The renewed political focus on Vande Mataram — despite its long-settled place in India’s national symbolism — has revived historical debates that had been resolved by the Congress Working Committee (CWC) in 1937 and later by the Constituent Assembly. The present controversy, marked by accusations of “mutilation” of the original song, raises deeper questions about historical memory, constitutional status, and the evolving politics of national identity.
The 1937 CWC Decision and Its Historical Setting
The CWC’s 1937 resolution emerged at a moment when the Congress had entered government in several provinces after the elections under the Government of India Act, 1935. With provincial power came the responsibility of governing a diverse society. Leaders such as Nehru, Patel, Rajendra Prasad, Azad, Kripalani and even Subhas Chandra Bose were part of the deliberations that concluded that only the first two stanzas of Vande Mataram — free from religious imagery — should be sung at public functions.
This decision acknowledged concerns raised by many Muslim members who objected to later stanzas containing references to Hindu goddesses. For Congress, the move was a pragmatic step towards ensuring a broad-based national unity at a time when Hindu–Muslim relations were politically sensitive.
Why “Vande Mataram” Became a Symbolic Fault Line
Written by Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay and first published in Bangadarshan in 1875, Vande Mataram quickly became an anthem of anti-colonial mobilisation. Its performance by Tagore at the 1896 Congress session cemented its place in nationalist memory.
However, the song’s religious imagery created misgivings among sections of the Muslim community, despite their active participation in the freedom movement. The CWC’s limited adoption of the first two stanzas thus sought to balance emotional attachment to the song with a more inclusive national imagination.
The Constituent Assembly’s Approach to National Symbols
Post-Independence, the Constituent Assembly — even with its overwhelming Hindu membership after Partition — considered multiple candidates for national symbols. Members listened to Vande Mataram, Jana Gana Mana, and Sare Jahan Se Achha.
Despite its popularity, Vande Mataram was not chosen as the National Anthem; instead, Jana Gana Mana was selected for its inclusive and unifying character. The Assembly nevertheless recognised Vande Mataram as the National Song in its adopted two-stanza form. Significantly, the Constitution itself did not codify any national song — a deliberate choice rooted in the framers’ reluctance to formalise cultural symbols through legal instruments.
Legal Status, Fundamental Duties and Later Judicial Engagement
The absence of a constitutional reference to the National Song has shaped later legal interpretations. The 42nd Amendment (1976) introduced a Fundamental Duty to respect national symbols, including the Anthem. The Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971 criminalises disrespect to the Anthem but does not extend similar provisions to the National Song — marking a clear legal distinction.
Courts have addressed related issues with caution.
In Bijoe Emmanuel vs State of Kerala, the Supreme Court upheld freedom of conscience for students who did not join singing the Anthem, provided they did not disrupt public order.
The Madras High Court (2017) and Delhi High Court have suggested elevating the status or frequency of singing Vande Mataram, but the Union government itself has clarified in court that the two symbols have different legal standing and cannot be equated through judicial directions.
The Present Political Spark and Its Implications
The recent parliamentary debate revives a matter resolved more than seven decades ago. Criticism directed at the 1937 CWC resolution overlooks its broad consensus — involving leaders across ideological lines, including Patel, Rajendra Prasad, Azad and Rajaji — and its context of fostering inter-communal trust.
Calls from sections of the ruling party to include a new Fundamental Duty requiring equal respect for Vande Mataram reflect a shifting political narrative. Observers argue that the sudden elevation of the National Song into a legislative question may indicate a broader attempt to reshape national symbolism, particularly after precedents such as the reconfiguration of Jammu & Kashmir’s constitutional status.
What This Debate Signals for India’s National Identity
The current moment reflects a deeper contestation over cultural representation and historical memory. The framers of the Constitution intentionally separated emotional national symbols from legal mandates, choosing consensus over compulsion. Revisiting this balance today raises questions about India’s diversity, the neutrality of state symbolism, and the boundaries between cultural pride and political mobilisation.
What to note for Prelims?
- First publication of “Vande Mataram”: “Bangadarshan” (1875).
- Composer and first public performance: Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay; sung by Rabindranath Tagore at the 1896 Congress session.
- 1937 CWC resolution: Only first two stanzas to be used; reasons for modification.
- National Anthem vs National Song: No constitutional mention of the latter.
- Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971: Applies only to the Anthem.
- Key case law: “Bijoe Emmanuel vs State of Kerala” (freedom of conscience in singing the Anthem).
What to note for Mains?
- Context and rationale of the 1937 CWC decision in terms of communal harmony and inclusive nationalism.
- Constituent Assembly’s reasoning in choosing “Jana Gana Mana” as the National Anthem.
- The evolution of legal frameworks governing national symbols and the limits of judicial intervention.
- Political implications of reviving debates on national symbols in contemporary times.
- The relationship between cultural symbols, constitutionalism, and national identity in a plural society.
