Jana Gana Mana is a song that doesn't mention the names of other Indian states and territories, except Rajasthan, Kashmir, and the Northeast.
When Indians stand up to sing the anthem of the nation, a familiar list of names goes by – Punjab, Sindh, Gujarat, Maratha, Dravida, Utkala and Banga. What is so remarkable is not only the areas that are referenced in the text, but also the areas that are not. No reference to Rajasthan, Kashmir or the Northeast. On its face, this may seem like one of those strange things missing from a national anthem that should embody a whole nation.
The most obvious answer is that Jana Gana Mana was not composed as a map of modern India. The song was written by Rabindranath Tagore in 1911, years before the modern shape of the Indian political boundaries was formed. India was then divided between British rule and hundreds of princely states. For instance, the state of Rajasthan was not one state as it is known today. It consisted of several princely states and was synonymous with Rajputana. The political integration and reorganisation of these states gave birth to the modern Rajasthan after independence.
This is because of the same historical context which is reflected in the present-day state boundaries, which cannot be read into the anthem. The names “Maratha” and “Dravida” are not those of today's states but are used in a general sense. The word "Banga" refers to Bengal, and Utkala is related to Odisha. That is, the anthem has been written not to give a complete list of India's administrative divisions but rather to make use of historical and cultural names. This is important because India, as a whole, has undergone numerous changes since 1950. New states have been formed, existing borders have been redrawn, and some areas have changed their political status. The words of the anthem would be continually revised if the map were to be changed annually.
The most debatable one is the use of the word “Sindh”. Sindh poses an especially complex problem, as it is now a part of Pakistan, where the region was once linked with India through the region of Pakistan. But the word is still part of the Indian national anthem. The matter has even gone to Indian courts several times.
In 2005, the Supreme Court took up a case in which the petitioner had sought to remove the word “Sindh” from Jana Gana Mana. The argument was simple: Sindh had joined the Pakistan nation after partition; then why would it be included in the national anthem of India? The Court disagreed. It said a national anthem was not a geographical document that gave a list of the boundaries of a country. Rather, it is a symbol of national sentiment, heritage and identity. Another cultural point of the judgement was that “Sindh” was not just a geographical entity but also the identity of Sindhi people, their culture and history of association with the Indus Civilisation.
There was an added challenge a few years later. In 2011, retired professor Shrikant Malushte approached the Bombay High Court, stating that the word should be “Sindhu”, the Indus River, and not “Sindh”, the province in Pakistan. There was even more confusion over the controversy because the official communications used different versions. Bombay High Court requested the Centre to clarify the correct word.
But for many Sindhis it's not so much a matter of spelling as of feeling. Partition was not just a boundary that was redrawn for the Sindhis. Sindh went fully to Pakistan, and Indian Sindhis were deprived of a territorial state in India. For this reason, it could be argued that placing the word in the anthem is a small but significant reminder of a homeland which many families had to leave. In its reasoning for the Supreme Court in 2005, the court accepted this broader cultural definition, instead of considering “Sindh” merely a political term.
There is a historical irony here also. If all the places mentioned in the national anthem actually matched the state of modern India, the following words would also pose immediate problems. Utkala, Banga and Dravida are not the names of any existing States in the administrative sense. In removing Sindh, therefore, one geographical problem would be solved, but another would have been raised, namely, should the other historically derived names also be changed?
What the official line in India has been is to uphold Tagore's composition and not to keep on rewriting it based on political geography. The Constituent Assembly of India officially declared Vande Mataram as an anthem with a historic role in the freedom struggle, and, on 24 January 1950, the Constituent President of India, Rajendra Prasad, also declared Jana Gana Mana as the National Anthem.
It explains why the names that are missing do not always mean that the people were excluded. The anthem doesn't necessarily look and sound like the modern political unit of Kashmir, Rajasthan, and the Northeast, but that's not what it was meant to be. It was developed in another historical period and in the language and geographical location of the period.
That's probably why some names are missing from it; it is less significant, as the Indians have given it a deeper meaning over generations. A map can change. States can be created, merged, or divided. Borders can move. However, an anthem lives on, in part because it is permeated by the memories that precede the political ones. For example, in the context of Jana Gana Mana, the persisting reference to “Sindh” serves as a reminder that national identity can sometimes transcend the boundaries set on a contemporary map.
References:
- Constituent Assembly Debates, 24 January 1950: National Anthem declaration
- Government/Digital Sansad National Anthem and Vande Mataram
- Supreme Court judgment on “Sindh” in Jana Gana Mana
- New Indian Express 2011 petition challenging “Sindh”
- Hindustan Times: Bombay High Court seeks clarification over “Sindh/Sindhu”