not like to be a nationalist. I believe in humanity and foolishly wish in Lennon's song 'Imagine'... and will continue believing so till I die.
Now, I will answer your next question on Bengali Nationalism and Bengali Muslim Nationalism. Mr. Rezwan, I put a counter question to answer your question? Why Bangladeshi people voted for Pakistan? On communal reason? Am I right? Let us get settled and cure ourselves first from our communal disease before we take our next step. Again, it is not Pakistanis and Jinnah who created Pakistan but the Indians and Gandhi and Nehru who created Pakistan. Same when Bangladesh was created breaking Pakistan. Chittagoninan Bangla and Dhaka Bangla is not the same and I suppose you mean dialects when you said so. Yes, it is not the same but there is a standard Bangla for all Bengali speaking people.
The most interesting aspect of it is that, in the standard Bengali, people use many words so distinctively different when they communicate with each other and by which you can immediately recognise a person's religious background. That is what I said and I did not say it to incite communalism. Using this sort of words in day to day conversation you would not find anywhere in the world. And personally I believe it a beautiful tryst and I wish we learn to enjoy these differences and thereby enrich ourselves and develop a common pluralistic culture with respect to each other.
I never ask anybody to migrate to West Bengal because he uses 'Jal' and my new friend Mr. Rezwan says 'Pani' for the same word in Bangladesh. I am sorry if you understood so and I apologise for expressing myself so very clumsy way. I think pluralism even in language is not bad, it is rather beautiful and it certainly gives colour in life.
You also mentioned Arab phenomenon. You can also mention same for the 4 Scandinavian countries, Denmark, Island, Norway and Sweden. Culturally and linguistically they are almost the same but still they are different countries. National boundaries rise when a group of people want to build those boundaries. Sure, language and religion play a major role but politics do not always follow the rational path. Bangladesh's national anthem is also a political question. Peoples' wish (mostly a few inflict an idea in peoples' mind as a wish) is also a factor we need to consider. West Bengali people do not like to live with the Bangladeshi people.
They fought relentlessly (Bengali Hindus in this case) when Bengal was divided but the same people never raise a finger (from the Hindu community) to oppose the division of Bengal. Perhaps you know that Fazlul Huq and Sharwardhi wanted united Bengal but Bengali Hindus were pleased to get rid of the then East Bengali Muslims because they knew, if Bengal were not divided, they had to live under Muslim rule in Bengal and they hated even to imagine that idea. Well, all that is past and I wish we learn from History and one day we join together forgetting our disgraceful past and hateful communalism. I also wish that we overcome our communal mentality and respect each other as human being.
Finally on your last suggestion. Yes, as a democrat I will accept with dismay if "majority Bangladeshi people want' Rabindranath's song as the national anthem of Bangladesh. The problem however is, lots of things are imposed on people not only in Bangladesh but in Western world too, without ever asking if people want that something or not. Anyway, this is just the beginning of the discussion, time will decide, Mr. Rezwan, if Rabindranath's song survives as Bangladesh's national anthem in the long run. In this context, Indian people, I would further say, need to re-consider their national anthem too. I do hope you know when and why Rabindranath wrote it. It is disgraceful for India for accepting this terrible poem as their national anthem. Let the people of India know the origin and circumstances on which Rabindranath wrote it and you will see what they do with it.
http://bangladesh-web.com/view.php?hidDate...000000000105540On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 11:24 AM, Isha Khan <bdmailer@gmail.com> wrote:
Rabindranath Tagore-A Non-Contemporary Politician.
Mohammad Gani (USA)
How do we see Galileo, Newton, Einstein and Tagore as politicians or did they ever engaged, took side or participated in any politics in its real term? Well, their political lives though were not that luminous, the answer is yes and they surely did not come off with flying colors as they did in their other fields of international prides and fames.
For example, Einstein's life was "divided between politics and equations" and most of us knew his politics of nuclear bomb as well as his famous letter to President Franklin Roosevelt. Einstein's political activities started during First World War when he was a professor in Berlin and was sickened by what he saw as waste of human lives, became involved in anti-war demonstration. His post war efforts to prevent nuclear war are also well known. His advocacy of civil disobedience and post war international reconciliation efforts did not make him any popular and actually his politics later were making it difficult for him to visit/enter US, even to give lectures.
His second great cause was Zionism. Though he was Jewish by decent, Einstein rejected the biblical idea of God. However, a growing awareness of anti-Semitism during and after the First World War made him an outspoken supporter of Jewish Community. His "mind's free speech" on his theories also came under attack; an anti-Einstein organization was even set to repudiate and assault him.
At one point, a man was convicted of inciting others to murder Einstein that ended up with $6 (six dollars) fine! In 1933, Hitler came to power and Einstein was in America and decided not to return to Germany. His efforts towards peace achieved little except only few friends. However he was duly recognized in 1952 for his support for Jewish cause and was offered Presidency of Israel. He declined it, perhaps; equations were more important to him, knowing very well that "Politics is for the present but an equation is something for eternity".
Background: The Indian Independence Movement was a series of revolutions empowered by the people of India put forth to battle the British Empire to a complete political independence. It began with many organizations like the "Sepoy Mutiny or Rebellion" of 1857, reaching its climax with Indian National Congress, All India Muslim League, Mahatma Gandhi's Quit India Movement (1942-1945) and Subash Chandra Bose's Indian National Army invasion of British India during World War II and culminating eventually in full freedom on August14/15, 1947.
Kabi Guru Rabindranath Tagore was not deeply or visibly involved in any Party politics but never detached himself from maneuvering actively with current political events either. His political views marked complexities to characterize when he joined "Swadeshi Movement" in 1906 with the Indian National Congress, a Hindu-dominated political organization supported by the Calcutta elite against Lord Curzon. He strongly voiced against the partition of United Bengal and fiercely and forcefully opposed the division of Bengal in his essay published in "Bangadarshan". All India Muslim League supported Lord Curzon for historical reason and voiced against "Swadeshi Movement".
Tagore was uniquely complex in his attitude towards nationalism. He inaugurated the meeting of the Congress party that took place in Calcutta (Kolkata) in 1896 by singing "Bande Mataram" to his own tune. He composed his celebrated piece "Shivaji's Utsav" at that time and was inspired by the Shivaji Festival introduced by Maharashtra's Balgangadhar Tilak. In his many articles like "Sadhana", "Bangadarshan", and "Bharati", he passed many intransigent opinions and views on many contemporary political situations.
In 1925 he stated that British imperialism was not a primary evil but only a political symptom of our social disease. He urged Indians to accept that "there can be no question of blind revolution, but of steady and purposeful education". Such views inevitably enraged many, placing his life in danger.
During his stay in a San Francisco hotel in late 1916, Tagore narrowly escaped an assassination attempt by Indian expatriates; the plot failed only because the would-be assassins fell into an argument. Yet Tagore wrote songs lionizing the Indian Independence Movement and renounced his knighthood in protest against the Jallianwala Bagh massacre in13 April 1919.
Tagore was also the key in resolving a Gandhi-B.R.Ambedkar dispute involving separate electorates for untouchables. Though Tagore wrote for the movement of self-rule, he never supported extreme nationalism or terrorist activities and had disputed admirations for Netaji Subash Chandra Bose as a leader of Indian Independence.
Gandhi and Tagore severely clashed over their totally different attitudes toward political philosophy, culture and science. In January 1934, Bihar was struck by a devastating earthquake that killed thousands of people. Gandhi was then deeply involved in the fight against "untouchability"; and extracted a positive lesson from that tragic event. He argued, "A man like me cannot but believe this earthquake is a divine chastisement sent by God for our sins; in particular the sins of untouchability.
For me there is a vital connection between the Bihar calamity and the untouchability campaign". Tagore equally abhorred untouchability and had joined Gandhi in the movements against it, but fulminated against Gandhi's interpretation of this event that had caused suffering and death to so many innocent people including children and babies. He also hated the epistemology implicit in seeing an earthquake as caused by ethical failure. He wrote "It is all the more unfortunate because this kind of unscientific view of natural phenomena is too readily accepted by a large section of our countrymen".
Tagore was predictably hostile to communal sectarianism, such as a Hindu orthodoxy that was antagonistic to Islamic, Christian, or Sikh perspectives. Even nationalism seemed to be a suspect to him because of his attitude toward traditional Indian culture over broad cultural diversity. He wanted Indians to learn what is going on elsewhere, how others lived, what they valued, and so on, while remaining interested and involved in their own culture and heritage. Unlike Gandhi who promoted traditional Indian culture, Tagore was not dismissive to Western civilization. It could be found in his advice to Indian students abroad and in his letters wrote to his son-in-law (1907) Nagendranath Gangulee who had come to USA to study agriculture.
Rabindranath rebelled against the "strongly nationalist form" that the independence movement often took. This approach made him to refrain from taking particular active part in any contemporary politics. He wanted to assert that India's right to be independent without denying the importance of what India could learn freely and profitably from abroad would not compromise traditional Indian culture.
Tagore's criticism of patriotism is a persistent theme in his writings. In 1908, he expressed his position clearly in a letter replying to the criticism of Abala Bose, the wife of a great Indian scientist, Jagadish Chandra Bose, "Patriotism cannot be our final spiritual shelter; my refuge is humanity.
I will not buy glass for the price of diamonds and I will never allow patriotism to triumph over humanity as long as I live". His novel "Ghare Baire" (The Home and the World) has much to say about this theme. In this novel, Nikhil, who is keen on social reform including women's liberation, but cool toward nationalism, gradually loses the esteem of his spirited wife, Bimala, because of his failure to be enthusiastic about anti-British agitations, which she sees as a lack of patriotic commitment. Bimala becomes fascinated with Nikhil's nationalist friend Sandip, who speaks brilliantly and acts with patriotic militancy and she falls in love with him……….
Tagore also was not invariably well-informed about international politics. He allowed himself to be entertained by Mussolini in a short visit to Italy in May-June 1926. It was arranged by Carlo Formichi, a Professor of Sanskrit at the University of Rome. During that visit Tagore wished to meet Benedetto Croce, an Italian Philosopher/ politician, but Prof. Formichi called it "Impossible"! Mussolini told Tagore that Croce was "not in Rome". As Tagore continued insisting and said, "I would go wherever he is". Mussolini then said to him that Croce's whereabouts were unknown!!
Warnings from Romain Rolland, a French writer and Nobel Prize in literature in 1915 and other friends should have ended Tagore's brief involvement with Mussolini more quickly than it did. But only after he received graphic accounts of the brutality of Italian fascism from two exiles, Gaetano Salvemini and Gaetano Salvadori and learned more of what was happening in Italy. Tagore did publicly denounce the regime and published a letter to the "Manchester Guardian" in August 1926. The following month "Popolo d'Italia" a magazine edited by Mussolini's brother, replied: "Who cares? Italy laughs at Tagore anyway and also at those who brought this unctuous and insupportable fellow in our midst."
(Thanks to Prof. Amartya Sen, Swedish Nobel Academy and some periodicals).
Mohammad Gani (USA).
http://bangladesh-web.com/view.php?hidDate=2006-04-28&hidType=OPT&hidRecord=0000000000000000103575
On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 4:26 PM, Desh Bondhu <desh_bondhu@ymail.com> wrote:
Dear Miss,You missed the point,It was not about the beauty of the song, it was the context or background of the song.It was Robi Thakur who opposed actively against a university for the then children of East Bengal.He was cruel Zamidar who oppressed the farmer.He was a tool of British oppression against us.The beauty of his songs or poetry or literature do attract us not his political stance.
Desh-Bondhu,'Desher Kotha Bolay'
The exhibition of naked communalism, in both the article and the comments, is appalling! Communalism is a product of British colonial administration in India as is abundantly evident from the article's information about the division of Bengal in 1905. Any indulgence in communalism today is therefore a form of licking the boot of foreign Colonial Masters of pre-Independence, 1947.
There is so much more to our National Anthem than this silly discussion about the political background of the song being written by Rabindranath, and not by a Muslim author. By the way, Kazi Nazrul Islam's song for the motherland begins: 'namo namo namo, Bangladesh momo, chiro-monoromo chiro-modhur' which is a lovely song, but no one dares sing that song these days for fear of arousing even more communal wrath with our Islam-pasandwallahs.
For the Rabindranath-haters it should be solace to know that the National Anthem is only half a Rabindra-sangeet, since its tune is not composed by the poet.
'Amar Sonar Bangla' is set to a traditional baul tune -- 'ami kothaye pabo tare, amar moner manush je re' -- very popular to both Muslim and Hindu bauls at the time and was commonly sung by ordinary people of East Bengal. Tagore heard the tune in the voice of Gagan Harkara in Silaidoho, which is in Bangladesh. Besides the sheer enticement of the tune, he might have chosen it for the ease of making it popular in people's voices across Bengal.
It is written in simple language without the use of a consonant conjunct in any word, so even a 5-yr old literate can read the lyrics.
Because it is set to a Bengali folk tune, there is no need of Scottish bagpipe or kettle drums to accompany the singing of it (as was necessary for singing 'Pak shar zameen shaad baad'). Local dugdugi, mandira, khol, ektara, dotara, or even a broken harmonium could accompany the singing of this Bangladeshi anthem any time anywhere.
The magic of the tune of 'amar sonar Bangla' is so fabulous that it has touched other people's hearts for over a hundred years. It has been judged one of the 10 best National Anthems in the world by a music journalist in 2008 Beijing Olympic Games. The journalist felt that the wonderful tune "sounded like it was written for a stroll along the bank of the river Seine." It is astounding how he understood " ki anchol bichhayechho boter mule nodir kule kule" just by hearing the tune! He had listened to the anthems of 205 countries, and those that seemed to him written by a band leader of Royal Navy, or a military marching band, were considered 'lifeless' and perfunctory.
This traditional, spiritual baul tune is composed by an unknown. Its charm and magic will never fade and will continue to inspire love of the land in the the hearts of generations of Bangladeshis to come. We should thank Rabindranath's musical genius for choosing this pure, authentic Bangladeshi tune for his song in praise of Mother Bengal.
Farida Majid
To: alochona@yahoogroups.com; notun_bangladesh@yahoogroups.com; chottala@yahoogroups.com; ovimot@yahoogroups.com; dahuk@yahoogroups.com; sonarbangladesh@yahoogroups.com; progressive-muslim@yahoogroups.com; khabor@yahoogroups.com; mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
From: desh_bondhu@ymail.com
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2011 22:39:45 +0100
Subject: [ALOCHONA] Background of 'Amar Sonar Bangla'
মঙ্গলবার, ১১ অক্টোবর ২০১১,
কলকাতা শহরে প্রথম বাংলা ভাগের প্রতিবাদ হিসেবে 'আমার সোনার বাংলা' গানটি গাওয়া হয়েছিল।১৯১১ সালে দুই বাংলা পুনরায় একত্রিত হয়েছিল তবে তা ১৯৪৭ সালে পুনরায় ভাগ হওয়ার জন্য। নিউইয়র্ক টাইমসের ওই নিবন্ধের শেষ বাক্য: ইতিহাসের অনেক পরিহাস। তবে বঙ্গের অন্যতম পরিহাস হলো-১৯৭১ সালে ইস্ট বেঙ্গল স্বাধীনতা পেল আর তারা কিনা তাদের জাতীয় সংগীত হিসেবে বেছে নিলো 'আমারসোনার বাংলা'র প্রথম দশ লাইন। সেটি ছিল রবীন্দ্রনাথের এমন একটি কবিতা, যা অবিভক্ত বাংলারচেতনায় অনুপ্রাণিত।স্টাফ রিপোর্টার: 'আমার সোনার বাংলা আমি তোমায় ভালোবাসি'। রবীন্দ্রনাথ ঠাকুরের এই বাংলা কোনবাংলা? বাংলাদেশের ১৬ কোটি মানুষ বিশেষ করে স্কুল-কলেজের ছেলেমেয়েরা প্রতিদিন আসলে কোনবাংলার গান গাইছে। এই প্রশ্নটি অনেকের মনে বিশেষ করে বর্তমান ৫৮ হাজার বর্গমাইলের স্বাধীন ওসার্বভৌম বাংলাদেশের নতুন প্রজন্মের মনে একটা আন্দোলন তৈরি করতে পারে। কারণ বিশ্বের অন্যতমশীর্ষস্থানীয় প্রভাবশালী দৈনিক দি নিউ ইয়র্ক টাইমস এবিষয়ে একটি চমকপ্রদ তথ্য প্রকাশ করেছে।
পত্রিকাটির গত ৩রা অক্টোবর সংখ্যায় সামন্ত সুব্রামনিয়াম 'দেশ ভাগের আগে দেশভাগ' শীর্ষক নিবন্ধেতথ্য দেন যে, পশ্চিমবঙ্গের মুখ্যমন্ত্রী মমতা ব্যানার্জি সম্প্রতি ওয়েস্ট বেঙ্গলকে পশ্চিমবঙ্গ করেছেন। এখনথেকে আর বাংলা পশ্চিমবঙ্গকে ইংরেজিতে ওয়েস্ট বেঙ্গল লেখা যাবে না। পশ্চিমবঙ্গের নাম ইংরেজিতেওপশ্চিমবঙ্গ লিখতে হবে। ওয়েস্ট বেঙ্গল লেখার রীতি আসলে ঔপনিবেশিক শাসনের ধারাবাহিকতা। বৃটিশভারত ছেড়েছে ১৯৪৭ সালে। তবে অবিভক্ত বাংলা দু'ভাগ হয়েছিল আরও আগে- ১৯০৫ সালে। ওই সময়েঅবিভক্ত বাংলার মোট জনসংখ্যা ছিল প্রায় ৮৪ মিলিয়ন। সেই বাংলা আয়তনে ছিল বর্তমান ফ্রান্সের সমান।১৮৯৮ থেকে ১৯০৫ পর্যন্ত ভারতে বৃটিশ ভাইসরয় ছিলেন লর্ড কার্জন। তিনি ভেবেছিলেন এতবড় বাংলাকেশাসন করা ও সামলানো বেশ কঠিন। তিনিই তাই বাংলা ভাগের পরিকল্পনা করেন। বৃটিশদের যে মূল নীতি'ভাগ করো ও শাসন করো' তার সঙ্গে কার্জনের পরিকল্পনা বেশ খাপ খায়। ১৯০৪ সালে ভারত সরকারেরস্বরাষ্ট্র সচিব এইচএইচ রিজলি লিখলেন, 'যুক্ত বেঙ্গল একটি শক্তি। এটা ভাগ করলে আমাদের শাসনেরবিরুদ্ধে চ্যালেঞ্জ সৃষ্টিকারী প্রতিপক্ষকে ভাগ করা হলে তারা দুর্বল হবে।' লর্ড কার্জনের মনে এই সুপারিশবিরাট প্রভাব ফেলেছিল।
১৯০৫ সালের ফেব্রুয়ারিতে ভাইসরয় কার্জন সেক্রেটারি ফর স্টেট অব ইন্ডিয়া জন ব্রডনিকের কাছে লিখলেন, 'কলকাতা হলো কংগ্রেসের ঘাঁটি। এখান থেকে তারা সমগ্র বাংলা এমনকি গোটা ভারত পরিচালনা করেথাকে। আইনজীবী শ্রেণী খুবই শক্তিশালী। এখন যদি বাংলা ভাগ করা হয় তাহলে তাদের দাপট কমে যাবে।এটা করলে প্রচণ্ড চিৎকার-চেঁচামেচি হবে। তবে আমাকে একজন বাঙাল ভদ্রলোক বলেছেন, আমার দেশেরলোক কোন কিছু নিষ্পত্তি না হওয়া পর্যন্ত অনেক হৈচৈ করে। এরপর তারা থেমে যায়। এবং মেনেও নেয়।'এরপরই বাংলা ভাগ হলো।
সুব্রামনিয়াম এরপর লিখেছেন, বাংলাকে এভাবে ভাগ করা হলো যাতে ইস্ট বেঙ্গলে উল্লেখযোগ্য সংখ্যকমুসলিমরা একত্রিত হতে পারে। তারা ভাগ হয়ে প্রথমেই তাদের শোষণ-বঞ্চনার বিরুদ্ধে সোচ্চার হলো।বৃটিশরা দরিদ্র মুসলিমদের অনুভূতি নিয়ে খেললো। ১৯০৪ সালের ফেব্রুয়ারিতে কার্জন ঢাকায় বলেছিলেন, 'ইস্ট বেঙ্গল হওয়ার ফলে মুসলমানরা এমন এক ঐক্যের স্বাদ পাবে যেটা তারা বহু আগে যখন মুসলমানরাজা-বাদশার আমলে পেয়েছিলেন।'
১৯০৫ সালের ১৬ই অক্টোবর বাংলা আনুষ্ঠানিকভাবে ভাগ হলো। আনন্দবাজার পত্রিকা পরদিন সম্পাদকীয়লিখেছিল, কলকাতার জনগণ এদিনটিকে শোক দিবস হিসেবে পালন করবে। এই দেশভাগ বিশেষ করেরবীন্দ্রনাথের জাতীয়তাবাদী চেতনাকে নাড়া দিয়েছিল। এর আগে সেপ্টেম্বরের মাঝামাঝি তিনি লিখেছিলেন, 'বাংলার মাটি, বাংলার জল এবং 'আমার সোনার বাংলা'। তখনও বাংলা ভাগের ঘোষণা আসেনি।
__._,_.___
[Disclaimer: ALOCHONA Management is not liable for information contained in this message. The author takes full responsibility.]
To unsubscribe/subscribe, send request to alochona-owner@egroups.com
Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
__,_._,___