Recently, a perception has emerged among some in Bangladesh that Rabindranath Tagore, the writer of our national anthem, was a key figure in imposing Indian hegemony over the Bangla language.
These claims, often rooted in political grievances or cultural anxieties, reflect a deep misunderstanding of Tagore's worldview, particularly his philosophy on language, identity, and cultural freedom.
This perception that Rabindranath Tagore symbolises Indian hegemony over the Bangla language largely stems from populist narratives amplified through social media.
Online platforms have enabled the spread of revisionist history and emotionally charged misinformation, often portraying Tagore as a symbol of Hindu or Indian cultural dominance. Ironically, he was neither Hindu nor a nationalist.
These narratives, pushed by fringe political groups or nationalist influencers, thrive on simplistic binaries, "us" versus "them", ignoring the nuanced reality of Tagore's anti-nationalist and humanist philosophy.
This sentiment also reflects a longstanding discomfort with perceived West Bengali cultural dominance.
There is a notion in Bangladesh that Shuddho Bangla (Standard Bangla), which is the dialect from the Shantipur region of now West Bengal, has some cultural capital, and the elites use this to establish dominance over other cultural expressions. In moments of heightened political tension with India, cultural symbols like Tagore, often represented by Shuddho Bangla, are politicised to fuel nationalist sentiments or question the authenticity of Bangladesh's postcolonial identity.
These criticisms often say more about contemporary political anxieties than they do about Tagore himself, whose legacy, if understood fully, stands against precisely the kind of cultural domination he's now accused of representing.
This is not the first time Tagore has been misunderstood. In his essay, Bhashar Kotha, Tagore wrote, "Although I did not take part in the debate, my name has come up. Regarding this, almost fifteen annas [a large majority] of the people of my country have already decided what my opinion must be, without asking me, and have not hesitated to say whatever they think. I had thought that once the situation cooled down, I would express my opinion calmly. But now I realise that this is unlikely to happen within my lifetime."
Even today, nearly a century later, Tagore continues to be spoken for, misrepresented, or used as a cultural pawn. To understand his legacy, we must return to what he said and stood for.
A critique of artificial authority
By the time Tagore had become a towering figure in Bangla literature, he saw the dominant written form, Sadhu Bhasha, as an impostor, overly Sanskritised, artificial, and emotionally lifeless. Unlike poetry or everyday speech (Cholti Bhasha), Sadhu Bhasha had not evolved naturally.
On the cover of Halhed's A Grammar of the Bengal Language (1778), it is written in Sanskrit (in Bengali script): "phiriṅginām-upakārārthaṁ", meaning, for the benefit of the foreigners, that he is composing this grammar.
Then, barely a few pages in, he declares: "Little indeed can be urged in favour of bulk of the Modern Bengalese. Their forms of letters, their methods of spelling, and their choice of words are all equally erroneous and absurd. They can neither decline a word, nor construct a sentence."
William Jones, following Halhed, argued that Sanskrit resembled classical Western languages such as Latin, and thus represented a "pure" source.
In contrast, languages like Arabic were labelled inferior, creating a "good Orient" (Sanskrit/Hindu) vs. "bad Orient" (Semitic or Arabic) divide, laying early groundwork for Hindu vs Muslim racial theory.
This shaped colonial language policies. At Fort William College, established in 1801, a key British institution for training colonial administrators, Bengali was "standardised" and increasingly Sanskritised.
Figures like William Carey removed Arabic and Persian words in later grammar editions to align Bengali with Sanskrit.
Similarly, Henry Pitts Forster preferred Sanskrit terms in legal translations..
According to Tagore, it was a constructed language, shaped by Sanskrit scholars under colonial pressure. Tagore compared it to the Ramayana episode where Rama, having exiled Sita for impurity, built a golden statue of her to perform a yajna. Similarly, the natural Bangla was exiled and replaced with a "pure," lifeless golden version meant to impress rather than reflect real people.
Tagore argued that even Bankimchandra Chatterjee, one of Bangla literature's pioneers, struggled to find a natural voice. His novel Durgeshnandini read like a translation of an English novel, and Tagore noted that even if it was a translation, readers wouldn't be surprised.
In Bauler Gaan, Tagore wrote, "Nothing compares to the joy of a person who has discovered their own language, and who has learned to speak in their own tongue."
Language as resistance, not hegemony
This is precisely why the claim that Tagore imposed Indian, or more specifically, Hindu-Sanskritic hegemony over Bangla, is not only incorrect but is directly opposed to what he believed.
If anything, Tagore was one of the earliest critics of linguistic elitism and cultural domination. He fought against the over-Sanskritisation of Bangla, not to replace it with another form of dominance but to free the language entirely from colonial manipulation, caste elitism, and intellectual gatekeeping.
Tagore argued for a Bangla rooted in life, a people's language, Prakrit Bangla.
Were Tagore alive today, he would not view Bangladeshi Bangla as a distortion of his ideals but as a powerful realisation of them.
Tagore's view on 'Muslim Bangla'
Tagore was not a linguistic purist. He was not opposed to borrowing from Persian, Arabic, or English.
Tagore believed that when foreign words are absorbed naturally, without coercion, they become Bangla. For instance, the Persian word khun, meaning blood, evolved in Bangla to mean murder. Tagore considered this a valid transformation. However, in his essay Bhasha-Shikkhay Samprodayikota, he argued that khun as blood never gained popular usage in Bangla, so insisting on that meaning would be unnatural and unnecessary.
In response to Syed Nawab Ali Chowdhury's article, where he criticised Bangla literature for harbouring anti-Muslim elements, Tagore acknowledged that such prejudice existed.
However, rather than dismissing these works, he suggested that literary criticism and debate were the appropriate responses.
He warned that when more Muslim writers contributed to Bangla literature, it was likely that some Hindu readers might also feel offended, and that, too, had to be accepted as part of a pluralistic literary culture.
What would Tagore think of Bangladeshi Bangla?
This is a powerful question.
Based on his writings, worldview, and linguistic philosophy, we can reasonably infer that Tagore would likely support Bangladeshi Bangla as a living, evolving language.
As Bangla from Bangladesh includes colloquial usage (Cholti Bhasha), loanwords from Arabic, Persian, Sanskrit, English, and indigenous dialects, and a spoken-first attitude in media, literature, and daily life, Tagore would likely celebrate this development rather than condemn it.
He would see Bangladesh as fulfilling the dream of a "people's Bangla." The trajectory of Bangla aligns almost precisely with Tagore's hope that the language would return to its roots in real, Prakrit Bhasha, or the language of the people.
He would recognise that Cholti Bhasha is now the standard rather than the exception, that the language reflects the lives of farmers, workers, and everyday people, and that a Muslim-majority culture has shaped the language naturally, not artificially, something Tagore supported continuously.
At the same time, Tagore would oppose nationalism that seeks to "purify" or politicise language.
Just as he opposed British-imposed Sadhu Bhasha and criticised Hindu scholars for over-Sanskritising Bangla, he would almost certainly oppose any artificial Islamicisation of the language, any attempt to create a rigidly "Muslim Bangla" or "Hindu Bangla", and any cultural hegemony, Indian, Pakistani, or otherwise, that attempts to erase local voices and variations.
Tagore would likely remind us that language belongs to the people, not to religious ideology, political parties, or colonial baggage.
Bangla beyond borders
Today, as debates around identity, nationalism, and cultural ownership grow louder, Rabindranath Tagore remains one of the few voices that offers clarity rather than confusion.
Far from being an agent of Indian hegemony, Tagore fought for a free, emotionally rooted language, one that belonged to everyone, not just the elite. If we listen carefully, we won't find a cultural coloniser but a cultural liberator.
Bangladeshi Bangla, in all its vibrant diversity, is not a betrayal of Tagore. It is, in many ways, his greatest vindication.
Comments