Tracing the origins of the song, Vande Mataram, which transitioned from a pro-Bangla praise to a pan-India patriotic fervour, the author questions the logic of enforcing nationalism through hooliganism, political rhetoric, executive fiat and judicial orders and fears that this does not augur well for a pluralistic society.

On the hot and sultry afternoon of July 25, 2017 a single judge bench comprising Justice M V Muralidharan of the Madras High Court passed the following order: “Considering the larger public interest and to instill a sense of patriotism in each and every citizen of the state, the national song ‘Vande Mataram’ shall be played and sung in all schools/ colleges/ universities and other educational institutions at least once a week (preferably on Monday or Friday).” He added that Vande Mataram “shall be played and sung in all government offices and institutions/ private companies/ factories and industries at least once a month.” “If people feel it is difficult to sing the song in Bengali or in Sanskrit, steps can be taken to translate the song in Tamil,” said the court. It would be interesting to see how the government implements this as the government is on record in the Rajya Sabha to say that, “The government has not framed any rules for circumstances in which the ‘National Song’ may be sung, the Rajya Sabha was informed today.”

Lo and behold! The Madras High Court did not have a petition before it for an order about singing of Vande Mataram.  The petition that was heard related to an injustice done to an applicant for a government job, wherein the language of Vande Mataram was incorrectly given as Sanskrit whereas the petitioner, one Mr. C. Prakasam had correctly written as Bengali. Adding more grain to the “patriotism climate” in the country, the Madras High Court judge did a classic overreach but significantly with a caution too, which has not been widely reported that, “In the event, any person/organisation has difficulty in singing or playing the National Song, he or she shall not be compelled or forced to sing it, provided there are valid reasons for not doing so.”

The order of the Madras High Court came after the 28 December 2016 ruling by the Supreme Court of India which states “all the cinema halls in India shall play the national anthem before the feature film starts and all present in the hall are obliged to stand up to show respect to the national anthem” as a part of their “sacred obligation”. In the climate that is building in the country, nobody was surprised with the former order and some political observers and civil society members have made strong dissenting noises. In the public domain, it is a classic case of “Popcorn Patriotism versus Constitutional Patriotism”.  We will so more of this when the Supreme Court hears yet another petition on Vande Mataram which comes up for hearing on 23 August 2017.

What after all is Vande Mataram and its national importance? Vande Mataram, which is claimed to be the national song of the country, was written by Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyaya and featured in his seminal work Anandamath written in 1882. The broad meaning of this song is “I pray/bow down to thee, Mother” It was Bande Mataram with a “B” because in the Bangla dialect “V” is always pronounced as “B”. It was pronounced as such for about 50 years before the song became popular in the Hindi belt. And just like all things Indian after 1947, the Hindi belt’s mispronunciation became the official form of the so-called national song of the country.

Over the years, the song has been a source of contention between upper caste Hindus, Muslims, pre-Partition Bengal and Punjab. It remains a controversial issue even today and has the potential to trigger communal tension every now and then. Muslims contend that singing the song, which idolizes India as the motherland, amounts to worshipping an entity other than what Islam holds as the one true God. Hindus contend that the song is a stand-in for Indian nationalism and any disrespect to it is a sign of disloyalty towards the country.  Sikhism goes by the final edict that Sri Guru Granth Saheb is our living Guru. It is explained in the stanza “Tuhn Mera Pita, Tuhn hai mera mata, Tuhn mera  bandahp, Tuhn mera bhrata” which means “You are my Father, You, my Mother, You are my best friend and my brother.”  Therefore, the question to deify any imaginary mother does not arise.

Those who would want to force Vande Mataram down the throats of everyone need to ponder over what the Supreme Court of India has said on the issue. On 17 February 2017 a Supreme Court bench headed by Justice Dipak Misra said “There is no concept of a national song”, declining to entertain a plea to direct the Centre to frame a national policy to promote Vande Mataram. “Article 51A (fundamental duties) of the constitution requires to promote and propagate the National Anthem and the National Flag. The Article does not refer to National Song. It only refers to National Flag and National Anthem. Therefore, we do not intend to enter into any debate as far as the National Song is concerned” said the bench, rejecting the prayer of petitioner Ashwini Upadhyay, a BJP spokesperson.

To understand what Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyaya wanted to express in his song Bande Mataram one has to go through the English translation of the song and it becomes quite evident that this song has nothing to do with India and has everything to do with Bengal. One needs to go through the last lines of this song as translated by Aurobindo Ghose or Sri Aurobindo, the anti-colonial revolutionary turned mystic who made Pondicherry his abode in the latter part of life:

“Who hath said thou art weak in thy lands
when the swords flash out in seventy million hands
and seventy million voices roar
Thy dreadful name from shore to shore?
With many strengths who art mighty and stored,
To thee, I call Mother and Lord!
Thou who savest, arise and save!
To her, I cry who ever her foeman drove
back from plain and Sea
and shook herself free.”

The very fact that 70 million people have been mentioned in the song goes on to prove the point. According to the 1871 census, the population of Bengal (including British administered areas) was roughly 65 million, which was referred to as 70 million and which Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyaya has mentioned as saptakoti or 7 Crores in Bengali. The population of the Indian Empire at that time stood at 30 Crores and Bankim Da could have mentioned Troyo Bingshokoti or 30 Crores instead of saptakoti or 7 Crores. It is quite evident he was not writing about India, he was writing about Bengal.

In due course of time, Bande Mataram became the war cry of Bengali revolutionaries with Aurobindo Ghose being a key figure of this revolution. Their heroism made this slogan easy for adoption by the Indian National Congress. The “Bande Mataram” slogan spread across India including the Hindi belt and in the process, became Vande Mataram.

Another divisive concept, again involving appropriation to a so called national figure has a striking similarity. The idea of Mother India or Bharat Mata is attributed to Bengali painter Abanindranath Tagore, nephew of Rabindranath Tagore. His 1910 painting of a female figure with four hands has been conceptualized as Bharat Mata. No image of Bharat Mata existed prior to this work. The painter himself depicted this creation as Banga Mata or Mother Bengal which was conveniently appropriated as Bharat Mata.

The country is clearly divided over the issue. Parliamentarians have never had a uniform opinion about Vande Mataram.

Aurobindo Ghose’s lawyer C R Das, in the Alipore bomb blast case, where many Bengali revolutionaries were put on trial in 1908 repeatedly refers to the “Bengali nation”. Clearly, their concept of Bengal was that of a nation unto itself.

Therefore, India was never One Nation or Two nations. The multiple nationalities, regional identities, religious denominations, aboriginal peoples that dot the Indian subcontinent need to be accepted for what they are without challenging their beliefs and way of life, their holistic systems and without foisting a monolithic culture through hooliganism, political rhetoric, executive fiat and judicial orders. This does not augur well for pluralism and peaceful co-existence.