Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge reignited one of India’s most enduring cultural controversies when he accused the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and its ideological mentor, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), of never singing Vande Mataram or the National Anthem in their shakhas or offices. Marking the 150th anniversary of India’s national song, Kharge claimed that the Congress alone had been the “proud flagbearer” of the anthem that once inspired the freedom struggle.
His remarks have once again brought to the surface the intersection of politics, religion, and nationalism that has long surrounded Vande Mataram—an anthem venerated as a symbol of unity by some and viewed with discomfort by others.
Vande Mataram Row at 150 Years
Composed in 1875 by Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay, Vande Mataram was later adopted as India’s national song, distinct from the national anthem Jana Gana Mana. During the independence movement, it served as a powerful rallying cry—its refrain echoing through protests, marches, and revolutionary circles.
Yet, the song’s spiritual imagery—portraying India as a divine mother, or Bharat Mata—has made it a recurring source of tension. Sections of India’s Muslim community have objected to its verses invoking the goddess Durga, arguing that such imagery conflicts with Islamic principles against idol worship. Thus, even as the song unites many under the banner of patriotism, it also symbolizes the complexities of India’s religious pluralism.
The 150th anniversary, instead of being a moment of shared pride, has turned into a stage for renewed political contention.
Who Said What: The Exchange of Allegations
In his sharp critique, Kharge alleged that the RSS, since its founding in 1925, had never sung Vande Mataram or the national anthem, preferring instead to recite “Namaste Sada Vatsale,” a hymn celebrating the organization rather than the nation. He further accused the Sangh of collaborating with the British during the colonial period and refusing to hoist the national flag for years after independence—casting doubt on the BJP-RSS’s nationalist credentials.
Kharge’s positioning of the Congress as the true custodian of India’s national symbols sought to reclaim moral ground on patriotism—a space that the BJP has often dominated in electoral narratives.
The BJP and RSS, however, struck back swiftly. Party spokespersons and Prime Minister Narendra Modi accused Congress of distorting the song in 1937 by omitting stanzas invoking Durga to appease minorities, claiming that this act represented a betrayal of the song’s original spirit. They framed Kharge’s comments as part of a pattern of Congress “appeasement politics,” attempting to reclaim the nationalist mantle through selective history.
The Politics Beneath the Anthem
The controversy over Vande Mataram reflects deeper cultural and political anxieties rather than mere differences over musical practice. From school directives in Kashmir—where local religious authorities labeled the song “un-Islamic”—to periodic national debates about compulsory recitation, the anthem has often been politicized as a test of patriotism.
Analysts note that both the Congress and the BJP invoke the song not only as a symbol of loyalty to the nation but also as a tool to define who belongs within that nation. In this way, Vande Mataram becomes less about melody and more about ideological ownership—about who gets to narrate the meaning of Indian nationalism itself.
The latest exchange between Kharge and the BJP underscores this pattern: both sides seek to claim the patriotic high ground, even as their arguments reveal divergent visions of national identity.
The Song and the Soul of a Nation
As Vande Mataram marks 150 years, the controversy over who sings it and why continues to mirror India’s broader struggle to balance faith, identity, and nationhood. What should have been a commemoration of shared heritage has instead turned into a political contest over the definition of patriotism.
The debate endures because Vande Mataram is more than a song—it is a mirror of India’s pluralism, reflecting both pride and tension. In the clash between reverence and rhetoric, the true test lies not in who sings the anthem louder, but in who understands its spirit better: a call to unite, not divide, the nation it was meant to inspire.
(With agency inputs)
