3 months ago
2
The January 28, 2026 bid of the Union Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), directing that all six stanzas of Vande Mataram beryllium played astatine authoritative functions, with everyone contiguous required to basal astatine attention, is not an enactment of patriotism. It is law vandalism dressed up successful nationalist pride. To recognize why, we request to spell backmost to 1937, look astatine what the Constituent Assembly decided, and retrieve what the Supreme Court of India had said successful the landmark case, Bijoe Emmanuel and Ors. vs State of Kerala and Ors. (1986).
1937 colony is not weakness, but wisdom
In October 1937, the Congress Working Committee had met successful Calcutta. What happened determination was not appeasement, arsenic immoderate present claim. Dr. Rajendra Prasad moved the solution portion Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel seconded it. Mahatma Gandhi was determination arsenic a peculiar invitee. The solution was unanimous. They recognised “the validity of objections raised by Muslim friends to definite parts of the song” and concluded that “the archetypal 2 stanzas alone, accepted arsenic the nationalist opus astatine nationalist gatherings, are successful nary consciousness objectionable”.
This was not cowardice. It was communal sense. The aboriginal stanzas of Bankim Chandra Chatterjee’s poem (Vande Mataram) telephone out, by name, the Hindu goddesses Durga, Lakshmi and Saraswati. One verse virtually describes the motherland arsenic “Tvam hullo Durga dasa-praharana-dharini (You are Durga, wielder of the 10 weapons”).
Think astir what it means to unit a Muslim civilian servant, a Christian schoolteacher, a Sikh soldier, a Buddhist monk, oregon an atheist idiosyncratic to basal astatine attraction portion these verses are sung. That is not fostering unity. That is imposing a spiritual trial successful a secular republic.
Even Rabindranath Tagore supported keeping it to 2 stanzas. The full state question — from the mean to the radical, from the secular to the devout — agreed that the archetypal 2 stanzas captured the song’s tone without hurting anyone’s faith. This was not a fringe decision. It was the corporate contented of the radical who fought for India’s freedom.
On January 24, 1950, President Rajendra Prasad announced that Jana Gana Mana would beryllium the National Anthem, and that Vande Mataram would “be honoured equally” with it. But present is what matters: the Constituent Assembly adopted lone the two-stanza mentation arsenic the National Song. Those 4 different stanzas were not accidentally forgotten. They were deliberately near retired due to the fact that our founders understood thing crucial: a secular republic cannot marque verses devoted to circumstantial gods and goddesses into authoritative symbols.
Editorial | Note of harmony: On the statement on Vande Mataram
In the Constitution, Article 51A(a) tells each national “to abide by ...the National Flag, and the National Anthem”. If 1 notices carefully, the National Song is not mentioned. When Parliament added cardinal duties done the 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act of 1976, it specifically listed the Flag and the Anthem. It did not see the Song. This was not an oversight. This was a choice. The Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971, protects the National Anthem, the Flag, the Constitution. It does not screen Vande Mataram. There is nary ineligible punishment for not singing it, not lasting for it, oregon not showing it immoderate peculiar respect. This is not accidental. The law model deliberately treats the anthem (which is secular and inclusive) otherwise from the opus (which has spiritual elements that request to beryllium cautiously limited).
The lawsuit astir the close not to sing
In July 1985, Bijoe, Binu Mol, and Bindu Emmanuel, 3 children successful Kerala, were expelled from school. They were Jehovah’s Witnesses. Every greeting during assembly, they stood respectfully portion the National Anthem played. But they did not sing it, due to the fact that their religion did not let it. They did not origin trouble. They did not disrupt anyone. Then a State Minister got involved, and they were sent out. While the Kerala High Court said the expulsion was fine, the Supreme Court said perfectly not.
In his judgment, Justice O. Chinnappa Reddy said the expulsion violated their cardinal rights to escaped code and state of religion. Then helium wrote thing that should beryllium carved successful stone: “Proper respect is shown to the National Anthem by lasting up erstwhile it is sung. It volition not beryllium close to accidental that disrespect is shown by not joining successful the singing.”
The Court went further. “It volition not beryllium close to accidental that disrespect is shown by not joining successful the singing.” ‘Standing respectfully but staying soundless does not interruption immoderate law’. The children’s close to stay silent, which is itself portion of escaped speech, was constitutionally protected. Justice Reddy quoted an American judge, Justice Robert H. Jackson, from a case, West Virginia State Board of Education vs Barnette (1943): “If determination is immoderate fixed prima successful our law constellation, it is that nary official, precocious oregon petty, tin prescribe what shall beryllium orthodox successful politics, nationalism, religion, oregon different matters of sentiment oregon unit citizens to confess by connection oregon enactment their religion therein.” That prima has not stopped shining.
Now, see what the MHA bid does. It mandates the playing of the implicit six-stanza mentation astatine civilian investitures, statesmanlike events, and emblem ceremonies. Everyone indispensable basal astatine attention. Schools indispensable commencement the time with assemblage singing of the National Song. And, yes. It includes the 4 stanzas that the Constituent Assembly deliberately excluded. The stanzas invoking Durga with her weapons, Lakshmi with her blessings and Saraswati with her knowledge. The logic is simple. If the Court said that you cannot unit radical to sing adjacent the National Anthem (which has law extortion nether Article 51A and ineligible extortion nether a circumstantial Act), past you surely cannot unit them to sing the National Song (which has neither law notation nor ineligible protection). What is forbidden for the greater indispensable surely beryllium forbidden for the lesser.
But this bid does thing worse. It is not conscionable asking radical to stand. It is making them participate, adjacent passively, successful singing explicitly spiritual verses. Consider the presumption of a Muslim bureaucrat compelled to basal astatine attraction arsenic “You are Durga, wielder of the 10 weapons” echoes done the hall, oregon a Christian kid successful a schoolhouse assembly wherever Hindu deities are invoked. That is not a formality. That is simply a coiled to conscience.
That is precisely what Article 25 of the Constitution protects against. India’s founders were not naive. They were gathering thing extraordinary: a law bid that could clasp unneurotic a civilization of staggering diversity. They understood what we look to person forgotten. Real patriotism does not necessitate everyone to commune the aforesaid way.
The archetypal 2 stanzas — “Sujalam, suphalam, malayaja sheetalam” — observe our motherland’s rivers, fruits, chill breezes, moonlit nights. They beryllium to each Indian, careless of faith. The aboriginal stanzas are beauteous devotional poetry, but they are addressed to circumstantial deities of 1 spiritual tradition. To premix them unneurotic and unit everyone to enactment successful some is to interruption the republic’s founding promise.
What this is truly about
Nobody is questioning whether Vande Mataram deserves respect. Of people it does. Its archetypal 2 stanzas lit the occurrence of absorption against assemblage rule. People sang them successful streets and successful jailhouse cells, Hindus and Muslims together, arsenic a conflict outcry for freedom.
The existent question is simpler: Can the authorities unit citizens to enactment successful spiritual observance by calling it patriotism? Any honorable speechmaking of the Constitution and the Supreme Court’s judgments gives you the answer. No. Bijoe Emmanuel is not immoderate dusty aged precedent. It is alive. It stands for thing indispensable — successful a law democracy, the close to disagree, adjacent silently and respectfully, is not treason. It is state itself.
The MHA bid overturns the 1937 settlement. It ignores what the Constituent Assembly deliberately chose. It disregards Article 51A. It sidesteps the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act. It violates the principles successful Bijoe Emmanuel. And it does each this done enforcement order, without immoderate instrumentality being passed, without immoderate law amendment, without immoderate tribunal approval.
If determination is immoderate fixed prima successful our law sky, it is this. The Republic belongs arsenic to each its citizens. To those who sing and to those who, for reasons of conscience, basal successful respectful silence. To enactment retired that prima successful patriotism’s sanction is to betray the precise thought of India that its founders fought to build. The Constitution does not request that we each worship the aforesaid way. It demands that we are each adjacent citizens. Those are not the aforesaid thing, and nary magnitude of forced lasting tin marque them so.
Sanjay Hegde is simply a Senior Advocate designated by the Supreme Court of India
