The recent Vande Mataram debate in Parliament was never meant to foster genuine dialogue. Each political party spoke past the other, addressing its own constituency, ensuring that clips went viral rather than contributing to meaningful deliberation. The objective was clear: to construct a Hindutva narrative ahead of the Bengal elections. Predictably, the Lok Sabha will likely expunge the opposition’s “controversial” remarks while retaining blatant inaccuracies voiced by ministers and ruling-party members. The BJP has mastered the art of inserting distortions into parliamentary records to provide them with a veneer of historical legitimacy.
The real issue is not what individual members said for or against Vande Mataram. Anyone with an honest reading of Indian history recognises these debates as decades-old. In fact, nearly every cultural, political, and constitutional question raised today by the BJP or by Prime Minister Narendra Modi was thoroughly debated in the Constituent Assembly and within the Congress. These were not decisions made by Nehru alone; they were shaped by a collective leadership under Gandhi. Leaders such as Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel and Subhas Chandra Bose were not figureheads; they commanded immense mass support and contributed significantly to national decisions. Their occasional differences did not prevent them from arriving at collective outcomes. Unfortunately, the Congress and others have failed to consistently highlight this collective legacy.
The BJP’s strategy is to place Jawaharlal Nehru in the dock while simultaneously claiming the legacy of the Indian National Congress. With little historical inheritance of its own from the freedom movement, it attempts to appropriate this legacy by discrediting Nehru. Viewed through this lens, its current political and historical claims become transparent.
The allegation that Nehru asked for the Babri Masjid to be rebuilt using government funds is an outright fabrication. Rajnath Singh repeating this claim reflects poorly on him. Historical evidence clearly shows that Nehru opposed the use of government funds for the reconstruction of the Somnath temple. He advised both Sardar Patel and President Rajendra Prasad to participate only as private individuals—advice they followed. Collective decision-making involves debate, disagreement, and compromise. If Nehru is to be held responsible for actions taken during his tenure, then fellow cabinet members of that era must also be included in that accountability.
I am not in favour of glorifying individuals, but the political leadership of the time must be understood in context. Nehru inherited a fragmented nation marked by the trauma of Partition. Patel and Ambedkar were equally central to navigating that moment. To say that Partition was the sole responsibility of Nehru is simply untrue. Even Syama Prasad Mukherjee served in Nehru’s first cabinet. Their differences did not erase mutual respect.
The Vande Mataram debate is well documented. Extensive scholarship exists on Anandamath and how the narrative shifted from anti-colonial resistance to an anti-Mughal framing. Parts of the Sangh Parivar continue to view the Mughal period as the real era of “slavery,” despite their relative comfort with the legacy of British rule—perhaps because many of their ideological fellow-travellers have long benefited from Western education and privilege. This selective historical hostility reinforces a politics that places Indian Muslims on perpetual trial.
History is complicated, and it is easy to mould selectively, just as economic data can be manipulated to support opposing policy goals. Today, many intellectuals, journalists, and academics function more like legal advocates, defending whatever “brief” they are handed. Shifts in position are common.
Why, then, revive debates that were resolved long ago? These were contentious issues, but they were settled through collective reasoning so that the nation could move forward. Reopening them now only serves those who played no meaningful role in India’s freedom struggle and who continue to profit from division.
We must decide whether we want these distractions to continue. Priyanka Gandhi’s suggestion that Parliament hold a multi-day discussion on Nehru—his contributions as well as his mistakes—might indeed help settle this matter once and for all. After that, we could turn our attention to urgent issues: the climate crisis, Delhi’s smog, the failures in our electoral system, traffic congestion, the aviation sector’s woes, the concerns of farmers, and unemployment. A government aspiring to build a Viksit Bharat cannot remain trapped in mandir–masjid or Hindu–Muslim politics.
The Vande Mataram debate ultimately became a platform for attacking Nehru. In Bengal, however, the BJP will face an electorate attuned to the legacy of Rabindranath Tagore and Subhas Chandra Bose—leaders who worked within a collective national vision guided by Gandhi, in which Nehru and Patel played integral roles. One cannot meaningfully discuss India by fragmenting the contributions of those who built it through shared values and collective effort.
India today stands on the foundations laid by these leaders. Their commitment to working together across ideological, cultural, and personal differences remains an example worth honouring.
Jai Hind. Vande Mataram.
---
*Human rights defender
Comments