The 150th anniversary of Vande Mataram witnessed one of the most intense, introspective, and ideologically charged debates in recent parliamentary history. As the Rajya Sabha and Lok Sabha marked the celebration of Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay’s Anandamath, threeparliamentarians, Kapil Sibal, Iqra Hasan, and Manoj Kumar Jha, delivered powerful, historically rooted, and emotionally resonant speeches that revealed not just their political positions but deep anxieties about the nation’s moral and constitutional direction.
The commemorative session, expected to be celebratory and symbolic, instead evolved into a critical examination of the State’s treatment of dissent, the rise of majoritarian rhetoric, the meaning of patriotism, and the dangers of dividing the country through polarisation.
Kapil Sibal: “Vande Mataram Cannot Be Invoked While Injustice Thrives”
Kapil Sibal insisted that India could not celebrate Vande Mataram without recalling the context of Anandamath. Contrary to the sentimental nationalism often associated with the song, Sibal reminded the House of the catastrophic Bengal famine of 1770, when nearly 10 million people perished while the colonial administration diverted food supplies for its military and enabled hoarding. It was under the shadow of mass starvation and oppression, he said, that Bankim Chandra wrote Anandamath.
Sibal then narrated a compelling episode from the novel, the story of a woman who disguises herself as a man to search for her missing husband, ultimately choosing to fight the oppressive ruling forces alongside him. For Sibal, this was the true message of Anandamath, not blind patriotism, but the moral imperative to fight injustice and tyranny wherever they arise.
“Wherever there is atrocity, we will resist it,” he declared, asserting that this was the essence of Vande Mataram and the freedom struggle itself. The song, he argued, was born not as a Hindu assertion but as a universal call for liberation.
Sibal recalled British officer Henry Craig’s 1937 description of Vande Mataram as “the war cry of the terrorists.” The British used the term “terrorists” to vilify freedom fighters who resisted imperial power. Today, Sibal argued, a similar distortion is being reproduced through the misuse of UAPA, a law deployed not against violent extremists but against students, journalists, and activists who question authority. “Who will fight their fight if we don’t?” he asked pointedly.
Sibal also rebutted accusations of “Muslim appeasement,” reminding the House of a lesser-known incident from 1998. When a state circular made the singing of Vande Mataram compulsory in schools, Prime Minister A.B. Vajpayee intervened to withdraw the order, recognising that patriotism cannot be coerced. If Vajpayee’s move was not “appeasement,” Sibal asked, why is similar constitutional sensitivity termed so today?
Quoting Mahatma Gandhi, he underscored that Vande Mataram was a symbol of anti-imperialist defiance and should never be communalised or weaponised. “If we continue dividing people in the name of nationalism, we will create a partition far more dangerous, a partition of minds,” he said.
Iqra Hasan: “We Are Indians by Choice. Stop Pushing Us into the Gutter”
In a passionate and sharply assertive intervention, Iqra Hasan pushed back against growing communal narratives that paint Indian Muslims as outsiders or beneficiaries of appeasement. She challenged the political narrative of “Tushtikaran,” asking whether leaders like Mahatma Gandhi, Ambedkar, and Maulana Azad, who were committed to an inclusive India, should now be labelled as appeasers. She warned that branding entire communities as beneficiaries of appeasement pushes them “into the gutter” of public discourse.
Turning to the Vande Mataram, Hasan urged the House to look beyond politics and recognise the song’s homage to India’s natural beauty, the “Sujalam, Sufalam” rivers and fertile land. But today, she said, those very rivers and forests stand ravaged. She highlighted the alarming state of the Yamuna, where the Pollution Management Committee’s 2025 report recorded a BOD level of 127 mg/litre, when the safe limit is 3 mg/litre.
She linked environmental devastation to structural inequality. With India ranking 136th globally in per capita income, she said ordinary Indians struggle for basic dignity while billionaire wealth grows at unprecedented speed. “This is not the India that Vande Mataram dreams of,” she remarked.
Hasan also invoked the dignity and safety of women, a value central to India’s cultural and constitutional ethos. Citing over 30,000 rapes reported annually and rising cases where those connected to political power evade accountability, she said these injustices “wound the soul of Vande Mataram.”
Manoj Jha: “Winning Elections While Losing the Country Is No Victory”
Prof. Manoj Kumar Jha delivered one of the most emotionally charged speeches of the session, weaving political critique with philosophical reflection. Beginning with the words “Hindustan Hamara,” Jha warned that the tradition of India’s pluralism, the ability to love Mahakaal and Muhammad simultaneously, is under threat.
He started with an anecdote about autobiographies, praising a colleague’s writing for its humility. He contrasted this with today’s exaggerated self-importance, symbolised by those who boast, “The sea saw me for the first time,” instead of the humbler “I saw the sea for the first time.” For Jha, this metaphor captured the ego-driven politics shaping contemporary discourse.
Jha lamented that India is undergoing a “Dhruvikaran”, a hardening polarisation, that even Bankim Chandra could never have imagined. The country, he said, is now witnessing fractures “more than partition,” evident in everyday interactions, neighbourhoods, and villages.
Addressing the ruling establishment directly, he acknowledged their ability to win elections but issued a sharp caveat, “If elections are won and the country is defeated, that victory is meaningless.” Electoral success, he warned, cannot justify spreading “a harvest of hatred” across society.
Jha stressed the importance of introspection among public representatives. One day, every MP will retire from politics. “What will we evaluate then?” he asked. “How many people did we hurt? How many walls did we build within families and villages?” Moral responsibility, he asserted, outweighs political triumphs.
He criticised the climate of fear that discourages dissent, especially in regions like Kashmir, saying he frequently faces trolling for expressing constitutional values. “Should I be silent out of fear?” he asked. “Is this the democracy we want?”
Referencing key historical years, 1915, 1935, 1937, he implied that India’s founders understood pluralism and constitutional morality far better than today’s political actors admit.
A Debate That Revealed the Soul of India
The parliamentary session marking 150 years of Vande Mataram became a rare moment of political introspection. Together, Sibal, Hasan, and Jha articulated a forceful defence of constitutional morality, environmental stewardship, women’s safety, interfaith harmony, and the right to dissent.
Their speeches, rooted in history yet sharply contemporary, underscored that patriotism cannot be reduced to slogans, coercion, or majoritarian pride. Instead, they argued, it must be lived through justice, empathy, accountability, and the protection of every citizen’s dignity.
The Vande Mataramanniversary debate made one thing clear, the battle for the soul of India, between division and unity, coercion and compassion, continues, both inside and outside Parliament.