Relevance: GS Paper II (Polity & Constitution) & GS Paper I (Modern History)

Source: The Hindu

Context: The New Directive

On January 28, 2026, the Union Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) issued a directive mandating that all six stanzas of the National Song, Vande Mataram, must be sung at official functions and schools.

This order overturns a decades-old political settlement that distinguished between the “secular” first two stanzas and the “religious” later stanzas, reigniting a debate on nationalism and conscience.

1. Historical Background: The 1937 Settlement

The debate isn’t new; it was settled by the Freedom Movement leadership in October 1937.

• The Consensus: A committee led by Jawaharlal Nehru and Subhash Chandra Bose, guided by Mahatma Gandhi, adopted a resolution to recognize only the first two stanzas as the National Song.
• Tagore’s Wisdom: Rabindranath Tagore advised this compromise. He argued that while the song is beautiful literature, the later stanzas (3-6) contain explicit Hindu imagery (e.g., “Tvam hi Durga” – You are Durga).
• The Logic: The first two stanzas describe the motherland through nature (rivers, moonlight) and are secular. The later stanzas equate the nation with goddesses, which monotheistic communities (Muslims, Christians, Sikhs) could not conscientiously sing.

2. Constitutional & Legal Status

Does the government have the power to force citizens to sing?

• Fundamental Duties (Article 51A): It mandates respect for the Constitution and the National Anthem (Jana Gana Mana). It noticeably does not mention the National Song (Vande Mataram).
• The Law: The Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971 penalizes disrespect to the Flag and Anthem. There is no statutory penalty for not singing Vande Mataram.
• Constituent Assembly (1950): Dr. Rajendra Prasad declared that Vande Mataram would be “honoured equally” with Jana Gana Mana. However, experts argue this honour applies to the version adopted by the freedom struggle (the first two stanzas).

3. Judicial Precedent: The Right to Silence

The Supreme Court has consistently protected the Conscience of the Individual.

• Bijoe Emmanuel vs. State of Kerala (1986): In this landmark case, three Jehovah’s Witnesses children were expelled for refusing to sing the National Anthem.
• The Verdict: The SC reinstated them, ruling that forcing someone to sing against their religious beliefs violates Article 19(1)(a) (Freedom of Speech includes the Right to Silence) and Article 25 (Freedom of Conscience).
• The Application: If the state cannot force a citizen to sing the National Anthem (which has legal protection), it certainly cannot mandate the National Song (which has none).

UPSC Value Box

Ethical Concept: “Negative Liberty”

• Democracy is not just about the freedom to do things (Positive Liberty), but the freedom not to do things (Negative Liberty). The right to remain silent during a ritual is as sacred as the right to speak.

Historical Fact:

• Origin: Taken from the novel “Anandamath” (1882) by Bankim Chandra Chatterjee.
• Context: Set against the backdrop of the Sannyasi Rebellion (late 18th century).

Summary

The MHA’s order to mandate all six stanzas ignores the wisdom of the 1937 Congress resolution. While Vande Mataram is a cultural treasure, legally enforcing its religious verses conflicts with the constitutional Right to Conscience. True patriotism is a feeling of the heart, not a mandate of the law.

One Line Wrap: You cannot compel a song on the lips if it violates the conscience within.

Q. “The distinction between the National Anthem and the National Song is not merely historical but constitutional.” Discuss the legal mandates regarding ‘Vande Mataram’ in light of the Right to Freedom of Conscience (Article 25). (10 Marks, 150 Words)

Model Hints

• Introduction: Differentiate between Jana Gana Mana (Anthem – Legal status) and Vande Mataram (Song – Cultural status).
• Body:
  • Constitutional Silence: Mention Article 51A and the National Honour Act, 1971 cover only the Anthem.
  • Judicial View: Cite Bijoe Emmanuel (1986)—Right to Silence is part of Free Speech.
  • Conflict: Explain how compelling religious verses violates Article 25 for minority faiths.
• Conclusion: Conclude that the state should respect the “1937 Consensus” to maintain social harmony.