Who Composed “Vaishnav Jan To”?
A student chooses the bhajan “Vaishnav Jan To” for a school programme and writes in the printed programme: “Composed by Surdas.” The student found this on a social-media post. Another teacher supports the claim because “Surdas wrote all the famous bhajans.” The music teacher knows the bhajan is traditionally attributed to Narsinh Mehta, a 15th-century Gujarati poet, and that its language is Gujarati rather than Braj. The programme goes to print in ten days. The student is upset because the post had many likes and a photo of Surdas. The teacher must decide how to correct the attribution without humiliating the student, and whether to use “composed by” or “traditionally attributed to” in the programme. The school has no musicologist; the teacher can consult two printed anthologies and one reliable government-published source.
1. Decide the attribution for the programme note and justify it using evidence available to the teacher. What would you do if one anthology disagrees?
Read the worked answer
I would print “traditionally attributed to Narsinh Mehta,” not “composed by Surdas.” The strongest internal evidence is language: the text is in Gujarati, while Surdas’s medium is Braj. The devotional idiom and the phrase “Vaishnav Jan To” belong to the Gujarati Vaishnava tradition associated with Narsinh Mehta. “Traditionally attributed” is the honest label because we do not have an autograph and the bhajan has travelled through oral and printed anthologies. Social-media likes and a stock image are not evidence. If one printed anthology disagrees, I would check its publication date and editorial note; older anthologies sometimes group bhajans by theme rather than authorship. I would cite the two reliable sources in the teacher’s file, not in the student’s programme note, and use the cautious label. If both reliable sources clearly said Surdas, I would still avoid “composed by” and print “attributed in some traditions to Surdas,” but on the evidence available I would correct the note to Narsinh Mehta.
2. Explain how to handle the student’s source and the other teacher in a way that teaches source evaluation.
Read the worked answer
Handle the student privately before the print deadline. Ask: “What in the post shows authorship?” Let the student see that the post shows a picture and a claim, not a manuscript or a source. Then show the language comparison: Gujarati words and forms versus Braj; explain that Surdas is a giant of Braj bhajan, which is why the mistake is plausible. Give the student a constructive job: write the corrected note and a two-line source line, e.g. “Traditional Gujarati bhajan, attributed to Narsinh Mehta.” Do not call the student foolish in front of the class. For the other teacher, use the same evidence and say, “We can print ‘traditionally attributed’ so we are not overclaiming.” That phrase protects the programme and teaches source evaluation. If the student remains unconvinced, allow a classroom discussion comparing the two claims, but keep the printed programme factual and cautious.