The BJP thrives on identity issues. It deploys them to polarise society and reap electoral benefits. From the Babri Masjid–Ram Temple dispute to cow–beef politics, “love jihad” and other invented “jihads”, such themes have been its principal tools. Adding to this list, another issue has now been brought to the fore: the national song Vande Mataram.
On the occasion of the 150th anniversary of the song (7 November 2025), written by Bankim Chandra Chatterjee (BCC), a deputy collector in the British government, the ruling dispensation manufactured a controversy. Prime Minister Modi claimed that the Congress and Jawaharlal Nehru had “truncated” the song under pressure from the Muslim League, and that such capitulation had also led to the Partition of the country.
Others from the Hindutva right wing quickly joined the chorus. In this formulation, the Prime Minister not only elevates a non-issue to centre stage in national politics but once again seeks to defame Nehru. Vilifying Nehru at every possible pretext has been a consistent objective of right-wing politics, with Nehru being blamed even for the failures of the present government.
Vande Mataram was written in the 1870s and initially remained unpublished. It was later expanded with additional stanzas and incorporated into BCC’s novel Anand Math. The novel was based loosely on the Sanyasi (Hindu ascetic) and Fakir (Muslim ascetic) rebellion. However, the Fakir component was marginalised, and the narrative was presented largely as a Sanyasi uprising against a Muslim ruler. The novel imagines mosques being replaced by temples and ends with the overthrow of the Muslim king and the restoration of British rule.
Ironically, Vande Mataram emerged as a powerful political slogan against British colonialism and became a war cry for mass resistance. During the 1905 Partition of Bengal on religious lines, massive protests were led with this song as well as Aamar Sonar Bangla. Vande Mataram gained popularity across India and came to be sung in state assemblies and schools. Most assemblies were under Congress rule at the time, while the Muslim League governed only three provinces.
Muhammad Ali Jinnah, in his role as a communal leader of the Muslim League, objected to the song on the grounds that it was Hindu-centric and contained elements of idolatry. It is worth noting that opposition to idolatry exists not only in Islam but also within Hindu reform movements such as the Arya Samaj. Jinnah’s objection led to correspondence between Jawaharlal Nehru and Subhas Chandra Bose. Nehru sought the opinion of Gurudev Rabindranath Tagore, a towering literary figure, who observed that the first two stanzas—praising the motherland—were acceptable to all, while the remaining stanzas were steeped in Hindu imagery and could therefore be omitted.
Given the song’s popularity, the Congress Working Committee held detailed deliberations. It resolved: “These two stanzas are in no sense objectionable even from the standpoint of those who have raised objections, and they contain the essence of the song. The Committee recommended that wherever the ‘Vande Mataram’ song is sung at national gatherings, only these two stanzas should be sung, and the version and music prepared by Rabindranath Tagore should be followed. The Committee trusted that this decision will remove all causes of complaint and will have the willing acceptance of all communities in the country.”
Later, the Constituent Assembly’s Anthem Committee—comprising Vallabhbhai Patel, K.M. Munshi and others—considered three songs: Saare Jahan Se Achchha by Mohammad Iqbal, Vande Mataram by Bankim Chandra Chatterjee, and Jana Gana Mana by Rabindranath Tagore. Saare Jahan Se Achchha was ruled out as Iqbal had become a strong supporter of Pakistan. The first two stanzas of Vande Mataram were adopted as the national song, while Jana Gana Mana was chosen as the national anthem. Both were accorded equal status.
Thus, the issue was settled through broad consensus. Why, decades later, is it being resurrected and accorded such prominence? At a time when the country is grappling with widespread deprivation—poverty, unemployment, pollution, and declining standards of public health and education—raising this controversy suggests a deeper communal agenda. When Jinnah raised the issue in the 1930s, Nehru had stated unequivocally that it was being driven by communal forces. The same dynamic appears to be at work today, as another stream of communal politics undermines constitutional values and India’s plural ethos.
Ironically, the very forces now demanding that the full version of Vande Mataram be sung had never sung it themselves. The song was primarily sung at Indian National Congress meetings and by those actively fighting British rule. Since the RSS kept itself aloof from the freedom movement and indirectly aided British “divide and rule” policies, it neither sang the song nor raised its slogan.
India’s freedom struggle was multi-religious, multilingual and multi-ethnic, with women and men participating together to shape a united nation. While the Muslim League sought Pakistan in Muslim-majority areas and the Hindu Mahasabha and RSS worked towards a Hindu nation, the Constituent Assembly broadly represented the aspirations of a plural India. The Vande Mataram–Jana Gana Mana issue was settled by the founding figures of Indian nationalism.
Those who remained aloof from the freedom struggle have never truly internalised the spirit of the Constitution. While they now argue for the full version of Vande Mataram, they did not sing it in their shakhas, where their own hymn—Namaste Sada Vatsale Matrubhume—was preferred. They also rejected the tricolour in favour of the saffron flag. Their professed faith in the Indian Constitution remains largely nominal.
Insisting on the full version of the song today could have serious negative consequences. Forcing non-Hindus to sing it in schools and public institutions may deepen alienation and fear among communities already feeling vulnerable, humiliated, and targeted through relentless identity-based politics.
---
Comments
Post a Comment
NOTE: Hateful, abusive comments won't be published. -- Editor