Today, every country seems to have something that could be referred to as its national anthem. That anthem sometimes remains only a convention while at other times it is formally recognised to be so by the government. National anthem of a country is sine qua non of its uniqueness, traditions, history, geography, heroes, and people’s struggle. It is utilised as a means to instil respect for the nation in the citizens. Many a time, singing national anthem becomes an exercise in patriotism especially for students when it is sung in the morning assembly before the start of the school.
It was on 24 October 1950 that our Constituent Assembly adopted the first stanza of Jana Gana Mana, composed by Rabindranath Tagore in highly Sanskritised Bengali, as India’s National Anthem. First two stanzas from Vande Mataram (again in Bengali) were recognised as National Song.
It’s no news that the song Vande Mataram has remained controversial since its very composition in the novel Anandmatha. What is lesser known is the fact that our National Anthem too has its share of controversies.
On 26 July 1985, three Christian children – Bijoe, Biny Mol and Bindu Emmanuel – were expelled from school in Kerala for refusing to sing the national anthem. The aggrieved party knocked the door of the court. The matter got worsened when the High Court rejected their plea and justified the decision of Deputy Inspector of Schools on expulsion of children. Finally, on 11 August 1986, the Supreme Court reversed the High Court judgement and delivered justice. Upholding the Supreme Court verdict, in “A Landmark Judgement” (24 August 1986), S. Ausaf Saied Vasfi describes it as a ruling that “will go into the annals of India’s judiciary”. He hailed Justice Chinnappa Reddy and Justice M.M. Dutt and paraphrased the core arguments of the judgement thus: “No person can be forced to join in the singing of the National Anthem, if he has genuine, conscientious religious objection.”
The Supreme Court recognised that Christians belonging to Jehovah’s Witnesses, as per their religion, cannot sing any National Anthem even God save the Queen of Britain. Their religion does not permit them to join any ritual singing except in their prayers to Jehovah. Any compulsion in this regard, the verdict states, “would contravene the rights guaranteed under Article 19(1) and 25(1) of the Constitution”.
The writer pinpoints the explicit proclamation of the court that “there was no provision in the law which obliged anyone to sing the National Anthem, nor was it disrespectful to the National Anthem if a person stood up and did not join in the singing”. The Supreme Court in its judgement also found the invocation of Section 3 of the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act (1971) in this case as unjustified. “The court observed that standing up respectfully when the National Anthem is sung but not singing oneself, clearly does not either prevent the singing of the National Anthem or cause disturbance to an assembly engaged in such singing.”
Besides hailing the judgement, the writer tried to make two larger points out of this whole controversy. First, recalling the whole episode, the writer argues that there was nothing unusual about three Christian children not singing the National Anthem during the morning assembly in their school, they always stood up when it was sung (implying no ill will or disrespect on their part). All was well until the boys’ act was noticed by what the writer mentions as “some patriotic gentleman” who happened to be a member of the Legislative Assembly. The patriotic gentleman thought it was unpatriotic of the children not to sing the National Anthem. The issue was raised in the Assembly and an inquiry commission was appointed to look into the matter. Despite the report of the commission stating that the children were law-abiding and showed no disrespect to the Anthem, they were expelled from the school.
The point that Dr. Vasfi is making here is that Indian politicians are dexterous in making a mountain out of a molehill. This is especially true of those politicians who gift-wrap their filth of Communalism and label it Patriotism with a capital P.
Secondly, he notes that “the Jehovah’s Witnesses objection was not against the meaning, words or language of the National Anthem, but the singing of it. There are, however, people in India who, on genuine ideological grounds, have grave reservations about the meaning, words and language of the Anthem which, in brief, is in conflict with their faith. To them the land, various rivers, mountains and provinces are just land, rivers, mountains and provinces, shorn of all that is Divine. They believe that Divinity belongs to Allah Alone! The country’s land, rivers and the mountains are no doubt, useful but are not Divine”. This conscientious objection is certainly more valid than just an objection over singing.
In September and October 1986 Radiance published a number of other articles as well on the theme. Notable among them were “Jehovah’s Witnesses: The Sect that refuses to sing” and “Jehovah’s Witnesses: From American National Flag to Indian National Anthem” by Shams Tabrez Siddiqui.
As it happens so often in India, the same controversy again raised its ugly head a few years later, this time in Karnataka. Karnataka’s Education Minister, Mr. M. Veerappa Moily stated in Bangalore on 12 November 1991 that singing of the national anthem and a Kannada poem hailing the state of Karnataka has been made compulsory in the state from the primary to the university level from 14 November, the Children’s Day. The state government was said to provide necessary audio-cassettes to all educational institutions. It was also stated that if they fail to observe this mandate, instructions have been issued to punish them.
Unfortunately this zeal was not limited to Karnataka. It was spreading like plague in different parts of the nation. For instance, the Director of Education in Delhi Administration, Mr. V.P. Suri had according to a press release dated 13 November 1991 directed all the schools in the Union Territory that the national anthem be sung daily at morning assembly of students and a compliance report sent to him by 30 November 1991. The idea, he asserted, was “to instil a sense of pride and reinforce the national identity among the young minds”.
Syed Yusuf took serious note of these developments in “Singing National Anthem” (24 November 1991). He reminded the overzealous patriots who were thrusting the national songs down the people’s throats that the Supreme Court of India has in August 1986 held that non-joining in the singing of National Anthem is not disrespectful. He quotes the passages from the verdict in order to drive home a legal point. For example, he mentions that the bench held that “expulsion of children from school for not joining in singing of the anthem is violative of Articles 19(1) (a) and 25(1) of the Constitution particularly when they stood up respectfully but did not sing because of their consciously held religious faith (A.I.R 1987 Supreme Court 748)”. Echoing the landmark decision of the court, he said that Article 25 is an article of faith in the Constitution, incorporated in recognition of the principle that the real test of a true democracy is the ability of even an insignificant minority to find its identity under the country’s Constitution (Para 17 of the judgement).
The case that he was building through these arguments was that it is very natural, given the way game of politics is played in India, that soft or hard communalism is resorted to strengthen one’s vote banks instead of concentrating on real ideological or pragmatic issues. The repeated episodes regarding coerced singing of the national songs, in open violation of the fundamental rights of citizens, illustrate how far our political leaders can go in their relentless pursuit of electoral gains.
A few years later the issue cropped up again. Yes, it happens only in India. I am referring to the BJP government in UP that tried to make it mandatory in schools to sing Vande Mataram along with Saraswati Vandana in 1998. The ghastly turn that the episode had taken, forced Justice Rajinder Sachar to write an article on Compulsory School Singing which was published in 20 December 1998 issue of Radiance. It must be told as a parenthesis that former Chief Justice of Delhi High Court, Justice Sachar was later to lead a committee to prepare a report on social, economic and educational status of Indian Muslims culminating in the well-known Sachar Committee Report. Justice Sachar, in his article, took serious notice of the development in UP and regarded the orders of compulsory singing of Saraswati Vandana in schools as “BJP’s game of divisive politics”. He argued, “Now, so far Saraswati Vandana is concerned, there can be no doubt that it is a prayer to goddess, even though of learning. An average Hindu even though not believing in idol worship, but possibly because of his normal surroundings, may not so seriously feel the discordance in participating in a meet when Saraswati Vandana is being sung, but to force a Muslim child to participate and sing in praise of a Hindu goddess and which goes against the very core of his religion, namely, opposition to idol worship, amounts to a gross interference with his fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(a) and Article 25, i.e. freedom to practise one’s religion, guaranteed under the Constitution”.
Besides, he, of course as a jurist himself, emphasised the fact that “the question is not whether a particular religious belief or practice appeals to our reason or sentiment but whether the belief is genuinely and conscientiously held as part of the profession or practice of religion. Our personal views and reactions are irrelevant, if the belief is genuinely and conscientiously held it attracts the protection of Article 25”.
He rejects the very logic of forcing anyone to sing praises of a particular religion’s deity. The ideology of RSS is undoubtedly behind orders of this genre, and for Sachar, this venomous ideology has “unmistakable resemblance” with that of Hitler’s Nazis. What other conclusion one could derive from this attempt at monopolisation of patriotism? He asserts, “The BJP is indulging in this deliberately calculated divisive policy though couching it in the innocuous language of national unity and cultural affinity. This is all deception…”
In the article Justice Sachar also candidly expressed his personal opinions over the song Vande Mataram. He interprets the lyrics of Bankim Chandra Chatterjee not in the contexts of his novel Anandmatha but in the context of the freedom struggle. Still he argues rather sensibly when he said, “as respected Muslim scholars like Ali Mian, President of All India Muslim Personal Law Board, have raised objection to singing of Vande Mataram, I feel that this matter should be examined in a mutually accommodating spirit”. For this examination he proposes formation of a committee with Muslim scholars and to discuss the issue dispassionately. However, in the end he was doubtful that any serious attempt at reconciliation will be made by the government. This is because reconciliation of the issue is not their agenda. In his words, “I am, of course, doubtful whether the BJP government would so agree because one of its politically strategic planks is anti-minorityism, whether against Muslims or Christians”.
Earlier, on 29 November 1998, Radiance published a lead by Dr. S. Ausaf Saied Vasfi entitled: Controversy over Vande Mataram and Saraswati Vandana: Muslim Stand Justified. For the writer “confrontation tampered with cunning and subterfuge” is “part and parcel of the unannounced survival-strategy of our Saffronite brethren”. They keep inventing controversies where in fact none exists otherwise they have a long list of provocations under the respectable name of their national agenda. This only signifies that Sangh Combine is bereft of any concrete ideological content and so their confrontationist policy keeps them “in the battle-dress eternally”. This vacuum of ideology is filled with hatred, intolerance and confrontation. It is for this very reason that Ashok Singhal and Shyam Nandan Singh have shamelessly opined, in the full glare of media, that citizenship of those who refuse to sing Vande Mataram should be revoked.
The author writes, “The saffron agenda in UP now stipulates that every school must have a 30 inch X 18 inch picture of Maa Saraswati. Portraits of Saraswati and Bharat Maa be kept respectfully while assembling and dispersing from schools. Students must recite Rashtra Geet after Saraswati Vandana; and children must leave the school only after saying Bharat Mata ki jaye”. How cunningly this agenda is materialised is given due notice by the writer who points out, “A senior state BJP leader told Amita Verma (The Asian Age, 19 November): We knew the issue would snowball into a controversy and hence we avoided issuing any government order which could snowball into a legal battle. Orders for the recitation of Vande Mataram have been issued verbally and all school heads have been asked to ensure that Vande Mataram is sung during the morning assembly”.
In this regard Radiance also noted with disdain how BJP governments of Madhya Pradesh and Jharkhand have issued circulars to all educational institutions in their respective states to ensure singing of Vande Mataram on 7 September 2006 to mark the controversial song’s centenary celebrations. Chhattisgarh and Rajasthan had already made it compulsory.
In short, Radiance has taken this matter of national songs as a serious issue over the years. What’s especially appreciable in this regard is the fact that instead of losing its cool it has maintained a high academic standard of debate and discussion. Articles like Vande Mataram – A Muslim Point of View by Mufti Shamsuddin Ahmad (27 December 1998) and Why Muslims Reject Vande Mataram by A Faizur Rahman (10 September 2006) have attempted in all earnestness to cover the Muslim point of view on the issue from all dimensions. The aim is to make the sincere and thinking people understand and appreciate the Muslim point of view thereby foiling the conspiracy of Sangh to create discord between Hindus and Muslims. These articles underscore the context in which the song was written i.e. as a part of the novel Anandmatha which since its very publication has “flared communal passion” among Hindus and Muslims. And given the contents of the novel such discord was not unnatural, after all one cannot expect communal harmony to flourish on the basis of a song which appears in a novel which glorifies the ethnic cleansing of the Muslims (this ‘allegation’ Mr. A. Faizur Rahman substantiates in detail through extracts and excerpts from the novel itself).
They have tried to argue: “Owing to this background, along with Muslims’ opposition, stalwarts like Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose, Gandhiji and Jawaharlal Nehru never supported it [i.e. Vande Mataram], nor did this has been granted National Anthem status (Statesman, 19 December 1938)”. Even earlier in October 1937, when the Congress Working Committee met in Kolkata under Nehru’s presidentship, it recognised the religious objection of Muslims regarding the song as valid and adopted a resolution to that effect.
The core point, as mentioned by Mufti Shamsuddin is the difference between ‘love’ and ‘worship’ that Radiance has highlighted each and every time it raised this issue. And as Mr. A Faizur Rahman has aptly argued that “…ascribing divinity to even Prophet Mohammed is considered an act of blasphemy negating the very purpose of Islam” how could they sing hymns in praise and worship of land and soil, etc. He eloquently asserts, “Just as one cannot force non-Muslims to recite the Qur’ān in their gatherings, it would be most unfair to force the Muslims to violate their scriptural injunctions in the name of patriotism”.
In short the position of Radiance on the issue of national songs could be epitomised in the following points:
1. Loving one’s country does not mean worshipping the same;
2. No person should be forced against his conscientious religious beliefs to sing a song even if that song happens to be a national anthem;
3. Petty issues like singing or not singing a song do not naturally become a crisis, they are deliberately chiselled into one by communal organisations and politicians;
4. Such issues should have been resolved once and for all after August 1986 decision of the Supreme Court; and
5. The communication gap between Hindus and Muslims (fostered by communal and divisive forces) makes it utterly impossible for a layman to understand the Muslim take on the issue, hence the need for clear, logical and dispassionate elucidation of their ideological stand by Muslims.
The controversies around the National Anthem and song, however, also illustrate that the very choice of both is problematic. We must not venture into a debate at this stage as to whether Jana Gana Mana song praises Almighty God or King George V, or Anandmath is a novel against British Colonialism or Muslims in India. The argument is that a national anthem/song must be above such debates and controversies. It must not be couched in symbols and rhetoric of just a segment of population even if that segment is in majority. Also, a national anthem/song should preferably be in a language that most people could understand and relate with. If not, then at least arrangements could be made as in Switzerland, South Africa, Fiji, New Zealand, and Canada, etc. where different languages and cultures are accommodated in respective national anthems.
Such accommodation of plurality is of course more important for a country as diverse as India. And, keeping all these in mind, it seems that Saare Jahan se Achcha by Allama Iqbal was definitely the best choice for being the national anthem (or at least the national song) of India. A suggestion of replacing National Song Vande Mataram with that of Iqbal’s Saare Jahan se Achcha was also voiced by Madhya Pradesh Jamiat e Ulema e Hind spokesperson Yusuf Zai and was duly mentioned in Radiance when 2006 controversy over Vande Mataram was in full swing. Earlier in 1986, Radiance has also, perhaps hopefully, reproduced a piece from The Statesman to the same effect. Today, perhaps on such issues the voice of Radiance is falling on the deaf ears but we believe in what Lucretius said that the drops of rain make a hole in the stone, not by violence, but by oft falling.