Wishing our readers a very Happy Independence Day in advance! May this year bring love, luck, and lights into your life … get you the “freedom” in every beautiful sense of the word! Today, I bring to you a little gem from the archives. Yes … it’s a story of copyright, authorial control, and national unity, all wrapped around the Indian national anthem, Jana Gana Mana. And really … What better day to unspool this spiel than the 79th year of Indian Independence Day?
Now, onto the tale…
(*All the sources relied on are referenced at the end of the post.*)
Why, one might ask, has Jana Gana Mana—Rabindranath Tagore’s cartographic hymn to the land, penned in 1911—remained untouched through nearly eight decades of independence? After all, the political and geographical reality of India has changed since then, with regions merged, emerged, or ceased to be part of Indian territory altogether.
Yet, the anthem stayed as it was. Over the years, people have made various calls, such as dropping “Sindh”, replacing “Adhinayak”, or even changing the phrase “Jana Gana Mana”. Indian courts, too, touched on the questions, and there also existed once a National Anthem (Modification) Bill, 2018. Across these discussions, one thing is common: the anthem should reflect the India of today, not the India of a century ago. (see also here).
But it’s not just a political issue, it’s a legal issue too. The national anthem was once an original work protected by copyright, with a flesh-and-blood author. And that author, Tagore, carried moral rights that outlive copyright itself. And this might have implications for whether the anthem can be altered.
Well … I hadn’t thought much about it until I fortuitously found two files (with overlapping information) at the National Archives detailing the transfer of copyright in the national anthem to the Government of India. As it turned out … this was no smooth transfer.
Post-Independence Push for Popularity and Uniformity
The story, in the files, begins with a letter dated 11 August 1950, apparently written by a person named Sd Azad from the Ministry of Home Affairs, underscoring the importance of a national identity for the newly independent country while comparing it with other nations. And there began the concern to standardise its rendition across schools and educational institutions, to familiarise students with it, popularise it among them, and, more importantly, to ensure they learnt to sing it to its proper tune.
There were apparently some internal surveys as well (details of which are not given), which revealed that there were over a dozen versions in circulation, with different tunes being sung in different places and various recordings available in the market. And this was not at all ideal for a newly minted symbol of unity, i.e., national anthem.
A standard rendition, therefore, became urgent. But herein lay a hiccup: to establish such a uniform version, the government needed a gramophone record that was both musically consistent and widely acceptable to the Indian public. So, the need arose to permit gramophone companies to prepare recordings of the anthem for public sale and use. But one cannot do that without the author’s permission.
Although the archival files don’t clarify how and when exactly, they suggest that All India Radio owned the authorised tune and melody recording of Jana Gana Mana, which could be provided to the government. However, there was no authorised gramophone record of the song with the government. This means that the Indian government, which had just anointed Jana Gana Mana as its national anthem, could neither circulate nor commercially reproduce it at will. As explained below, the complexity of the rights and potential right-holders over Jana Gana Mana deserves a separate story altogether.
The upshot, however, is that this issue could have had significant consequences. Without such a gramophone record, the anthem could not legally be widely disseminated nor popularised with the same rendition. The only gramophone record remotely close to the official tune was H.M.V. No. 27829, based, as the documents state, on the Visva-Bharati rendition. For context, Visva Bharti was an international university established by Rabindranath Tagore in 1921, which later became a central university. Moreover, after Rabindranath Tagore, his family became entitled to rights over his name; in this context, his son, Rathindranath, was the relevant person.
And so began the struggle to obtain an authorised gramophone version of the anthem from Vishva Bharti and the Tagore family.
Many Right Holders of Jana Gan Mana?
The matter was urgent and time-sensitive. Multiple departments came together: the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, the Ministry of Law, the Home Ministry, the Ministry of Education, and All India Radio.
Interestingly, here, the government was not just required to get rights from a single entity. The copyright over the work was divided among two entities. Yes. A letter dated 14 April 1951 from the Ministry of Home Affairs (image pasted below) notes that, in 1923, Rabindranath Tagore had assigned Visva-Bharati the copyright in his works, including Jana Gana Mana, while retaining rights of translation, dramatisation, and film reproduction.
This meant that the government needed the cooperation not only of the institution, i.e. Vishva Bharti, but also of the Tagore family. While in practice, there was little difference, since Rathindranath Tagore was the Karma-sachiv/Secretary of Visva-Bharati and could sign on its behalf. This division of rights deserves explicit mention because some technicalities — best left aside for now — existed on this front, which delayed the final assignment.
Given this context, the rub of the issue was captured in one of the government letters dated 30 December 1950, signed by Mr. Fateh Singh, the Deputy Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs:
“The position is that it is only the military band version of Jana Gana Mana which has so far been played on official and ceremonial occasions in India. Steps are, however, being taken by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting oh Tagore of Visva Bharati, respectively. It is only after the copyrights have been secured that we can supply these versions to the recording companies for commercial use, and a standard form of the vocal version, which apparently will be sung in the various schools and colleges in the country, will be available for use. We are doing all that is possible to expedite this matter, but I am afraid we cannot at the moment supply to the Ministry of Education an authorised form of the vocal version of the Jana Gana Mana.”
While the archives do not address more information about the rights of Mr. Murrills, it is worth noting that the rights over Jana Gana Mana—including its music and its translations into different languages—before it became the national anthem could be further problematized from a copyright angle. I will leave that point aside for now; these articles at the Times of India and The Hindu can offer some context on the matter. (See also here)
That said, something is interesting about the claim of copyrights of Mr. Murrill. While the above-quoted paragraph suggests that the British musician held copyright over the music, the assertion is doubtful. As other sources recount, Murrill was approached just two days before the adoption of Jana Gana Mana as the national anthem, at the invitation of Pandit Nehru, to review the tune and provide his opinion. According to these accounts, it was “Margaret Cousins, an Irish by birth, set the tune and Herbert Murrill, an English musician, made it speedy and bouncy on the lines of the French national anthem La Marseillaise”. Sources further indicate that he was paid a remuneration of £500 for this work, and, according to the Wikipedia page, Murrill collaborated with Norman Richardson, and the payment was given to them jointly. Such claims open a range of legal questions over the copyright ownership of various aspects of Jana Gana Mana, not only warranting closer scrutiny of the issue but also questioning the evidentiary reliability of certain archival accounts. If Murrill did, in fact, receive payment, this also raises the question of whether the arrangement constituted a “work for hire,” a matter that itself demands further separate legal and historical investigation.
Red Line: No Alterations to Anthem …
Leaving the above ambiguity aside, the archival documents focus primarily on the government’s efforts to secure rights from Visva-Bharati and the Tagore family. And there, the record is clear: there was a reluctance on the part of both Visva-Bharati and Rathindra Nath Tagore to transfer the rights to the Government. The archive document referenced below contains a letter from the Directorate General, All India Radio, which recorded the state of affairs in no uncertain terms:
“ … [i]n spite of our best efforts and persuasion, the Vishva Bharti has still not assigned the copyrights in the song to the Govt. The matter has been discussed personally several times with Shri Rathindra Nath Tagore and also with Justice S.R. Das of the Supreme Court, whom Shri Tagore brought in for informal consultation, and an agreement form, drawn in consultation with the Law Ministry, was sent to him for signatures on the 16th March, 1951. Although in his letter dated 24.3.51, he has signified his willingness to transfer the copyright, he has made certain changes in the agreement form which it would be necessary to refer to the Law Ministry again for their comments.”
Interestingly, this letter went on to say “[i]n case the matter is not finalised by about the middle of April, 1951, we may have to request the Govt. to take such further suitable action as they may consider necessary.” (emphasis supplied) Well… what exactly counts as “suitable action” other than a compulsory licence or even outright acquisition in national interest, I only wonder.
If anything, the files make it clear that efforts — both informal and formal — to persuade the Tagore family and Visva-Bharati were being made from every possible quarter. But Tagore’s reluctance had a reason. The government’s demand was for the assignment of absolute rights over the anthem. This means, once acquired, the government would be free to make changes to its text or tune whenever it deemed fit. In fact, when the then-President Dr. Rajendra Prasad formally declared Jana Gana Mana the national anthem, he mentioned such a possibility that the government could, when needed, alter it.
And for Visva-Bharati and Rathindra Nath Tagore, this was a red line. Their condition was clear: no alterations would be made to the tune and text of the work. This was unacceptable to the government, however. The Ministry of Education, which was to sign the agreement on behalf of the government, sent a formal contract to Rathindra Nath Tagore. He returned it with modifications, inserting the safeguard clause he considered essential. (See the Archive file one and the 4th image below)
Eventually, as one can assume, the copyright owners relented (perhaps they had little choice), but not without getting a symbolic concession. Yes, although the conditional clause they sought was not explicitly stated in the contract’s final version, the government provided some assurance that it would not alter the anthem. This assurance can be found in several places, notably in the letter from the Home Ministry sent to Rathindranath dated 14 April 1951 and the Press Communique issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs on May 2, 1951.
One can question whether this “assurance” carried any legal force, given the phrasing of this concession. The May 1951 Press communiqué notes “No alterations in the original text of the song have so far been authorized by Government nor is any alteration contemplated at present”. And the April 1951 letter “Government assure you that your wish that the original text and tune should be preserved will be kept in mind”.
On the question of moral right under Section 57 of the Copyright Act, 1957, I doubt if Tagore’s estate could really stand on that if any alterations are made. Because mere alternatives do not infringe moral rights unless they prejudice the reputation of the author. Plus, even if this moral assurance held some legal weight under contract law, it is debatable whether the state could permanently contract away powers over matters touching national symbols. Nevertheless, this little text, as one can wonder, may explain why, to this day, the Government of India has never formally altered the anthem’s text or tune.
Conclusion
Well, that’s the copyright story of our national anthem, and perhaps why it has proven so resistant to alteration. Though one thought kept echoing in my mind while reading these files: would the government’s insistence (and patience) on securing the rights have been the same had the Tagore family—socially and politically influential as they were—not been involved? My doubt doubled after finding a letter in the file stating that the copyright question was merely “incidental” to the anthem, which was of national importance. It seems the government simply could not sideline the Nobel laureate author in this case—an author whose estate, for the record, has played a well-known role in shaping India’s copyright policy in getting extension of the copyright protection duration. (see also here and here).
Some of the key letters from which I have quoted excerpts, particularly those dated between April and May 1951, are reproduced at the end of the post as images. They are: (1) a letter from from teh director general of AIR dated 16 March 1951, 2.) (2) a letter from Visva-Bharati, signed by Mr. Rathindranath, dated 23 March 1951, expressing the hope that the anthem would not be changed; 3.) a letter from the Ministry of Home Affairs, signed by Mr. Fateh Singh, dated 14 April 1951; and (4) the press communiqué dated 2 May 1951.
Note: Both the archival files I relied upon are listed below, containing overlapping information and sources. I primarily consulted the first document, which is 59 pages long. Unfortunately, some pages in the files are haphazardly arranged, making it difficult to determine with accuracy which department signed or sent a particular document. Wherever possible, I have mentioned the names of the individuals and departments involved. Still, I recommend reading the original files for verification if precise attribution is required or any doubts arise. And of course, please feel free to leave a comment if something appears missing or amiss. Handwritten notes, in particular, have been especially challenging to decipher. I have focused this piece on the main story; however, there are other details, minor or major (however one sees that), that one could probe into.
- Copyright Transfer of Copyright in Jana Gana Mana from Vishva Bharti to Government of India (Year: 1951) Pages: 59 Department: Ministry of Education Branch: A2 https://www.abhilekh-patal.in/Category/itemdetails/ReadContent?itemId=e219445c-2493-4b9e-bc5d-05179b905f02
- Transfer of copyright in Jana Gana Mana from Visva Bharat to Government of India. Request of Visva Bharat for an assurance that Govt. of India would not make changes in the words or the tune of the song (Year: 1951), Pages: 49, Department: Ministry of Home Affairs https://www.abhilekh-patal.in/Category/itemdetails/ReadContent?itemId=fde6b2ad-5f8f-40ee-ab1f-aea29ab63d52
Below is one more file, which, though I have not yet fully read or relied upon, appears essential, particularly for the details it contains on the measures taken to popularise the national anthem.
- National Anthem- Singing of the Song â Jane Gana Manaâ in all Schools & and College 1. National Anthem, 2. Jana Gana Mana, 3. School & College (Year: 1950) Pages: 228, Department: Ministry of Education Branch: D3 https://www.abhilekh-patal.in/Category/itemdetails/ReadContent?itemId=039f2f04-9cdd-43e3-913c-f94333ee8c5b
Below are the images of the letters quoted above:-
- A letter from the director general of AIR, Mr. S.N. Chib, dated 16 March 1951
- A letter from Visva-Bharati, signed by Mr. Rathindranath, dated 23 March 1951, expressing the hope that the anthem would not be changed.
3.) A letter from the Ministry of Home Affairs, signed by Mr. Fateh Singh, dated 14 April 1951
(4) The press communiqué issued by the Press Information Bureau on 2 May 1951
Okay, that’s it from my end. See you in the next post.
(Thanks to Swaraj for his input on the post!)