There is an old saying: “Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.” Samuel Johnson was not criticising love for one’s country; he was warning against those who weaponise patriotic symbolism to escape accountability. In India today, that warning feels uncomfortably relevant.
After nearly twelve years of the Narendra Modi government, political discourse has once again been pulled toward a familiar battleground: nationalism, loyalty and symbolic patriotism. This time, the flashpoint is “Vande Mataram.” The question dominating headlines is whether the entire song should be sung or only its first two stanzas.
The Congress Working Committee has reaffirmed its 1937 position of singing only the first two stanzas at party events. The BJP has responded with predictable fury, with Home Minister Amit Shah calling the decision anti-national and the party launching a nationwide campaign defending the “complete” song. Congress leaders, meanwhile, insist their stance is rooted in history and reject the idea that the BJP can issue certificates of patriotism.
But amid all this noise, the ordinary citizen is entitled to ask: What does any of this do for India’s real problems?
The controversy arrives at a moment when unemployment and the fraught transition from education to employment remain pressing concerns. The government’s own Periodic Labour Force Survey reports youth unemployment at 9.9% in 2025, and 13.6% in urban areas. Unemployment among educated Indians aged 15 and above stands at 6.5%. Azim Premji University’s State of Working India 2026 warns that the number of graduates is rising far faster than the number of graduate-level jobs. Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge has repeatedly asked where the jobs are for young people who have spent years studying and preparing.
Yet instead of a sustained national conversation on employment, the political establishment is asking Indians to debate how many stanzas of a song should be sung. Will singing the complete Vande Mataram provide employment to a graduate? Will it repair the broken bridge between education and meaningful work? Will it help a young person who has spent years preparing for competitive exams? The answer is obvious.
This is not an argument against Vande Mataram. Respecting national symbols is not the problem. The problem begins when symbolic nationalism becomes a substitute for governance. When people ask about unemployment, shift the debate to patriotism. When citizens ask about rising prices, ignite a cultural controversy. When students protest, question their motives. When voters demand accountability, ask them to prove their loyalty.
Symbolism is easier than governance. A government cannot instantly create millions of quality jobs or fix agriculture overnight. It cannot repair schools and hospitals in a week. But it can manufacture outrage around a song. It can turn a political disagreement into a test of nationalism. It can dominate television debates with accusations of being “anti-national.” And while the country argues, the difficult questions can wait.
The India that appears in television studios is not the India outside them. The young graduate searching for work is not asking how many stanzas of Vande Mataram another party sings. He is asking where his job is. The farmer is not waiting for another nationalist speech; he is worried about income, debt and the uncertainty of agriculture. The middle-class family is worried about school fees, medical bills and rising household expenses. The poor family wants affordable healthcare and functioning government schools. The student wants transparent examinations and a system that rewards merit. These are not anti-national concerns. They are the most national concerns possible.
A nation is strengthened not merely when its citizens sing together, but when they can live with dignity. National pride should be visible not only in ceremonies but in the quality of public institutions, the fairness of opportunities and the security available to ordinary families. If a qualified citizen cannot find work, if a farmer remains trapped in debt, if a patient cannot afford treatment, the country has a governance problem. Calling attention to that problem is not disloyalty; it is democratic responsibility.
The government can rightly point to economic achievements. The Economic Survey 2025–26 projects strong GDP growth, and official labour data shows improvement in several indicators. But headline numbers do not answer the central question: Is growth creating enough quality opportunities for India’s enormous youth population? A 9.9% youth unemployment rate cannot be dismissed simply because the broader unemployment rate is lower. Millions of educated young Indians are competing for limited opportunities, and employment figures alone do not capture the quality of work. A person may be counted as employed while earning too little, working without security or moving between temporary jobs. India needs employment that provides dignity and stability.
The opposition has accused the BJP of politicising Vande Mataram for electoral gain. Congress leaders have defended their historical position and rejected the idea that the BJP can define patriotism. Many observers argue that controversies involving religion, culture and nationalism generate intense emotional reactions precisely because they are easier to mobilise than complex debates on jobs, inequality or institutional performance. Even media coverage of the current row makes clear that the Congress is attempting to focus on employment and student unrest, while the BJP has escalated the dispute over the national song. One side wants a conversation on jobs; the other has found a controversy that can trigger outrage and force the opposition into a defensive posture.
For years, symbolic nationalism has been a powerful political tool. It creates a simple emotional choice: Are you with the nation or against it? But real life is more complicated. An unemployed youth may love his country and still demand a job. A farmer may respect the national song and still demand fair prices. A student may stand for the national anthem and still protest a broken examination system. A citizen may sing Vande Mataram and still ask why healthcare, education and employment remain difficult for millions.
The old political formula is beginning to weaken. The public can respect national symbols and demand accountability. It can celebrate patriotism and question government performance. It can reject hatred without surrendering its right to criticism. The attempt to create a permanent atmosphere of distraction is becoming harder because unemployment, economic pressures and public frustration do not disappear when the headlines change. A controversy may dominate social media for a week; a household budget remains a problem every month. A television debate may end after midnight; a student’s uncertainty continues for years.
The most powerful form of patriotism is not forcing people to repeatedly prove their loyalty. It is building a country where young people have opportunities, farmers have security, hospitals function, schools educate, institutions are trusted and citizens can live with dignity. Patriotism cannot be a substitute for performance. A hungry citizen cannot pay bills with slogans. An unemployed youth cannot build a career with symbolism. A struggling family cannot run its household on patriotic speeches. And a government that has been in power for nearly twelve years cannot keep changing the subject forever.
India does not need another contest over who is more patriotic. It needs a serious conversation about jobs, education, healthcare, agriculture, prices and the future of its young population. Respect Vande Mataram, by all means. But respect the Indian citizen too. Perhaps it is time to ask the most important question of all: When will the government stop asking citizens to repeatedly prove their patriotism and start proving its own performance? Because in the end, the loudest slogan cannot silence an empty pocket, and no amount of political noise can hide reality forever.
---
Mohd. Ziyaullah Khan is a freelance content writer and editor based in Nagpur. He is also an activist and social entrepreneur, and cofounder of TruthScape, a team of digital activists fighting disinformation on social media
Comments