Rabindranath Tagore’s name missing from Santiniketan’s UNESCO plaque draws flak; Congress targets PM Modi

The recent unveiling of the UNESCO ‘World Heritage Site’ plaque at Visva-Bharati University in Santiniketan, West Bengal, has sparked controversy and criticism due to the absence of the name of the university’s founder and pre-Independence leader, Rabindranath Tagore.

Rabindranath Tagore, a Nobel laureate poet, philosopher, and cultural icon, played a pivotal role in shaping the identity and ethos of Visva-Bharati University. He not only founded the university but also infused it with his vision of holistic education and the integration of arts, culture, and nature into the learning experience. His contributions to literature, music, and art are celebrated not only in India but worldwide.

The omission of Rabindranath Tagore’s name from the UNESCO plaque has understandably triggered outrage among various stakeholders, including the university’s alumni, scholars, and the general public. Many view this as a glaring oversight that neglects the legacy and significance of Tagore in the context of Visva-Bharati University’s UNESCO World Heritage Site designation.

Visva-Bharati University, established in 1921, is deeply intertwined with Tagore’s ideals, and his legacy continues to resonate within its hallowed halls. Tagore’s works, including “Gitanjali,” are cherished globally for their profound wisdom and artistic brilliance.

The controversy highlights the importance of accurately recognizing and acknowledging historical and cultural figures who have made invaluable contributions to institutions and movements. The call for correcting this omission on the UNESCO plaque is a reminder of the enduring influence of Rabindranath Tagore‘s ideas and the need to honor his memory appropriately.

The Congress Party, India’s principal opposition party, has taken to social media, particularly Twitter, to express its discontent over the UNESCO ‘World Heritage Site’ plaque at Visva-Bharati University in Santiniketan, West Bengal. The plaque, which has come under scrutiny and criticism for its omission of Rabindranath Tagore’s name, notably includes the name of Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

The Congress Party’s use of Twitter to voice its concerns underscores the significance of this issue, not only as a matter of historical recognition but also as a potential political point of contention. With a wide-reaching audience on social media, the party seeks to draw attention to what it perceives as a glaring oversight in acknowledging the contributions of India’s revered poet and philosopher, Tagore.

The omission of Tagore’s name on the UNESCO plaque while including Prime Minister Modi’s name has ignited controversy and debate. Congress Party members and supporters argue that this decision fails to appropriately honor Tagore’s pivotal role in the founding and shaping of Visva-Bharati University, and more broadly, his cultural and literary significance on the global stage.

In its Twitter posts, the Congress Party has aimed its criticism at Prime Minister Narendra Modi, suggesting that his name being featured on the plaque while Tagore’s is not is a reflection of the government’s approach to historical recognition. This implies that the omission may be seen as politically motivated or as a deliberate oversight.

This issue serves as a reminder of the complexities surrounding the recognition of historical figures and their legacies, particularly in the context of contemporary politics. The debate sparked by the Congress Party’s tweets highlights the enduring influence of Rabindranath Tagore and the deep respect and reverence he continues to command in India and around the world.

Ultimately, the Congress Party’s use of social media in this matter underscores the broader societal conversation about the appropriate recognition of historical figures and their contributions, particularly when politics and cultural heritage intersect.

Congress’ Communications In-Charge and Rajya Sabha MP, Jairam Ramesh, expressed his concern regarding the omission of Rabindranath Tagore’s name on the UNESCO ‘World Heritage Site’ plaque, drawing a parallel with the erasure of Jawaharlal Nehru from public recognition. Ramesh posted his sentiments on social media, specifically on X (formerly known as Twitter), highlighting the pattern of historical figures being marginalized or overlooked.

Ramesh’s statement underscores the broader concern that the omission of Tagore’s name may be part of a larger trend of historical erasure. Jawaharlal Nehru, India’s first Prime Minister and a pivotal figure in the country’s history, has faced similar controversies in recent years, with some arguing that his contributions have been sidelined or downplayed in public discourse.

Additionally, Pawan Khera, the National Spokesperson of the Congress Party, joined the discussion on social media. Khera emphasized the government’s preoccupation with renaming and rebranding, suggesting that perhaps it should also consider renaming “Narcissism” as “Modicissism.” This statement alludes to the perception that Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s name and image have been prominently featured in various government initiatives and projects.

Both Ramesh and Khera’s comments reflect concerns within the opposition party regarding how historical figures, particularly those from India’s independence movement and cultural heritage, are recognized and remembered. The omission of Tagore’s name on the UNESCO plaque at Visva-Bharati University has become a focal point for discussions on the treatment of historical legacies and political agendas related to public recognition and commemoration.

The UNESCO ‘World Heritage Site’ plaque has drawn criticism not only from the Congress Party but also from the ruling Trinamool Congress in West Bengal. The plaque features the names “Shri Narendra Modi Acharya” and the Vice-Chancellor of Visva-Bharati University, “Prof. Bidyut Chakrabarty Upacharya,” but notably omits the name of Rabindranath Tagore.

Jawhar Sircar, a Rajya Sabha MP from the Trinamool Congress, condemned the omission of Tagore’s name from the plaque. He pointed out that UNESCO’s recognition specifically honors Rabindranath Tagore and his unique legacy by designating Santiniketan as a World Heritage Site. Sircar expressed criticism toward the university’s Vice-Chancellor and the central government, suggesting that they are attempting to claim the recognition for themselves, which he characterized as a megalomaniacal move.

The Trinamool Congress’ stance aligns with the sentiment expressed by the Congress Party and underscores the broader consensus in West Bengal that Rabindranath Tagore’s omission from the plaque is not in line with UNESCO’s intent to honor his profound contributions to culture and education. The controversy surrounding the plaque reflects the emotional attachment and reverence that the people of West Bengal have for Tagore and his legacy, and their desire to see him appropriately recognized on the global stage.

The controversy surrounding the omission of Rabindranath Tagore’s name from the UNESCO ‘World Heritage Site’ plaque at Visva-Bharati University has elicited various responses, including from political figures and Tagore’s family members.

Samik Bhattacharya, a spokesperson for the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), defended the omission by suggesting that the association between Tagore and Visva-Bharati University is so deeply ingrained that it need not be explicitly mentioned. He compared it to the relationship between the sun and daylight, implying that the connection is self-evident. Bhattacharya also criticized those who raised objections, labeling their concerns as irrelevant and driven by opposition for the sake of opposition.

In contrast, Tagore’s great-grandson, Supriyo Thakur, expressed strong disapproval of the omission. He conveyed his belief that the current university authorities are attempting to diminish Tagore’s legacy at Visva-Bharati. Thakur called for protest and indicated that those responsible for the omission should face consequences for their actions.

The inclusion of varying perspectives, including those from within Tagore’s own family, highlights the emotionally charged nature of this issue and the differing views on how Tagore’s legacy should be recognized and preserved. It underscores the complex interplay of politics, heritage, and culture in matters related to historical recognition and commemoration.