Beyond the Hymn: The Unlikely Journey and Unresolved Irony of India’s National Anthem

The Path to Becoming Anthem: Neither Nehru nor Tagore initially considered “Jana Gana Mana” as India’s future anthem during their final meeting; Nehru requested a new song, which Tagore partly agreed to compose. Tagore’s silence on his existing hymn likely stemmed from his profound late-life critique of nationalism, viewing the song instead as a devotional piece (“Brahmo Sangeet”) praising the divine “Bharata Bhagya Vidhata,” not a nationalist banner.

Its adoption post-Independence was heavily influenced by Subhas Chandra Bose’s prior use for the INA, not the original leaders’ vision. Profound irony marked its selection: celebrating unity just after Partition shattered it (rendering “Sindh” obsolete within India) and invoking a compassionate divine amidst horrific violence.

Tagore likely would have disapproved of repurposing his spiritual hymn into a national symbol, especially truncated for protocol. Despite “Vande Mataram’s” strong nationalist legacy, “Jana Gana Mana’s” pan-Indian imagery prevailed. Its enduring power lies not in flawless origins, but in its aspirational vision – a vision demanding citizens actively bridge its lofty ideals of unity and destiny with the complex realities of the nation.

Beyond the Hymn: The Unlikely Journey and Unresolved Irony of India’s National Anthem  

The strains of “Jana Gana Mana” evoke instant reverence and unity. Yet, the story of how this specific song by Rabindranath Tagore became India’s national anthem is steeped in historical accident, profound irony, and questions about the poet’s own potential disapproval. Rudrangshu Mukherjee’s research reveals a narrative far more complex than simple patriotic adoption. 

An Anthem Not Initially Envisioned: 

Contrary to popular belief, “Jana Gana Mana” was not the first choice envisioned by either Jawaharlal Nehru or Rabindranath Tagore. Mukherjee highlights a crucial, often overlooked meeting: shortly before Tagore’s death in 1941, Nehru explicitly requested the poet to compose a new national anthem for the soon-to-be-independent India. Tagore partially agreed. Crucially, neither man mentioned the existing “Jana Gana Mana” as a candidate. Nehru later confirmed he wasn’t thinking of it; Tagore didn’t suggest it. At this pivotal moment, the song that would become synonymous with independent India wasn’t their preferred option. 

Why Tagore’s Silence? The Nationalism Conundrum: 

This silence begs the question: Why didn’t Tagore propose his own composition? Mukherjee posits a compelling reason rooted in the poet’s evolving philosophy. By the 1940s, Tagore had become a vocal critic of aggressive nationalism, viewing it as restrictive, divisive, and corrosive. He championed a universal humanism instead.

“Jana Gana Mana,” however, was fundamentally different. Composed much earlier (1911) and published as “Brahmo Sangeet” (a devotional song), it is not primarily a nationalist anthem, but a hymn to the divine – the “Bharata Bhagya Vidhata” (Dispenser of India’s Destiny). The stirring “Jaya He” is an invocation to this divine entity. Tagore, wrestling with the dangers of nationalism late in life, likely did not see this spiritually-focused hymn as the appropriate banner for a modern nation-state. 

Bose’s Legacy and Post-Independence Adoption: 

So how did it become the anthem? The key influence, Mukherjee suggests, was Subhas Chandra Bose. In the early 1940s, Bose had adopted “Jana Gana Mana” (as “Subh Sukh Chain”) for the Indian National Army (INA). After Independence, with Tagore gone, this precedent, coupled with the song’s undeniable majesty and unifying imagery of India’s geography and people, likely swayed the decision in its favour. 

The Sting of Irony: Anthem Amidst Fragmentation: 

The timing of its formal adoption layered on profound irony: 

• Partition’s Shadow: The anthem, celebrating India’s unity (“Sindhu, Gujarat, Maratha…”), was adopted after Partition had violently shattered that unity. Sindh was no longer part of India. 

• Divine Witness to Carnage: The anthem portrays the “Bharata Bhagya Vidhata” as a “tender and compassionate mother” (Dayara Dheer). Yet, the horrific violence of Partition – rape, murder, plunder – unfolded on an unprecedented scale precisely during the anthem’s adoption period, a stark, brutal contradiction to this divine benevolence. 

• Destiny vs. Agency: The song embeds the idea of India’s destiny being divinely controlled. This sits uneasily beside the human-made catastrophe of Partition and the Constitution’s opening assertion of “We the people of India…”. Did the divine will Partition? The dissonance is jarring, especially for its victims. 

“Vande Mataram” and the Final Choice: 

While “Vande Mataram” was the passionate battle cry of the freedom struggle and preferred by some leaders (including West Bengal’s Premier in 1948), “Jana Gana Mana” ultimately prevailed. Mukherjee notes its pan-Indian geographical scope likely gave it an edge over the Bengal-centric “Vande Mataram” (though officially granted equal status). The baseless canard about it being written for King George V was decisively dismissed. 

A Legacy of Contradiction and Aspiration: 

The selection of “Jana Gana Mana” is thus a story of historical contingency (Bose’s choice), rather than initial intent (Nehru and Tagore’s). Its adoption occurred amidst events that directly contradicted its core themes of divine-ordained unity and benevolence. Tagore, the critic of nationalism, likely would have been deeply ambivalent about his devotional hymn being repurposed as a national symbol, trimmed for protocol (only the first stanza, 52 seconds), and echoing over a land scarred by division. 

The Enduring Power and Responsibility: 

Despite these unresolved tensions and ironies, “Jana Gana Mana” endures. Its power lies not in flawless origins or unblemished context, but in its soaring melody and its aspirational vision of a diverse, unified India guided by a higher ideal. Mukherjee concludes with a vital insight: when citizens stand for the anthem, it’s not merely ritual.

It carries the profound responsibility to actively fulfill the promise embedded within it – to bridge the gap between the aspirational “Bharata Bhagya Vidhata” and the concrete resolve of “We the people,” striving to heal the divisions of history and build a nation worthy of the anthem’s lofty, albeit complex, vision. The anthem’s true meaning, therefore, is continually forged not just in its past, but in the present actions of the nation it represents.