Context

• The recent controversy in Kerala surrounding the placement of a Bharat Mata picture by the Governor at official functions has ignited a significant debate about constitutional propriety, symbolism, and the role of historical imagery in public institutions.
• At the heart of this issue lies a broader question: can unofficial, emotionally charged symbols be given official status in a constitutional democracy?
• This incident, seemingly minor, raises critical concerns about constitutional decorum, the limits of gubernatorial authority, and the dangers of political symbolism being conflated with national identity.

An Overview of the Controversy

• The controversy began when the Governor of Kerala displayed a painting of Bharat Mata, a female figure clads in a saffron sari, holding a spear, and accompanied by a lion, at official events held in Raj Bhavan.
• The room, adorned with this image and a brass lamp placed before it, has become the site of official functions.
• The Governor regularly bows before the picture, offers floral tributes, and lights the lamp, treating it as an integral ceremonial part of the function.
• The Kerala government, however, has raised objections on constitutional grounds, arguing that such a representation of Bharat Mata is not a nationally recognised symbol, unlike the national flag, anthem, or emblem.
• In protest, the Kerala government has opted out of official events held under the visual presence of this picture.

Symbolism, The Freedom Struggle, The Constitutional and Legal Standpoint

• Symbolism and The Freedom Struggle
  • Historically, the slogan ‘Bharat Mata ki Jai’ was a potent emotional cry during the Indian freedom struggle.
  • Chanted at the height of anti-colonial resistance, it stirred patriotism among freedom fighters.
  • However, this powerful slogan operated largely without a consistent or official visual representation of Bharat Mata.
  • The emotional resonance was tied more to the abstract idea of the nation than to a standardised image.
  • While the personification of India as a mother gained traction in the 19th century, the modern, saffron-clad depiction of Bharat Mata has clear ideological roots.
  • Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay first introduced the idea of a motherland in Anandamath, though his symbol was Banga Mata, not Bharat Mata.
  • Abanindranath Tagore later painted a goddess-like image that Sister Nivedita popularised as Bharat Mata.
  • Yet, even during the peak of the national movement, no particular image of Bharat Mata was ever adopted officially.
• The Constitutional and Legal Standpoint
  • The Indian Constitution provides no legal or symbolic status to any image of Bharat Mata.
  • While emotional and cultural expressions are part of the democratic ethos, they cannot override constitutional principles or official protocol.
  • The picture used by the Governor, although historically grounded, has never been formally adopted by the nation.
  • Furthermore, it has become prominently associated with ideological organisations like the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP).
  • This association politicises the symbol, making its presence in official state functions problematic and potentially exclusionary in a secular and pluralistic nation.
  • B.R. Ambedkar’s emphatic declaration in the Constituent Assembly that a Governor has no functions which he can discharge by himself underlines the constitutional limits on the gubernatorial office.
  • The Governor is bound by the advice of the elected government, especially in matters concerning the conduct and setting of official functions.
  • Displaying a symbol that is neither nationally endorsed nor inclusive in its appeal breaches the principles of impartiality and secularism that govern constitutional offices.

The Nehruvian Ideal of Bharat Mata, Nationalism, Imagery, and Modern Governance

• The Nehruvian Ideal of Bharat Mata
  • Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru’s interpretation of Bharat Mata in The Discovery of India is particularly instructive.
  • For Nehru, Bharat Mata was not a deity or a goddess-like figure but a symbol of the people of India, their hopes, struggles, and collective destiny.
  • When asked to explain the cry ‘Bharat Mata ki Jai’, Nehru described Bharat Mata as ‘these millions of people,’ emphasising the humanistic and democratic core of the nation.
  • This view resonates more closely with the secular and inclusive ideals enshrined in the Constitution, as opposed to mythologized or sectarian visual symbols.
• Nationalism, Imagery, and Modern Governance
  • The debate reflects a deeper tension in Indian nationalism: the contrast between inclusive civic nationalism and symbolic ethno-religious nationalism.
  • Gandhi’s nationalism was rooted in moral principles, pluralism, and unity in diversity.
  • In contrast, the use of anthropomorphic images with religious or sectarian connotations tends to exclude rather than unite, reinforcing ideological boundaries rather than dissolving them.
  • The resurgence of such imagery in contemporary political discourse risks regressing to a form of 19^th-century nationalism, which no longer fits the complex social and cultural fabric of 21^st-century India.
  • India's vast diversity cannot be adequately represented by a single image, particularly one that resembles a specific religious archetype.

Governor vs. Government: A Pattern of Conflict

• The Kerala episode is not an isolated incident. Conflicts between Governors and State governments have been a recurring theme in Indian federal politics.
• While the Supreme Court has laid down clear guidelines limiting gubernatorial discretion, tensions persist, often due to political differences between the central and state governments.
• Raj Bhavan, like Rashtrapati Bhavan, is not merely a personal residence; it is an institution that hosts constitutional functions.
• Any symbol used in such a space must carry the legitimacy of national endorsement and the neutrality of state institutions.
• Allowing personal or ideological symbolism to seep into these spaces weakens institutional neutrality and provokes avoidable political confrontations.

Conclusion

• The Raj Bhavan controversy in Kerala is not just about a picture; it is about constitutional fidelity, democratic symbolism, and institutional responsibility.
• The Governor, as a constitutional head, must uphold the values of neutrality, inclusiveness, and legality.
• Symbols matter, especially in a country as diverse and sensitive as India.
• When personal or ideological symbols are given official sanction without legal basis, it challenges the very spirit of democratic governance.