MORADABAD — As the Uttar Pradesh government announced that singing ‘Vande Mataram’ will be made mandatory in all schools and educational institutions across the state, Samajwadi Party leader S.T. Hasan on Monday asked why it is being linked with patriotism.
Speaking to IANS, former MP Hasan said: “Muslims have been opposing ‘Vande Mataram’ for the past 150 years. The reason is that it contains ideas that go against Islam. We cannot worship anything other than Allah. In ‘Vande Mataram’, the land is being worshipped. If we worship anything other than Allah, it means including someone else in Allah’s divinity, which is strictly prohibited in our Holy Quran.”
“God has created human beings and, to assist them, He has created the air, sky, and sea. That is why we cannot worship them. If in Vande Mataram there is worship of the land, then it becomes our compulsion not to recite it. But if it is not, we can read it a thousand times. No Muslim has ever opposed ‘Jana Gana Mana’. Why is ‘Vande Mataram’ being linked with patriotism? Muslims can sacrifice everything for their country; we can even give our lives for it. But it is not compulsory to recite ‘Vande Mataram’.”
Addressing the ‘Ekta Yatra’ and ‘Vande Mataram’ singing event in Gorakhpur, Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath said: “There should be a sense of respect for the national song ‘Vande Mataram’. We will make its singing compulsory in every school and educational institution of Uttar Pradesh so that a feeling of reverence and respect is invoked in everyone towards Bharat Mata and our Matrubhoomi.”
The Chief Minister also recalled that from 1896 to 1922, ‘Vande Mataram’ was sung at every Congress session. However, in 1923, when Mohammad Ali Jauhar became the Congress President, he walked out as soon as the song began and refused to participate.
“That opposition to ‘Vande Mataram’ became one of the unfortunate causes of India’s Partition,” he claimed.
“If the Congress had respected India’s nationalism through ‘Vande Mataram’ and removed Mohammad Ali Jauhar from the post of party President at that time, the Partition might not have happened.” — IANS
