Yesterday, Parliament held a debate on the National Song VANDE MATARAM. There has been a lot of controversy relating to Vande Mataram, especially when the Muslim community refuses to sing the national song, saying that it is against their belief and religion, and they can not bow to any other than Allah. The debate centers on whether it should be mandatory to sing in public institutions, with disagreements over its religious neutrality.
Key Points of the Controversy
1 Debate over making Vande Mataram Compulsory
Some State governments and political groups have recently proposed that Vande Mataram be made mandatory in
- Schools
- Government offices
- Public events
Opposition parties and Civil groups argue that
- Patriotism can not be forced
- The Constitution already recognises both ‘ Jana Gana Mana’ (national anthem) and ‘Vande Mataram’ (national song), but does not mandate compulsory singing.
This has led to heated exchange in State assemblies and on social media.
2 Religious Concerns Raised Again
Sections of the Muslim community and some scholars reiterate long-standing concerns;
- Parts of ‘Vande Mataram’ (especially later stanzas) contain reference to goddess worship, which they feel conflicts with monotheistic belief.
- They are comfortable with first stanza which is widely accepted as non-religious, but object to being compelled to sing the full song.
This has revived earlier debated from 1930s, 2006 and 2017.
3 Political Polarisation
Political parties are accusing each other of
- Undermining patriotism (one side’s claim)
- Using sentiment for political gain (the other side’s claim)
Rallies, TV debates, and online campaigns have intensified the controversy.
4 Statements from Courts and Constitutional Bodies
Recent comments (late 2024-2025) fro judges and legal experts resurfaced in media, clarifying:
- Singing Vande Mataram can not be made compulsorily unless legislated.
- Citizens have the freedom to express patriotism in their own way (Article 19)
No new court order has been issued, but debate continues.
5 Why This Keeps Returning
This issue resurfaces periodically because it sits at the intersection of:
- Patriotism
- Identity politics
- Religious sensitivity
- Historical memory of the freedom struggle
What was Yesterday’s Parliament (Lok Sabha) debate on this issue:
Key Points
1 Historical Alterations– Prime Minister Modi and the BJP alleged that the Congress party, particularly under Jawaharlal Nehru’s leadership, ‘betrayed’ and ‘fragmented’ the national song by removing certain stanzas to appease the Muslim League. They argue that this decision sowed the seed of partition.
2 Congress’s Defense– The Congress party, including leaders like Priyanka Gandhi and Gaurav Gogoi, counteredthat the 1937 decision to use the first two stanzas was inclusive move made by working committee that included Mahatma Gandhi, Subhash Chandra Bose, Sardar Patel and Rabindranath Tagore. They argue that full song contained religious imagery (hind Goddess) that some communities found objectionable, and the decision was made to ensure unity within the freedom movement.
3 Political Timing and Distraction– Opposition parties including the Congress and TMC, have accused the BJP of deliberately politicizing the issue and using parliamentary debate as diversionary tactic to distract the public from current pressing issues, and the upcoming West Bengal elections in 2026.
4 Status and Respect– Defence Minister Rajnath Singh has proposed that adding a new fundamental duty to the Constitution to ensure ‘Vande Mataram’ receives the same respect as the national anthem ‘Jana Gana Mana’.
5 Religious Objection– The Jamait Ulama-i-hind Organisation has previously stated that while the first two stanzas are acceptable, the later stanzas, which depict the motherland as the goddess Durga, go against the Islamic belief in monotheism (oneness of god), making it difficult for some Muslims to sing the full song.
In the end , the ongoing debate is clash over historical narratives, national identity, and contemporary political strategy, bringing a long-standing historical discussion back into the public and legislative spotlight.
Let us wait and watch for further development on this issue.
Anil Malik
Mumbai, India
9th December 2025