It is encouraging that Parliament has been functioning smoothly this session, with fewer disruptions and several meaningful speeches. However, the ten-hour debate on Vande Mataram is difficult to comprehend. Commemorating the 150th anniversary of this great national song and honouring its poet, Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay, for his contribution to the freedom struggle is entirely appropriate. What is troubling is that this significant occasion was instead used to launch political attacks. Home Minister Amit Shah went so far as to argue that omitting certain verses of the song amounted to appeasement and even laid the groundwork for the country’s partition. Once again, the BJP placed the blame squarely on Jawaharlal Nehru. In reality, the decision to restrict Vande Mataram to its first two stanzas was taken collectively by the Congress Working Committee in 1937. For decades thereafter, the issue was never questioned or debated in Parliament. This raises an obvious question: how did a matter that remained settled for nearly ninety years suddenly become so urgent that it dominated the December 2025 parliamentary session, sidelining far more pressing concerns? Would it not have been enough to simply honour the poet and patriot Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay—whose name itself was distorted to “Chatterjee” by the British due to their inability to pronounce it—rather than revive a long-settled issue for political ends?
Vande Mataram is the composition that awakened a nation yearning for freedom. The revolutionaries had two slogans: Inquilab Zindabad and Vande Mataram. Bhagat Singh and his comrades went to the gallows chanting these very slogans. The wave that swept from Bengal to Punjab was a roar of defiance against the British. Transcending linguistic, regional, religious, and all other differences, Vande Mataram became a challenge to the British. The song is in Bengali and Sanskrit, which many people couldn’t understand, but they grasped its essence. It is a salutation, a veneration, a worship, and a glorification of the motherland. It describes the glory of that ‘Mother’ who bestows the blessings of water, fruits and flowers, lush green crops, and the cool breeze of the sea. The song composed by A.R. Rahman also says, ‘Mother, I salute you.’ It is unfortunate that after so many years, an unnecessary controversy is being created around it, and attempts are being made to further divide the country, contrary to the spirit of the song.
The brief history is as follows: After the 1857 rebellion, there was great resentment among the people against the British. In 1870, Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay wrote some lines of Vande Mataram. In 1882, an expanded version was included in his novel Anand Math. Rabindranath Tagore composed the music for this song and sang it himself for the first time at the 1896 Congress session. Tagore’s role in this matter is significant. He suggested that the first two stanzas were sufficient. This is not unusual. The national anthems of many countries have been shortened. The national anthem, Jana Gana Mana, is also part of a longer poem by Rabindranath Tagore. Some Muslims objected to the description of Durga, Lakshmi, and Saraswati in the complete song, as, according to them, the praise of the goddesses hurt their religious sentiments.
At that time, Netaji Subhas Bose wrote to Nehru suggesting that the matter should be debated in the Congress Working Committee. Jawaharlal Nehru replied, “Vande Mataram is being opposed by communalists… We should not encourage communal elements, but where there are genuine grievances, they should be addressed.” Dr. Rajendra Prasad also wrote to Sardar Patel expressing his apprehension that the song would face strong opposition and that it should be debated. Both Jawaharlal Nehru and Subhas Bose then wrote to Tagore asking for his advice. Tagore’s reply to Nehru was, “I fully accept that the entire Vande Mataram poem… may offend the sentiments of Muslims.” He also added that the first two stanzas were sufficient for the national song. The Congress Working Committee accepted this suggestion. Historian Sabyasachi Bhattacharya has written that Vande Mataram was subsequently accepted in that form. In 1939, Gandhiji wrote, “Considering the objections, the Congress has retained only those stanzas against which there can be no objection.” It is clear that at a time when the country was engaged in the great struggle for independence, the leadership did not want any controversy over Vande Mataram that could weaken the struggle. Gandhiji later wrote about this in his magazine, Harijan.
It was written that he was “not prepared to risk a single conflict over Vande Mataram.” Muhammad Ali Jinnah had even opposed the first two verses. In 1938, he wrote to Nehru that “Muslims everywhere have refused to accept Vande Mataram or its abbreviated version, which they consider an anti-Muslim song, as the national anthem.” In the Constituent Assembly, President Rajendra Prasad declared that both Jana Gana Mana and Vande Mataram would have equal status. It is also noteworthy that the decision was taken collectively by all the leaders, including Gandhi, Tagore, Nehru, Patel, Rajendra Prasad, and Subhas Bose. Even today, Vande Mataram has the status of a national song, but mostly only the first two verses are sung. However, as is common these days, this national song has also become a subject of controversy. Prime Minister Narendra Modi, while referring to the Congress Working Committee’s resolution, has once again placed all the blame on Nehru. He claimed that Nehru succumbed to the pressure of the Muslim League and betrayed Vande Mataram.As we have seen above, this decision was a collective one. Targeting only Nehru is not justified. Moreover, it is not right to judge the decisions made by the leadership of that time based on today’s circumstances. They brought independence to the country. They went to jail. They endured torture. They struggled.
They deserve respect. All the major leaders were involved in the big decisions that were made; they weren’t solely Nehru’s decisions. Sardar Patel also called the partition of the country “unpleasant but inevitable,” yet the blame is being placed solely on Nehru. Nehru spent 9-10 years in jail. Sardar Patel wrote that no one had made as many sacrifices for independence as Jawaharlal Nehru. But today, he is being unnecessarily criticized. Nehru was a key figure among those who laid the foundation for what India is today. Besides, it is our culture not to disrespect those who have passed away. In her impactful speech in Parliament, Priyanka Gandhi Vadra said that those who want to hurl abuses at Nehru should do so once and then stop and debate the issues facing the people. The whole country is saying the same thing. Parliament debated Vande Mataram for ten hours, but did this improve the lives of ordinary people?
People are surprised that Vande Mataram has become controversial after 150 years. No one from any sector had demanded a debate on it. Some of those speaking in Parliament didn’t even know the poet’s full name, and how many of them can sing the entire Vande Mataram? But it is being used as a political weapon. Delhi is choking with pollution. Life is disrupted. Our capital is the most polluted capital in the world. There is the problem of inflation. The education and medical systems need improvement. We have to grapple with unemployment. Crime is increasing throughout the country. All these issues require serious debate. The Indigo crisis shows that our civil aviation department is in shambles. Is no one responsible? People have high hopes from their Parliament, but instead of focusing on the present, Parliament is looking to the past.
The 150th anniversary of Vande Mataram is an occasion to celebrate, not to create unnecessary controversies. Not only its words, but its spirit should be celebrated. History should be used to unite, not to divide. It’s very easy to stir up controversy in this country. You’ll find plenty of issues to latch onto, but at some point, we have to stop and look ahead. Winning elections shouldn’t be the only goal; we also need to build a healthy society. We are competing with China, a country focused on the future. They are debating artificial intelligence, discussing the challenges facing humanity, and contemplating becoming a global power. They aren’t debating issues from 150 years ago. It’s no wonder the gap between us and them is widening.
