The functional Nagas’ response to the MHA's directive on Vande Mataram moves beyond mere objection.
Share
As part of the year-long celebration of the 150th anniversary of Vande Mataram, the Union Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) on January 28, 2026, issued a directive mandating that all six stanzas of Vande Mataram in full 3-minute-10-second version be played at official functions before the Jana Gana Mana, requiring attendance at attention. This seemingly patriotic act, rooted in a disputed vision of national unity, has ignited a profound constitutional and cultural debate. Far from a simple expression of national pride, this directive can be viewed as a political imposition seeking to homogenize a diverse federation.
The contested path of a National Song in a Secular Republic
Vande Mataram (1875), born amidst the echoes of the Sanyasi Rebellion, enshrined India as a divine mother goddess with “crores and crores” of arms ready for battle fueling resistance against British rule. It quickly transformed into a powerful rallying cry for the Indian Independence Movement, gaining immense popularity during the Swadeshi Movement (1905-1908) and becoming synonymous with nationalist fervor resonating with many Hindu nationalists who saw India as 'Bharat Mata', worthy of devotion and sacrifice. However, its allegorical portrayal of the motherland as a Hindu deity in the latter overtly Hindu devotional stanzas- Durga with her weapons, Lakshmi with her blessings and Saraswati with her knowledge- caused discomfort among some Muslim communities, who found it contrary to their monotheistic beliefs and the concept of idolatry, thus planting the seeds of future controversy.
As India moved towards independence, the choice of a national anthem became a deeply political issue. Mahatma Gandhi supported Vande Mataram as a powerful nationalist symbol, but acknowledged the objection by Muslims. The Congress Working Committee, in 1937, attempted to resolve the issue by adopting only the first two stanzas- celebrating the motherland’s rivers, fruits, cool breezes, moonlit nights- as appropriate for every Indian and national gathering. Rabindranath Tagore, who composed a musical score to the song, supported adopting only the first two stanzas of Vande Mataram as the National Song, advising that this portion was free from the controversial sectarian imagery found in the rest of the poem.
Post-independence, the debate intensified within the Constituent Assembly. Ultimately, on January 24, 1950, Dr. Rajendra Prasad, the President of the Constituent Assembly, declared that Jana Gana Mana would be the National Anthem of India, while two-stanza , in honour of its historical legacy in the freedom struggle, would be accorded "equal status" as the National Song. This astute political manoeuvring was aimed at addressing the concerns of religious minorities within a newly formed republic navigating a complex landscape of religious diversity and potential divisions.
Philosophy of nation building has always been ‘unity in diversity’
The wisdom in the 1937 settlement and the subsequent “unanimous” declaration of the 1950 regarding Vande Mataram is a testament to inclusive and foresighted statesmanship. This was not a retreat born of political apprehension but rather the collective embodiment of sound judgment. Those omitted four stanzas were deliberately excised because our founding fathers possessed an indelible understanding that a Secular Republic cannot dignify verses invoking specific deities into its official state symbols.
To contemplate a Christian (or a Muslim, Sikh, Buddhist or an atheist) to stand at attention while verses with specific Hindu religious references, those deliberately excluded by the Constituent Assembly are sung, is to confront a fundamental breach of constitutional promise. Such an act directly impinges upon the protections enshrined in Article 25 of our Constitution, guaranteeing freedom of conscience and free profession, practice, and propagation of religion. Further, Article 51A(a) tells every Indian “to abide… by the National Flag and the National Anthem”. It does not cover the National Song. The Constitution intentionally distinguishes between the secular and inclusive National Anthem and the National Song, which contains religious elements requiring careful restriction.
The Supreme Court also in its landmark 1986 judgment (Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala) pronounced a pivotal legal precedent. Upholding the Fundamental Rights enshrined in Article 25 (freedom of conscience) and Article 19(1)(a) (freedom of speech and expression), the Court ruled unequivocally that Jehovah's Witnesses students who chose not to sing the National Anthem compelled by their religious beliefs but stood respectfully, could not be expelled. This decision historically cemented the principle that forced participation in national symbols, even anthem, cannot override individual religious freedom and conscience within India's constitutional framework.
It is a tribute to the sagacity of our nation’s founding architects and guardian of the Constitution that they wove fundamental values and the highest aspirations of the people directly into the fabric of our nation. This is one of the reasons why the most intricately crafted document has not only survived but has truly come alive as a guiding force for us all.
We thrive as Indians precisely because the Republic promises us to embrace our diversity and champion our differences. We remain bound together not by forced uniformity, but by the freedom to practice and preserve our unique cultures. Our foremost duty, therefore, is to steadfastly uphold the principles of our Constitution- the ultimate guarantor of our shared, yet distinct, identities. In this light, the MHA's order risks becoming a stark example of constitutional vandalism, thinly veiled as national sentiment.
Nagas, the distinct- but also, Nagas, the functional
The Nagas possess a distinct identity and enjoy special constitutional safeguard within India's federal structure. But Article 371A, the rhythmic dances and scenic landscapes are not enough. The landmark 1937 settlement and the 1950 declaration need a spine in 2026.
Considering both constitutional provisions and the Supreme Court's clear judgment, the MHA's mandate is plainly invalid. If the Supreme Court prohibits compelling citizens to sing even the National Anthem- which is constitutionally protected under Article 51A and legally safeguarded by The Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971- then it is wholly unjustifiable to force them to sing the National Song, which lacks both constitutional recognition and specific legal protection.
The functional Nagas’ response to the MHA's directive on Vande Mataram moves beyond mere objection. Our responsibility is to engage proactively and stand for constitutional integrity. The elected representatives in the Nagaland Legislative Assembly could table a resolution condemning the MHA directive and reaffirm the State's commitment to the constitutional settlement reached by the Constituent Assembly regarding Vande Mataram. This political assertion would send a clear message that the State's unique cultural and religious fabric is non-negotiable and requires respect within the Union.
Simultaneously, local educational institutions and community leaders would take on the crucial task of public education, holding workshops and discussions to inform citizens about their constitutional rights, the historical context of Vande Mataram, and why the MHA's order is seen as problematic.
This thoughtful approach ensures that collective dissent is not merely emotional but is both informed and constitutionally grounded, preventing national unity from morphing into cultural majoritarianism. This becomes an opportunity for the Nagas not just to be complacent in the distinctiveness of their identity, but to affirm their functional commitment to upholding the very constitutional principle that safeguard all diverse voices within the Republic.
Rampisinang Pipi Newme
Dimapur