Ranjan Solomon
THE debates both in Parliament and a day ago (January 13) in the Goa Assembly could have been well been a short, and cultured celebration of the 150th anniversary of the song. Instead, the Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP) led it down the path of communal stress.
Watching the shouting match on television caused me to switch off my mobile on which I was following it the battle over “Vande Mataram”. Chief Minister Pramod Sawant showed a fury unbecoming of a man of his stature. One realized that here was yet another case of how simple matters were being communalised. In the inept way that the BJP handled it, it heightened ongoing tensions between cultural nationalism and India’s secular ideals. Primarily, the song’s religious, as The Goan report put it, creates “imagery clashes with the monotheistic beliefs of some minority communities, particularly Muslims”.
It was distressing to see uncontrolled anger exchanged in the Parliament or the Assembly in Goa. Chief Minister Sawant accused an AAP leader of not knowing history- completely uncalled for allegation. His own credential to lead in a multi-religious/multi-cultural State are very doubtful. Besides, a chief minister must have far more finesse and tact to keep the Assembly together. Should Sawant read even recent history he would then find that one of BJP’s tallest leaders has a far broader mind than the current set of RSS-fed members.
The core conflict and central issue stems from the song, penned by Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay in his novel Anandamath (1882), which personifies the motherland (Bharat) as a Hindu goddess (Durga/Kali) and calls for devotion and worship (”Mother, I bow to thee”). This is viewed by critics as problematic for a constitutionally secular republic where the state is meant to remain neutral on religious matters and not endorse a specific faith’s symbols. By contrast, it contributes diverse dangers to the Secular Ideal.
The chief minister was using a time-tested tactic of futile time-waste. He hailed the move as a tribute to India’s cultural heritage while the Leader of the Opposition Yuri Alemao criticised the government of shelving pressing issues by drawing in symbolic politics.
Vande Mataram, Sawant asserted, is deemed as a soul-stirring call that united Indians during the freedom struggle. When Sawant called out an AAP MLA of not knowing Indian history, he also forgot to mention that not only was he not even born at that time. Worse, the RSS, which has its roots, had little or nothing to do with the Freedom Movement. He was into sheer rhetoric when he proclaimed that “Vande Mataram inspired countless patriots to sacrifice everything for the nation”.
To suggest that the discussion was a rightful acknowledgment of India’s cultural identity was clearly out of place. Sawant leads a government which is an utter failure on all fronts – social, economic, political, employment, infrastructure and an endless list of policy failures. The chief minister was least interested in demanding matters such as the Arpora nightclub fire, corruption allegations, and Goa’s identity crisis. Clearly he was wasting public time and money by sidetracking his government’s failures.
Leader of the Opposition Yuri Alemao asserted: “The people of Goa are asking about safety, jobs, and corruption. Instead of answering those questions, this government wants to hide behind Vande Mataram. We respect the song, but governance cannot be reduced to symbolism. Alemao accused the government of being more interested in optics rather than accountability adding: “We are not belittling Vande Mataram. We are saying that patriotism also means protecting Goans today. If the government cannot address real issues, then singing songs will not save us.”
When the singing of “Vande Mataram” is made mandatory in public institutions or legislatures, it transforms a potential expression of voluntary patriotism into a coercive loyalty test. This approach alienates citizens who may be deeply patriotic but uncomfortable with the song’s religious connotations, thereby undermining the inclusive nature of Indian nationalism.
The most significant danger is the potential violation of the constitutional right to freedom of religion (Article 25). Forcing citizens, especially Muslims who practice strict monotheism and reject idol worship, to sing verses that deify the nation as a goddess is seen as a direct infringement on their religious conscience.
The debate often becomes a tool for political polarisation, and majoritarian assertions where certain groups use the controversy to assert an overwhelming of national identity, equating “Indian culture” solely with Hindu imagery. This reframing of national symbols can marginalise minorities and cast suspicion on their patriotism. If anything, the CM wasted tax-payers money on a discussion that could have been over in 30-minutes.
The song’s origins in Anandamath, a novel some interpret as having anti-Muslim overtones (depicting Muslim rule as the “other”), adds a complex historical layer to the debate. Raking up this history in contemporary politics can fuel existing communal divisions and hinder social harmony. The recurring controversy over “Vande Mataram” often serves as a political distraction from critical governance and development issues such as unemployment, poverty, and healthcare, diverting national dialogue into symbolic identity politics.
The chief minister must go back to a history class. He would then realise that historically, India’s founding fathers recognised these sensitivities. In 1950, a compromise was reached: “Jana Gana Mana” was adopted as the National Anthem due to its secular nature, while the first two stanzas of “Vande Mataram” (considered less controversial) were designated the National Song, to be given equal honour. This was an attempt to balance historical legacy with an inclusive, secular republic.
However, modern political discourse often challenges this arrangement, arguing that the truncation of the song was an act of “appeasement” or, conversely, that any mandatory use of it is unconstitutional. The issue thus remains a potent symbol of the ongoing challenge of defining a shared, inclusive national identity in a diverse society.
Wasting money on Vande Mataram debates began in the Parliament when significant taxpayer funds estimated at crores of rupees) were spent on a lengthy discussion about the national song, with critics like musician Vishal Dadlani and opposition leaders arguing it was a ruse to divert focus from urgent issues like unemployment, pollution, and economic crises, turning it into a political spectacle rather than substantive governance.
Chief Minister Sawant’s double-engine government which clearly takes orders from the Centre has copy-catted the NJP (What is this?) at the Centre.
__________
Ranjan Solomon is a writer, researcher and activist based in Goa. He has worked in social movements since he was 19 years of age. The views expressed here are the author’s own and Clarion India does not necessarily share or subscribe to them. He can be contacted at ranjan.solomon@gmail.com
