Song of the Nation: Performed by Vande Mataram

Patriotism is not just respect for the territory or the flag, but is the embodiment of solidarity with one’s fellow citizens in the nation-state. The idea of ​​a nation as a bond transcends family, community or faith, uniting citizens through shared values ​​and the pursuit of prosperity. There are national symbols and anthems that perfect this bond. When they are changed or modified to force citizens to accept the majority version, their purpose is defeated. The Indian freedom fighting generation understood this. Which is why, in 1937, the Congress Working Committee decided that only the first two stanzas of Bankim Chatterjee’s Vande Mataram should be sung at national rallies, as the later stanzas invoke the motherland as Hindu deities. When Jana Gana Mana was adopted as the national anthem on 24 January 1950, India’s first president, Rajendra Prasad, said that Vande Mataram, even though there was no mention of a “national song” in the constitution, would be “respected equally”. Since then, the two-stanza version has allowed citizens of all faiths to participate in the song that stirred the freedom struggle and was popularized by artists like Lata Mangeshkar and AR Rahman.

In the last year or so, the BJP-led Union government has been trying to reverse this inclusive pact. Since the song’s 150th anniversary in 2025, she has enforced the recitation of all six stanzas. The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) issued guidelines and circulars in 2026 and Parliament approved them Prevention of Insults to National Honor (Amendment) Act 2026 with little debate – actions that are in keeping with the BJP’s habit of imposing uniformity and majoritarian preferences on all citizens. The amendment extends Section 3 of the 1971 Act, which punishes anyone who willfully prevents the singing of the National Anthem or disrupts an assembly engaged in such singing, to the National Anthem. In itself, it does not compel anyone to sing or define the National Song or its stanzas. But read alongside the MHA’s orders prescribing the official version of all six slokas, ordering mass chanting at public events and placing the song before the anthem, it amounts to coercion, as claimed by TM Krishna’s petition in the Supreme Court. The court rightly noted that the state can decide what the National Song is but cannot punish conscientious objectors in line with Bijoe Emmanuel (1986). This judgment ruled that no law compels anyone to sing the national anthem, standing in respectful silence is not an insult and management instructions without legal support cannot curtail fundamental rights. The court must apply Bijoe Emmanuel to its full extent, set aside the MHA’s orders and make it clear that silence cannot be construed as “disruption”. By returning to the vision of the generation of freedom, the Court fulfills the idea of ​​unity in diversity.

Published – 25 Sep 2026 0:20 AM IST