Editing Jana Gana Mana (section)

==Controversies==
===Historical significance===
The composition was first sung during a convention of the [[Indian National Congress]] in [[Kolkata|Calcutta]] on 27 December 1911.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.countercurrents.org/comm-chatterjee310803.htm |title=Tagore and Jana Gana Mana |work=Monish R. Chatterjee |access-date=14 August 2008 |archive-date=17 September 2008 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080917033936/http://www.countercurrents.org/comm-chatterjee310803.htm |url-status=live }}</ref> It was sung on the second day of the convention. The event was reported as such in the British Indian press:
<blockquote>
"The Bengali poet [[Rabindranath Tagore]] sang a song composed by him specially to welcome the Emperor." (''Statesman'', 28 December 1911)<br />"The proceedings began with the singing by [[Rabindranath Tagore]] of a song specially composed by him in honour of the Emperor." (''Englishman'', 28 December 1911)<br />"When the proceedings of the Indian National Congress began on Wednesday 27 December 1911, a Bengali song in welcome of the Emperor was sung. A resolution welcoming the Emperor and Empress was also adopted unanimously." (''Indian'', 29 December 1911)
</blockquote>

Many historians aver that the newspaper reports cited above were misguided. The confusion arose in the Indian press since a different song, "Badshah Humara" written in [[Hindi]] by Rambhuj Chaudhary,<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.sacw.net/DC/CommunalismCollection/ArticlesArchive/pkDatta092004.html |title=India: Are we still singing for the Empire? |work=Pradip Kumar Datta |access-date=30 August 2015 |archive-date=24 September 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150924093341/http://www.sacw.net/DC/CommunalismCollection/ArticlesArchive/pkDatta092004.html |url-status=live }}</ref> was sung on the same occasion in praise of [[George V]]. The nationalist press in India stated this difference of events clearly:
<blockquote>
"The proceedings of the Congress party session started with a prayer in Bengali to praise God (song of benediction). This was followed by a resolution expressing loyalty to King George V. Then another song was sung welcoming King George V." (''[[Amrita Bazar Patrika]]'', 28 December 1911)<br />"The annual session of Congress began by singing a song composed by the great Bengali poet Rabindranath Tagore. Then a resolution expressing loyalty to King George V was passed. A song paying a heartfelt homage to King George V was then sung by a group of boys and girls." (''The Bengalee'', 28 December 1911)
</blockquote>

Even the report of the annual session of the Indian National Congress of December 1911 stated this difference:
<blockquote>
"On the first day of 28th annual session of the Congress, proceedings started after singing [[Vande Mataram]]. On the second day the work began after singing a patriotic song by Babu Rabindranath Tagore. Messages from well-wishers were then read and a resolution was passed expressing loyalty to King George V. Afterwards the song composed for welcoming King George V and Queen Mary was sung."
</blockquote>

On 10 November 1937, Tagore wrote a letter to Pulin Bihari Sen about the controversy. That letter in Bengali can be found in Tagore's biography'' Rabindrajibani, volume II page 339'' by ''Prabhatkumar Mukherjee''.
<blockquote> "A certain high official in His Majesty's service, who was also my friend, had requested that I write a song of felicitation towards the Emperor. The request simply amazed me. It caused a great stir in my heart. In response to that great mental turmoil, I pronounced the victory in Jana Gana Mana of that Bhagya Bidhata [ed. God of Destiny] of India who has from age after age held steadfast the reins of India's chariot through rise and fall, through the straight path and the curved. That Lord of Destiny, that Reader of the Collective Mind of India, that Perennial Guide, could never be George V, George VI, or any other George. Even my official friend understood this about the song. After all, even if his admiration for the crown was excessive, he was not lacking in simple common sense."<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/open-page/tagore-and-that-song/article10886480.ece|title=Tagore and that song|website=[[The Hindu]] |date=22 June 2015 |access-date=21 July 2021|archive-date=23 April 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210423093415/https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/open-page/tagore-and-that-song/article10886480.ece|url-status=live|last1=Mitra |first1=Anirban |last2=Bhattacharyya |first2=Souvik }}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-33438577|title=BBC World Asia|work=BBC News |date=9 July 2015 |access-date=21 July 2021|archive-date=18 September 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210918114713/https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-33438577|url-status=live}}</ref></blockquote>

Again in his letter of 19 March 1939, Tagore writes:<ref name="autogenerated1">{{cite web|url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-16241465|title=BBC News – Indian anthem Jana Gana Mana turns 100|date=27 December 2011|publisher=Bbc.co.uk|access-date=8 July 2012|archive-date=9 January 2012|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120109025149/http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-16241465|url-status=live}}</ref>
<blockquote>
"I should only insult myself if I cared to answer those who consider me capable of such unbounded stupidity as to sing in praise of George the Fourth or George the Fifth as the Eternal Charioteer leading the pilgrims on their journey through countless ages of the timeless history of mankind." ''(Purvasa, Phalgun, 1354, p. 738.)''
</blockquote>

These clarifications by Tagore regarding the controversy occurred only after the death of [[George V|King George V]] in 1936. Earlier, in 1915, after Tagore was awarded the [[Nobel Prize in Literature|Nobel Literature Prize]], George V had conferred a [[knight]]hood on him, which he renounced in 1919 in protest over the [[Jallianwala Bagh massacre]]; writing a letter addressed to the [[Governor-General of India|viceroy of India]] [[Frederic Thesiger, 1st Viscount Chelmsford|Lord Chelmsford]]: "The time has come when badges of honour make our shame glaring in their incongruous context of humiliation, and I for my part wish to stand, shorn of all special distinctions, by the side of my country men."<ref>{{cite web |url=http://dart.columbia.edu/library/tagore-letter/letter.html |title=Letter from Rabindranath Tagore to Lord Chelmsford, Viceroy of India |publisher=Digital Anthropology Resources for Teaching, Columbia University and the London School of Economics |access-date=25 September 2021 |archive-date=25 August 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190825105408/http://dart.columbia.edu/library/tagore-letter/letter.html |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite news | url=https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Tagore-renounced-his-Knighthood-in-protest-for-Jalianwalla-Bagh-mass-killing/articleshow/7967616.cms | title=Tagore renounced his Knighthood in protest for Jalianwalla Bagh mass killing | newspaper=The Times of India | publisher=The Times of India, 13 April 2011 | access-date=25 September 2021 | archive-date=10 September 2021 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210910060559/https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Tagore-renounced-his-Knighthood-in-protest-for-Jalianwalla-Bagh-mass-killing/articleshow/7967616.cms | url-status=live }}</ref>

===Singing===

In [[Kerala]], students belonging to the [[Jehovah's Witnesses]] religious denomination were expelled by school authorities for their refusal to sing the national anthem on religious grounds, although they stood up when the anthem was sung.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Bijoe Emmanuel & Ors vs State Of Kerala & Ors on 11 August, 1986 |website= Indian Kanoon |url=https://indiankanoon.org/docfragment/1508089/?formInput=national%20anthem%20case |access-date=4 September 2017 |archive-date= 15 August 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180815024350/https://indiankanoon.org/docfragment/1508089/?formInput=national%20anthem%20case |url-status=live }}</ref> The [[Kerala High Court]] concluded that there was nothing in it which could offend anyone's religious susceptibilities, and upheld their expulsion. On 11 August 1986,<ref>{{cite news |title=India Supreme Court's Landmark Judgment—Pillar of Free Speech |url=https://www.jw.org/en/news/legal/by-region/india/supreme-court-national-anthem-free-speech/ |access-date=22 September 2021 | publisher =JW |archive-date=5 March 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210305150912/https://www.jw.org/en/news/legal/by-region/india/supreme-court-national-anthem-free-speech/ |url-status=live }}</ref> the [[Supreme Court of India|Supreme Court]] reversed the High Court and ruled that the High Court had misdirected itself because the question is not whether a particular religious belief or practice appeals to our reason or sentiment but whether the belief is genuinely and conscientiously held as part of the profession or practice of religion. "Our personal views and reactions are irrelevant." The Supreme Court affirmed the principle that it is not for a secular judge to sit in judgment on the correctness of a religious belief.<ref name="jehovah_national_anthem">{{cite news|title=To sing or not to sing Vande Mataram|url=http://www.indianexpress.com/news/to-sing-or-not-to-sing-vande-mataram--------/11912/ |newspaper= Indian Express|access-date=16 December 2013|archive-date=6 October 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211006100150/https://indianexpress.com/article/news-archive/to-sing-or-not-to-sing-vande-mataram/|url-status=live}}</ref>

The Supreme Court observed in its ruling that:<ref>{{cite web|title=Bijoe Emmanuel & Ors V. State of Kerala & Ors [1986] INSC 167|publisher= Indian kanoon |date= 11 August 1986|url=http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/1508089/|access-date=16 December 2013|archive-date=16 December 2013|archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20131216182501/http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/1508089/|url-status=live}}</ref>
{{blockquote| There is no provision of law which obliges anyone to sing the National Anthem nor is it disrespectful to the National Anthem if a person who stands up respectfully when the National Anthem is sung does not join the singing. Proper respect is shown to the National Anthem by standing up when the National Anthem is sung. It will not be right to say that disrespect is shown by not joining in the singing. Standing up respectfully when the National Anthem is sung but not singing oneself clearly does not either prevent the singing of the National Anthem or cause disturbance to an assembly engaged in such singing so as to constitute the offence mentioned in s. 3 of the [[Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act]].}}

In some states, the anthem must be played before films are played at cinemas. On 30 November 2016, to instil "committed patriotism and nationalism", the Supreme Court ordered that all cinemas nationwide must play the national anthem, accompanied by an image of the flag of India, before all films. Patrons were expected to stand in respect of the anthem, and doors to a cinema hall were expected to be locked during the anthem to minimise disruption.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-news-india/national-anthem-national-flag-supreme-court-theater-4402827/ |title= National Anthem must be played before movies in theaters, rules Supreme Court|date=1 December 2016|website=The Indian Express|language=en-IN|access-date=19 February 2019|archive-date=2 March 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190302023337/https://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-news-india/national-anthem-national-flag-supreme-court-theater-4402827/|url-status=live}}</ref> The order was controversial, as it was argued that patrons who chose not to participate would be targeted and singled out, as was the case in an incident publicised in 2015 which purported to show a group of patrons (alleged by the [[YouTube]] uploader to be Muslims) being heckled by others. On 10 February 2017, two Kashmiris (which included an employee of the state government) were arrested under the [[Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971|Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act]] for not standing during the anthem at a cinema, in the first such arrest of its kind made by a state government. On 3 July 2023, an executive magistrate in Srinagar sent 11 men to jail for a week, allegedly not rising for the anthem at a 25 June event in the presence of J&K Lt Governor [[Manoj Sinha]].<ref>{{Cite web |date=7 July 2023 |title=In J&K, 11 sent to jail after they did not rise for anthem at police event |url=https://indianexpress.com/article/india/in-jk-11-sent-to-jail-after-they-did-not-rise-for-anthem-at-police-event-8800577/ |access-date=9 July 2023 |website=The Indian Express |language=en |archive-date=15 June 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240615123314/https://indianexpress.com/article/india/in-jk-11-sent-to-jail-after-they-did-not-rise-for-anthem-at-police-event-8800577/ |url-status=live }}</ref> Other incidents of violent outbreaks associated with the policy were also reported.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://indianexpress.com/article/india/jk-in-a-first-state-govt-employee-among-two-arrested-for-not-standing-during-national-anthem/|title=J&K: In a first, state govt employee amongst two arrested for not standing during national anthem|date=11 February 2017|website=The Indian Express|language=en-IN|access-date=19 February 2019|archive-date=20 February 2019|archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20190220122631/https://indianexpress.com/article/india/jk-in-a-first-state-govt-employee-among-two-arrested-for-not-standing-during-national-anthem/|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-42618830|title=India anthem not mandatory in cinemas |work=BBC News|date=9 January 2018|access-date=19 February 2019|language=en-GB|archive-date=4 June 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180604013652/http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-42618830|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-34961285|title=Patriotism debate over national anthem|date=30 November 2015|work=BBC News|access-date=19 February 2019|language=en-GB|archive-date=20 February 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190220144139/https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-34961285|url-status=live}}</ref>

A cinema club in Kerala (whose film festival was required to comply with the order, leading to several arrests) challenged the order as an infringement of their fundamental rights, arguing that cinemas were "singularly unsuited for the gravitas and sobriety that must accompany the playing of the national anthem", and that the films screened would often "be at odds with sentiments of national respect".<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-41731378 |title=Film fans challenge India's anthem order|last=Biswas|first=Soutik|website=BBC News|date=25 October 2017|access-date=19 February 2019 |language= en-GB|archive-date=20 February 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190220072954/https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-41731378|url-status= live}}</ref> In October 2017, Justice [[Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud]] questioned the intent of the order, arguing that citizens "don't have to wear patriotism on our sleeve", and that it should not be assumed that people who do not stand for the anthem were any less patriotic than those who did. In January 2018, the order was lifted, pending further government discussion.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/playing-of-national-anthem-in-cinema-halls-not-mandatory-supreme-court/articleshow/62427100.cms|title=Playing of national anthem in cinema halls not mandatory: Supreme Court |website= The Times of India|date=9 January 2018 |access-date=19 February 2019|archive-date=20 February 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190220065941/https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/playing-of-national-anthem-in-cinema-halls-not-mandatory-supreme-court/articleshow/62427100.cms|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-42618830|title=India anthem not mandatory in cinemas|date=9 January 2018|access-date=19 February 2019|language=en-GB|archive-date=4 June 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180604013652/http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-42618830 |url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|title=India anthem not mandatory in cinemas|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-42618830|access-date= 10 January 2018|work=BBC News|date=2018|archive-date=10 January 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180110002645/http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-42618830|url-status=live}}</ref>

In October 2019, a video of a Bengaluru couple being bullied for not standing up during the national anthem in a movie hall went viral. They were questioned "Are you Pakistani?". There was a debate on the issue; some lawyers recalled Article 21, some people called it a way to gain media attention and some recommended attending the movie after the national anthem is played to avoid any problems. But after the debate, the Supreme Court reversed its earlier order making it mandatory for cinema halls to play the National Anthem.<ref>{{Cite news |date=2018-01-09 |title=India national anthem no longer compulsory in cinemas |url=https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-42618830 |access-date=2024-12-25 |language=en-GB}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.nationalheraldindia.com/india/row-over-youth-castigated-for-not-standing-up-during-national-anthem-in-cinema-hall |title=Row over youth castigated for not standing up during national anthem in cinema hall |date=28 October 2019 |work=National Herald |access-date=5 February 2020|archive-date=13 December 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191213083244/https://www.nationalheraldindia.com/india/row-over-youth-castigated-for-not-standing-up-during-national-anthem-in-cinema-hall|url-status=live}}</ref>

===Regional aspects===

Another controversy is that only those provinces that were under direct British rule, i.e. [[Punjab Province, British India|Punjab]], [[Sind Province (1936–55)|Sindh]], [[Gujarat]], [[Maharashtra|Maratha]], [[Dravidian peoples|Dravida]] ([[South India]]), [[Utkal]] ([[Odisha]]) and [[Bengal]], were mentioned. None of the [[princely state]]s – [[Jammu and Kashmir (princely state)|Jammu and Kashmir]], [[Rajputana]], [[Hyderabad State|Hyderabad]], [[Kingdom of Mysore|Mysore]] or the states in [[Northeast India]], which are now parts of India, were mentioned. However, opponents of this proposition claim that Tagore mentioned only the border states of India to include complete India. Whether the princely states would form a part of an independent Indian republic was a matter of debate even until [[Indian Independence Act 1947|Indian independence]].

In 2005, there were calls to delete the word "Sind"{{efn|From the [[Sanskrit]] term ''Sindhu''. Historical romanisation of ''Sindh'', referring to the [[Sind Province (1936–1955)|Sind province of British India]].}} and substitute it with the word [[Kashmir]]. The argument was that [[Sindh]] was no longer a part of India, having become part of [[Pakistan]] as a result of the [[Partition of India|Partition of 1947]]. Opponents of this proposal hold that the word "Sind" refers to the [[Indus River]]{{efn|Indus (Sindhu), flows through [[Ladakh]] in [[Northern India]].}} and Sindhi culture and that [[Sindhis in India|Sindhi people]] are a part of India's cultural fabric. The [[Supreme Court of India]] declined to change the national anthem and the wording remains unchanged.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Shan |first1=Kohli |title=Parody of National Anthem: Ram Gopal Varma Ki Nayi Aag |journal=NUJS Law Review |date=2010 |volume=3 |issue=2 |url=http://docs.manupatra.in/newsline/articles/Upload/1EF6EB81-7987-4AAC-9F51-D3C0F478A938.pdf |access-date=4 February 2024 |archive-date=15 June 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240615123315/http://docs.manupatra.in/newsline/articles/Upload/1EF6EB81-7987-4AAC-9F51-D3C0F478A938.pdf |url-status=live }}</ref>

On 17 December 2013, MLA of [[Assam]], Phani Bhushan Choudhury cited an article in ''[[The Times of India]]'' published on 26 January 1950, stating that originally the word "Kamarup" was included in the song, but was later changed to "Sindhu" and claimed that Kamarup should be re-included.<ref name=at1712>{{Cite web|url=http://www.assamtribune.com/scripts/detailsnew.asp?id=dec1813/at096|title=''State to seek newspaper clarification on report''. Staff Reporter. Assam Tribune, 17-12-2013|access-date=6 October 2021|archive-date=15 August 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160815151833/http://www.assamtribune.com/scripts/detailsnew.asp?id=dec1813%2Fat096|url-status=live}}</ref> To this, the then minister Rockybul Hussain replied that the state government would initiate steps in this regard after a response from the newspaper.<ref name=at1712/> The debate was further joined by the then minister Ardhendu Dey, mentioning "Sanchayita" (edited by Tagore himself) etc. where he said Kamarup was not mentioned.<ref name=at1712/>

In 2017 the state government of [[Jharkhand]] under the [[Bharatiya Janata Party]] proposed making the singing of the national anthem compulsory in [[Madrasa]]s. This was met with opposition from a section of Muslim clerics because it violated the basic principles of the Islamic centres of learning.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/muslim-clerics-in-jharkhand-oppose-govt-move-on-national-anthem-in-madrasas/story-knfaLrHmoYDAucVu3LMisM.html|title=Muslim clerics in Jharkhand oppose govt move on national anthem in madrasas|date=10 November 2017|website=Hindustan Times|language=en|access-date=11 May 2019|archive-date=11 May 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190511195218/https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/muslim-clerics-in-jharkhand-oppose-govt-move-on-national-anthem-in-madrasas/story-knfaLrHmoYDAucVu3LMisM.html|url-status=live}}</ref>