When Patriotism Becomes Symbolic: Rethinking Vande Mataram in India

 The recent debate in Parliament around Vande Mataram once again shows how quickly questions of nationalism turn into constitutional disputes in India. Nearly 150 years after Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay wrote the song in 1875, it continues to resurface in public life, not as a cultural expression, but as a political and legal question. At its core, the debate raises a simple issue - how far can the State go in expecting symbolic expressions of patriotism from citizens?

Vande Mataram: Historical Background and Constitutional Position

Vande Mataram was not originally meant to carry constitutional weight. It began as a poem and later appeared in Anandamath in 1882 [1]. Over time, it became closely linked with the freedom struggle. During the Swadeshi movement and the anti-partition protests in Bengal, it was used as a slogan of resistance. The British colonial administration repeatedly tried to ban it, calling it seditious. These attempts did not weaken its influence. If anything, they strengthened its emotional appeal.

Disagreement over the song, however, is not new. Even before Independence, objections were raised to certain later stanzas that describe the motherland using religious imagery associated with the Hindu goddess Durga. These concerns were taken seriously. In 1937, the Congress decided that only the first two stanzas would be used in public functions. This was not an act of disrespect. It was a conscious attempt to avoid forcing cultural or religious symbolism on those who were uncomfortable with it. The idea was accommodation, not exclusion.

The same thinking carried into the Constituent Assembly debates. On 24 January 1950, the Assembly adopted a resolution that carefully balanced sentiment and constitutional principle. Jana Gana Mana was declared the National Anthem. Vande Mataram, limited to its first two stanzas, was recognised as the National Song. Most importantly, no element of compulsion was introduced. This choice reflected an understanding that nationalism in a diverse society cannot be enforced by law.

Despite this clarity, Vande Mataram continues to reappear in political debates, especially during election seasons. It is often framed as a test of loyalty or cultural commitment. But political framing does not change constitutional reality.

That reality was clearly laid down by the Supreme Court in Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala (1986) [2]. The Court held that no citizen can be compelled to sing the National Anthem. Such compulsion violates freedom of conscience and expression under Articles 19 and 25 of the Constitution[3]. If even the National Anthem cannot be enforced through coercion, it is difficult to argue that the recitation of Vande Mataram, which does not enjoy the same constitutional status, can be made mandatory.

The Constitution, therefore, leaves little room for doubt. Respect for national symbols must remain voluntary. Accommodation, not compulsion, is the guiding principle.

Symbolic Nationalism and the Crisis of Constitutional Governance

This debate becomes even more relevant when viewed alongside present governance failures, particularly the ongoing air pollution crisis in Delhi and other major cities. For many citizens, daily life now feels less like normal civic existence and more like a public health emergency. Delhi’s Air Quality Index has frequently crossed 400, falling in the “severe” category. In some areas, readings above 600 have been recorded[4]. These figures are far removed from the safe benchmark of 50.

Here, the symbolism of Vande Mataram becomes difficult to ignore. The phrase “sujalam suphalam”, meaning land rich in clean water and fertility, presents an image of abundance and well-being. If national symbols are to have real meaning, they cannot remain limited to slogans. They must reflect the conditions in which people actually live. Chanting patriotic lines does little for citizens who struggle to breathe clean air.

Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees the right to life with dignity. Over the years, the Supreme Court has made it clear that this includes the right to a clean and healthy environment. Widespread air pollution is therefore not just a policy failure. It raises constitutional concerns. Unlike symbolic expressions of nationalism, environmental protection imposes real and enforceable obligations on the State.

This context also exposes a misplaced focus in public discourse. Excessive attention on who chants national slogans and who does not shifts attention away from issues that directly affect citizens’ lives. The Constitution does not place the entire responsibility of nationalism on individuals. While Article 51A encourages respect for national symbols, it does not reduce the responsibility of political institutions to ensure basic conditions of dignity. Nationalism loses its substance when it becomes purely ritualistic.

Electoral Politics and the Use of Cultural Symbols

A third aspect of the Vande Mataram debate emerges when it is viewed in light of electoral politics, particularly the West Bengal Assembly elections. Parliament is meant to be a space for serious discussion on national problems and solutions. Increasingly, however, it appears to function as a platform for indirect election messaging.

In Bengal, cultural symbols carry strong political significance. Vande Mataram originated in the region and remains deeply embedded in its literary and historical memory. Associating with the song allows political actors to signal cultural alignment and historical legitimacy. While this may be electorally useful, it risks reducing constitutional symbols to campaign tools.

Opposition to such symbolism is often portrayed not as constitutional disagreement, but as cultural disrespect. This framing has electoral consequences. As a result, genuine legal and constitutional critique is frequently dismissed as political positioning. This narrows the space for meaningful debate and deepens identity-based divisions.

This problem is reflected in Parliament’s functioning as well. In several sessions, more than 40 percent of productive legislative time has been lost to disruptions. When symbolic issues dominate discussion, serious engagement with governance and constitutional responsibility suffers[5].

Seen together, the Vande Mataram debate points to a deeper issue. The problem is not the presence of national symbols in public life. It is their strategic use at the cost of legislative seriousness. In a constitutional democracy, electoral calculations cannot be allowed to override Parliament’s primary responsibility - addressing real problems through law, policy and accountable governance.

 

CONCLUSION

This article traced the historical background of Vande Mataram and examined its use in political and governance debates. In my view, we should focus on the real meaning of song instead of unnecessary political debates . Rather than using it as a tool for political gain, both the ruling party and the opposition must work together to improve the lived conditions of citizens such as clean air , clean . Issues such as poor air quality, declining civic sense and corruption push people away from their own country. Addressing these failures would give Vande Mataram its true meaning, where respect for the nation comes from dignity, well-being and opportunity, not from compulsion or performative debate.

Published by HARDIK MUNDRA (B.A LL.B Student at GNLU GANDHINAGAR)

REFERENCES 

1. Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay, Anandamath (1882) [1].

2. Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala, (1986) 3 SCC 615[2].

3. Articles 19, 21, 25 and 51A, Constitution of India[3].

4. Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB), National Air Quality Index Reports[4].

5. PRS Legislative Research, Parliamentary Productivity Reports[5].