Indian National Anthem, Indian Emblem....

The Government has mandated that, we sing "National Anthem" in cinemas and now in hostels etc. The idea of inculcating "Nationalism" among Indians is a welcome move. But we have a major problem in "National Anthem" itself.
(Officially position of government is stated here https://www.india.gov.in/india-glance/national-symbols)




How many of you know, our national anthem is not written praising "our country", but praising "British Monarchy"? Yes it is 100% true from historical records. We the citizens of India and Armed forces of India are continuing to salute and pray for the well being of British Monarchy (like faithful slaves), instead of praying for our country and our people. If we sing this more often, what happens? Our thoughts and mind rest in slavery to the British Imperialism.
Rabindranath Tagore himself has accepted that, he was "coerced" to write this in praise of King George V, the emperor, who came to do "Delhi Darbar" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delhi_Durbar) for the first time in India. The poet, Rabindranath accepts "in writing that", he has composed the song in "anguish". Why should we have such a song written under "duress" and in "anguish" as our "National Anthem"?
Read about the proof on this, published in TOI at
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/bengaluru/Was-Jana-Gana-Mana-in-praise-of-George-V/articleshow/32609087.cms

Janagana mana had 5 stanzas. You can check them at

https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/the-forgotten-stanzas-of-jana-gana-mana-464590


One of the stanza says
Your call is announced continuously, we heed your gracious call
The Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs, Jains, Parsis, Muslims and Christians,
The east and the west come, to your throne
And weave the garland of love.
It means, we (all Indians) follow the "Orders" thrown at us, from the "British Throne". Isn't it insulting in "Independent India"? (So these stanzas are actually dropped).



(http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/open-page/tagore-and-that-song/article7342972.ece)

"However, the national leadership stood firm. By end-October 1937, the Congress Working Committee, which included Nehru, Bose, Vallabhbhai Patel and Abul Kalam Azad, declared that “…[the first two stanzas] described in tender language the beauty of motherland… absolutely nothing in them to which objection could be from the religious or any other point of view…” However, they stated that “[the other stanzas] contain certain allusions and a religious ideology which may not be in keeping with the ideology of other religious groups in India. The Committee recognizes the validity of the objection raised by Muslim friends to certain parts of the song… Taking all things into consideration therefore, the Committee recommend that wherever the BM is sung at national gatherings only the first two stanzas should be sung with perfect freedom to the organizers to sing any other song of an unobjectionable character…”

If this was decided and resolved before independence (in 1937) about "BM - Bande Mataram" as a national anthem, then why change it in 1950 without any specific reason? Note, Abdul Kalam Azad, a tall muslim leader of congress has represented Muslim community and accepted the resolution. Objection came only from Jinnah (as pretext to divide nation on religious lines). As Jinnah, moved out with Pakistan partition, there was no more objcection in 1950. Final decission even in 1950 was, Bande mataram should enjoy equal status as that of janaganamana". Why all these confusion?

The intellectuals write anything and twist and turn history using words. But look at it yourself. The song is about nation (theme is nation). Tagore himself says, religion should not be brought for a national song (while commenting for BM, so he was aware of the kind of rules). Then, why he brings "God" in his own song ( Adhinayaka and Bhagyavidhata ). How can this contrast exist? When nation is being praised as supreme, why bring god here? The sequence with which the song was written was acknowledged by Tagore that, he was "requested" to write a song for visiting  royals (this is not disputed by any). No where, Tagore says, he refused to do so (which means, he did write fulfilling the request). When a high ranking official "request" (that is actually an order) for an important event, can Tagore write a song for god instead of royals and escape (he would have been charged with sedition, if he had done any of them)? India always respected visitors (athiti devo bhava). So, writing a song welcoming the royals as visitors was not objectionable to the poet (or to anyone). Also, if it was just a welcome song, it would not have caused "stir for the poet". The issue was, he was ordered to write a felicitation song (meaning, praising British king by equating him as god). Only this kind of sermons could create "stir within the poet". So, all intellectual explanation (saying Adhinayaka/Bagyavidhata refer to god) is just farce and came in defense from congress camp.




http://epaperbeta.timesofindia.com/Article.aspx?eid=31812&articlexml=No-takers-for-Hindi-version-of-Jana-Gana-23092015002048#

Look at how Indians are fooled. It says, colonial authorities "propagated" that Tagore composed the song for King George 5. Why would Britishers do propaganda like that, under their own rule? Instead they could have easily coerced tagore to write and accept it like that. This proves, british sources also confirm song was written for King George V. This statement/argument of propaganda is just coming, post independence (from congress). Infact Britishers wanted to announce, Full Indian subjugation and quell all secessionist movement (that was the. O intention of song. So, all parts of India, assets of India like rivers of India are mentioned in the song and they collectively offer their subjugation before "Vidhata". One thing is clear, Either it was a fact or the accusation came from colonial powers and not from Hindu or Indian nationalists (as congress would blame today). If this controversy was there before independence, then why choose it? Why not write a fresh song and adopt with no controversies?


The "official report" of the 26th Session of the Congress, accepts, song of welcome to Their Imperial Majesties composed for the occasion was sung by the choir. Note the record refers "Janaganamana" as "patriotic song". Patriotic song under British rule can only be praising the "British Empire" and not a secessionist Indian state. In 1911, congress was probably looking for autonomy and not independence (as British rule was strongest, with every Indian king submitting himself at the British coronation in Delhi Darbar). The situation changed quickly due to WW1 and WW2. The ambition of "autonomy" became "Independence". If you read about Tilak, it is clear what was happening at that time in congress. [Tilak joined the Indian National Congress in 1890. He opposed its moderate attitude, especially towards the fight for self-government. He was one of the most-eminent radicals at the time. In fact, it was the Swadeshi movement of 1905-1907 that resulted in the split within the Indian National Congress into the Moderates and the Extremists]. During his lifetime among other political cases, Bal Gangadhar Tilak had been tried for Sedition Charges in three times by British India Government—in 1897,1909 and 1916. Note sedition for Tilak for demanding "Swarajya" in 1916. Tagore would have faced the same charge in 1911, if the song was composed for Independent India. The "Bhagyavidhata", a "male gender word" reveals that, it is the king and not India  that was praised. India is a "Motherland" and we can't refer it using male gender words. But, We still sing as "Bhagyavidhata". So our national anthem is not about our country at all.

[Tilak re-united with his fellow nationalists and re-joined the Indian National Congress in 1916. He also helped find the All India Home Rule League in 1916–18, with G. S. Khaparde and Annie Besant. After years of trying to reunite the moderate and radical factions, he gave up and focused on the Home Rule League, which sought self-rule]. This proves congress was not fighting for independence as of 1916 also. So, why would they compose and sing a "patriotic song for Independent India in 1911"? What more proof is required than this?


George V's coronation was unique, as he was the first (and only) English royal to get coronation in person in India (with whole of India bowing before him) like that of "Shahajahan". Mughal court was the "bench mark" for westerners, as the mughal richness was the main attraction that brought Europeans to the Indian shores (You can still see the rich model of Aurangazeb's court made using precious Gems that was shown across Europe at that time in "Dresden palace". You will be stunned to see the rich model).





Issue is simple. why did constituent assembly adopted this song in hurry? Was it difficult to get a song written for the new nation? Why select the one, that was already known to have been written to welcome and praise British royalty?


India was duped while selecting emblem also.




The emblem looks great for artistic angle. But was it right to choose it as the emblem for India? The four lions of Ashoka, is a symbol of Imperialism. It represents "Brutal Ashoka" before his charity started (Ashoka was referred like that in contemporary History. The Great Ashoka is coined later by Britishers). The Four lions indicate "Imperialism" in all directions. We fought against "Imperialism" for freedom. What does the imperialistic symbol communicate, an aim to become one? Idea of India is definitely not imperialism. Idea of India is for "Peace, Humanity & Tranquility". The country believed in "Sarve jano sukhino Bhavanthu", peace and tranquility for all. The emblem should communicate this idea of the country. In what way, does 4 lions represent India?

Natural choice for India for emblem should depict "Dharma Chakra, the wheel" as the main item. The wheel symbolizes "peace & justice". Probably, the full emblem of ashoka (four lions with Dharma Chakra)should have been the emblem.





  
(Ashokan Wheel)




Hindu Wheel or kalachakra. Wheel also has an apparent meaning with sun & moon. It normally indicates "Dharma/rule of law" during cycle of day and night and the cycle of birth and death.


Vishnu, imparting Dharma to humans by coronating a king with his chakra (A statue from present day pakistan). Also observe the wheel in the crown of vishnu.




The circle behind the crown worn by gods and kings indicate "rule of law" or "protector of Dharma" for one and all.





A Budhist Wheel, Dharmachakra or Wheel of life



(Wheels of many religions)

This was not selected, as Britishers wanted to keep their shadow foot print, even after leaving India. East India company had 3 lions.  Note, The emblem of British monarchy is a lion (in their coat of arms). "4 lions" for India means, shadow power with 4 times effect.

   
(UK, symbolized with a lion and union jack).




(British Royal Lion in their logo).


(Royal coat of arms of England. See how 3 lions are subjugated under the big daddy).



(Royal Badge for Wales. 4 lions subjugated under the crown).

This is what Britishers meant. 4 Indian lions following big daddy!


(British Indian Flag with star of India. Even "British India" chose a wheel for India in its logo).



You know, what we use for Indian cricket. The same "British Indian Logo, star of India".


And see the emblem of English cricket team (3 lions).



In-fact, above the 4 lions, even Ashoka incorporated the "Dharma Chakra", Indicating Peace & Justice for all under his imperial banner. The 4 lions, still Indicate "Imperialism" even with the Dharma Chakra. Skillfully the chariot wheel is interpreted as dharma chakra in indian logo. But, the 4 lions on top of dharma chakra could mean, rulers are exempted from judicial scrutiny and above law (like the one in dictatorships). We do not want such a system in India.





The real emblem had a big wheel on top of 4 lions, indicating supremacy of law (Dharma), irrespective of creed. This is not, what we adopted. Why did the rulers missed the top most wheel?



Infact, supreme court  of India, has adopted the right logo, as they understand "supremacy of Law".

British logo indicates, British crown is supreme. It controls imperialism (lions). Ashokan emblem in full indicates, "Dharma or Rule of Law" is supreme. "Dharma controls Imperialism or power". In India we, chose just 4 lions with nothing above it for government, Indicating Imperialism (or power) is supreme, as far as government is concerned.  

Lion as an animal, that is not common in all parts of India. Tiger or Elephant used to be royal symbols in India, as they were common through out . Many Indians used, mythological animal called sharabha (combination of elephant and lion). Tiger or Lion can not be used in a war, but elephants are a formidable force. So, for Many royal houses, Elephant was the royal symbol. As Indian Ivory was a precious commodity, Elephant is equated with India. If Government of India wanted to use an animal in its emblem, Elephant was a natural choice. Elephant represents strength and not imperialism. But intentionally 4 lions were selected.



After WW2 nuclear event, world looked for "peace symbol". They also came to a wheel finally (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_symbols)

  

Finally, Some one sensible, insisted the use of "Chakra" (also from Ashoka) and changed gandhi wheel to ashokan wheel as part of national flag.

 

Today all Government orders goes under the symbol of 4 lions (which symbolizes "stamp of shadow" power). We see the 4 lions every now and then. But we rarely think about it. We are just ignorants.


In fact, the issue doesn't end just at "National Anthem/Emblem". There is more history hidden behind it.

King George V, in whose memory Janagana mana was composed is the crucial person, under whom, the "controlling power" of India shifted out of the British government. He had 2 cousins, one was emperor of Germany and another was emperor of Russia.





Britain was at its top most power position, as a family was controlling 3 of the powerful nations at that time. Britain crown kept the tight grip and influence on whole world.

However due to "Leftist ideology", Both Russian emperor and German emperor were toppled. Germany came under influence of Hitler and Russia under Stalin. Hitler was brutal regarding monarchs. He eliminated all people under the old regime and cleaned up the administration, so imperialism dose not influence his plans and execution . Russia however was bureaucratic. Only royals were eliminated. Influential people in the administration chain, just switched their loyalty from emperor to Marxist party (Like Indian business men) and retained their positions. Germany wanted to capture Russia or Britain, so that they will be the true "super power". British Royals, out of fear made secret pact with Russia to save themselves. It was two way agreement. Britain to help Russia, if Germany attacks Russia or the other way round. Attacking Russia was risky for Hitler, as supply lines were far from the German factories. Hitler made plans to attack Russia during one of the winters (when snow gives cover and gives an element of surprise). After fall of France, Britain become easy target, as it was easy to attack Britain from French coast. Britain suffered heavily due to German bombing. It cried for help from both USA and Russia. USA was reluctant, as they kicked out Britain from their civil war earlier and were still in disagreement with Britain over transatlantic trading pacts. More over, they did not want to get themselves entangled in an European power struggle. France was of major concern to USA than Britain/Germany (that is why we see statue of Liberty in NY), as French had established considerable influence in Europe, Africa and Asia. Out of options, British royals were ready for any pact with Russians, in exchange for protection now. Stalin saw an opportunity. British offer was too tempting. Russia was drawn in to war, as they started supplying war material to Britain secretly. This was breach of contract between Russia and Germany (as Russia was bound to supply only to Germany and not to its adversaries during war). This breach of contract, angered Hitler. He thought, if supply lines support Britain, from Russia, he will not be able to take Britain for long time. So, He decided to punish Russia. So, while still at war with Britain, Hitler decided to attack Russia (This was too much as he took on two powers together). When, Hitler attacked Russia in winter, Russians were also ready (as they were also preparing to invade Germany in support of Britain. Element of surprise, that was key to win this battle was lost). Russia was rich with resources and Hitler could not provide the needed resources during winter for the elongated war. USA joined the war due to Japan and it strengthened allies. Hitler lost the war, when Russians entered the capital Munich. Of the 3 powerful cousin emperors, only British throne survived the war. This was summary of WW2.

After war, Britain lost its power completely. It was in ruins. Royals became puppets in the hands of Russians. Although Britain joined NATO, Royals were suspected to be under the protection of Russians. This was the only way, they could hold on to their royalty. To avoid power struggle, royals were sidelined and told to manage India and not interfere in British state affairs. This way, British Royals became agents of India and India indirectly came under Soviet control. By this time, In India, masses were fed up of puppet royalty and foreign rule. A weak Britain means an opportunity to revolt and end result was fragmentation of India again (many kingdoms were contemplating to declare independence from British India). The British royals were under threat of loosing India too and loose their relevance. They had no way but exit India, to keep India united under democracy. They planned to do it by installing a central puppet government. The only business of royals, since then was suspected to route Indian wealth to "Left center of power". So, when we sing our national anthem, we indirectly begging the foreign power for our destiny, who is still tormenting us. This should explain, why Nehru opted out of offered UN seat, disappearance of Subhas chandra bose, sidelined all freedom fighters etc. Probably, Shastri tried to free India from the clutches of foreign power. His efforts were countered by thrusting an Indo-Pak war and eventually eliminating him in secrecy.

The fight between these two super powers (right vs left) are still being played. Ready grounds are Korea, middle east, Eastern Europe, Afghanistan, India, South China sea and Germany. These are the conflict points. Recently we see reverses at some places for "right center of power located in west" (like North Korea, Middle east, jasmine revolution toppling dictators etc). To compensate, they are forcing changes in Afghanistan, India etc. India still not fully free to implement a " successful Made In India/Make In India program and cut its import bill (that is how wealth is taken out of India). Indian justice system & media are too complicated and keeps the public busy, while laws are tweaked to favor right or left foreign power (in the name of investments). Indians continue to suffer, while the benefits are en-cashed by outsiders in the name of stability/democracy/peace/threat of conflict/ threat of fragmentation of India etc (by escalating right vs left conflict in India). May be the cost we are paying for the peace is too much loaded.

The point is simple. Now a "Nationalist" government is in Power. They claim, National interest is above everything else. If they do "walk the talk", the first thing they would have done is
a) Replace the slave song with our own national song (an acceptable one to all Indians and written exclusively for this purpose) that is appropriate. The party in power has talked about it at various occasions in the past, but while in power they are silent on the issue. We have so many contenders for national anthem and there are many talented writers to write an improved one, if required. No pucity of talent in India.
b) Stop showing military honors at WW1 memorial (India Gate), which was basically constructed for British soldiers and insult our forces. Instead, construct a grand military memorial in respect of our fallen Indian soldiers and people in various battles, including against British (this is the reason, why it is blocked till now, as it offends the British and they do not want this).
These two should have been a more priority items than constructing temple for Rama or Statue of Shivaji or Statue of Patel. They may be important, but priority for nationalist party should have been to fulfill nationalist interest first. The government can't take decision in this regard, probably indicates, India is probably not "as independent and free" as we think. What do you think?