Talk:Rabindranath Tagore

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

WikiProject Biography (Rated FA-Class)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.

Biography Portal

This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

This article is supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group.

More information about this article...

	The following comments have been left for this page: I feel that the name of Vidyapati http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vidyapati should be added to the list of names that influnced Tagore's work. Tagore's poetry is clearly influenced by the poems written by Vidyapati. (edit)

WikiProject India (Rated FA-Class)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject India.

Quality: FA-Class (see comments)

This article is maintained by the Indian history workgroup.

This article is maintained by the West Bengal workgroup.

[edit] poem - title - motherland

Is the following poem titled 'motherland'written by Tagore?

Blessed am I that I am born to this land; And that I had the luck to love her; What care I if queenly treasure is not in her store; But precious enough is for me the living wealth of her love.

The best gift of fragrance to my heart to my heart is; From her own flowers; And I know not where else shines the moon; That can flood my being with such loveliness.

yes it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.188.87.114 (talk) 04:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] upanayan ?

Is it a Brahmin only thing? I thought it wasn't--ppm 17:44, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bharatveer's claim of "malicious edit"

Definition of malicious:

Intentional intimidation associated with a person’s race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, or mental, physical, or sensory handicap that causes physical injury to another person; or by words or conduct places another person in reasonable fear of harm.

having the nature of or resulting from malice;

So, exactly what do you mean by malicious edit? What exactly is the Intentional intimidation associated with a person’s race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, or mental, physical, or sensory handicap that causes physical injury to another person here? In the last 5 days, I notice 7 reverts by you on a very illogical basis: You want the word "Undivided India" in the first sentence, even though it is given in the proper context in the very next para. User:Saravask has clearly explained that the word is given in a proper location and context, yet you continue the reverts. I suggest you learn to refrain from personal attacks like the one I've linked here (unless if you can invent some notion of imaginary "malice" here). The thing being questioned here is context of the words, and certainly, you are illogically insisting on adding it in an out-of-context place.

In any case, please see WP:CIVIL, and learn NOT to make personal attacks in edit summaries. Thank you. --Ragib 04:24, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

The meaning of "malice " as perMalice is wish to do harm: the intention or desire to cause harm or pain to somebody.

And here your malice is towards "India" as can be seen from TalkArchives.-Bharatveer 05:04, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Now, you are launching personal attacks. If you have any logical point, please use that rather than ad hominem attacks. Even by your definition, you can't claim malice without showing how better wording is "malicious". Note that the word "Undivided India" is present in the very next para, where the location of his birth is noted. Under your claim, why would I leave that out? I assume User:Saravask is also "malicious towarsd India", by your definition. The question here is the out-of-context placement of the word "Undivided india" in the first sentence, and Saravask is correct to point it out to you that the very next para, where his birthplace is mentioned, clearly and explicitly has the information. Correcting redundant, sloppy text is not malice under anyone but your definition.

It doesn't hurt to be logical, civil, and polite in wikipedia. I suggest again that you do so in making comments in wikipedia. The personal attack you made in the reply to my question above is deplorable. You don't really have to like me, but making unfounded comments about me (as you did above and also in edit summaries) are personal attacks, and against wikipedia's policies. See WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL for detailed guidelines about civility and politeness. Thank you. --Ragib 05:18, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I also request you to withdraw your nasty personal attack above. Thanks. --Ragib 05:19, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

It was not a Personal atack.Pointing out facts does not constitute personal attack.It is a fact that you are highly prejudiced against "India".From your earlier attempts to deny the fact that tagore was an Indian to your removal ofthe word "India" from the first paragraph clearly shows your Povs.It would be better if you try to keep your personal dislikes out of wikipedia.-Bharatveer 05:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

"Fact" to you, not to me or anyone else. Whatever you think of me, I can never change it, but making such assumptions of bad faith about another user IS a personal attack. See WP:NPA again. I have worked with a lot of Indian editors in enhancing a lot of India-related articles. So, it definitely pains me to get such personal attacks from you. (You made similar personal attacks against User:Shmitra and several other editors, so I again request you to maintain talk page etiquette and NOT make assumption of bad faith just because you "think" so). Thank you. --Ragib 05:57, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

(De-indenting.) To Bharatveer: If you love India so much, then why not focus this intense passion on getting another India-related article featured? Why waste your time with this? Why would the edits of trusted contributors like Ragib be "malicious"? Why not drop this? All three of us could be doing better things with our time, to say the least. But I admit I believe that this request is probably going nowhere. Saravask 05:52, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Saravask,I never asked for your advise in the first place.Wikipedia would be a better place if personal likes & dislikes are kept out.I have shown the previous edit histories of your "trusted" contributor.So why not keep this article the way it was like before.-Bharatveer 06:02, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

A nationalistic debate on Tagore page. Definition of Irony, with a capital "I"--ppm 06:20, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay let me butt in for a bit here.I think claims of Ragib being "hateful" or "malicious" are a bit unfair .He has raised a point with which some users may not agree, but I do not see any malice or "anti-India" prejudice. Bharatveer I request you to refrain from using such terms so liberally. There are many racist anti-India bigots and hatemongers on wikipedia and accusing innocent users like Ragib of such attitudes diminishes the credibility of allegations against the REAL anti-India bigots.

Now, having said that, I must point out that Tagore was born in British India (before India the nation or Bangladesh the nation existed), so using either "from India" or "from Bangladesh" is innaccurate. the right way to say is that he was from "Colonial India" or "British India", which describes a region. It can also be okay to say that he was from "West Bengal" (Kolkata), which describes a region. Let the reader see the wiki-article and judge for himself.Hkelkar 06:26, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Hkelkar's comment about wording, and for the record, I have agreed to this consensus in the debates over wording of this article (the debate was over categorization, and I've accepted the consensus, the arguments of other editors were logical, and therefore I accepted that). Also, for the record, the article now has the text "A [[Pirali Brahmin|Pirali]] [[Bengali Brahmin]] from Calcutta ([[Kolkata]]), [[Undivided India|India]]". I.e., it expresses the exact thing Hkelkar has suggested above (and of course, I don't have any problem with it). However, Bharatveer is adamant to move the phrase "Undivided india" to the very first sentence, even though the phrase is out of context there, and having it mentioned in the second para is a better option. Saravask and I have this opinion, yet Bharatveer claims to "see" my "malice" towards an entire nation in that!! --Ragib 06:36, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

(edit-con)While I also think Bharatveer was a bit adventurous with his comments, I have to say there was an amazing amount of Bad Faith in Sarvask's comment. Bharatveer was the only person stopping macaulayist revisionism of the Sanskrit language, and he single-handedly held off a revert warrer and an admin who from time-to-time takes the liberty to abuse his priviledges (he was censured by Blnguyen for that). Back to the Tagore article, the nobel prize site here says he lived in India. Bakaman _Bakatalk 06:38, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Bharatveer's finding of malice is not over the use of text implying Tagore was from India. See above for the actual context of "malicious edit" claimed by Bharatveer. --Ragib 06:41, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Let me add to my previous statement about one matter. I see that there was a debate over this before and the consensus was to keep "Undivided India". So is the present debate over whether it should belong in the first sentence or not? If that is the debate, then I fail to see the point of opposing it. Will someone clarify the situation for me below please?Hkelkar 10:06, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

The point in question is whether we need to have the first sentence as

"Rabindranath Tagore ([ɹobin̪d̪ɾonat̪ʰ ʈʰakuɹ] or [taˈgɔ(ɹ)] (help·info);[α] Bangla: রবীন্দ্রনাথ ঠাকুর (help·info);[β] 7 May 1861 – 7 August 1941[γ]), also known by the sobriquet Gurudev,[δ] was a Bengali poet from [[Undivided India|India]], Brahmo Samaj (syncretic Hindu monotheist) philosopher, visual artist, playwright, composer, and novelist whose works reshaped Bengali literature and music in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. "

Or as

Rabindranath Tagore ([ɹobin̪d̪ɾonat̪ʰ ʈʰakuɹ] or [taˈgɔ(ɹ)] (help·info);[α] Bangla: রবীন্দ্রনাথ ঠাকুর (help·info);[β] 7 May 1861 – 7 August 1941[γ]), also known by the sobriquet Gurudev,[δ] was a Bengali poet, Brahmo Samaj (syncretic Hindu monotheist) philosopher, visual artist, playwright, composer, and novelist whose works reshaped Bengali literature and music in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

The argument by Saravask and me is that, "from India" is already mentioned at the start of the very next para (i.e. one sentence later) as

A Pirali Bengali Brahmin from Calcutta (Kolkata), [[Undivided India|India]], Tagore first wrote poems at age eight ....

There is no reason to duplicate the same information/text over and over, and Saravask's argument is that, putting geographic information to where it belongs (beside birthplace name/city etc.) is enough. However, Bharatveer insists that we must duplicate the information in the first sentence too, i.e. qualify the ethnicity with the geo-political information.

Hope this puts the whole point in the context. --Ragib 10:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for clearing that matter up. Now, I would like to hear Bharatveer's side of the argument. Please post below. Thanks.Hkelkar 10:29, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

User-ragib:"we must duplicate the information in the first sentence too"

Now this is real funny stuff. -Bharatveer 12:04, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I request that nobody get emotive on this. I am already very frustrated from staving off Islamist whack-jobs and their left-wing lovers in other articles (fortunately both Ragib and Bharatveer here seem to have honorable intentions and are not bigots of any denomination as I see it) and do not need more partisan fighting. I beg all users to arrive at a mutually acceptable conclusion.Now, Bharatveer, could you please elaborate your argument a bit below? I would like to hear your side of the story.Hkelkar 12:59, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

My point is that instead of deleting "india" from the first sentence ; The first sentence should be retained as it was & the second line may be modified by deleting the word "india" .-Bharatveer 13:26, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Response to Hkelkar: This Talk page is just one example of how a small cadre of editors can hijack the time and effort of a number of useful editors into a nitpicking exercise for which there is no end. These small number of editors spend all their time and energy on WP imagining 'anti-Indian' bias and where there is none. They typically make no useful contribution in terms of improving articles, rather they constantly engage in edit/revert wars. I admire Ragib's patience in this regard despite the number of time he had to deal with these editors. - Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 22:28, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Bharatveer, could you please explain to me what is the advantage of "from India" being in the first sentence over it being in a subsequent sentence which a reader is virtually guaranteed to read?Hkelkar 05:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

There is no great advantage.But that deletion was done in bad faith.-Bharatveer 05:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

So you mean you revert, just because you don't like me editing the article? Also, what "bad faith" you have here? You continuously attack me personally, without providing supporting arguments for your position (which you just admitted above). Perhaps you should learn to get above your personal dislike of me and come up with better arguments. Thank you. --Ragib 06:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I have never attacked you personally.I was just stating the fact that the inclusion of the word "indian" was discussed and finalised as can be seen from the talk page archive.YOU just utilised User:saravask's recent edit to delete the "Indian" once again from the article.It is you who should learn to Keep WP off your personal dislikes.-Bharatveer 06:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Your argument fails to hold water, because if that were true, I'd be going after the "Indian" in the second sentence as well, which I didn't and won't. I haven't commented on you personally, even though you have attacked me on several occasions via edit summaries and talk page comments (some I linked above). And yes, I am keeping my personal likes and dislikes away from my talk page comments here (though sometimes it becomes too hard to show such patience). Thank you. --Ragib 06:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

You have attacked me personally on many occasions.But there is no point in continuing this discussion anymore.-Bharatveer 06:55, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Settle down everyone

This seems to be a very minor point and hopefully consensus will be easily reached. Raise your arguments below or above. I've protected the article in the interim -- Samir धर्म 02:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism?

I just noticed this edit. I initially reverted him/her because I was sure that Robinson mentioned his marriage being arranged by his father. But then I noticed I had missed the phrase ten-year-old, Mrinalini Devi [sic]. Unfortunately, I don't currently have access to the Robinson book, so I'm going to assume that the anon is correct in deleting it. I'll try to check Mrinalini's age at marriage later. My apologies. Saravask 19:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

(In response to Saravask, above) I have the Dutta/Robinson in front of me, here is the relevant passage:

[from p.86] Within three weeks, however, with Rabindranath back in Calcutta, arrangements for his wedding were put in hand. Presumably Debendranath had asked others in Jessore to look out for a bride. Someone - a great-aunt on his late wife's side - had suggested the daughter of an employee on the Tagore estates. She was a Pirali Brahmin, about ten years old, quite thin, not good-looking and almost illiterate; her name was Bhabatarini, which was old-fashioned even in 1883. Rabindranath appears to have accepted his father's choice without meeting her. [...] The wedding took place at Jorasanko on 9 December 1883. [...] Bhabatarini stayed about a month in Jorasanko. Her name was changed to one more euphonious: Mrinalini (roughly, 'lotus-like') - suggested not by Rabindranath but by his brother Dwijendranath.

So there are two issues raised by Saravask, firstly the issue of Rabindranath's return to India being a result of his father's having a bride, and secondly how old Mrinalini was when Rabindranath married her. To the first issue, the relevant passage about Rabindranath's return in 1880 (p. 76) mentions nothing about his father having arranged a marriage, furthermore it was three and a half years before he was to be married, so I think that addition is untrue. To the second issue, Mrinalini's age, ten is in fact correct. Another issue though that I raise here is the question of her name. As the quote above says, when she was married, her name was different (Bhabatarini as opposed to Mrinalini) and also the addition of "Devi". Devi, according to Dutta/Robinson, "was then the Bengali honorific for a married woman, similar to Mrs" (p. 86). Should this passage then say "he married Bhabatarini (later Mrinalini Devi)" or something to that effect? I have no opinion here, and not much knowledge, so this is really just a question. Tagith 04:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

But on pages 86 and 87, there are strong hints that Debendranath arranged Tagore's marriage; I still agree about page 76. Feel free to add his wife's age. I don't know much about Bengali marriage customs; better that someone else answers that. Thanks. Saravask 00:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Bengali marriage custom (until very recently) was to have marriages arranged by parents. So it is almost absolutely certain that the marriage was arranged by Tagore's family. In fact, with a few exceptions, all of 19th and early 20th century marriages in Bengal were arranged ones. Thanks. Mrinalini's name was given after her wedding (another custom prevalent at that time). It should also be noted that Tagore family tradition was to wed women from lower-income village families from East Bengal (where the Tagores originally came from). Thanks. --Ragib 00:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The age seems abt right — I seem to remember eight. On Debendranath, at the very least he agreed to this marriage, I suspect anybody so much as talked without his approval in the Tagore household--ppm 18:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External links

Hi. I just added a new external link, but there seems to be some notice in the code about having to submit new links to dmoz. Who put this there? Am I obliged to obey? --82.69.133.230 17:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I did. Yes. See WP:EL. Thanks. Saravask 19:03, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

You added a very good link. If you know of more freely available audio books, please let us know. Thanks . Saravask 23:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Query

these more profound and mystical experimentations allowed Tagore to be branded a "modern poet" -- I am not sure I understand the connection between modernism and mysticism. I see there are 2 reference, but the second is missing. Just wanna make sure that Dutta and Robinson does hold this view.--ppm 00:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I have the book. It does not say anything about "modernism and mysticism"—only that his works from that period were among his best. I can't find any cached version of the article, but I'm assuming that it did state something about it. If people want to check the article's hard copy, the full citation is listed. Thanks. Saravask 00:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bengali transliteration

Should there be a Bengali transliteration on this page? If there should, it would be like this (I think): Robindrônath Ṭhakur. I think something apart from the IPA should say that it is Thakur in Bengali. --Akut 18:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

It's already there. Please see "Notes" section (notes β). Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unsourced material moved here

See below; if anyone wants it moved back, please explain. Thanks.

Tagore was a great fan of Amir Khusru & Hafiz. He visited Shiraz, Iran and said "One Poet of East has come to pay homage to one of the greatest poets of east." Perhaps the influence of Hafiz went beyond the normal. The stature of Tagore was marred by charges of plagiarism against him. Many authors charged that his Gitanjali (Shopto Shindhu Dosh: Digonto") was a Bengali rendition of Dewan-e-Hafiz. Tagore faced intense questioning on plagiarism and buckled under the pressure and admitted the influence and the plagiarism. Additionally his poems seemed to have been imbellished by the Poet Yeats during translation. His critics complain that Tagore borrowed from Jaydev and got a Nobel prize.

There are also charges of bigtory against Tagore. The mistrust of the Muslims was exploited by the Hindu leaders who dwelled on the fact that the Muslims were aliens in India. Here is an excerpt of Gurudev Rabindranath Tagore's fears about the divided loyalty of Muslims published in the 'Times of India' April, 18, 1924.

".... A very important factor which is making it almost impossible for
Hindu-Muslim unity to become an accomplished fact is that the Muslims
cannot confine their patriotism to any one country. I had frankly asked
many Muslims whether, in the event of any Mohammedan Power invading
India, they would stand side by side with their Hindu neighbours to
defend their common land. I was not satisfied with the reply I got from
them. I can definitely state that even such men as Mr. Muhammad Ali has
declared that under no circumstances it is permissible for any Mohammedan
whatever be his country to stand against any Mohammedan. ......."
Gurudev was also quoted by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar in his Pakistan, see page
272-273.

Others have also criticized Tagore for the formation of modern Hindi language as a language exclusive for the Hindus of India. He was given the honorific title Bharatendu, meaning "Moon of India."

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Saravask (talk • contribs) 00:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Tagore's Nationality (and connected Pirali epithet)

I do understand that some editors bristle when Tagore's nationality is described as British Indian, but that is what it legally was. Here is a typical passport, similar to the one used by Tagore, in his many travels. It clearly says British Indian passport. I know it may be more meaningful to describe him as a citizen of Bengal or of the World, but legally he was a citizen of the British Indian Empire (which consisted of British India proper (i.e. territories administered by the British, e.g. Calcutta) and the Princely States (e.g. Kashmir)). Fowler&fowler «Talk» 21:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Neither the Republic of India nor Bangladesh existed at that time, but British India so the British India nationality is justified per WP:V. --Ragib 22:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, legally he was British Indian. That's absolutely perfect.--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

BTW, guys, i agree with the above. Saravask 01:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

We could never give him freedom from British India, even after his death he is to carry this! should we also rename the article as "Sir Rabindranath Tagore" ? I wish government of OZ claims him and cools his heart.Jeroje 03:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

This debate is stupid (as in "unintelligent"). RNT was a Bengali - this cuts across borders divisively imposed by the British in 1906 and reaffirmed when they again split the people in 1947. Even by Bengal Presidency law he would have LEGALLY been a "Native Indian" by Act III of 1872 - but this does not imply that he would have automatically been an Indian after Partition. I do wish though that certain vandals / dubious historians stop perpetuating character assassination of RNT (and his ancestors) as Pirali just to misguidedly "preserve" the Bangladesh roots. Sroy1947 (talk) 16:04, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the view of Sroy1947 except the Pirali Brahmin part. Just click the link to go to this page and you can see a cited source to support this. In fact, though I cannot cite another source, I am pretty sure that I have read in many sources that Tagore was a Pirali Brahmin. But is it really important information to mention what kind of Brahmin he was by birth? He was a Brahmo in any case.GDibyendu (talk) 19:21, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks GD, The Pirali bit is very important. The citation is unreliable and based on scuttleutt. Banglapedia has this link which speaks of some anonymous "objective researchers". There is alot of scuttlebutt about the Thakur's being non-Kulin too. Sroy1947 (talk) 19:51, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

2 References outside Banglapedia has been provided. User:Sroy1947 has already broken 3RR in this article, and will be reported for vandalizing it by blanking references. --Ragib (talk) 06:40, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

3RR: Hi Ragib 1) I have not broken 3RR since I had placed talk on the discussion page well before (at 1RR stage) which nobody has cared to reply to while proceeding to undo my edits. 2) The anonymous ID was due to Wiki cookie problem cause by a simultaneous "edit conflict between you and me where also the first "DISPUTE TAG" was removed (overlooked) and not intentional. 3) I have also placed a DISPUTE tag for Pirali. 4) I also find it curious that DwipaniyanC is now replaced by you. 5) I am amazed that you can remove a DISPUTE tag without discussion - this is sheer vandalism. 6) Can you cite any RS Religious sources that there is any *Clan* of Brahmins called 'Pirali'. BTW, are you from Bangladesh - (since this is relevant)? If we cannot resolve this moderately, let us proceed for 3rd party evaluation of claims.Sroy1947 (talk) 06:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I have already reported your vandalism Here. Multiple references from Tagore's RS biography has been provided. You, on the other hand, are yet to come up with anything supporting your claim. Please stop vandalizing the article. Thanks. --Ragib (talk) 06:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

While proceeding with your vandalism, you overlooked this in the edit summary "Pls provide RS Religious citation from Caste Manuals not dubious literary refs". Your literary Tagore biographies are irrelevant till such time as you identify the source of this 'Pirali" epithet scuttleutt and provide detailed scholarly proof of these claims. Before I proceed to provide my own detailed, numerous and scholarly citations (which I cannot due to your citing me for 3RR), Let me ask you 3 easy questions - which you may care to answer - a) Who was Rabindranath's faher? b) Who was his father? c) Who was his father? Case closed for Kulin. Kindly reinstate the DISPUTE tag I have added since this IS allegedly a FA on a Wikipedia ie. not a Citizenpedia where (real world IDs are used). Sroy1947 (talk) 07:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear Ragib, You seem to be an "involved admin". Wikipedia is NOT a biography (which may be authorised or unauthorised). It is an ENCYCLOPEDIA - where every fact asserted is to be Factual and verifiable. I am not in the least concerned with literary biograpies, the Banglapedia ref I cited was from ENCYCLOPEDIA (not biography) clearly menioing th controvrsy - and YOU deleted IT in favour of some dubious biograpies. Sroy1947 (talk) 07:15, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Please provide a reference showing that Tagore was not a Pirali Brahmin. I'm asking this specifically, because thousands of references from various books, biographies all support Tagore's ancestry from Pirali Brahmins. If you keep asking, I can easily add these thousands of references about this. On the other hand, you have not produced anything that shows Tagore NOT to be a Pirali brahmin. And you have been busy blanking references from Tagore's biographies. This behavior is simply disruption.

For your references, here are some of my sources:

"The Hindoos as They are: A Description of the Manners, Customs, and Inner Life of Hindoo Society in Bengal", Ṣivachandra Vasu, 1883. Page 175.
"An Historical Sketch of the Brahmo Somaj", by Sophia Dobson Collet, 1873, Page 5.
"The Religious and Cultural Identity of Rabindranath Tagore", SD Serebriany - Identity in Asian Literature, 1996
"Dwarkanath Tagore, a Forgotten Pioneer: A Life", K Kripalani - 1981
"Identity in Asian Literature", by Lisbeth Littrup, 1995, Page 94.
"Calcutta: Society and Change 1690-1990" , by Samaren Roy , 2005 Page 88

etc. etc. etc. --Ragib (talk) 07:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

By the way, in the article I have provided reference from Krishna Kripalani's biography of Rabindranath Tagore. Since User:Sroy1947 seems to be unaware of who Kripalani is, here is a short introduction to him: "KRISHNA KRIPALANI (1907-1992) began his career as a teacher at Santiniketan. Prior to that he had a short spell in jail for participating in the Indian struggle for freedom. From 1933 till the death of Rabindranath Tagore in 1941, he worked in close association with the poet and edited the journal, Visva-Bharati Quarterly founded and first edited by Tagore. After a brief career in foreign service, Kripalani was made the first Secretary of the Sahitya Akademi (National Academy of Letters, India) -the post he held from 1954 to 1971. He was awarded the Padma Bhushan by the President of India and was nominated a member of the Indian Parliament (Rajya Sabha) from 1974 to 1980. He was the Chairman of National Book Trust, India from 1981 to 1986. Among his other publications are Rabindranath Tagore: A Biography; Gandhi, the Modern Mahatma; Modern India: Rammohun Roy to Rabindranath Togore; Modern Indian Literature etc."[1]. Kripalani's biography of Tagore's father also has details on the Pirali Brahmin ancestry of Tagore family. --Ragib (talk) 07:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

FIRSTLY a curious fact is that whenever I have a "edit conflict" with Ragib, I end up getting logged out. Here is what I was cross-posting at he time. (Ragib, This is a Golden Goose which Jack climbed the beanstalk for).

Dear Ragib, I am glad that we are NOW discussing this in a civilised manner. Being a busy admin you had obviously overlooked my prior ongoing discussion in this Talk section wih GDibeyendu, and also the IP summary I have referred. Till such time as the question of Rabindranath's ancestory is not first settled this discussion is unlikely to proceed. Let us get that out of the way before proceeding further since YOU have dragged Dwarkanath into this. Let me start with the first of my citations, (BTW: you may care to set out the actual text from those references you have cited like I am doing - so as to speed up things).

"An important event of this year was the formal appointment of Bijay Krishna Goswami as a missionary of the Samaj, and his visit at the end of the year to Baganchra, a village in the Jessore district, whence a petition had come from a number of Pirali families for the services of a Brahmo preacher. The Piralis were an excommunicated class of Brahmins ostracised from Hindu society for the violation of some caste regulations during the days of the later Mahomedan rulers. Bijay Krishna initiated twenty-three of these families into Brahmoism during this memorable visit." This is from Sivnath Shastri's "History of Brahmo Samaj" 1911,12 at pg 145. I believe that Jessore is in Bangladesh (where the Piralis exist) whereas Rabindranath is from Calcutta India where they dont. Sroy1947 (talk) 07:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I do not understand your first comment, and I hope you recover from any technical difficulties you are having with your browser. As for your quote from Sivanath Shastri's book, I don't see any reference to the ancestry of Tagore family here. Instead of asking me to peer into a crystal ball for this, can you please point out the relation? Pirali Brahmins are originally from Jessore, and Tagore's ancestor Panchanan Kushari left Jessore in the 17th century, to settle in Govindpur, where he was called Panchanan Tagore by the locals. (Kripalani, Tagore - A Life, page 1-3). --Ragib (talk) 07:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

It seems to be a systemic problem at Wiki, since I use a stable version of a widely used open source browser. You are now starting to understand the problem in the Histories of the Brahmo Samaj. Why does Shastri not whisper of Dwarakanath or Debendranath's Pirali lineage. Neither does H.C.Sarkar or any other reputed Brahmo History. Could it be because Piralism is a Hindoo canard to defame Brahmos. YOU are saying that Panchanan Kushari is RNT's ancestor - before reaching there kindly answer my 3 questions posed earlier on RNT's ancestry. You already know the answer, and I know why you will not reply.Sroy1947 (talk) 08:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I won't keep participating in this fruitless discussion. All references I have provided, from reputed biographers of Tagore, strongly support Tagore's ancestry from Pirali Brahmins. The references provided above include not only current, but also 19th century books on Brahmo Samaj. Also, there are references from scholarly works. If you have any thing to say to refute this overwhelming body of references from reliable sources, please continue, otherwise, please stop disruption. By the way, the Banglapedia article on Debendranath Tagore, which you allude to above, also supports the "Pirali Brahmin" origins of Tagore family. Thank you. --Ragib (talk) 08:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Well I knew you would not reply. The Brahmo History you refer to is by Sophia Dobson Collett, and actually a Unitarian History perpetuating Hindoo scuttlebutt, it is not published by any Brahmo Samaj to my knowledge. If you trackback, you will observe that I had cited by quoting the entire applicable portion from Banglapedia encyclopedia, setting out the controversy. It is noteworthy that a scholarly PRINT ENCYCLOPEDIA like Banglapedia clearly shows (and does not support) that there is a controversy ON THIS POINT. YOU are the one who TWICE removed my dispute tags AFTER I had referred to this citation. If we cannot settle 3 simple questions on RNT's ancestry - perhaps it is time to either delete the FA star on this article altogether or scrap Banglapedia as an RS. I also direct your attention to User:GDibeyendu's comment above - "How is Pirali important if RNT is a Brahmo?" Sroy1947.

(resetting indent) I won't continue the thread *because* you are not simply able to refute any of the references (part of hundreds/thousands of such sources I found), and instead you are just hand-waving here. Either show how and why we should disregard Tagore's biography from reputed biographers (like Kripalani), OR just stop this disruption. You are also misrepresenting Banglapedia, which asserts in the Dwarkanath Tagore biography that, while Tagore family sometimes claimed their origin from pure Brahmins, their ancestry has been shown by researchers to be from Pirali Brahmins. I'm quoting here: "Like most other successful Brahmin families of Bengal the Thakurs also claim their ancestry from those pure Brahmins believed to have been invited by King Adisura from Kanauj. But objective researchers assert that they belonged to a local and degraded Brahmin subcaste called Pirali Brahmin and that they had no intercourse with the superior Brahmin caste. However, the founding member of the modern Tagore family (anglicised form of Thakur) was Joyram, an amin of the 24-Parganas in 1760-62 who had four sons; one of whom was Nilmani (d 1791), who served as a serestadar in Chittagong district. He became affluent enough to leave the low lying ancestral home at Pathuriaghata built by Joyram and constructed a colourful new home at Jorasanko where Rabindranath Tagore was born and raised. Nilmani's son, Ramlochan, a rich banian and businessman had adopted Dwarkanath. The family name Thakur (lord) is said to have been conferred by the people of the fishing village Govindpur, who felt to have been privileged by being served by the Pirali Brahmins ritually.[2]. The Pirali link is supported by various biographical info, some even dating back to the 19th century. There is no controversy other than your inability to debunk any of the numerous references I cited, and unless you come up with something to refute them, I'll not reply to any irrelevant discussion/comments. Thank you. --Ragib (talk) 09:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I guess User:Sroy1947 could not express his main point clearly so far, which is (as per my understanding) that since Debendranath founded Brahmo Samaj in 1848 and Rabindranath was born in 1861, Rabindranath was a Brahmo by birth and not a Pirali Brahmin by birth. I think a 'compromise' or 'politically correct view' would be that 'Rabindranath was born in a Brahmo family, which was from an ancestry of erstwhile Pirali Brahmins'.GDibyendu (talk) 09:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Indeed I had made the article Politcally Correct, NPOV, Compromise etc. by deleting boh Pirali and Kulin (retaining only Brahmin) but Ragib cites this as vandalism and 3RR violation. Both DNT and RNT retained their Brahmin caste as Brahmos - this is the point at issue in the First Brahmo Schism. RNT had a thread cermony orgainsed by his father with Hindu Brahmin priests at age 11 affirming that he continued to be a Brahmin while remaining a Brahmo religionist. Sroy1947 (talk) 09:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear Ragib. The way you are behaving is most unsporting. I am systematically challenging the references you are citing in support of your assertion. This is not 3rd Reich History where Goebbelsian Untruths become Truth merely because a million people parrot them. Since you know so much and have thousands of references Please answer 3 questions on RNT without which we cannot proceed.

1) WHO was Rabindranath's father. Please name him.

2) WHO was the father of the man named above.

3) Who was the father of the next man named above.

Why is such a small exam difficult for you?

Now let me speak bring out the bias concerning Ms. S.D.Collet and her "brief sketch of Brahmo History, 1873" by quoting from the preface to S.N.Sastris' Brahmo History afiresaid and referring also to H.C.Sarkar's preface to S.D.Collet's "Life and Letters of R.M.Roy," 1914)

"PREFACE I commenced writing this book during my residence in England in the year 1888, at the urgent request of the late Miss S. D. Collet, the well-known historian of the Rrahmo Samaj. Under some peculiar circumstances, which need not be related here, she insisted upon my taking up this work and placed all her records at my disposal. ... I remained in this state of hesitancy for years, when there came another impulse from another direction. The dying request of my esteemed friend, Mr. A. M. Bose, in the words "do not fail to record our version of the story," finally impelled me to resume the narrative. After his departure from this world, I devoted much time to self-examination and prayer before finally making up my mind to resume it with the thought that, 'fact is fact, and history is history, let me record the facts and leave the readers to form their judgments."

Neither Historians like Sastri nor Sarkar refer to the Pirali Scuttlebutt about Tagores.

I do NOT have to DISPROVE 'Pirali' YOU have to PROVE it !!!! Starting from where it originates - the primary source - not secondary repititions.Sroy1947 (talk) 09:38, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

True, you do not have to prove anything. But at the same time, when you claim something is incorrect, and ample references are provided against your claim, it is *YOUR* duty to prove the veracity of your claim.

If you are unable to get the information from the references I mentioned above, I can't help you. You are claiming that the Collet book is not correct. Would you also claim this about the other references listed above? Also, "Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal", vol XXXVI, No I-III, 1867, page 132? That's also biased, right :)? And Kripalani's biography of Tagore and his father? Biased, right? :D. Cool!! --Ragib (talk) 09:53, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear Ragib, please understand that I have as much respect for you as I do for truth and fact. You are placed in the position of defending the indefensible. Since I am unsure what exactly you are referring to in the books you are citing, kindly do us the courtesy of extracting them or linking to them. Concerning Ms. Collet's "book" (it is actually a brief tract) H.C.Sarkar has dealt this this very well in his preface to her work on R.M.Roy and spelt out where her Brahmo "romantic" sympathies lay at the time - 1873. What is the primary source of all these Pirali canards? The secretarial affiliations of Asiatic Society of Bengal was always to the opposing Brahmo camp - Jorasankoe Tagores had stormed out in 1866. Insofar as K.Kripalani is concerned I do not possess the book you are referring to. As far as my position goes, the onus of proof on your (Pirali asseting) side at the threshold is

A) Show that "Pirali Brahmin" is a validl widely accepted grouping of Brahmins. You must cite (by quoting from) impeccable ancient RS Religious sources for this, since it is a religious dispute.

B) Inform me who RNT's paternal great-grandfather is.

C) Show that Tagores were out of Brahmanism due to Pirali epithet and not due to Brahmoism Sroy1947 (talk) 10:21, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I do not have the responsibility of shipping a copy of the Kripalani book to you. Sorry about that. You can find the book in a library near you. I don't really care about who was against whom in 1870s, that is also irrelevant here. I'm listing my position here:

Tagore family's ancestry from a group of Brahmins called "Pirali Brahmin" is well documented. See above for details.
The documentation includes multiple books, biographies, scholarly publications etc.
In absence of any thing showing how these books, biographies by notable biographers, scholarly publications, 19th century historical books, etc etc are false, incorrect, etc, we have to stick to WP:V in stating the facts.

And now, to answer your question: A). No need to show religious explanation. That the ancestors of Tagore family were called "Pirali Brahmin" is documented, and verifiable. B). Why is this relevant? C). Why is this relevant? Rabindranath Tagore's religion is not questioned here. Rather his family's ancestry from Pirali Brahmin has been mentioned and cited from multiple, independent, reliable sources.

So, once your block for 3rr block is lifted, I suggest you either come up with a way to refute Asiatic Society, Krishna Kripalani's biography of Rabindranath Tagore / Debendranath Tagore, various scholarly research papers, books, Bishwa Bharati publications etc; OR stop disrupting the page with unsupported statements. Thank you. --Ragib (talk) 11:40, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

On the one hand you talk about RNT's ancestors being Pirali, and then you cannot even name his paternal great-grand-father? You are the one saying he is Pirali- YOU must prove it from a RS. If I allege you are a wife-beater who is required to prove it- I that You are a wife Beater or YOU that you are not? Can you establish which is the 1st published statement that Tagore's are Pirali - as opposed to alleged Piralis !!! Of course Tagore's religion is questioned in context of Pirali, is he Brahmo or Hindu? If he is Brahmo (and he was President of Adi Brahmo Samaj) where is the issue of Pirali or his Brahmin caste and how is this relevant to this article? What proof do you have that he was Hindu? Sroy1947 (talk) 12:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear All. There is controversy on this point no? Some of Tagore's ancestors (femle side) were doubtless Pirali. But Tagore's family per se were not Pirali but Highest caste Rarhi Banerji (1 of 4) Shandilya Brahmans from 8th Cent AD much before 10h /11 Cent AD Balal Sain inviting more Brahmins from Kannauj. . The confusion is arriving because Tagore family used to marry their boys to illiterate uneducated young girls (but virtuous girls) from poor Brahmin familys of the Pir-Ali Brahmins - a type of Brahmins setled around Jessore in now Bangladesh who were ostracized for smelling beef cooked by Moslems. Once this is understood, you will understand that you are both right - the womenfolk of Thakurbari were Pirali, the men were not. This is sanctioned as pratilome / anulome kind marriage. Of course this custom began dying out by 1890's and many of Ravindranath's brothers did not marry Pirali girls. Ravindranath was the problem because he was leading a fast almost Derozian life and no Brahmin family would have him, causing his poor father to go back to Pirali for him. This caused him to be jelaous / love of his Brothers and their wifes. I hope this makes sense. 212.227.114.82 (talk) 12:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

You have some flaws. When 2 Brahmans marry it is neither anuloma or pratiloma. You are right when you say that many of DN Tagore's other sons had non Pirali brides. This is also there in Sivnath Sastri's Histry book on Brahmo Samaj 1st ed. at P.127 "... late Babu Haradev Chatterji father in law of two of Debendranath's sons ...". Chatterji is one of the 4 highest castes of Bengali Brahmins and definitely not Pirali. The difficulty in arranging Rabindranath's marriage was his associating with beef eaters and his loose early life. Both Dwarakanath and Ram Mohan Roy had the same problem and used to employ 2 sets of cooks (Muslim and Hindu) which upset all the womenfolk in their houses.

Unfortunately, the references does not support this comment. Especially, Krishna Kripalani's detailed biography of Tagore has several pages devoted to Tagore family's Pirali ancestry, and that is along the male line. Also see Journal of Asiatic Society quoted above. --Ragib (talk) 12:36, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually there are many references for what IP 212.227.114.82 has written. For example "Rabindranath Tagore: A Centenary Volume" in 532 pages published by Sahitya Akademi of India Govt in 1992 ISBN:8172013329 at page 448 the entire Genealogy is given of Tagore family which is ditto what IP has written. 69.50.160.154 (talk) 13:02, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

No that is not reference I am referring. I am discussing from Bangladesh "research' against educated and modern Hindu and Brahmo women, such as publications of Ghulam Murshid of Rajshahi Univ Bangladesh : Doctoral Thesis "Reluctant Debutante : Response of Bengali Women to Modernisation" 1983 where such lies are again and again retold originating via RSS P.K.Mukhpadyaya attributed to Janadanandini Debi (married to Satyendranath Tagore) etc. saying Tagore family is Pirali and they bought Brahmin Ghar Jamai husbands for their Pirali daughters etc. There is a deep background to these motivated articles which will come out and expose the pseudo-nationalists on both sides of border who need to abuse Rabindranath and his family for justify their existing. 212.227.114.82 (talk) 17:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear Mr.Ragib. Samaren Roy p.88- what exactly does it say in the 6th or so line from the bottom of the page? Why are we embarassed to quote exactly from the book. Does it use the word "tainted" or suchlike in the context of the WOMEN of A Tagore family? Does it specifically refer to R.N.T's branch of Tagore family? Is it in the context of RNT's Piralism? Does it not go on to say something to the effect that they were in fact one of the 4 highest classes of Brahmins - in the same sentence? Have you ever bothered to personally read what Krishna Kripalani wrote about Dwarkanath Tagore in the book you cited, beginning with the title of the chapter "As legends go" and at pg.6 onwards the words "supposed stigma", "tale of legend" "the tale is worth telling whatever its historical merit", "it is obvious that (n)one of the legends cited above can be deemed very credible", "relied on hearsay for their "facts"". If you have no respect for Encyclopedia kindly respect those who do. I shall demolish each and every one of your citations except Asiatic Society which I cannot locate due to it's age - Please quote exactly from it. This is NOT a personal attack, just an appeal to be true to facts/ sources. Sroy1947 (talk) 12:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Sarbajit, there is another book by the same Samaren Roy where this aspect (Tagore's Pirali caste) is explored in great detail - unlike his 300 years of Calcutta book p.88. This is "Bengalees-Glimpses of History and Culture" published 1999 ISBN:8170239818. At page 55 " ... though the evidence was wholly circumstantial. The allegation was a means to secure the social boycott of the Tagores who worked for a Muslim potentate. ... on such a flimsy allegation". There is also the 1896 source which refutes all these allegations - J.N.Bhattacharya (1896, pg.123) who identifies the "leading Brahmin personage who formed a party for degrading the Tagores" ... "but the Tagores were not to be denied but continued to grew in prosperity, fame and numbers". Bikash 69.50.160.154 (talk) 17:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Sroy1947, explain why Ragib's sources and Dutta/Robinson are wrong. This time use clear, simple, concise language. If you don't do it by Friday, I'll revert your "dispute" tag and related edits. I won't be able to reply before then. Take care. Saravask (talk) 20:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

(resetting indent)Dear Saravask. My issues are as follows:-

1) I have at least 50 biographies (eminently citeable ones) for RNT and his family-the vast majority of these are old books at least 50 years+. Of these only about 10 refer to the Pirali issue. Not a single standard Brahmo Historian raises this issue since we know the truth about RNTs ancestory. To my mind it is a non-issue for RNT's life - except to the extent RNT chose to make it an issue. As a result there is collateral damage caused to other members of the vast Tagore family caused by this baseless allegation - namely that the Tagore family is Pirali Brahmin and that other caste Brahmin families would not marry them, ostracised them etc. etc.. In fact there is no such Hindu caste sub-division as "Pirali Brahmin" at all, these are all figments of imagination of Western "scholars" and "orientalists".

2) I myself am not clear what Ragib's sources say exactly - since unlike me (and some others now) he does not quote from his sources. He cited 5 sources. Dutta/Robinson was not one of them. I have impugned the 4 I could locate/ trackdown. I have quoted copiously from his cited sources to show that the Pirali epithet is just an "allegation", it was never established, it is shrouded in legend, it is motivated by jealously and Brahmoism. It is irrelevant, and in any case if RNT is a Brahmo then he can not have caste. Ragib cited Samaren Roy's p.88 and he challenged me on it. I am not sure if he is citing this from his own knowledge or from secondary sources. If it is primary, let him quote that entire paragraph from Samaren Ray's book which HE is relying on- or else I shall. As far as I know, Roy's citation says that in actuality the Tagores were high caste Brahmins one of the 4 and Pirali is only a "taint" (ie. "to sully someone's reputation").

3) This entire Pirali issue is a canard. It has no basis. Whoever is alleging it must prove it. Citing 1000 sources (all contaminated by 1 or 2 sourcesand repeating the same lies) is not acceptable. Since I can also cite an equal number against it.

4) Other editors on this are also concerned that some acceptable compromise be worked out.

5) I have said this before and I shall say this again, if anyone imputes that RNT's ancestors are Pirali Brahmin, let him name those ancestors. When not a single editor here is prepared to clearly answer who RNT's paternal great grand father is (as I easily can), how can they go back 10 generations to claim that Mr.X (unrelated) was a Pirali ?

6) Does Ragib or anyone else here dispute the p.448 citation from the Govt of India Tagore centenary book where the Tagore Genealogy is clearly set out and the Pirali epithet rejected.

7) Lastly concerning Dutta/Robinson, I have also browsed the connected articles on RNT's life. 95%of the citations there are from Dutta/Robinson (and designed to promote their book). 50% of it IMO is complete rubbish. Shall I start there with my own eminently RS biographies of RNT? Sroy1947 (talk) 08:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Since you specifically mention me above, I'll reply with exact quotes about the "Pirali" citation. I have several of Tagore's biographies with me as well ... (including the Kripalani bio). I'll reply in about 1 or 2 days as I'm busy at this moment. But I promise you I will provide quotations from original sources. --Ragib (talk) 08:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I have one question on this topic. From the Banglapedia link mentioned by User:Ragib above, I see that there is a line: "Nilmani's son, Ramlochan, a rich banian and businessman had adopted Dwarkanath." My question is was that adoption from outside family relatives? If Dwarakanath had no blood relationship with Ramlochan, then which family is claimed to be a Pirali Brahmin family? Dwarakanath's original family or Ramlochan's family? Thanks. GDibyendu (talk) 10:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

In Thakurbarir Katha, Hiranmay Bandopadhyay has given details about the Tagore family being Pirali Brahmins. It is a long story and may be, I will add it subsequently to the Pirali Brahmin page. Jagannath Kushari, some eight generations prior to Dwarkanath Tagore, was marked a Pirali when he married into one such family towards the end of the 16th century. Jagannath Kushari’s great grandson Panchanan came and settled in Gobindapur in early 18th century and became Thakur or Tagore. (Published by Sishu Sahitya Sanasad).

Normally, a family joining the Brahmo Samaj, has no utility of the caste history, as Brahmo Samaj generally does not follow the caste system. However, the Tagore family and Adi Brahmo Samaj were different.

“Our being ostracised by the Hindu society provided us with a certain freedom in absorbing western influences, and at the same time the Adi Brahmo Samaj was a branch of Hindu society in all respects except the practice of idolatry. Maharshi always expressed a hearty desire to establish this, and as such all the rituals and customs of Hindu society were followed in his family, and that environment prevailed at least till he was alive, ” wrote Indira Devi Choudhurani (Smritisamput Vol I (1997/2000), in Bengali, Rabindra Bhaban, Viswa Bharati, p. 19).

She further writes, “In those days the practice of having Gharjamai was in vogue in our family, mainly because we were Piralis and then became Brahmos; therefore, there was no possibility of somebody from a good Hindu family marrying into our family… With Hindu Samaj on one side, and Sadharan Brahmo Samaj on the other, shunned by both, we from the Adi Brahmo Samaj became secluded outside both, and when it became almost impossible to get our children married, the system of marriages amongst relatives was started. “ (p 18-19).

I do not know if this leads to resolution of the conflict on Piralis. - P.K.Niyogi (talk) 06:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear Mr Niyogi. Thanks for shedding more light on this. for eg that the Pirali tag comes about by marriages of Tagores INTO the Piralis of Bangladesh by marrying their womenfolk. This is consistent with many standard references. As such this does not make all the Tagores "Pirali". Being a scholar of Bengal history, I am sure that you also know that Jaganath Kushari was not related to the Tagore branch to which RNT is descended from - that is the other branch of Patthurighatta Tagores (which may be considered Pirali) - not the Jorasanko branch of RNT. I do not know why Indira Devi Choudhrani's fictions are relevant to this discussion. Many daughters of good Brahmin families did marry Devendranath's other sons - but not SNT and RNT etc for certain reasons which equally are the stuff of legend but deserve to be brought out by citation of scholarly sources. IDC's allegations are based on RNT's own deluded self propaganda which are not shared by other Tagores and which he communicated to these 2 children when he joined them in England. Certainly SNT and RNT can be considered as married to Pirali - allegedly engendering marriage problems for their progeny (like IDC) , but not for their brothers. :-) On a related note, there is RNT's letter of 5 Sep. 1914 ("Selected letters of RNT", p.153) to Pramathanath Chaudhuri (who was definitely not Pirali - despite getting married to IDC) where the great poet writes " .. How fussy is she about Hindu practices? You know what infidels we are - of course your people are the same - but in a Calcutta family house such as yours one can, if need be, set aside a corner where Great Manu's injunctions are obeyed: not so in our Surul house.". On another subtle point - the Brahmo Samaj may have done away with caste, but not the Brahmo religion. The timing of IDC's statement is important and needs to be clarified - because subsequently (after Keshab Chandra Sen's expulsion from Brahmoism) there were numerous inter-marriages between Adi Brahmos and Sadharanites. Sroy1947 (talk) 13:34, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

dear frends. The ghor jamai systems is association with the Pathuriaghata branch of the Tagore family. cv. Dakshinaranjan Mukherjee whose father was ghor jamai for their house. Ghor jamai systeme is in Kulin Brahmun. So this extends proof that Jorasanko Tagore are a Kulins noit the Pir-Ali. On close readings of Malvika Karlekars Reflections on Kulin polygamy pagina 9 we read that Pachannan Thakur in reality is a deity to be worshipped to whom ghor jamai is dedicated. 212.227.114.82 (talk) 18:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear freinds. additionial reserch. all the daughtrs of devendranath thakur were married to highest caste Brahmum familis. By example. Soudamini Thakur marries Saradapersaud Ganguly (Gangupadyahay). Sukumari Thakur marries Hemendranath Mukkerji (Mukhopadhyaya). Saratkumari marroes Jadu Kamal Mukkerji (Mukopadhyaya) etc.These are all Rarhi Brahmun caste names from highest Brahmum castes. Why are so many contradiciones about this familes 212.227.114.82 (talk) 02:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Something should be done to resolve this standoff. Lets just recap.

This Pirali business is of no relevace to this article except to show that Rabindranath used it to project himself as an outsider.
This Pirali tag is relevant only to the extent of showing that unlike other Tagores (who had beautiful / fair / rich Rarhi/Barendra Brahmin brides), RNT was stuck with a dark, ugly, poor Pirali bride - thereby causing his literary effusion.
That RNT's ego led him to destroy all Dwarkanath's papers out of spite and greed. (Source for all the above : Krishna Kriplani) Sroy1947 (talk) 17:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Noble Prize icon on top of infobox?

Jrs044 recently added this. (He is also adding this in other articles). Is this realy necessary especialy at such a prominent location? I think it looks ugly as it sharply contrasts the b/w color combination of the image and the infobox. Can we add one more line in infobox on "Awards" where we can move this icon and add the the year of award (1913)?-Arman Aziz 01:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it's dinky and have just removed it. I didn't notice/check his edit. Thanks for pointing it out. Saravask 01:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Its back. -- Fullstop (talk) 18:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I also noted. I didn't immediately remove it because when I explored articles on a few other Nobel laureates, I consistently found the icon at infobox-header. I guess, in this case, need for consistency overrules aesthetics. Feel free to express your opinion if you feel otherwise. Arman ^(Talk) 01:37, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I removed the whole infobox clusterfuck, including the "fun" Nobel logo. Seemed to be creating too many problems/arguments/clutter. I agree with the above. Let's focus on the man, please. Saravask (talk) 05:29, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Given the exaggerated focus on data in the infobox, this is probably a smart move. The removal might even encourage some people to actually read ;) -- Fullstop (talk) 04:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I could not fully support this move. If someone would take out the nobel icon and/or the signature I would remain indifferent. But removing the entire infobox seems against generally accepted standard of Wikipedia. One of the reason of Wikipedia's popularity is its ease of use, and an infobox in an article helps increase that ease. Other comparable articles like William Shakespeare, Mohandas Gandhi etc. also have infoboxes; so what's so special about this article? Please note many people who would come to this page, may be totally unfamiliar with the subject matter and may have seen the name Tagore for the first time and are curious to know who he was. An infobox may seem redundant to educated people from Indian-subcontinent, but it could be very helpful for such readers from western background. Arman ^(Talk) 05:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bibliography

the bengali wording for the novel Gora is written in the article with a "dha a shunya rh" it should be "ba a shunya r". someone change this please. Jeroje 03:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

is there anyone who takes care of this article ? the spelling mistake I pointed above is serious. I dont have a bengali font otherwise I would correct it myself.--Jeroje 13:21, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Done. Btw, Gora being called Goda would be ironic indeed!--ppm 14:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] (Display of) Timeline is busted

The Rabindranath Tagore#Timeline ({{Timeline of Rabindranath Tagore}}) displays

EasyTimeline 1.9

Timeline generation failed: 2 errors found

Line 6: PlotData = - PlotData invalid. No (valid) command 'Period' specified in previous lines. Line 34: text:" " - Text segment ' ' falls outside image area. Text ignored.

Sorry for not going ahead and fixing it... I have no idea how <timeline> works. -- Fullstop 23:56, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

its working again. -- Fullstop (talk) 18:48, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikisource Collaboration of the Week

The works of Tagore have been selected as the Wikisource Collaboration of the Week. Please participate by adding more complete works to s:Author:Rabindranath Tagore. Some sources for texts are at s:Author talk:Rabindranath Tagore. Thank you.--Pharos 23:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Schooling

Why does nobody seem to know where Tagore went to school? Surely it's in biographies (I don't have on to hand right now). There can't be many public schools in Brighton to choose between, and surely any school would be only too happy to claim Tagore as an old boy.--Oxonian2006 (talk) 22:49, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's not in Dutta and Robinson, which is the best English-language Tagore bio: "After spending a short time in a school in Brighton and Christmas with his family ..." Maybe the Bangla-language books have more to say. Saravask (talk) 23:57, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shriniketan

In the 2nd paragraph under Santiniketan section, it says: ...(which Tagore later renamed Shriniketan—"Abode of Peace")...

Shriniketan means "Abode of Wealth", isn't it? Santiniketan means "Abode of Peace". —Preceding unsigned comment added by GDibyendu (talk • contribs) 16:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I fixed it. Thanks for pointing it out. Saravask (talk) 04:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] misspelled name in the article

Martinprague1 (talk) 16:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC) This is to request those with editing authority to replace "Czech indologist Vincent Slesny" with correct " Czech indologist Vincenc Lesný". Thanks.

Dwaipayanc fixed it [3]. I unprotected this so that you can fix the mistakes. Thanks. Saravask (talk) 00:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The FruitSeller From Kabul

This is what the article says about the story written by Tagore

In "The Fruitseller from Kabul", Tagore speaks in first person as town-dweller and novelist who chances upon the Afghani seller. He attempts to distil the sense of longing felt by those long trapped in the mundane and hardscrabble confines of Indian urban life, giving play to dreams of a different existence in the distant and wild mountains: "There were autumn mornings, the time of year when kings of old went forth to conquest; and I, never stirring from my little corner in Calcutta, would let my mind wander over the whole world. At the very name of another country, my heart would go out to it ... I would fall to weaving a network of dreams: the mountains, the glens, the forest .... "

The trouble with this is.....that the story is NOT about this at all. Infact, this is just one of those passages that an author puts at some places, in order to reveal something about his character, or the like. The fruitseller from Kabul is the story about the relationship between a father and a daughter, and how that is projected in many different forms..........

Well, you can read the story here. http://www.angelfire.com/ny4/rubel/kabuliwala.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Charmed4ever (talk • contribs) 01:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Completely agree with this point. The quoted lines ("There were autumn ... the forest ....") are not explaining the main point conveyed in the story. I would suggest removing the quoted lines and adding father-daughter relationship instead. Whosoever changes this, please correct the spelling of 'distil' also.GDibyendu (talk) 08:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Asia's first vs India's first

By the list of Nobel laureates by country Tagore is the first Asian to get the Nobel prize.Jeroje (talk) 18:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, Nobel laureates by country appears to confirm that Tagore was not even the first Indian to get a Nobel prize - the honor goes to Ronald Ross who won the prize in 1902. Technically neither Ronald nor Tagore were Indian citizens ever, they were both citizens of British India. Arman ^(Talk) 01:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Pages of Ronald Ross and Rudyard Kipling claim them to be British, not British Indian. They were both born in India and worked in India. But they left India much before they got Nobel Prize. Kipling left India in 1889 and Ross in 1899. Nobel laureates by country page shows Kipling and Ross under India section also, as they were born in India. GDibyendu (talk) 04:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Pls see the nationality cited in the ref. _Bharatveer (talk) 07:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Did anybody say that he is not Indian? '1st Among Asians' is a deeper info that '1st Among Indians'. Simply because, India is a proper subset of Asia. Are you somehow not getting the point, Bharatveer? GDibyendu (talk) 08:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Pls read the talk archives of this article, then maybe you will get some idea why I made that change.-Regards-Bharatveer (talk) 08:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Bharatveer, please answer the question instead of dodging it. Also, do remember the arbitration ruling currently in effect against you: Bharatveer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) is subject to a comprehensive editing restriction for one year. He is limited to one revert per page per week (excepting obvious vandalism), and is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page. --Ragib (talk) 08:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, Tagore was from British India, which as an entity is quite different from the Republic of India, so "Indian" does not carry the same meaning now as it did at the time of Tagore. --Ragib (talk) 08:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Please tell me the reason why this reference is being removed -http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/literature/laureates/1913/ .See that India is clearly mentioned. .-Bharatveer (talk) 08:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about the removal of the ref. But you yourself clearly know "India" in 1913 referred to British India and NOT "Republic of India" (post 1947). Besides, Ross and Kipling won the nobel prize before Tagore. --Ragib (talk) 08:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

No where except WP , I can see this "British India" nonsense. But I understand why you and your friends like this usage. And I dont see any purpose in continuing this discussion here. -Bharatveer (talk) 06:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest removing the current ref next to Nobel Laureate (currently reference #1) as it does not add any new value to this page. And there was no ref for this piece of info a few days back. GDibyendu (talk) 09:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the statement some are making that Tagore wasn't Indian is just plain wrong. I also am not sure that his "nationality" is "british indian". maybe "citizenship". Both "Nationality" and "Indian" have deep meanings beyond and above the political situation in India at a certain time. --ppm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.169.36.49 (talk) 03:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

There is no "Indian" ethnicity. Tagore was a Bengali by ethnicity. --Ragib (talk) 04:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Anyone reading the article these days?

Or just checking the diffs? (in the 2nd case, what are your views on this change?)

Fixed this factual error. He received knighthood in 1915. Renounced in 1919. References are many, that's why did not cite. For example, this one. And a see also article: List of people who have declined a British honour. GDibyendu (talk) 16:35, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I am finding some parts of the artihttp://en.wikipedia.org/skins-1.5/common/images/button_sig.png Your signature with timestampcle are now pretty unreadable: like last two sentences of Early Life section.

There was some grammatical error in a sentence. Fixed it. GDibyendu (talk) 16:35, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, there are a lot of details, which can easily distract the readers. Such details can be avoided by say, using internal links and by removing details when such a link is available. For example 'Calcutta (now Kolkata, India)' can easily be changed to Calcutta. Also, for example, details on 'upanayan' is not needed in this article, particularly beacuse it is an internal link already. GDibyendu (talk) 14:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

In Shantiniketan section, in this part of the 1st sentence "...an ashram, which would grow to include a marble-floored prayer hall ("The Mandir")", the link for Mandir is leading to wikipage on Hindu Temple, which I doubt what the prayer hall in the Ashram is. My suggestion is to remove the Interlink for Mandir or to remove ("The Mandir"), unless it is really important to mention.GDibyendu (talk) 16:35, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi! Yes, it's true the article needs constant monitoring besides a revamp, or at least, some good thorough readings and copyedit. The main author of teh article, Saravask (talk · contribs) has become very infrequent. Please go ahead with the changes you deem necessary. And,even better, discuss that in the talk page, just as you are doing. Cheers!!--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:48, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

About Jana Gana Mana. I have deleted Rabindrasangeet from association with this work. It is open to Brahmos to respectfully not stand up when this song is played as National Anthem of India. Sroy1947 (talk) 18:59, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with this 'compromising edit' for this reason that Jana Gana Mana was not generally considered a "Rabindrasangeet", though it is an abridged version (1st and last stanza, right?) of Tagore's poem Bharat Bhagyabidhata (which had 5 stanzas, as far as I remember). Whereas, I am also aware that it was considered as Brahmosangeet and was sung in Brahmo Meetings (sabha), long before it was chosen as National Anthem of India. GDibyendu (talk) 19:15, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes :-) Sroy1947 (talk) 19:51, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Jeanenawhitney added a few links today for some works of Tagore in Bibliographys section (using a tool), I have removed link for Raja as it leads to a general page of Raja, even disambiguation page does not have any info on the work Raja. And its an English word anyway: so removed this unnecessary link. Added link for Gitanjali, even though another link for the same exists in the template. Probably thats OK as it might be the most well-known work of Tagore for general English Readers. Removed detail of upanayan as the wikipage and interlink already exist. (similarly, there was no explanation for brahmacharya, as interlink was there) GDibyendu (talk) 14:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Lead section contains this: "he published his first substantial poetry under the pseudonym Bhanushingho ("Sun Lion")". Early Life section states:"As a joke, he maintained that these were the lost works of Bhānusiṃha, a newly discovered 17th-century Vaiṣṇava poet". As per my knowledge, Bhanushingho and Bhānusiṃha are same, so spellings should be same to avoid confustion. Any views? GDibyendu (talk) 14:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

What does this sentence mean:"Tagore’s "Sadhana" period, comprising the four years from 1891 to 1895, was named for one of Tagore’s magazines"? The sentence seems to be a bit confusing. Does it mean to say 'named after'? Was Tagore publisher of a magazine named Sadhana? Was that magazine named after 'Sadhana' period or is it the other way? Thanks.GDibyendu (talk) 18:09, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dispute tag

I've removed the dispute tag. The claim is sourced twice already. Here is a third . There needs to be more evidence that these sources are wrong. You shouldn't mar a FA with a tag like this just because one editor thinks they heard something to the contrary but can't furnish a good cite to that effect. Professor marginalia (talk) 22:47, 21 May 2008 (UTC)