Jana Gana Mana

The first time i read this i laughed till i read it in another couple of places and realised that Mr Sanjeev Bhatnagar was serious. Evidently he does not like the fact that the word 'Sindh' which as per Mr Bhatnagar represents the place and not the people, does not belong to India anymore and so should be replaced by some thing else (like kashmir?!) in India's national anthem the Jana Gana Mana.
My initial knee jerk reaction was that 'either use a different national anthem that satisifies your warped sense of patriotism , dont mess with someone else's poem'
After careful thought i have revised this opinion to 'I dont care'
That however does not prevent me from adding my two cents.
The supreme court has ruled asking Mr bhatnagar to take up his problem with the Government.
From the Times Of India these are Mr Bhatnagars views (or my interpretation of them)

1. Sindh is now a Pakistani Province and hence the use of it in our national anthem violates our constitution(Article 1 , Clause 2)
2. According to Tagore himself the word *sindh* represents the province and not the culture nor the people
3. Sindhis shouldnt be hurt as they should be calling themselves indians and not sindhis
4. There is no big deal changing a national anthem as the russians have done it , the germans have done it, and the situation now is different from 1911
5. That he is apolitical and would prefer to see saare jahan se accha as the national anthem of india
6. That our current national anthem is not a patriotic one ,there is controversy over who the vidhata is

The one good thing that has come out of all this is that i have finally looked up the translation of the Jana Gana Mana. I remember laughing at the corporators who could not recite the national anthem and i realise now that i was no better than them, i had only learnt the words , i did not understand what they meant just that standing at attention and repeating the words somehow made me a patriot.

Anyway more on that later. The reasons for my initial reactions were

There are numerous examples in Hindi Film entertainment and in our politicians deeds where someone else's idea's of patriotism is forced down our throats. This seemed to be another example. But for the points Mr Bhatnagar raises

1. Sindh is indeed part of Pakistan. I am not well versed in Article 1 Clause 2 so i do not know if it indeed is a violation.
2. If you read the poem the translation states that 'Thy name rouses the hearts of ........ Sindh' so i dont think Mr Bhatnagar is correct in stating that the poet intended the place and not the people.
3. His third point shows an astonishing naivete in understanding the Indian psyche even though technically he may be correct.
4. Other People do it cannot be used as a point for or against an argument
5. And Vande Mataram would be preferred by some sections and each and every song or poem that we chose would have its share of detractors.
6. A matter of interpretation. I would say that there is no doubt that Bhagya Vidhata does NOT refer to King George V

The Sindhi Community has reacted as expected ,that were treated unfairly in the partition(is there anyone who was treated fairly?) , that sindh is more than a geo political entity , it is a people, a culture, a civilisation. That Sindhi hearts glow with pride every time they hear the sindh word in the Indian National Anthem.

And all of the above leads to me my final views on the matter , I dont care what happens ,India is more than an anthem , a flag ,a language or a community.