Debate on Vande Mataram is Reminiscent of Political Immaturity
The uproar over Vande Mataram that recently erupted in Parliament is not a debate — it is political theatre and misuse of a cultural symbol to score ideological points
The uproar over Vande Mataram that recently erupted in Parliament is not a debate — it is political theatre. It is the misuse of a cultural symbol to score ideological points, distract from governance failures, and inject a false ideological divide where none exists.
The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), driven by its compulsive need to manufacture controversy, attempted to weaponize a national song to attack Jawaharlal Nehru — India’s first Prime Minister and one of its most intellectually profound leaders.
But, what was intended as yet another attempt to tarnish Nehru backfired, because Priyanka Gandhi’s intervention provided historical clarity, exposed the superficiality of the BJP’s claim, and highlighted Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s shallow understanding of India’s cultural and constitutional history.
In truth, there was no confusion to begin with — except the deliberate confusion sown by a ruling party that thrives on symbolic confrontation. Modi’s remarks were not just factually wrong; they reflected the deep ideological insecurity that drives the BJP to constantly diminish Nehru. It is a symptom of a leadership that lacks intellectual depth, historical literacy, and political maturity. And it is an insult to a democracy that requires reasoned debate, not sentimental manipulation.
Constitutional Journey of Vande Mataram
To understand the present controversy, we must revisit the past with honesty. Vande Mataram was unquestionably a powerful rallying cry in the anti-colonial struggle. Its emotional force inspired countless freedom fighters. But the Constituent Assembly — composed of leaders of extraordinary depth - including Nehru, Patel, Ambedkar, Azad, and many others, was deeply conscious of the need to craft national symbols that would represent every Indian.
The Assembly’s deliberations were meticulous. They recognised that parts of Vande Mataram carry devotional references rooted in the Hindu pantheon. While this is not problematic in itself, a national anthem must transcend religious references. The nation, newly freed from colonialism, needed a symbol that would not alienate any citizen. It needed a song whose message was universal, whose spirit included the entire diversity of India. This is why Jana Gana Mana — secular, inclusive, and musically suited for orchestral rendition, was chosen as the national anthem.
Notably, Vande Mataram was not sidelined. It was elevated as the national song, retaining honour and respect. Nehru supported this dual recognition because he was committed to an inclusive nationalism. He understood that India’s strength lay in its plurality, not in majoritarian assertion.
This historically sound decision is what the BJP now seeks to muddle. But distortions cannot rewrite the fact that the decision was made through reasoned democratic deliberation — not through sentiment, dogma, or sectarian interpretation. The Assembly’s decision was not an act of rejection; it was an affirmation of India’s plural constitution.
RSS, BJP, and Distorted Historical Memory
The ferocity with which the BJP attacks Nehru stems in part from its own absence in the freedom movement. The Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), the ideological parent of the BJP, made no meaningful contribution to the anti-colonial struggle. It sat out of the major mass movements — the Salt Satyagraha, the Quit India movement, the Non-Cooperation movement, and all phases of underground resistance. Its silence during the most intense phases of nationalist mobilisation remains one of the most glaring gaps in its political legacy.
This historical vacuum becomes politically inconvenient in contemporary times. To compensate for this absence, the BJP routinely attempts to rewrite history — either by diminishing the contributions of leaders like Nehru, or by retroactively inflating the role of organisations that were largely spectators during the freedom struggle. Such revisionism is not just intellectually dishonest; it is corrosive. It replaces historical truth with ideological propaganda.
The attack on Nehru, therefore, is not just about Vande Mataram. It is about the BJP’s broader project of reshaping India’s national memory. It is about manufacturing a narrative in which the Congress is painted as culturally alienated, while the BJP positions itself as the sole custodian of nationalism. But nationalism cannot be monopolised. And patriotism is not a proprietary emotion. It belongs to every citizen, and it certainly does not require certification from a government whose understanding of Indian history is shallow and opportunistic.
Priyanka Gandhi’s Intervention: Restoring Historical Sanity
In this context, Priyanka Gandhi’s remarks in the Parliament were not merely political retorts. They served a much-needed purpose: Restoring historical accuracy and exposing the hollowness of Modi’s claim. She reminded the House that Nehru’s position on Vande Mataram reflected respect — for the song, for India’s diversity, and for the constitutional promise of equality. She reminded the nation that the BJP’s portrayal of Nehru is a caricature, not a reflection of reality.
Her intervention also demonstrated how political leadership should ideally function: by grounding arguments in history, not in theatrics; by elevating parliamentary debate, not debasing it through slander; and by focusing on the substance of governance rather than symbolic disruptions.
The Present Government’s Intellectual Frailty
The BJP’s repeated attempts to distort cultural and historical symbols reveal a deeper crisis — its lack of intellectual finesse. This is a government that often prefers spectacle to substance. It confuses volume with vision, and slogans with scholarship. It does not possess the politico-cultural-social understanding needed to engage with India’s complexity. The Prime Minister’s speeches, which are often celebrated for oratory, frequently collapse upon scrutiny. True orators persuade through thought and depth, not through ridicule and insinuation.
India’s Parliament — an institution built with immense sacrifice and constitutional imagination, is now repeatedly subjected to trivial debates. Instead of addressing unemployment, agrarian distress, rising hate crimes, environmental collapse, and institutional erosion, Parliament wastes precious time on artificially created controversies. This misuse of legislative space is not accidental; it is politically strategic. Diversion thrives where governance fails.
Real Implications for Contemporary Society
The Vande Mataram controversy is not an isolated event. It is part of a larger pattern in which the ruling establishment recycles emotional issues to engineer polarisation and distract public attention. These diversions have real consequences.
First, they shrink democratic space. When nationalism is defined narrowly and weaponised politically, dissenters are labelled anti-national. The very idea of patriotism becomes distorted into compliance with the ruling party’s ideology.
Second, they deepen communal fractures. By repeatedly invoking cultural symbols in exclusionary terms, the government reinforces suspicion toward minorities. Symbols that should unite Indians are instead turned into tools for social division.
Third, they degrade public discourse. Democratic debate requires knowledge, context, and reasoned argument. But when debates are constructed around misrepresentations of history, the public sphere becomes coarsened. Intellectual laziness replaces scholarship, and emotional manipulation replaces truth.
Fourth, they distract from failures of policy. A country facing rising inequality, joblessness, ecological distress, and dwindling democratic safeguards cannot afford to be dragged into meaningless cultural disputes. These issues deserve serious attention, but they are overshadowed by rhetorical conflicts that offer no solutions.
Reclaiming the Idea of India
India must reject obsolete and uninformed perspectives that seek to reduce its civilisational richness to rigid, homogenising narratives. The plural India envisioned by the freedom movement and articulated by the Constitution was not an accident—it was deliberate, thoughtful, and morally grounded. It was crafted by leaders who understood India’s vastness not as a challenge, but as strength.
Modi’s attempt to belittle Nehru does not diminish Nehru. History is not so fragile. Nehru remains a towering figure because he worked with intellect, humility, and a commitment to public reason. Modi’s repeated attacks only highlight the stark contrast: between scholarship and sloganeering, between statesmanship and spectacle.
Vande Mataram: Priyanka Gandhi Full Speech
India needs political leadership capable of grappling with its real challenges — not a leadership that converts Parliament into a stage for ideological theatrics. The nation deserves debates anchored in truth, history, and integrity. National symbols should inspire unity, not be dragged through the mud of partisan attacks.
The debate on Vande Mataram should have lasted ten minutes. Instead, it was stretched into a spectacle because the ruling party thrives on confrontation. But India must outgrow this phase of political immaturity. Our democratic institutions cannot be held hostage to agendas driven by insecurity and propaganda.
Patriotism is not a plaything. History is not a weapon. And democracy is not theatre.
It is time India returned to intellectual honesty and constitutional sanity. It is time the nation reclaimed its political discourse from those who equate nationalism with noise. And it is time to recognise that leaders like Nehru cannot be diminished by those who do not possess even a fraction of their depth.
[The writer, Ranjan Solomon, is a Political Commentator who fiercely fights to defends historical integrity.]
Follow ummid.com WhatsApp Channel for all the latest updates.
Select Language to Translate in Urdu, Hindi, Marathi or Arabic
