Instead of addressing pressing concerns like unemployment, falling rupee, and foreign policy setbacks, both Houses of Parliament set aside nearly 20 hours for a special discussion marking the 150th anniversary of Vande Mataram on December 8-9. Projected as an occasion of cultural pride, the debate instead turned into the most politically charged exchanges of the Winter Session.
Initiated by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, the discussion was framed by the BJP as a long-overdue historical reckoning. The BJP argued that Congress, during the freedom struggle, had compromised the sanctity of Vande Mataram by yielding to objections rooted in “appeasement politics”.
However, for the Opposition, it was less a historical reflection and more a carefully timed political exercise, aimed at the forthcoming West Bengal elections while urgent issues such as unemployment, inflation, governance failures, and social unrest were pushed aside.
A Song Burdened by History
At the centre of the controversy lies the contested history of Vande Mataram itself. Written by Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay in his 1882 novel Anandamath, the song emerged from a narrative of sanyasi rebellion against Muslim rulers. While it later became a rallying cry against British colonialism, the invocation of a goddesstriggered deep unease among the Muslim community.
The Muslim League objected to endorsement of idol worship. Addressing the Sind Provincial Muslim League Conference in Karachi in October 1938, Muhammad Ali Jinnah accused the Congress of beginning legislative proceedings “with a song of Vande Mataram… which is not only idolatrous but in its origin and substance a hymn to spread hatred for the Musalmans.”
These objections eventually shaped a historic compromise. Only the first two stanzaswere adopted as the national song. Leaders such as Rabindranath Tagore and Subhas Chandra Bose played a key role in forging this consensus.
National Conference MP Aga Syed Ruhullah Mehdi clearly stated,“You can chant it; we have no problem. But we cannot do so.”Ruhullah was careful to frame his refusal not as an act of disrespect but as a matter of conscience. “It’s not that we disrespect the song,” he said. “No one should be compelled to do something against their conscience.”
His speech shifted the debate from history to constitutional principle. Ruhullah argued that coercing citizens to sing a particular song violated the Indian Constitution’s guarantees of freedom of religion and expression. He also accused the government of weaponising the issue to distract from urgent national crises.
“This debate is not about Vande Mataram alone,” he said. “It is being used to divert attention from unemployment, inflation, governance failures, and the everyday struggles of ordinary Indians.”
Ruhullah declared: “We fought for this nation’s freedom from outsiders. If needed, we will fight tooth and nail for our freedom within this nation against anyone who denies us our constitutional rights.”
He argued that an individual carries both an eternal identity and a temporary one, noting that over the past few years, thousands of Indians, predominantly Hindus, have migrated to and settled down in Western countries, yet they have not abandoned their Hindu identity. Ruhullah said the debate was being used to distract from failures on issues like unemployment, inflation, and governance.
His remarks triggered loud interruptions, and video clips circulating on social media showed members shouting slogans, including chants of “Go to Pakistan,” underscoring how emotionally combustible the issue had become.
Iqra Hasan joined the debate in a different perspective. Quoting its opening lines ofVande Mataram, she explained that Sujalam, Sufalam, MalayajSheetalam, ShasyaShyamalam speaks of abundant water, fertile fields, cool breezes, and lush greenery.Then she posed a piercing question: “Can the air of present-day India truly be described as ‘MalayajSheetalam’?” “Step outside the Parliament building and take a deep breath. What you inhale is not the fragrance of sandalwood; it is poison seeping into our lungs.”
She also rejected narratives that cast suspicion on Muslim patriotism. “Indian Muslims rejected Jinnah’s call and chose instead to anchor themselves to the soil of this beloved land,” she said. “We are Indians by choice, not by chance.”
Invoking A.B. Vajpayee, Hasan reminded BJP that even its tallest leader never made the singing of Vande Mataram compulsory. “Was that Muslim appeasement?” she asked. “No. That was the highest form of nationalism.”
AIMIM MP Asaduddin Owaisi warned against transforming Vande Mataram into a loyalty test.“Patriotism cannot be forced upon any citizen, neither through slogans, nor through songs, nor through legislative fiat. To mandate Vande Mataram as a litmus test of loyalty is to undermine the very spirit of this Constitution.
Owaisi pointed to the Preamble’s opening words – “We the People” – and reminded the House that the Constitution begins not with religious invocation but with popular sovereignty. Article 25, he argued, guarantees freedom of belief and worship, making any form of coercion unconstitutional.
“If Vande Mataram becomes a test of loyalty,” he warned, “we abandon the ideas of Gandhi, Ambedkar, Tagore, Bose, and countless freedom fighters, and embrace religious majoritarianism.”
“No government,” he concluded, “has the authority to manufacture patriotism by force.”
Opposition, Motives, and the Politics of Timing
Other Opposition leaders echoed these concerns. Akhilesh Yadav warned that divisive forces were misusing Vande Mataram to fracture society.
Priyanka Gandhi citeda 1937 letter written by Jawharlal Nehru to Subhas Chandra Bose to challenge the government’s narrative on Vande Mataram. Quoting from the letter, she said that “the so-called objection to the remaining stanzas of Vande Mataram was manufactured by the communalists,” a context PM Narendra Modi had omitted in his speech.
Priyanka said, “The two stanzas were included as our national song in the assembly where Babasaheb Bhimrao Ambedkar was present and so was Sangh leader Shyama Prasad Mukherjee; why didn’t they object then?” she questioned.
She argued that the present debate on Vande Mataram was being staged to divert public attention from the government’s failures. Priyanka asked why the issue was being raised now, alleging that the BJP was using the debate with an eye on the upcoming West Bengal elections.
Congress MP Gaurav Gogoi echoed this criticism, accusing the government of avoiding substantive discussions. During the debate, he referred to allegations of “vote chori,” the recent blast in Delhi, and the falling rupee, saying the government was unwilling to address real concerns facing the country.
DMK’s A. Raja asserted that there was ample historical evidence to suggest that Vande Mataram was directed not only against British colonial rule but also against Muslims. Responding to PM Modi’s remarks, Raja questioned who was responsible for creating divisions around the song. “It was your forefathers who caused the division, not the Muslims,” he said.
Raja also questioned whether Vande Mataram itself led to the Partition. He concluded by asking what the original dream and vision behind Vande Mataram truly were.
The debate held up a mirror to the Modi government’s emphasis on cultural nationalism rooted in Hindutva ideology and exposed the Pro-British role of the ruling party’s forefathers. For the Opposition, it raised a far deeper question: can a constitutional republic that prides itself on pluralism afford to turn cultural expression into a compulsory test of loyalty?