Vande Mataram

By Poonam I Kaushish

What’s in a song? It’s melodious, lyrical and popular. Not if it’s Vande Mataram, which has become less a national song and more a political weapon between BJP-Opposition tu-tu-mein-mein. BJP accuses Congress of insulting it by restricting its rendition to the first two stanzas calling its bête noir anti-national, “new Muslim League” and follower of appeasement politics. Congress insists its position is rooted in history, on 1937 decision to sing only the first two stanzas at public gatherings. A classic case of political theatre by both.

It started with Parliament passing The Prevention of Insults to National Honour (Amendment) Bill, 2026 in the Budget session which makes “insult” to Vande Mataram punishable by up to three years imprisonment placing it on power with national anthem.

Recall, Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay composed Vande Mataram 1875. Rabindranath Tagore sang it at 1896 Congress session and it became a rallying cry against British rule. While the first two stanzas are an invocation of the motherland, nothing explicitly Hindu. The subsequent stanzas introduce Hindu religious imagery. The motherland is associated with Goddesses Durga, Lakshmi and Saraswati.

Subsequently, in 1937 the Congress Working Committee under Nehru adopted a resolution whereby only the first two stanzas of Vande Mataram would be sung as concerns were raised by Muslim leaders over the later religious imagery. And to keep the national movement united including Hindus, Muslims and other communities.

So, what’s the fuss about? Why not sing all six stanzas instead of two? Is BJP weaponising a cultural symbol to distract from present-day challenges? And attempting to claim ownership of national symbols and heritage? Or using it to portray Congress as “anti-Hindu”, “appeasementist” and unpatriotic? Does it realize history cannot be selectively inherited as Nagpur’s BJP-controlled civic body sang only two stanzas recently, thereby weakening its moral high ground.

Is Congress defending an inclusive conception of nationalism or quietly protecting its Muslim vote bank? If it believes 1937 compromise remains valid as the later verses are religiously unsuitable for an inclusive modern secular republic it needs to explain why. It cannot hide behind history while refusing to acknowledge its decision also has obvious contemporary electoral implications.

Besides, if Vande Mataram has been Constitutionally and politically embraced as the national song, why should the country remain permanently frozen in a compromise made 90 years ago? The song was not written as a modern political manifesto against Muslims. Should a national symbol be treated as a historical whole or its later religious imagery makes the full version unsuitable for a religiously plural India? Why should singing it be made a test case of patriotism?

Politically, both BJP and Congress have taken what belongs to the nation and turned it into something that belongs to their politics. For BJP, singing all six stanzas is a test of nationalist authenticity and national pride. Besides, Vande Mataram fits neatly into its argument that Congress historically compromised national identity and diluted its position to accommodate Muslim League’s political demands.

For Congress, defending the two-stanza version allows it to preserve a historical legacy while avoiding a direct confrontation with Muslim sensibilities. By stopping at two, the Party is using it as a defence of secular inclusiveness.

And there lies the real tragedy. A song that once united Indians against colonial rule is now being used to divide Indians against one another. Both have converted a cultural-historical question into a political identity contest. BJP is weaponising nationalism; Congress is weaponising secularism. Both are weaponising the song.

The truth lies between the two extremes. There is nothing wrong with citizens learning, understanding and even singing Vande Mataram’s all six stanzas. History should not be sanitized merely because portions of it make us uncomfortable.

And neither should the State turn a religiously inflected 19 Century composition into a compulsory test of patriotism. Patriotism cannot be measured by how loudly one sings a song. Nor can secularism mean that every expression containing Hindu imagery must be edited out of national life. India’s genius has always been its capacity to accommodate both.

Consequently, Vande Mataram’s six stanzas should be taught and respected in their historical context. At State functions, Government prescribed protocol should determine what version is to be sung. However, Parties should not be forced into a loyalty test over which stanzas they choose to sing at their own programmes, unless Parliament or a Constitutional authority establishes otherwise.

The larger question is whether India has matured enough to discuss its history without converting every disagreement into a Hindu-vs-Muslim referendum. Because, if Congress is refusing the last four stanzas solely to protect its vote bank, it deserves to be called out. But if BJP is demanding all six stanzas primarily to paint Congress as the “new Muslim League” it deserves the same scrutiny.

A national song should be bigger than a Party, bigger than a vote bank and certainly bigger than an election slogan. But do not turn Vande Mataram into another battlefield where patriotism is measured by one Party’s volume and secularism by another Party’s silence.

The irony is deliciously uncomfortable: A song that was once a symbol of resistance against the British has been dragged into the very Hindu-Muslim binary that nationalism should have transcended. Both Parties have made Vande Mataram into a communal-secular issue. The song that once told Indians to bow to the motherland is today being used by politicians to ask Indians to bow before their respective versions of nationalism. Undeniably, an insult to the national song.

Sadly, our politicians forget Vande Matram was born as a cry against colonialism. Today, they have resurrected it as a cry against each other. Time they stop playing petty politricks. The patriotic song stands at the intersection of history, identity and contemporary politics. Whether it becomes an opportunity to reflect on how national symbols can unite a diverse country or merely another battleground for partisan sparring, will depend on how leaders choose to engage with it.

In the ultimate we need to realize that India’s multi-pluralistic character, pulsating democracy and civil society is neither rigid nor frozen in time. It is constantly evolving. A song cannot make or mar the future of a nation or its people. Nor singing or not singing a test of patriotism. High time this frivolous and needless controversy is put to rest once and for all. There are more pressing issues which need our polity’s attention. What says you? — INFA