Context

• Recent directive of the Union Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) mandates the playing of all six stanzas of Vande Mataram at official functions with everyone standing at attention.
• The controversy surrounding the directive raises significant constitutional and philosophical questions.
• At first glance, the order appears to promote national pride, however, a closer examination reveals a deeper issue: the distinction between voluntary patriotism and state-enforced nationalism.
• It is necessary to examine the historical background, the decisions of the Constituent Assembly, and the legal principles laid down by the Supreme Court.

Historical Background: The 1937 Compromise

• The Congress Working Committee Decision
  • In October 1937, the Congress Working Committee met in Calcutta to address objections raised by certain communities regarding Vande Mataram.
  • The meeting included prominent leaders such as Mahatma Gandhi, Dr. Rajendra Prasad, and Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel.
  • After deliberation, the committee unanimously resolved that only the first two stanzas of the song should be used at national gatherings.
  • This decision acknowledged that later portions of Bankim Chandra Chatterjee’s poem contained explicit references to Hindu goddesses such as Durga, Lakshmi, and Saraswati.
  • These religious references were considered potentially exclusionary in a multi-religious society.
• Significance of the Compromise
  • The compromise was not a sign of political weakness. Instead, it reflected a practical effort to build national unity during the freedom struggle.
  • Leaders across ideological lines, including Rabindranath Tagore, supported the use of only the first two stanzas because they celebrated the land and nature rather than specific religious imagery.
  • Thus, from the freedom movement itself, Vande Mataram was adopted in a limited, inclusive form to ensure that all Indians could identify with it regardless of faith.

The Constituent Assembly and Constitutional Position

• National Anthem vs National Song
  • On January 24, 1950, the Constituent Assembly adopted Jana Gana Mana as the National Anthem and granted Vande Mataram equal honour as the National Song, but only in its two-stanza form.
  • The Constitution specifically mentions respect for the National Flag and the National Anthem in Article 51A(a), which outlines the fundamental duties of citizens.
  • Notably, the National Song is not included which indicates that the framers intentionally differentiated between constitutionally binding national symbols and culturally significant ones.
• Legal Protection
  • The Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971, legally protects the Constitution, the National Flag, and the National Anthem. It does not include Vande Mataram.
  • Consequently, there is no statutory penalty for not singing or standing for the song.
  • This legal structure reflects the framers’ recognition that, unlike the anthem, the song contains religious imagery requiring sensitive handling in a secular state.

Judicial Interpretation: Bijoe Emmanuel vs State of Kerala (1986)

• Facts of the Case
  • In 1985, three schoolchildren belonging to the Jehovah’s Witnesses faith were expelled because they respectfully stood during the National Anthem but refused to sing it due to their religious beliefs.
  • The Kerala High Court upheld the expulsion, but the Supreme Court reversed the decision.
• Supreme Court Ruling
  • Justice O. Chinnappa Reddy ruled that the expulsion violated the children’s fundamental rights to freedom of speech and freedom of religion.
  • The Court clarified that respect for the National Anthem does not require singing it; standing respectfully is sufficient.
  • The judgment also invoked the principle from the American case West Virginia State Board of Education vs Barnette (1943): no authority may compel citizens to profess a particular form of patriotism or belief.
• Constitutional Principle
  • The ruling established a crucial doctrine: the right to remain silent is part of freedom of expression. Therefore, dissent, even silent dissent, cannot be treated as disrespect.

Constitutional Concerns with the 2026 Directive

• Compulsion and Freedom of Conscience
  • The MHA directive requires playing all six stanzas, including those invoking specific Hindu
  • For individuals of other religions or no religion, compulsory participation may conflict with Article 25, which guarantees freedom of conscience and religion.
• Legal Inconsistency
  • If citizens cannot be compelled to sing the National Anthem, an officially protected symbol, then compelling participation in the National Song, which lacks constitutional and statutory protection, becomes even more questionable.
• Secularism and State Neutrality
  • India’s constitutional secularism requires the state to maintain neutrality among religions.
  • Mandating participation in verses that invoke particular deities risks transforming civic nationalism into religious symbolism, potentially undermining the inclusive nature of the republic. 

Conclusion

• The debate over the compulsory performance of Vande Mataram reflects a broader constitutional dilemma: whether unity should be achieved through uniformity or through accommodation.
• Historical precedent, constitutional provisions, and judicial interpretation consistently support the latter approach.
• Ultimately, patriotism in a constitutional democracy cannot be imposed by executive order. It must arise freely from citizens’ allegiance to constitutional principles, freedom, equality, and pluralism.