Talk:Sare Jahan se Accha

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Sare Jahan Se accha dialog invented by Rakesh Sharma .


I don't challenge the definition of Hindustani--and would like to help build the entry on it--but to say that Saare Jahan Say Achcha is written in Hindustani rather than Urdu. Isn't that inaccurate?--iFaqeer 20:50, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)

I didn't want to do anything, because there are certainly those who know Hindi/Urdu better than I, but I think there were a few mistakes. Writing out all the unicode by hand, as I have done many a time myself, I can understand this happening. I don't want to correct anything, only to find out it is some archaic or literary style. Was हिन्दुस्तान ever really हिन्दोस्तां or ەندوستاں؟ or गुलिस्तान -> गुलसितां/گلستاں؟ though? Both being Persian words, I should feel safe changing these nasalisations, but I don't have a copy of the song in front of me. The simple English I don't personally like, but realize a proper transliteration doesn't help the normal person any more than Devanagari or Naskh! But than again I still like:

Sāre jahāṁ (or jahān) se accha, hindustān hamāra...

The Devanagari izaafat is always weird, but does there really need to be a '\'? I have seen this rendering many times though and so its more of a stylistic quandary than an actual problem ;-)

Whether or not anyone wants to engage in the old Hindi/Urdu debate (leave me out!) this should probably be written in Urdu naskh as well. I'm no poetic scholar, and am not sure off the top of head if this meets the metrical requirements, but this sounds like it is some kind of good ol' Urdu she'er to my novice ears. But when writing:

سارے جەان اچەا هندوستان همارا should be

سارے جەاں اچها ەندوستان ەمارا ەم بلبليں ەيں اس كى، يە گلستان ەمارا ... and so on.

(I'm noticing the choti he's, do chashmi he's and nun-e ghunna's.)

Khirad 10:10, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Translation Incomplete?[edit]

Can someone who knows meanings of Urdu/Hindustani words used here complete the english translation?

Ashish G 19:38, 7 October 2005 (UTC)


1. The poem is entitled 'Tarana Hindi,' not 'Saare Jahan Se Acha' 2. It is in Urdu, not Hindi. Iqbal did not compose any Hindi poetry. 3. Its an absolute travesty that the text of the poem has been written out in Hindi script and not in the original Urdu. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kabuli (talkcontribs)

Yes, I agree that there should be Urdu lyrics (before the Devanagari) since the song was written in Urdu, not even Hindoustani, but it could be interpreted as that. Someone, please add the Urdu lyrics, unless anyone has problems with the Urdu. And also, I'm gonna mention that it's also called Tarana Hindi.

Basawala 19:33, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, I added the lyrics in Urdu, and I'm about to tinkle with the weird transliteration, since it spells hamaara in different ways. Basawala 19:53, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
You do realize that Hindu and Urdu are basically the same language? They are specialized registers of Hindustani. --vi5in[talk] 00:31, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Devanagari transliteration[edit]

Why do we have the devanagari transliteration? How is it significant? Sarvagnya 05:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

The original was written in Urdu script, which really should be the only script used, but someone finds a reference that says the song is sung by Hindi(as opposed to Urdu)-speaking schoolchildren, then they might have a reason to put the Hindi lyrics here. And also, I have noticed some differences between the Urdu and Devanagari lyrics, of which the Urdu was most like the transliteration, so I'm guessing that the Devanagari lyrics were faulty anyways. Mar de Sin Speak up! 12:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
With this argument Roman Script should also be removed ? I think previous comment gives a good answer to Sarvagnya's question. Also Devanagari is the script used by Hindi, which is a national language of India about which this song is. And a large number of people do recognize and love the song in India in this script. --dpk011
  • The transliteration in Roman alphabets is there because this is the English Wikipedia and English uses the Roman alphabet.
  • Devanagari is not of any significance here because
a)The song is not in a language which uses the Devanagari script.
b)This is not the Hindi(or some other language) wikipedia where Devanagari happens to be the script Hindi uses.
  • Hindi might be "A" national language of India, but is by no stretch of imagination the ONLY national language. Many non-hindi speakers recognize(write and read/sing) this song in their own scripts - be it kannada or manipuri or oriya or assamese. At that rate we would have to have transliterations in every language around the world because, who knows there might be some guy in Indonesia who likes this song and writes and reads it in his own Indonesian script.
  • In other words, both Hindi and Devanagari are insignificant as far as this article is concerned.
Sarvagnya 22:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I beg to differ Sarvagnya. Hindi is a common language in India and I myself have learnt this song from a Hindi book. And you can safely assume that there are more Indians who understand Devanagari script than those who understand the Nasta'liq. Please restore the Devnagari lyrics for the benefit of people like me (who I think are definitely more than you can count). Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by User: (talkcontribs)
First of all, Hindi is not as common a language in India as you think or have been led to believe. And more importantly, this is not India. This is the Wikipedia and not any Hindi Prachar Sabha. It runs according to its own policies not according to the whims and fancies of the Hindi speaking Indian. Under Wikipedia policy, there is no place for Hindi in this article. And in any case, you say you've already learnt it from a Hindi book. So people like you can also do the same. Sarvagnya 21:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
"First of all" guy - The word "urdu" was coined less than 300 years ago to represent Hindustani (the common vernacular of north India) written with a modified arabic alphabet [modified because many Sanskrit, Prakrit-Hindi consonants are not present in arabic]. "urdu" specifically refers to Hindustani or Hindi (the two were used interchangeably)written in a modified arabic script. That, "First of all" was really First of all - urdu, a word coined in the eighteenth century by a "wannabe arab" Indian moslem. And Second of all, if you do not subscribe to the sentiments of the poem/song by Iqbal, why do you care? Of course,lacking any literature, of your own, it is so much more convenient to write it in some script you invent, then call it all your own. Nothing new here. Same old same old.Chibber (talk) 22:50, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[User:Chibber]
You show an ignorance of history of India and of evolution of its languages. Urdu language, which later also was called Hindi and Hindustani, developed from north Indian languages and Persian in the last millenium. That is that Urdu is not an invented word "coined' to represent a languaged called otherwise, it is a word for the language that genuinely developed in northern India during the Muslim rule by Persianised Turks. It developed from local Indian languages with substantial addition of Persian and lesser Arabian and Turkic influences. In fact word Hindi was coined to represent Sanskritisized register of Urdu to appease the sentiments of Hindu nationalists and the word Hindustani was coined to include both Urdu and Hindi. So the word Urdu was not coined by a "wannabe arab Indian moslem" but quite the other way. In fact the word Urdu isn't even an Arab word, it is a Turkic word meaning the army (compare to modern Turkish "ordu"). Urdu language means the "army language" that is to say the language of the ruling Persianised Turkic elite of India during last millenium. (talk) 11:28, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
The same useless argument the user above made on Talk:Vande Mataram and Talk:Jana Gana Mana. What's really insignificant is your OR on the influence of Hindi in India. It is the Official Language of India. It stays.Bakaman Bakatalk 00:23, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Whether hindi is the opeesial language of India or Timbuktu or Somalia is irrelevant and totally besides the point. WP runs on its own policies and not according to your whims and fancies. This is an article about an Urdu song on English Wikipedia. Hindi has no business squatting on this article. Sarvagnya 01:17, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Ok. it doesnt run to the whims and fancies of Belgaum either . All you have cited is your own irrelevant hatred of Hindi, and tried to whitewash Hindi from the pages of the three "national" songs of India. And in response to your edit summary, its absolutely relevant to link this with Vande Mataram and Jana Gana Mana, since you've gone against consensus to try and further these DMK style anti-Hindi crusades.Bakaman Bakatalk 01:50, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
I think Hindi transliteration should be retained.Its high time to take a strict action against sarvagnya who's creating a chaos and pushing his POV wherever he goes.His posts here clearly show his hatred towards Hindi,i think he should be warned so as to use defamatory lingo against any language.

Mahawiki 14:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Just one comment, this is different from the case of Jana Gana Mana or Vande Mataram. The former was adopted by the Parliament in its Hindi version (as the references have been shown to us), and the latter is really a mix of Sanskrit and Bengali, in which case, Devanagari scrip (not Hindi language) was accepted after a long discussion.

However, in this case, it is an Urdu song. As far as I know, Urdu is one of the languages with official status, just as Bengali, Tamil, etc. have in India. Unless the Devanagari script usage has some sort of official sanction (as in the case of Jana Gana Mana), I think sticking to the original script should be the best option. Of course, if there IS some official decision to use Devanagari script, it would be a different matter (which would be interesting ... I think Bengali's phonetic difference is what prompted the parliament to adopt it in the Hindi version, to make it easier for the majority of non-Bengali Indians ... this is not the case with this song). --Ragib 02:57, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Because Hindi and Urdu are hard to distinguish, there are many that would call this song a Hindi one (i.e. Yahoo Answers). I don't think there is any harm keeping the Hindi script on here and I think it should stay per Bakaman and dpk011. Thanks! --AnupamTalk 22:57, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
I concur with Anupam. I would also like to add that SJSA is an important Indian national song, even if it's unofficial. In India, it's popular among both Hindi and Urdu speakers, which is why it should have both scripts. Mar de Sin Speak up! 19:35, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I think everyone should know this: Go through Sarvagnya's contributions and talk pages and you will find that he has a Anti-Hindi and Anti-Devanagiri bias. One of his major contributions to Wikipedia has been the deletion of Hindi names and Devanagiri script from every India related article.

He has done exactly the same thing for three songs which are very important in India(Jana Gana Mana, Saare Jahan se Accha, Vande Mataram). The fact that Devanagiri is a major script in India and Hindi is the official language of India means that every Indian will want to read this article and hence it is necessary to keep the Devanagiri version. Just because of ONE POV-pushing Wikipedian we are indulging in an endless debate!

And why should ONE biased Wikipedian be allowed to hold Wikipedia to ransom? How can one persons opinion be greater than the Constitution of India. The Constituent Assembly which had representatvies from all parts and communities of India had collectively taken the decision. If Sarvagnya is unhappy with it , let him keep it to himself, why should Wikipedia suffer? --Deepak D'Souza 06:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


I think if we'll talk about the controversy surrounding Vande Mataram and Jana Gana Mana I think we should also mention the controversy surrounding this song since it was penned by the ideological patron of Pakistan. I have no personal views on this, I'm just stating facts. --Antorjal 17:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

protected until script issues resolved[edit]

Wow, this article has sure seen a lot of see-saw reverts today and yesterday!!! I've protected it until the warring parties find a consensus. Edit warring is evil. Please cool down and get a consensus on the script issues. Thank you. --Ragib 04:09, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, Basawala, myself, Anupam, dgk, mahawiki, and an anon IP support Hindi. Sarvagnya and another user (who is also Kannada) do not and abuse popups to keep the article Hindi-free to allay their fears of a "Hindi Prachar Sabha" that supposedly exists.Bakaman Bakatalk 04:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, the point is not about how many support Hindi and how many oppose. Point is why and how Hindi transliteration is required for a Urdu song in English language wikipedia. - KNM Talk - Contribs 04:52, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Sarvagnya and all other anti-Hindi memebers are adviced to stop spreading hatred against any language.just like wikipedia is not Hindi-prachar sabha its not hindi virodh sabha either.I do agree that Hindi is not our sole national language but it is a fact that it is the official and main link language of India [1]. Morever i hope all know that Colloquially and linguistically, the distinction between the Urdū and Hindi is nearly meaningless[2].Apart from all this reasons what harm will it do to anyone if we include hindi transliteration? Mahawiki 05:44, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
At first, I request all the editors to assume good faith on other editors, especially when the effort is towards a consensus. No one is spreading hatred against any language. Questioning of inclusion of a transliteration is definetely not hatred against that language. It is only an effort in maintaining WP:NPOV in the article.
Coming back to the content dispute, the question is about the inclusion of transliteration in Devanagari script. I request the reasons for this inclusion. Please note, the song is a Urdu song, and this is English language wikipedia. Including the transliteration in Devanagari script or in any other script is against WP:NPOV.
"What harm will it do?" can be logically applied to all the languages and all the scripts. Again, the answer is WP:NPOV. Thanks. - KNM Talk - Contribs 16:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Since this song is considered a national song of India, although unoffical, and it is sung by both Urdu and Hindi-speaking people in the Hindi-Urdu language, I think Devanagari transliteration is rather pertinent and should be included in this article. Mar de Sin Speak up! 19:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • There is nothing like an 'unofficial' national song. Moreover, this song is sung not only by Hindi and Urdu speaking people but also by Kannada, Telugu, Tamil, Bengali etc speaking people. So if Hindi transliterations can be included, in all fairness, Kannada, Telugu, Bengali etc., transliterations should also be included.
  • Also, even if we were to assume that this is indeed a 'national' song whether official or unofficial, that still is no reason to include Hindi transliterations on Wikipedia.
  • Knowing Hindi or not knowing Hindi is not a yardstick to measure patriotism(to India) by any stretch of imagination. A person can be ignorant of Hindi and still be a patriot of the highest order.
  • Once again, please keep WP free of any nationalistic compulsions of India or being Indian. WP has nothing to do with those things. Sarvagnya 20:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Once again, a splurge of useless rants. Consensus by Hindi and Urdu users has indicated that both translations are ok because the divide between Hindi and Urdu is not defined. There is somewhat of a difference between Kannada and Hindi (a large one). Sarvagnya, bringing the whole Kannada Koota in this argument doesn't show much about your consensus skills. KNM, how does NPOV figure into this, there is no POV except from the regionalistic tendencies of Marathi and Kannada users, who have taken their war for Belgaon onto every India related page on wiki.Bakaman Bakatalk 23:58, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
There is a clear difference between Devanagari script and Urdu script. The song is of Urdu language and hence Urdu transliteration is required. This is English language Wikipedia, and hence English transliteration is required. Hence, any transliteration apart from Urdu and English will affect the NPOV of the article.
I request not to try deviating the discussion by talking about "regionalistic tendencies", "Belgaon", "Kannada koota" etc. Usage of "splurge of useless rants" is definetely uncalled for in a healthy discussion.
Please focus on the consensus only for the current issue. That will help unprotecting the article. - KNM Talk - Contribs 00:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Its well used. I am focusing on consensus, while Sarvagnya rants about "Consensus by mob", "Hindi is not a national language" and other canards. Kannada Koota is a term used for a convention of Kannada people ([3],[4],[5], etc.), its much like the fictional "Hindi prachar Sabha" Sarvagnya talks about. How is it POV? The only POV is Kannada users (even Urdu users support the use of Hindi) violating NPOV themselves, see ethnic bias. I have no problem with 'constructive dialogue just not trolling by users obviously here to do the bidding of another user.Bakaman Bakatalk 00:34, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I've thought about this and I feel that Sarvagnya is right. I retract my earlier statements (But, I am not deleting them).
Why do we specifically need a Hindi translation, when we have an English one available? A possible reason is that those who know English & Hindi might want to read it in Hindi and feel good about their country i.e., assuming they are Indians. But, most Wikipedia users are not. So, I conclude saying that a Hindi version is needed only to promote Indian patriotism. This is Wikipedia, not a school text-book. Any other reason? -- 23:34, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Please read Anupam's comment below.Bakaman Bakatalk 03:51, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

discussions removed by KNM[edit]

Sarvagnya and all other anti-Hindi memebers are adviced to stop spreading hatred against any language.just like wikipedia is not Hindi-prachar sabha its not hindi virodh sabha either.I do agree that Hindi is not our sole national language but it is a fact that it is the official and main link language of India [6]. Morever i hope all know that Colloquially and linguistically, the distinction between the Urdū and Hindi is nearly meaningless[7].Apart from all this reasons what harm will it do to anyone if we include hindi transliteration? Mahawiki 05:44, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Stop your empty rhetoric and if possible give a justification for having hindi/devanagari script there. Like I've already said before, this is an Urdu song and the English wikipeidia and the use of Hindi here is superfluous and meaningless. Sarvagnya 06:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
This is the last time i am requesting u to tone down ur language.If u read my post clearly its not rhetoric and with a justification of why Hindi transliteration should be used here.
  • I do agree that Hindi is not our sole national language but it is a fact that it is the official and main link language of India [8]
  • Colloquially and linguistically, the distinction between the Urdū and Hindi is nearly meaningless[9] [10]
  • The song is ewually popular with Hindi speakers.In fact song is referred as tarana-e-Hindi [11]
Since u want to remove the transliteration, onus is upon YOU to justify why to remove it?According to me u r just showcasing ur hatred against Hindi.Morever there's a consensus to include Hindi transliteration.Remember, this is not hindi virodh sabha. Thanks. Mahawiki 06:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
None of the reasons you give is acceptable on WP. WP runs according to its own rules. It does not run according to the Indian constitution. Moreover, this song has no special sanction even under the Indian constitution. This is just another song and it happens to be in Urdu. As for Hindi people singing it, I know it for a fact that people from all over India(of all languages, castes and creed) sing it. That doesnt mean we need to infest this article with transliterations of all the 200 odd languages in India. Also stop citing sources like this and this. They are somebody's private blogs and are worthless as far as WP is concerned. See WP:Citing Sources Sarvagnya 07:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

But what about consensus among editors here to include Hindi transliteration?I am sure none of us are taking help of sockpuppets to achive the consensus. Mahawiki 07:07, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Wikipedia is NOT a democracy for like minded people to vote and push their POV. Wikipedia is about truth and it has its own policies and rules to ensure that people work towards that end. Like I said, the Indian constitution's writ doesnt run on the Wikipedia. Sarvagnya 07:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • As for your accusations of sockpuppetry, I treat it with the contempt I reserve especially for you and your ilk(read arya, baka). I encourage you to go and file your complaint with any authority you want - even Jimbo Wales LOL. :D Sarvagnya 07:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I have not accused u of sockpuppetry here.I am talking about the consensus.Mahawiki
  • ::Is that so???Then why did u talked about consensus thing HERE..? (Sarvagnya: And secondly, the consensus on this page seems to be that the Urdu translation is not required..) Any comments? Mahawiki 07:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Consensus based on WP policies is different from consensus of a mob. Sarvagnya 07:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

And I didnt knew ur so concerned about WP policies and rule..especially when ur removing official warnings and the non-obscene message which u dont like?[12]Again do u remember u had adviced me once against removing official warnings?(see the link) Mahawiki

Sarvagnya, invading the page with all the Kannada users, is a mob, not inviting Urdu and Hindi users for dialogue. As for your suggested use of Tamil, while I am flattered, I dont see the need for Tamil, especially because Tamil and Sanskrit diverged over 8k years ago, and Tamil bears no resemblance to Urdu, and little resemblance to Hindi.Bakaman Bakatalk 00:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
So are you suggesting that the criteria for adding a particular script in an article in wiki should be whether that script bears any resemblance with the original language or not? Gnanapiti 00:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm just being curious here as I'm fairly new to wiki. Should the native languages of all participating users also be considered while discussing a particular article in talk page? Does that have any effect on the article at the end? I'm not yet completely familiar with wiki policies. Gnanapiti 00:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Of course not, my native language is not Hindi, its Trivandrumite Tamil, and in particular one group of users is trolling to remove Hindi, to forward their own ethnic hatreds onto the page. Look at the sources saying that Hindi/Urdu/Hindustani are 1 related language.[13],[14],[15],[16],[17],[18]. Of course violating WP:OR, consensus, and WP:3RR are tactics one can use to remove Hindi, since you obviously have no case.Bakaman Bakatalk 00:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Hello everyone. I am a proponent of keeping both Urdu and Hindi scripts on this article. First of all, there are many people in India that refer to Saare Jahan Se Achcha as a Hindi song (and learn it as such). As Bakaman stated, Hindi/Urdu/Hindustani are very closely related languages. That is why Wikipedia articles employ one article for many topics relating to Hindi/Urdu/Hindustani (i.e. Hindi-Urdu grammar, Uddin and Begum Urdu-Hindustani Romanization, Hindustani orthography, Hindustani (Hindi-Urdu) word etymology, etc.) A similar situation involves the scripts in Bollywood related articles. While Bollywood films may be called Hindi cinema, there are many who claim Urdu to be their mother tongue who watch and understand these movies, calling them Urdu movies. That is why Bollywood articles use both the Devanagai and Perso-Arabic Script (i.e. Fanaa, Sarkar, Amitabh Bachchan, etc.) In the same fashion, Saare Jahan Se Achcha may be an Urdu song, however there are many individuals who claim Hindi to be their mother tongue who understand this song, calling it a Hindi one. Putting Kannada, Telugu, Tamil, Bengali, etc. scripts on the article would be entirely different because they are unrelated to Hindi/Urdu/Hindustani, which has been established as one language by many. For example many sources such as infoplease, Tigerx, and several others classify them together when giving populations statistics of speakers. Not to mention, linguists count them together as one language. In light of these facts, I think it is best to retain both Urdu and Hindi on this article. Thanks for your time and understanding.
--AnupamTalk 04:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
It is indeed sad to see the talkpage of such a great song being "hijacked" (Baka's words) by fanatics like Sarvagnya and his troupe of "Kannadizers" (NaveenBM, KNM, Kannadabadi, etc.). These people have no real good faith, just want to malign other languages. Anupam has provided some really good citations but Sarvagnya just ignores them and goes on with his blah..blah ! It's high time genuine editors start ignoring his childish behaviour. -AryaRajyaमहाराष्ट्र 17:41, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Why are we still entertaining them?I think,with Anupam's citations this issue has been sorted out.Please ignore them.If they create more havoc call in admins or post the details on wikipedia noticeboard.

Mahawiki 18:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree totally with Anupam. I think wherever the Urdu or Hindi transliteration is on a particular article, the other should be there too. They are the same spoken language but are written differently. There is no harm in having an extra script. Many people can only read one of these scripts so it will be better to have both. GizzaChat © 05:41, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Makes no sense. It is not for us to decide whether H and U are the same or not. Linguists have classified it as different languages, so we will have to go with that. Also, even on wikipedia we have different articles for both languages. Mirza Ghalib is always referred to as an Urdu poet. Munshi Premchand is referred to as Hindi. So the distinction is very clear. Even the author of this song is known as an Urdu poet not a Hindi poet. His mother tongue was Urdu not Hindi. Urdu and Hindi even have different scripts.
  • And moreover, please remember that this is the english wikipedia. If you want hindi script in this article, why dont you go to urdu wikipedia and add hindi script to all the articles? Or why dont you go to hindi wikipedia and add Urdu script to all the articles?? Sarvagnya 21:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry you have no sources to back up your claims. No one cares what you think about Hindi and Urdu, its quite obvious you are against Hindi for trivial reasons and are repeating the same bakwaas over and over again. Bakaman Bakatalk 01:03, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
What do I need sources for? To prove that Hindi script is not used on Urdu wikipedia? To prove that Urdu script is not used on Hindi Wikipedia? Or that this is an article on English wikipedia? Or that Mirza Ghalib was an Urdu poet?? Or thta M Premchand wrote in Hindi?? Or that Hindi and Urdu are different languages?? By the way, what is bakwaas?? Does it have something to do with your name?? I mean, I see an uncanny similarity between that term you used and your username. Sarvagnya 04:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Dear Sarvagnya, bakwaas means nonsense and it what ur doing by having personal attacks against fellow-editors. Mirza Ghalib or Premchand are not related to SJSA.Hindi and Urdu are descendents of Khadi boli;Hindi has more Sanskrit words while Urdu bears more persian and arabic influence.But they are quite somilar as much that Hindi speakers find Urdu intelligible and vice versa.The song SJSA is a very popular amongst Hindi and Urdu speakers alike. Many people including my generation have read and learnt it through Devnagari script in our school-days.I cant read Urdu script.I am sure Nagari script is widely understood everywhere in fact even u understand it (remember haLLis and paLLis?) so probably even u have come across to this song in Nagari script rather than Kannada or Roman script.I think me, Baka, Anupam have provided 'enough reasons and citations to keep Nagari script (be it Nagari if u mind using 'Hindi').I hope u shall understand and acknowledge them.Its a humble request,please stop personal attacks and rude language like u used in edit summary of Konkani or here against Baka.It is not fair to provoke them and then go on complaining everywhere.

Thanks. Mahawiki 13:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppet information[edit]

This user is a member of this (heated) discussion and for the benefit of everyone please see this.I hope the POV pushing and harrassing will now evade. Mahawiki 19:28, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Well since the Kannada "users" (user) have stopped trolling and socking this page, its ripe for unprotection.Bakaman Bakatalk 23:08, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


The article has been under protection since Oct 16, so I'm unprotecting it. Hopefully, this time we will avoid the edit wars that resulted in the protection. Thanks. --Ragib 05:19, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry but I didnt notice any consensus evolve in the above discussion. I just kept quiet and didnt respond in the last many days simply because I didnt want to be repeating myself or feeding any useless beating around the bush. All that the for-Hindi transliteration editors have been giving is just convoluted logic to try and sneak in a Hindi transliteration through the backdoor. The fact that Hindi and Urdu are different languages has already been decided by linguists and for all means and purposes they are also treated as different languages on Wikipedia. This is a purely Urdu poem by an Urdu poet and there really is no need for Hindi transliterations here. I request you to please revert the page back and protect it. Sarvagnya 05:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia pages are not really meant to be kept protected all the time. The best thing is to reach a consensus based on discussion. The page had been protected since Oct 16, and there had been little activity in the talk page. So, it didn't make sense to keep the article protected any more. If there is a new edit war, please refer to Request for page protection to submit a request for protection. Thank you. --Ragib 06:40, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Per discussion above, nearly all users not from a certain ethnolinguistic POV supported Hindi. Even the two Urdu users (anupam and Basawala) supported it. Anyway, I caught Sarvagnya 3rr gaming with sock/meatpuppets (see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Sarvagnya) on this article. Bakaman Bakatalk 16:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


Now that I read the intro para, I can't help doubting the correctness of the following sentence:

It is said he disowned this song as a "Hindi" song later in life.

The article it cites is very poorly written, and has very glaring misinformation about many other things (like claiming Rakesh Sharma was the first indian to land on moon, whereas he was actually the first Indian to go to space). The derogative language used in this source makes me think that it is more like a comment/Pakistan-bashing article rather than fact. So, I'd like to see more reliable sources for this statement about Iqbal. Thanks. --Ragib 17:29, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

This is a citation that had been removed before. Dont know which vandal put it back again. Using such citations IS 'vandalism' of sorts because it is in extremely inflamatory language and can only be seen as trolling. I have gone ahead and removed it. Not only is it general nonsense and muck but the citation doesnt even conform to WP:citing sources, WP:notable sources policies. It is a personal blog of a 'nobody'. Sarvagnya 20:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Protected again[edit]

Unfortunately, since I unprotected it on Nov 8, there have been 13 edits, and every one of them is a revert. This implies that the edit disputes are yet to be resolved. I urge the debating users to use the talk page rather than doing this endless cycle of reverts/counter-reverts. Thanks. --Ragib 04:03, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

True, except one user has 7 reverts and 4 people combined for the other 6.Bakaman Bakatalk 04:08, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I suggest the users to start an RFC on this to reach a consensus. Getting more uninvolved users' opinion is also a good idea. Thanks. --Ragib 04:40, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps, after other things are sorted out. I think its funny how Hindi (actually I'm willing to bet Sarvagnya speaks better Hindi than me) speakers and Urdu Speakers supported Hindi in the article.Bakaman Bakatalk 05:51, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Text, Transliterations and Translation[edit]

Urdu Text, and English and Hindi transliterations, and English Translation of the poem ‎should be removed from the article. It is an unprecedented act which has never happened ‎in any other article about a famous poem. Giving complete transliterations and translation ‎and using misleading word as titles is complete abuse of Wikipedia and I consider it a ‎part shameless propaganda (by Indian-imperialists) which is going on without any ‎resistance of any kind. This is a blatant attempt to claim the poem's writer for India ‎without considering that he was the one who proposed the whole idea of Pakistan.‎ Szhaider 14:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

PS: I will wait for the response to above question for a couple more days. If I do not get any answer, I will remove entire text, transliterations and translation of the poem. It is absurd to copy an entire poem instead of having a comprehensive article about it. Szhaider 22:53, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, there are articles which give the text of patriotic songs. For example, see the Star Spangled Banner, the National Anthem of India. In addition, the other two significant patriotic songs of India, Vande Mataram and Jana Gana Mana provide the proper texts. In regards to your concern listed above, see the introduction, specifically the sentence starting with Ironically. In my opinion, keeping the text, transliterations, and translations is helpful to readers and gives due credit to the song. Thanks, AnupamTalk 00:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Actually anupam, some of what szhaider said is correct. I made a point some time ago that Iqbal dumped this "Hindi song" later in life. It seems sz validated my point.Bakaman 02:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
That being said, Anupam's point of the Stars and Stripes, God Bless America and etc having transliterations carries more weight as it provides a precedent.Bakaman 23:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Anupam as well. What does including the devanagari script have to do with claiming Iqbal for the Republic of India? Iqbal wrote that song early in his career, long before he conceived of Pakistan. There are other poems from that period, like "Naya Shivala" that are even more eclectic in their religious outlook than T-e-H. However, what is the contradiction? Iqbal was a complex and prolific man and any picture of such a person will necessarily be complex. Although he advocated a Muslim homeland for much of his last 30 years, he was more complex than his final version; an encyclopedia has to be sensitive to that, even if he himself didn't want to. I am therefore replacing the devanagari script. I will correct some of the misspellings I had noticed earlier. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments and corrections Fowler&Fowler. In addition to what you said, I have provided my reasoning here. With warm regards, AnupamTalk 20:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Words and Meanings[edit]

I have to say I don't like the lead sentence. It should be about a song; instead, it seems to be about describing Iqbal's history. As a neutral observer of India-Pakistan wars on Wikipedia, here is my take:

Here is a song that is overwhelmingly popular in India and little known in Pakistan. However, the irony is that most Indians don't really understand the song—I would wager that 95% of native Hindi speakers don't know the meaning of all the words in the song (let alone native speakers of the other Indian languages, except Urdu and perhaps Punjabi)—on the other hand, most Pakistanis do know most words in the song, even though they don't hear it much. This strange set of circumstances results in the following anomaly: The Indians know it is important, have heard it sung, but don't really understand it, so they write about Iqbal, about the circumstances of the song, etc.; Pakistanis have either never heard of the song, or have heard that it is not important, so they react by asking, "Do we really need a Wikipedia page on this piece of claptrap?" etc. The truth is that Iqbal, as befits a great man, was a complex figure. In his early years, his view of the world was more eclectic. This changed in this later years, and it showed in his literary output. Both versions of Iqbal need to be accommodated in a final version.

One way to deal with the problem is to write more about the meaning of the song, without compromising WP:NOR of course. For the Indians to write less about the circumstances of the song, (or political implications of the song for secular India) and for the Pakistanis to acknowledge that it is really a song about Pakistan as much as about the Republic of India—the words, certainly, apply to either country, as well as Bangladesh. For example, there is really no need for the Indian astronaut story: to repeat the first line of the song, as the astronaut did, is to repeat a cliche; had he quoted the second stanza (please read it), he would have shown understanding of the song. In addition, both Urdu and Hindi scripts should stay, since the song is popular in India (and therefore providing the entire script, will at the very least, help many Indians to really understand the words). Also, I wouldn't make too much of the stanza, "Mazahab nahin ..." that is often quoted as proof of Iqbal's secular vision etc. Of all the stanza's in the poem/song, it is really the least poetic, and I wonder if Iqbal added it more for the occasion than for the poetry. I mean there is really no need to discuss Iqbal's politics here, either secular or Islamic. Anyway, how about the following start:

One of the features of the poem is that it is tinged with sadness, even an underlying despair. In my view that makes it unusual among patriotic poems (in any language). Perhaps, WP editors should look for sources that support that observation. It should be there. Also, the poem is poorly translated. I could improve the translation a little, if I had the time. But perhaps other editors can do this better.

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:57, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for inviting me to the discussion Fowler&fowler. In my opinion, most Hindi speakers will be able to understand the majority of the words in the song. See Music India Online, which classifies this song as being a Hindi one. Unlike Vande Mataram or Jana Gana Mana, the song did not have to be translated into Hindi as it was already understood by Hindi speakers. However, I do support your revised introduction as it is based on valuable research and thought. I think it is okay to mention some important implications of the song as God Bless America, an American patriotic song (albeit not the national anthem) does. We must realize that Iqbal wrote this song when he supported a united and free India (before he proposed the two-nation theory). For verification, please see this Pakistani webpage and its description of the song (see this). However, it is important to include the sentence starting with the word Ironically which addresses concerns such as those brought up by Szhaider (see here). I do agree with your view to keep both Urdu and Hindi scripts per my explanation here. I hope my comments are helpful. With regards, AnupamTalk 23:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I dont see how the song is about India. The song clearly states Hindustan, and he is referring to British India. India and Pakistan were born in 1947, therefore both nations can adapt the song for their countries. Unre4LITY 23:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I think anupam has a point there that this song is not representative of iqbal's later beliefs, a point I found in a poorly sourced link. Also Fowler is correct in noting that the song is itself a complex web of beliefs and counterbeliefs. Much of what I had to comment on the page has already been said to Template:Szhaider and Sarvagnya (talk · contribs).Bakaman 00:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Anupam, Unre4L and Bakaman, Upon reflection, I agree with Bakaman and Anupam, that a point should be made, to put it crudely, that this poem is "Early Iqbal" and not the "Later Iqbal," and describe how they are different. I agree with Unre4L and that is why in my version of the lead sentences, Hindustan is explained, and India links to a dab page. Thanks for your website, Anupam, I heard the song there and it is the same as most versions of the poem that are sung in India and that Indians know. It has only 4 of the poems 9 stanzas:
These are the "easy" Urdu stanzas and, unfortunately, the least poetic. I can see why they would be the ones chosen for the popular song, but the poem itself, gets its real beauty from the parts that have been left out in the song:
Sadly, most people in India (and Pakistan for that matter) don't know those parts—the five stanzas that express yearning and attachment to the land, that express "cultural memory," and that give it an elegiac quality. That's why I said that if the astronaut had instead recited:
it really would have meant something. Anyway, your reply sounds reasonable. If the various warring parties can work out a compromise, it would be great. Personally, I would avoid calling Iqbal an "Indian Muslim" (even though he was one and considered himself one for what "India" meant then), but it is a can of worms, best unopened. Thanks again for replying! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure whether this part (the opening para) is the cause of the edit war, but in any case, I have protected the article to prevent the very awful edit war taking place in the article. It seems that the old debate about whether to include the Devnagari script/transliteration caused the edit war. I hope that will get resolved pretty soon. Thanks. -- Ragib 19:32, 20 January 2007.

I just looked at the history of the edit-warring, and it seems, Sarvagyna, (who I seem to remember from somewhere else too) is causing the problems. Sarvagyna, what is the problem? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Fowler, u sure have a good memory. Anyway, to answer u, "see talk". Sarvagnya 23:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Relevance of Hindi (Devanagari) Script[edit]

The reason why the Hindi (Devanagari) script is relevant is that Hindi is the only language that shares a common grammar and base vocabulary with Urdu. Kannada doesn't, Telegu doesn't, Tamil doesn't, even Punjabi doesn't. It may be that the four easy Urdu stanzas of "Saare Jahan Se Achcha" that are a part of the popular song in India have been transliterated into Kannada, Telegu and other Indian languages, but even so, all 9 stanzas will not make sense to a Telegu or Kannada speaker, if they don't already understand basic Hindi or Urdu. Except for obvious Persian-orgin words like "pasban," "hamsaya," "gulistan," "ghurbat," etc. all words are shared with Hindi; in addition, Iqbal uses two words "parbat" and "bayr" which are Hindi words. The Hindi transliteration is especially relevant for Iqbal, since in his early years, he used many Hindi words in his poetry. Here is an example from Naya Shivala:

For readers who read both Hindi and English, but not Urdu, Devanagari transliterations provide more accurate pronunciation of the Urdu words than the English transliterations, on account of Devanagari's much larger alphabet. In addition, there is a long tradition of publishing tri-lingual editions (Urdu, Hindi, English) of Urdu poetry. For example, Oxford University Press, has published a tri-lingual edition of Iqbal's Shikwa & Jawab-i-Shikwa (complaint and answer). So, Wikipedia will be following a well-established precedent. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Well said. Nobleeagle [TALK] [C] 02:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Fowler&fowler, thanks for the well researched comment. They are always appreciated. -AnupamTalk 23:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Please include the Devanagiri Script too. Whether the original was written in another script is meaningless. Most students in India learn this song in the Devanagari script. How different are Hindi and Urdu really? Just a script and few words?

--Deepak D'Souza 09:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Editing *out* a script is ideological rather than based on enhancing the usefulness of the entry. A language can be written in multiple scripts, Urdu/Hindi is commonly written in Devnagari. Since this song is most popular in India, and Devanagari script is the most widely read there, it is the most useful script for this. Others are nice to have. Puck42 (talk) 14:51, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
@Puck42: As you can see, once upon a time, if you scroll above, I myself had made the case for inclusion of the devanagari script. No one is editing it out, only keeping it in the Popularity in India section. The devanagari rendering is a special aspect of the poems popularity in India, and in consequence, relevant in that section. It is not an intrinsic, or literary, feature of the poem itself, only a sociological feature. The versions popular in India are almost always edited. Very few Indians, except those who attend Urdu medium schools (such as the kids here; watch after the 6 minute mark), knows the last stanzas. The last one, in any case, would be inconvenient to its present-day upbeat rending in India. In Pakistan, where the standards of Urdu are much higher, it is not that they are against the song, more that they think it is a children's song.

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:03, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Everyone knows what it is!!!1[edit]

Iqbal was a farsi (persian) and an Urdu poet. Obvioulsy his work was in Urdu, rather than hindi or hindustani as hindustani is a dilect, almost like a slang, however any poet wouldnt use it to write poetry..its like wordworth writting a Jay-Z song..the song is in Urdu, which obviously different from hindi..thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Uch (talkcontribs) 00:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC).

Nice article[edit]

This is a really nice article. It is nice to see the text in both Urdu and Devanagari. There are some minor errors, I will try to fix them sometime.

Iqbal was not Persian, but an Indian, specifically of Kashmiri (Brahmin) descent. He did later work for what is now Pakistan, but dies before Pakistan was created.

--Vikramsingh 01:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Some changes[edit]

I know the article is protected and the reason to it. However I have some other changes related to article.

- Muhammad Iqbal
- National Anthem

Can some admin please make these changes to article? --Webkami 15:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Script Problems[edit]

I am not going to debate about if Devanagari should be in article or not but I believe the script currently shown is wrong. The words || सारे... at end of every other line probably translate as Saare ... It is I think the style how it is sung, not the actual poetry. Can somebody who knows the script explain and remove this? --Webkami 16:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Can somebody please make edits I suggested above. --Webkami 10:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Suggested Changes[edit]

Please make these changes as you think appropriate.

  • Please change the link of the poet to [[Muhammad Iqbal|Sir Allama Muhammad Iqbal]] as current link is a redirect.
  • Please add the category [[Category:Poetry by Muhammad Iqbal]]
  • Please add following links to See Also section

Muhammad Iqbal & National Anthem

Done for this part, this much I can be pretty confident you're correct about. :) The rest, unfortunately, I have to admit I don't know the subject. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Corrected Script[edit]

I believe the Hindi transliteration script currently shown is wrong. The words || सारे... at end of every other line translate as Saare ... It is the style how it is sung, not the actual poetry. Below is the script without repetition of these words.

सारे जहाँ से अच्छा, िहन्दोस्तां हमारा|
हम बुलबुले हैं इसकी, यह गुलिसतां हमारा|

गुरबत में हों अगर हम, रहता है िदल वतन में|
समझो वहीं हमें भी, िदल हो जहाँ हमारा|

परबत वो सबसे ऊँचा, हमसाया आसमाँ का|
वो संतरी हमारा, वो पासवां हमारा|

गोदी में खेलती हैं, िजसकी हज़ारों निदयां|
गुलशन है िजसके दम से, रश्क-ए-िजनां हमारा|

ऐ आब-ए-रौंद-ए-गंगा! वो िदन है याद तुझको|
उतरा तेरे िकनारे, जब कारवां हमारा|

मजहब नहीं िसखाता, आपस में बैर रखना|
िहन्दी हैं हम वतन हैं, िहन्दोस्तां हमारा|

यूनान, िमस्र, रोमां, सब िमट गए जहाँ से|
अब तक मगर है बाकी, नाम-ओ-िनशां हमारा|

कुछ बात है िक हस्ती, िमटती नहीं हमारी|
सिदयों रहा है दुश्मन, दौर-ए-जहाँ हमारा|

'इक़बाल' कोई मरहूम, अपना नहीं जहाँ में|
मालूम क्या िकसी को, दर्द-ए-िनहां हमारा|

Thank you for your time --Webkami 10:37, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

English Transliteration of Article Heading[edit]

The transliteration of the 4th word of the poem, and the 4th and last word of heading, should be "Achchha" not "Achcha". Under the scheme of transliteration used, "chh" is the transpirated form of "ch", which is appropriate here. Both Urdu and Hindi speakers will recognize that the two consonant sound in the word "achchha" are different.


The song should first be presented in Urdu script as a recognition of the language used and the background of Iqbal. However, "Saare Jahan Se Achcha" is also a national patriotic song in India, and played a large role in the Independence movement, and as such it should also be written in the Hindi script, since Hindi is the national language of India (in contrast to official languages like Kannada and Bengali). The Roman script has been used, why isn't anyone complaining about that? What harm could it possibly do, to add in the Hindi script? Hindostani 22:39, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

New Version[edit]

Hello Fowler&fowler. Thanks for trying to improve the article. However, I feel that the previous version to which many of us agreed on here (albeit with Devanagari) was much better. While the old version mentioned short history, contemporary usage, etc. about the song (the title of the article), the new version seems to focus more on Iqbal's life. Many significant things are now deleted. Once again, I apologize for causing contention, but I honestly feel that the old version was much better. I look forward to hearing your comments on the issue. With warm regards, AnupamTalk 03:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

In addition the post above mine and a recent comment that was soon after deleted show the approval of Devanagari in the article -- another issue that still needs sorting out. Thanks, AnupamTalk 03:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Nope the old version is poorly written, and seems to parrot Indian jingoism, which the song is hardly about. How do we know that Lala Hardayal was Iqbals favorite student? How do we know that Gandhi sang is over a hundred times? etc. etc. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, I see you do have a point after looking at the revision a second time. However, the song's contemporary usage should not be deleted. I am restoring the last deleted paragraph and adding references for the text you questioned. Thanks, AnupamTalk 03:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I finally found some time to look into the history of the poem. It turns out, it was written for children, and was actually published in 1904, before the incident about Iqbal singing it etc. Iqbal also wrote a second song (also for children) Tarana-i-Millat, which was published 6 years later in 1910, which was composed in the same meter as Tarana-i-Hindi (Sare Jahan), but which renounces many of the sentiments of Sare Jahan. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the research. I suppose you could include that in the article. Coincidentally, I was readding about Tarana-e-Milli here as well. I hope the current version of the article is acceptable. Thanks, AnupamTalk 04:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
And thanks for your research and ideas as well. I think the current version provides much more information, both about the song and the author, the trajectories they both took. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks once again for improving the article and adding more information/references. I apologize for reverting in haste. What caused my original revert was the removal of the last paragraph. Your revisions to the article are much better than the previous version. It is my hope that you will accept my apology. Thank you also for adding the beautiful image to the article as well. Later on, when I get the opportunity, I will take the time to readdress the inclusion of Devanagari in the article. With warm regards, AnupamTalk 19:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


Can somebody please address this? Sarvagnya 01:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. I will try to get copyright info about the image before I figure out what to do next. Thanks for your post. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I'll remove it from the article in the meanwhile. We can put it back once, the copyright issue is sorted out. Thanks. Sarvagnya 02:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


User Bharatveer recently changed the translation of the urdu word "Chin" in Iqbal's Taraana-i-Milli (Song of the Religious Community) from "Central Asia" to "China." I explained to him in my revert that "Chin" (albeit "China" in modern-Urdu) meant "Central Asia" (i.e. Chinese Turkestan (modern day Xinjiang), Russian Turkestan (modern day Kazakhstan, Kirgizstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, etc., all predominantly Muslim countries) in Iqbal's day, and that is what he was alluding to. At this, user Bharatveer, reverted again, with edit summary "rv to previous version : "cheen " is china; learn some urdu first or else cite sources." The problem is that the reference had already been provided in footnote 2. It is the web site of the poem at Columbia University and is translated by Frances Pritchett, Professor of Urdu Studies at Columbia. It specifically addresses the China/Central Asia issue. It is likely that user:Bharatveer didn't bother to check the footnote and its link. As for his injunction for me to learn some Urdu, I'd like to refer him to my two posts (of December 4 and December 7, 2006) at the Pakistan Talk page here. They are clearly not the work of someone unacquainted with Urdu. (See also my posts above on this talk page here and here.) It is one of the great humbling joys of Wikipedia work that one is enjoined to "learn" a language that one has familiarity with and affection for, even after one has re-written most of the article about a song in that language. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Something to Keep in Mind[edit]

I intend no ill will with what I'm about to say, but I thought this should be kept in mind by people debating over the song's "secular nature" vs Iqbal's later views: The Two-Nation theory (regardless of whether it was right or wrong) did not posit any disavowal of an "Indian identity" for a "Muslim" or "Pakistani" identity. "India" was the common region and the League still saw themselves as Indians. They simply felt that India consisted of two nations or groups of people that, they felt, should be goverened separately. But this did not, for them, suggest any kind of secession of a Muslim homeland from India. The region would still be India and they would still be Indian, there would only be two nations within this region of India: "Pakistan" and "Hindustan" (though the latter originally implied all of northern south Asia, Pakistan included). They would all still be Indian by regional identification, Pakistani and Hindustani. So Iqbal never stopped viewing himself as an "Indian" (as per the song), he merely adopted a different intellectual/political framework with which to view how this "India" should be governed. And his framework saw India as consisting of two peoples that should politically rule their respective "portions" of India for themselves. This may have been a flawed idea but it was the idea he had. Afghan Historian (talk) 22:35, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Your model of Iqbal’s view is probably right, as it is fits nicely with all that I have read of him. (talk) 09:52, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Please keep an eye on this page[edit]

This page is another one on Wikipedia where POV pushers periodically come through and attempt to either expand what they like or remove what they don't. An instance of this is an edit from mid-2010 in which an IP removed an entire section after some other POV pusher had expanded it. Here is the diff. I will be restoring the original version soon. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:30, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Apparently, no one is, and the Indian mischief makers are at it again. So, Iqbal is being described as the pre-partition Indian poet, etc. etc. I have reinstated the version that took a lot of effort and care to write. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:51, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

corrected some Hindi and Urdu typos[edit]

Please present your objections, if any, here. (talk) 05:53, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

In the second last line, the محرم would be transliterated as महरम, but it is read मेहरम. I have left the word as it was (i.e., मेहरम). But then, for consistency, the name of the poem should be transliterated Tarānā not Tarāna. (Again, I have not changed the last a to ā.) (talk) 05:59, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh, well, I made it Tarānā. (talk) 06:10, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

The Arabic equivalent for English Rome is Rūm, from whence the word has come into Urdu. روما can be read either as Rūmā or Romā; the former is correct. I just changed the word in both Hindi and English transliterations. (talk) 01:45, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

You may confirm the correct pronunciation of روما here: [p.212 of the Sorabshaw Byramji’s Dictionary]. (talk) 12:50, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

The canonical form of ہندوستان is Hindūstān / हिन्दूस्तान . (In Iqbal’s song, the word used is ہندوستاں / हिन्दूस्ताँ). You can confirm it by following the link below. [Duncan Forbes’s Dictionary, p.792.] (talk) 15:46, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

which transliteration standard?[edit]

(i) If سارے / सारे is Saare, then جہاں / जहाँ should be Jahaan. (ii) The word اچھا is not अछ्छा (Achcha/Achchaa), but अच्छा (Acchaa). (talk) 06:14, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Title / Transliteration Scheme[edit]

After reading the message by the IP above I used consistent transliteration in the title. Dharmadhyaksha reverted this to an inconsistent version again. I hope changing it back, or at least to ‘Sare Jahan se Accha’ should have no objection.—ШαмıQ @ 16:27, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

  • You changed to it chaos "Sārē Jahāⁿ sē Aččḣā". Who has such gibberish on their keyboards to be able to type this to reach here? You second suggested title "Sare Jahan Se Accha" already redirects here. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 17:09, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Why not move it then? Why have two a's for sAre when you have just one for JahAn? And why have the s in Se majuscule? Why use aCHCHHa instead of the compact aCCHa The Main title must be perfect and the redirects can be alternative spellings, not the other way around. The title should be Sare Jahan se Accha. Just remove those marks and dots from my 'gibberish'.—ШαмıQ @ 19:38, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Regarding Aččḣā: Please note that I was only aiming for internal consistency. I made the first اچھا/अच्छा Aččḣā as that is how it was written later in the poem, and I assumed the person who wrote it originally had some good reason to do so. But it turns out there is no good reason for that -- neither Hindi nor Urdu uses č for transcribing چ/! Hindi uses c, Urdu uses ch. (See WP link for Urdu; I verified it in some non-WP sources too.) Another thing the original transliterator got wrong was the symbol for aspiration; I let stand, but both Hindi and Urdu use simply h. In short, اچھا/अच्छा should be written either as Achchha (as it is now in the title; following the Urdu standard), or Accha (as Hindi users would use it).
As of now, many letters in the transliteration are following what WP page below calls ‘Strict Transliteration’. So if we are to transliterate ط/ in وطن/वतन as (as it is now), then we should consistently follow the Urdu Strict Transliteration scheme, and in particular, اچھا/अच्छा as Achchha.
Since the Hindi and Urdu transliteration schemes differ, there is no solution which will made both the parties happy! I personally would prefer the Urdu scheme. (If anyone is interested, I live in India, and am Hindu.)
01:42, 19 November 2013 (UTC) -- signed, the un-registered user.
OK, but this requires ≪اچھا≫ to be transliterated as ≪acchā≫ ⇒ ≪Accha≫. I will make all transliteration consistent with this, here.—ШαмıQ @ 06:52, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think the WP page name should be Sare or Saare anything. It should be Tarani-i-Hindi, the most popular rending in scholarly sources of Iqbal's name for the song. After all in English poems, we don't replace the name of the poem with half its first line, even if that line is much better known than the poem. (For example, The boy stood on the burning deck redirects to Casabianca (poem).) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:58, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the title, in Urdu there is a trend to refer to a poem by its first hemistich. But I don't object it being moved to Tarana-e/i-Hindi. And regarding the mention of formal name, it should be Tarana-e/i-Hindi, no doubt, per the reasons you gave above and by intuitive romanisation. But the standard ALA-LC must be mentioned at least once, preferably in the beginning of the article.—ШαмıQ @ 15:51, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
There is? Do we say "Chishti (R.A.) Ne Jis Zameen Mein" or do we say, "Hindustani bacchon ka qaumi geet" when it comes to Iqbal's other childen's songs. I doubt, btw, that the title, "Saare Jahan ..." of this article, had anything to do with trends or hemistiches; it was more likely, to put it bluntly, created by an Indian Wikipedian whose knowledge of Urdu or Iqbal had been erected on the firm foundation of Bollywood. Continuing on ... do we say "Moti ho ki sheesha jaam ke dur" or do we say "Sheeshon ka masiha koi nahin?" Do we refer, in the books we Homo sapiens sapiens write about iqbal's other "jahan" songs, to bal-e-jibriil or sitaron se aage? Since Sārē Jahāⁿ sē Aččḣā (i.e. lalaloco transliteration) has not gained currency yet in a single book we Homo sapiens sapiens have published, from Greenland's Icy Mountains to India's Coral Strand, please show me a comparison of Urdu romanizations in which lalaloco is preferred to the old WP notation or any of the manageable romanizations of C. M. Naim, Muhammad Umar Memon or Frances W. Pritchett, any of which too I'm agreeable to? You want to use lalaloco? Go to wikisource and transliterate away, Ghalib, Daagh, Sauda, Mir, Iqbal, Faiz, Faraz, to your hearts content. This, however, is a page created for its cultural notability, not literary (it's a children's song, all of whose words 99% of people in India do not understand). So, literary transliteration styles, such as lalaloco, don't apply. You can start a discussion here and attempt to gain consensus, but let me warn you, ŷõüř ĉħånces are bleak. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:22, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
PS I just realized that ALA-LC is not lalaloco, which I now see from the page history you've done away with. ALA-LC is not so bad, I'm not averse to it, but whatever it is you are doing, you need to discuss on the talk page first and gain consensus for it. Jumping in like the Lone Ranger, with a red-linked user page, when the page is simultaneously being edited by IPs and other red-linked user paged editors is not a good way make a good first impression. (And what the deal with the red-linked user page? You can't put a period "." in it and save me eye strain?) Anyway, that's what I care about. ALA-LC is fine by me except for the ridiculous "vuh" instead of "voh" and a few other things, but discuss this here first. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:51, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
@Fowler&fowler: Well, I was thinking of poems like: "Pak sarzamin..." (Hafiz Jalandhari), "Lab peh ati hai...", "Ata hai yad mujh ko..." (Allama Iqbal), "Woh nabiyon men rehmat..." (Maulana Hali), and many, more (not to say of Ghazals, which are exclusively referred to by their opening hemistiches) But as I've said above, you may move it to Tarana-e Hindi; I've no objection. And the ALA-LC scheme is already a part of the WP:MoS. I don't think I need to have consensual permission to make something conformant to the MoS. Regarding 'voh': I would prefer 'wuh'. The 'o' implies a long 'o' in the orthography, which is not the case; a short 'u', as indicated by the orthography must be preserved, and the reader ought to know how it is to be pronounced. This is no WP:OR, it is what the ALA-LC scheme says. But using a long 'o' instead of a short 'u' is WP:OR.
Please read the ALA-LC pdf. It is a really nice comprehensive scheme and is much better than the scheme you used.—ШαмıQ @ 11:04, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Since you don't seem to be wedded to the title, "Sare Jahan se Accha," I won't press my point, and since my name change won't happen—given Wikipedia-wide stupidity—I won't press for a name change, but may I point out, "Pak Sarzamin" is listed in WP as Qaumi Taranah, and some of the other poems you mention did not have titles. This is also the case often with many ghazals. In those cases, of course, we don't have a choice.
Anyway, if MOS applies then I don't have much of a choice. I will however add scholarly footnotes on the poetic pronunciation, if I can find them, because, as I said earlier, this is not a literary page, it is a page about a poem which has mainly cultural notability. Please go ahead and reinstate ALA-LC. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:35, 23 November 2013 (UTC)


The pronunciation is: Hindōsta;N (in the Naim/Memon/Pritchett transliteration notation) or hindostāñ in WP. And that is how it is pronounced in Persian as well. In verse, (as in Tarana-i-Hindi) for the sake of the meter it can be pronounced: Hindōsita;N. I notice that now on Frances Pritchett's Columbia web site it is being transliterated at HindūstaN;, but most likely it is a typo; it didn't use to be that way a number of years ago, when I rewrote this article. I've never heard anyone pronouncing it Hindūstan except in modern Hindi/Urdu with stress on the third syllable. Here the stress is on the second syllable. Please change back to the correct version. In any case ū is pronounced oo and no one even in Hind/Urdu pronounces it Hindoostan. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:32, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Please check my earlier post: I am not conversant with the stress pattern issue for the song; if it requires Hindōstān then I have no problem with it.
Anyway, if on Ms. Pritchett’s site, it earlier said Hindōstān, and now says Hindūstān, then most likely it is a correction of a typo. (Typos don’t creep in existing texts.) (talk) 17:36, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Yes, they do. Why do you think there are variant readings of the Bible, the Illiad, etc? There aren't of the Vedas, but they were orally transmitted. :) Regardless of what the Pritchett site says, if in this 1959 musical, which made the song popular and in which some lines were added by Raja Mehdi Ali Khan, it was being pronounced Hindōstān, by a Marathi singer, and in this this rendering of the song some 40 years later it was still being pronounced Hindōstān by the Calcutta Youth Choir (although with a slightly different "o" sound), and another ten year later if children in America are pronouncing it Hindōstān then it is Hindōstān! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:38, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
As for the canonical version, maybe I didn't express myself clearly before, in prose Hindūstān is what is preferred, but the variant Hindōstān, which has been around since the 19th century (see McGregor's Hindi-English Dictionary, Oxford 1992), is usually preferred in poetry and song. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:51, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Also, whosoever changed the formal name to tarana-yi-hindi, you can't do that because you think something should be transliterated that way and can bring linguistic or lexical sources for it. The English rendering, in the literature, for Iqbal's song is by 1000 to one (the one being Anne Marie Schimmel) tarana-i-hindi or tarana-e-hindi. That is what WP cares about. It doesn't matter that in other contexts "i" might be pronounced or transliterated as "yi." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:32, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I've changed the new garbage romanizations back to the originals. I'm assuming the same nonsense has been repeated in the Devanagari script. Could someone please change it back to the one corresponding to Hindōstāñ? Thanks. Sorry to lose my cool a little bit, but it was beginning to look and sound ridiculous. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:51, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Meaning of ترانہ / तराना[edit]

Two sentences translate the word as ‘anthem’. Though that captures the meaning correctly, I don’t think it is the literal meaning of the word. The literal meaning according to Duncan Forbes is: modulation, harmony, voice, song, melody, symphony, trill, shake, quaver; a king of song. [link:]

Link to the meaning by another dictionary is given below. (meanings both in Urdu and English) The 3rd point in the Urdu text explains what Duncan means by a “a kind of song”:

1. common nag͟hamā/नग़मा or song, ….

3. A special song in which instead of meaningful words a few special meaningless words are used, [words] like: tā, tūm, tā, nā, tinā, nā, dar, nā, etc.

In short, no “anthem”. (talk) 17:55, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

No original research on WP. Enough with your changing things here and there by consulting dictionaries, and old ones at that. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:19, 21 November 2013 (UTC)


I used to be a regular WP editor upto a few years back, but I stopped editing because of people like you. There are a thousand more interesting things waiting for me; I don’t have the time to argue with idiots.

You are welcome to reign your personal fiefdom! Goodbye, everyone! (talk) 01:31, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry you feel that way, but everyone has to play by WP rules. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:51, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
So very true... Everyone has to play by WP rules instead of reigning in a fiefdom. I would suggest Fowler&fowler to revert the self-done transliteration of the poem back to ALA-LC.—ШαмıQ @ 15:39, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Popularity in India[edit]

Recent edits by an IP: 2405:204:52AE:66CE:0:0:1EC:20B0 (talk · contribs) are conflating the poem and future music composed for the poem long after the poem's death. The music is incidental to the poem. It is not a fact of its notability in scholarly sources. It belongs to the popularity in India section, not to the lead. Best, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:37, 13 February 2019 (UTC)