Why “Vande Mataram” Keeps Roaring in Parliament — And Why the BJP Keeps Looking Back Instead of Ahead

Why “Vande Mataram” Keeps Returning to Parliament — And What It Really Means

On December 8, 2025, during the Winter Session of Parliament around 2:15 PM, yet again, the words “Vande Mataram” echoed across the Lok Sabha floor. What followed was not a discussion on unemployment, inflation, or air pollution, but a fierce political exchange about patriotism, history, and national identity.

This was not an isolated moment. Over the years, the slogan has repeatedly surfaced in Parliament — often at moments when the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) faces tough questions on governance. Critics argue that history is being weaponised, while supporters claim cultural pride is being reclaimed.

So why does Vande Mataram keep dominating political debates? What does it actually mean? And was it really opposed by Jawaharlal Nehru or Muslims, as is often claimed?

The answers are more complex than the slogans shouted in Parliament.

What “Vande Mataram” Truly Means

Vande Mataram translates to “I bow to thee, Mother”. The phrase comes from Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay’s novel Anandamath, written in the late 19th century during British rule.

The song describes the land as a nurturing mother — rich in rivers, fields, and resilience. It became a rallying cry during the freedom movement, especially during the 1905 Swadeshi movement, when it symbolised resistance to colonial power.

Crucially, the song has multiple verses. While the opening verses are poetic and symbolic, later stanzas contain explicit references to Hindu deities. This distinction would later shape its political and constitutional journey.

Why Was Vande Mataram Debated in Independent India?

When India became independent, the Constituent Assembly debated national symbols intensely. On January 24, 1950, around 11:30 AM, the Assembly reached a carefully balanced decision.

India would adopt:

• “Jana Gana Mana” as the National Anthem

• “Vande Mataram” as the National Song

This compromise was deliberate.

Jawaharlal Nehru and other leaders acknowledged Vande Mataram’s role in the freedom struggle but also recognised concerns that some communities had with certain verses. As a result, only the first two verses, which are secular and non-religious, were officially endorsed.

This was not a rejection. It was an attempt at inclusion.

Was Vande Mataram Opposed by Nehru?

No — not in the way it is often portrayed.

Jawaharlal Nehru publicly praised Vande Mataram as a powerful freedom song. However, he consistently argued that no citizen should be compelled to chant any slogan, especially in a country as diverse as India.

Nehru’s concern was not about patriotism, but about constitutional freedom. He believed nationalism imposed through coercion weakens unity rather than strengthening it.

This nuance is often lost when Nehru’s position is reduced to a simplistic “for” or “against” narrative in today’s political debates.

Did Muslims Oppose Vande Mataram?

This is where historical misrepresentation becomes most visible.

During the freedom movement, many Muslims actively participated in protests where Vande Mataram was sung. However, objections arose only to the later verses that portrayed the motherland as a goddess — a theological issue, not a political one.

Importantly:

• Muslims did not oppose India

• They did not oppose freedom

• They raised concerns about religious symbolism

The Constituent Assembly’s solution — adopting only the first two verses — addressed these concerns. This decision reflected compromise, not conflict.

Why Does the BJP Keep Reviving the Issue?

The modern parliamentary revival of Vande Mataram often coincides with moments of political discomfort.

In December 2025, debates on rising prices, unemployment figures, pollution crises, and data credibility were dominating headlines. Suddenly, discussions shifted toward patriotism, slogans, and historical loyalty tests.

Political analysts argue this pattern is strategic.

By invoking emotionally charged symbols:

• Attention shifts from policy failures

• Opposition is put on the defensive

• Complex economic issues are replaced with identity debates

This tactic is not new, but its frequency has increased.

Past vs Present: A Convenient Distraction?

Critics say the BJP’s repeated focus on historical grievances serves a clear purpose: avoid scrutiny of present performance.

Instead of discussing:

• Why job creation remains weak

• Why air quality emergencies are worsening

• Why real incomes are under pressure

The narrative pivots to:

• Who respected the nation more

• Who said which slogan decades ago

• Who fits a narrow definition of patriotism

This shift simplifies politics into emotion-driven binaries — loyal vs anti-national — leaving little room for governance accountability.

Patriotism vs Performance

The irony is that Vande Mataram itself was never meant to divide.

It was a song of resistance, dignity, and unity against colonial rule. It did not demand conformity; it inspired collective purpose.

When used as a parliamentary weapon, its meaning risks being hollowed out.

True patriotism, many argue, lies not in slogans but in:

• Transparent governance

• Honest economic management

• Protecting constitutional freedoms

• Improving citizens’ daily lives

Why the Debate Refuses to Die

The Vande Mataram debate survives because it is emotionally potent, historically layered, and politically useful.

But history shows something important:
India’s founders resolved this debate 75 years ago through compromise, not confrontation.

Reopening it repeatedly does not strengthen nationalism — it weakens democratic focus.

As Parliament continues its sessions, the real question is not who shouted Vande Mataram louder, but why pressing issues of the present keep getting drowned out by echoes of the past.