Vande Mataram issue is again hogging the limelight and political denominations of all hue are palnning to make a killing. I have nothing to say of them. Such people have been squarely criticized at this blog and elsewhere. For me the issue is that of an individual’s right to practise his religion and be a patriotic citizen at the same time. Suppose I don’t sing Vande Mataram because it clashes with my religious beliefs. Would that make me any less Indian? Would that weaken my resolve to fight and die for the country? More importantly, as a citizen of a democratic society, do I have a choice to to say no to things that are not mandatory, and by not doing them I am not causing any harm to others? We talk about freedom of religion and secularism all the time but still have a blinkered view of them. Why do I need to adhere by somebody else’s benchmark of patriotism. If we are still thinking in terms of society and not individuals and expect everyone to submerge into some greater-common-patriotism then how different are we from let’s say China or Saudi Arabia. Does an individual has the space to stand alone and be different in our society? Would we have that in 10-20 years?
As an Indian Muslim I have to prove my patriotism to others, many times and many times over. A bomb blast, no Sir, please believe us, we did not do it, we condemn it in strongest terms. Does anyone asks hard questions about the failure of our intelligence apparatus, about how many people have ran away to other countries after selling sensitive information, about how it has compromised the security of the common citizen? Vir Sangvi writes about our amazing ability to gloss over facts in lieu of our anti-terror paranoia. Oh and these guys are not singing Vande Mataram. Didn’t I tell you, they are unpatriotic. There loyalties lie elsewhere. Come on, let us make them sing Vande Mataram.
Pankaj Vohra, political editor of Hindustan Times has written a piece on the Vande Mataram issue. He seems to have presumed a lot. I would like to address some of the issues he raises in his article.
1.) Debate over the issue is settled:
No, it is not. Had it been so, Vande Mataram would have been our national anthem and not national song. Muslims have had genuine issues with the text of the song and the context in which it was originally written and consquently used in Anand Math. The committee under Nehru in 1937 which Pankaj cites in his article has this to say of the issue:
“Taking all things into consideration, therefore, the Committee recommend that, wherever Bande Mataram is sung at national gatherings, only the first two stanzas should be sung, with perfect freedom to the organisers to sing any other song of an unobjectionable character, in addition to, or in the place of, the Bande Mataram song.”
The Constituent Assembly reached a compromise decision to accord it the status of national song. Gandhi ji advised Muslims to appreciate its historic association but counselled against any imposition. “No doubt, every act… must be purely voluntary on the part of either partner,” he said at Alipore on August 23, 1947. Now, we have the President of the largest opposition party in India saying that it would be made mandatory in the BJP ruled states.
Bottomline: Vande Mataram can’t and shoudn’t be enforced, neither on an individual nor on a community.
2.) It is AIMPLB and mad mullahs again:
Now we are increasingly seeing educated Muslims that do not toe the line of either All India Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) or rent-a-fatwa-mullahs and are willing to stand up and speak out for themselves. I am totally against mullahs rendering fatwas on the issue. Forcing someone not to sing Vande Mataram is akin to forcing someone to sing the song. Individuals should be able to decide for themselves. I have had my differences with both these groups. This is not about them, this is about me.
Bottomline: I don’t really care what is their stand on the issue.
3.) Vande Mataram is secular:
It is not. Had it been so, there was no need to expunge the last three stanzas of the song. People are acting as if the first two stanzas were written by someone else for a totally different purpose than the last three stanzas. It was basically a song meant to arouse the sentiments of Bengali Hindus against the ruling Muslims by using religious imagery. Nirad C. Chaudhuri writes, “The historical romances of Bankim Chatterjee and Ramesh Chandra Dutt glorified Hindu rebellion against Muslim rule and showed the Muslims in a correspondingly poor light. Chatterjee was positively and fiercely anti-Muslim. We were eager readers of these romances and we readily absorbed their spirit.��? It is true that the song acquired a nationalistic tone during the freedom struggle. It still does not absolve it of its history. For the right-wing backers of the song, this is just a start. Already there are talks of why only two stanzas, why not the entire song? And Rajeev Srinivasan is arguing “mohammedans in india should follow indian norms. after all, they expect indians in saudi arabia to follow saudi norms.” Not many years ago, BJP government in Uttar Pradesh tried to make the recital of Saraswati Vandana compulsory in schools.
Bottomlime: All this makes me wonder what ‘being Indian’ translates to them and their ‘real’ intentions.
4.) Hey its just Sankritized Bengali, in Urdu it is just fine:
Pankaj Vohra quotes an Urdu translation by none other than Arif Muhammad Khan (messiah of Muslims, beacon of hope, harbinger of glad tidings and a surrendered member to BJP). Being a former Union minister and President of A.M.U. are cited as his qualifications. I have heard about sarkaari poets, we have had our fair share of them. But this is the first time I am hearing about a sarkaari translator. I am not a Sankrit pandit (I read it till class 12th) but I am sure what Vande Mataram would translate to in Urdu. Again, people are trying to take two stanzas, out of text and out of context, and making it appear like well-what’s-the-problem-with-it?
Bottomline: The last thing India needs to progress in the 21st century is sarkaari patriotism.
Amidst all this, I have hope for the future. Many of the popular Indian bloggers on the web have supported the individual freedom position. Many Indians who were not aware of the original text and context of the song and the reason why Muslims are uncomfortable with the song are taking a more nuanced position. The only way forward for our country is the Gandhian position of mutual respect and no imposition. Not singing Vande Mataram does not lessen my committment to my country and I would always fight for the right of my fellow Indians (of whatever religion) to recite the song. Others should respect mine.
P.S. Some quotes have been taken from A.G. Noorani’s article, How secular is Vande Mataram?. If you have not read it, please do so. It is worth it.
Hello Girish
You are saying that adoption of Vande Mataram does not adhere to adherence to universal values, of a system that upholds the rule of law and of a healthy respect for the rights of every individual citizen..
1. I do not support forcing any individuals to sing it or any other song for that matter. That I am very clear. No forcing. No one should be forced to even respect the flag. I am of that persuasion. Burning the flag is a very legitimate form of protest against the government.
2. How does adoption of Vande Mataram not uphold the rule of law?
3. And what universal values does is not adhere to? Certainly it is not a great value to oppose the genuine wishes of a majority of law abiding people. I agree it needs to be democratically ascertained as to if majority of people would like it to be the national anthem.
This tie in with a larger issue which will also come up. People might even want to review the constitution. They have to right to do it. They may not want it to be a socialist country- this word was inserted mid way through the life of the country without even changing the date in the preamble.
Then there is the word secular. These are living documents, and living symbols of a changing society. People have the right to take a re-look at these things and make changes if desired. And people may not influenced by religious sensitivities in doing so.
I personally like the song for its tune and lyrics. A more forceful reason for me is that I am really not very crazy about lyrics of the Jana Gana song.
dear vichara, U need to read the last lines of my earlier blog again. I took the pain to cum to the computer not to paint the 90% hindus unpatriotic but just the opposite. I repeat, just because they do not pay respect to the national anthem and flag, this does NOT make them LESS INDIANS OR PATRIOTIC. Everyone is entitled to a view and I am well aware of that. That is why I entered my blog. This is definitely an issue but for only those who are affected by it. I do not want to waste my precious time arguing with a person with a closed mind. But today I have understood one thing. NO PROOF IS NEEDED FOR A BELIEVER AND NO PROOF IS ENOUGH FOR A NON BELIEVER. My side of argument ends here. I am hindu, my husband is muslim, my one daughter is hindu, two daughters are muslim/hindu. But we all are ONLY INDIANS. We hav a mandir and a masjid at home AND NONE OF US KNOW OR SING VANDE MATARAM
Vichara:
I don’t think you understood my point at all. It was not about Vande Mataram itself. It was about whether a democracy is only about what the majority wants. Democracy is much more than that. Democracy is about a balancing individual rights of everybody and of evolving solutions that benefits everybody at large, through a process of dialogue. It is not about doing something the majority wants despite legitimate concerns from a minority of citizens. It was a recognition of those concerns that led to the adoption of Jana Gana Mana as the national anthem and Vande Mataram as the National Song. Even at that time, extremists wanted the forcible imposition of the latter. It is the same today.
Girish
I think what we defer is on the question if religious sentiments qualify as legitimate concerns. And I think under a secular constitution to me they do not.
Before we go further permit me to clarify my stand on some of issues discussed here
Patriotism: I do not think any one need to be patriotic. I am not patriotic in the normal sense it is used. I maintain a healthy dose of skepticism towards the concept of nationalism, definitely towards religious dogmas (yes, I see all of them are dogmas to which unfortunate children are subjected to, I have no problem with grown up adults believing in heaven or hell, but children being brain washed is something else), one’s government, political parties, my own ideas, the press etc. And I think that is very important.
Yes for security, economy etc. we are organized in terms of national identities. So we need to make the required contributions- tax, service in the military etc. towards the same. But still should maintain a healthy dose of skepticism. Otherwise we all face the fate of the Americans- in spite of having one of the healthiest democratic body politic, they got take for a ride- the corporations, the establishment and the church simply hijacked the country in the grab of patriotism. Most tragically the press was made blind by the screen of patriotism. Such a tragedy to see even reputed journalists could not see through the game.
National Anthem:
No body should be forced to sing. If I do not feel like I will sing with my foot.
It has not been ascertained yet through a proper process, but if a majority of the people wants the song as what ever- national anthem or what ever else, I think I would not care less about religious sentiments any one group.
The same applies to “anti-conversion” laws. Under a secular constitution the government need not defend any religious rights- in this case right to convert an another person. If the majority of the people want a change, religious sentiments have no relevance under a secular constitution.
Now I know there has been a rather perverted definition of secularism in India.
It will be interesting to see how we as a society deal with these issues as we develop rapidly in our economy and large numbers of next generation come with a education very different from earlier generations (of course duly brain washed in the respective religious dogmas).
It has been nice discussing with you.
I appreciate the civility in the blog.
This is a fantastic observation made by Vichara. Will the truly democratic and truly secular support the anti conversion laws because the concerted conversion attempts by other religions ‘hurt the religious sentiments’ of majority Hindus? Should we ban cow slaughter because Hindu religious sentiments get hurt? Da vinchi was banned in parts of India so was Rashdi’s book. Shouldn’t the government be sympathetic to the religious sentiments of the overwhelming majority of Indians?
truly,
vichara and others have distilled the topic to a great extent and now it is clearly coming out that the question/topic of discussion is not vande mataram but actually whether to follow democracy in its most theoretical way (number game) or whether to follow religious tolerance.
According to me both democracy and religious tolerance are important.
But, democracy in a society like India, where though the means of access to information are developing day-by-day, the information itself is being controlled by few, and though decisions are of the category of “informed decisions” the reliability of information itself might be a question. Thus a decision might be supported by “majority”, but might not be “right”.
On the other hand the principal of religious tolerance is based on one of the laws of nature – Live and let live.
We really need to understand that what is important ?, as the answer is critical to our existence (and here i mean of every individuals existence) and growth.
Deboo,
I like your analyses but its incomplete as religious tolerance as a concept is subjective (unlike democracy). does concerted conversion attempts fit your definition of religious tolerance? on arjun singh’s saudi trip, saudi rulers praised arjun for his ‘ secularism and religious tolernce’… however no word abt india’s democratic credentials – i think this tells us a lot abt the true value of democracy.
Deboo
And there in lies one of the most profound paradoxes.
So much is being made of religious tolerance. The question is whether these religions themselves are tolerant of each other.
The world’s monotheistic religions have clearly declared very unequivocally that they themselves are the only true declarations of truth.
This is in spite of the apologetic statements regarding some obscure Islamic theologian in India saying some good words about Hinduism. That flies in the face of the fact that even people who quote the theologian immediately mention the fact that they consider Islam as first among equals, Mohamad as the role model, anything short of declaring that Hindusim is an equally valid path to God. They can not just say it is equal.
The Catholic Church does not recognize any other religion including Islam as a valid, equal path to God. So the minorities who do not miss any chance to cry foul in India do not recognize each others religion very much. This is not with standing the often mentioned story about Jesus Christ being honored in Islam also- No muslim is saying that Christianity is an equally valid path to God.
Hindu society is yet to stomach its own contradictions properly. I have been exposed to very deep rooted cultures of worship of village Gods in Tamil Nadu. The way of worship they follow are very connected to the cultural milieu of those places. And I have seen Hindus from other parts of the country express extreme revulsion at these practices.
This applies to all religions. They all basically tend to be exclusive in their claim to God.
And more over India is a secular country because the majority wants it to be that way. The constitution is secular because the majority wants it to be that way.
So why deny the majority their song?
(In this case it needs to be determined if the majority wants it to be the national anthem. But then people have the right to campaign for the same and mobilize opinion either way).
I fully agree with the original poster. I do not want others to sit in judgement of my patriotism. I am an atheist and I repudiate all gods (including India as goddess). I do not understand why others should have a problem with my stand. Christians in US do not worship US as mother goddess, nor pakistani muslims do so for their country, nor jews worship israel as god. Are they any less patriotic than Indians?
So Abhilash since you repudiate Gods, do you repudiate religions also? Or do you consider religions holier than Gods?
If you repudiate religions, do you repudiate all the recognitions given in the Indian constitution and in it’s legal set up? That too under a secular constitution?
Do you agree that India formed under a secular constitution need not give any credence to any body religious feelings in deciding which song should be its national anthem?
Under a secular constitution we need not consider any body’s religious points of view in matters of the state?
If yes, and if you read the above article, you will find that the objections are based on his religious faith.
So if I am an atheist I will not give any credence to those religion based objections- since I do not care for his God or his religion and the constitution is a secular one at that.
I simply like that song dude.
Otherwise you should be an atheist who loves religion based objections in the matter of the state!!
Hey you have the right to do that!
Just that I do not consider that either secular or atheist.
“It was about whether a democracy is only about what the majority wants. Democracy is much more than that. Democracy is about a balancing individual rights of everybody and of evolving solutions that benefits everybody at large, through a process of dialogue.”
Girish, this point was brought home in Massachusetts, USA where a section of population wanted to put the gay-marriage issue to a popular vote claiming it’s their democratic right to vote on it, and even collected signatures to put the issue on ballot. But the legislature killed the proposal. And rightly so.
When the rights of a minority are concerned, the majority shouldn’t get to vote on them. Just because it’s a democracy does not automatically mean that all decisions made as a result of popular vote will be fair. I think when it comes to limiting rights of people, it’s generally not a good idea to put them to a popular vote and they should be protected.
In this particular case, it’s quite possible that the majority could have discriminated and denied a minority section of the population (i.e. gay) equal rights.
Do you agree that India formed under a secular constitution need not give any credence to any body religious feelings in deciding which song should be its national anthem?
Yes. And through this song you are forcing your religious preferences on me. If you want to worship some God, go ahead but I do not want you to force your choices on me.
I am ready to give you freedom to celebrate your ideology, why do you want to deny it to me?
abhilash shastry
Well I have made it very clear in the earlier notes that I do not expect you to sign, do not expect you to be patriotic, you have the right to sing the national anthem with your foot. I do not care.
That is your individual freedom, right and I am of the opinion that is sacrosanct.
In the blog above about the gay rights in Massachusetts, USA, the author feels that it would have been accepted by the populace. Many journalists defer on that. In spite of the fact that the federal govt. in the US in the recent past have been very much against gay rights, the data is that number of states that guarantee such rights have actually increased in the recent past. Many a times not marriage but civil unions with very similar rights.
In fact there are many more laws at the state levels coming up in favor of civil unions. More importantly the new generation is supportive of equal right to gays. They do not differentiate that between people being left or right handed.
And the reason is the celebration of individual’s rights and liberties in the US society. And my point has been that in India we seem to have more rights for religions than for individuals.
I do not give credence to your religion based objection in the issues of the state. There seems to be more importance to the religion based objections to Vande Mataram than the fact that more individuals like the song!!! (Again accepted that needs to be verified properly).
Amit:
If the religion based objections/reason are to be given more importance as you seem to be arguing (in the Vande Mataram case), Massachusetts should have listened to conservative Christians.
No, they did not give credence to conservative Christians and their religion based objections but they protected the rights of individuals. And I believe Massachusetts is not red enough to vote that out- especially considering the new voters.
After all, conservative Christians are also a minority- the estimation is that the evangelical/ conservative Christians are only 35% (about) of the Republican Party.
And that is not how people in the US approach the issue. Most approach that as the right of an individual.
And that is the culture we need to develop in India.
Vichara:
I’m still educating myself about the Vande Mataram controversy as I wasn’t even aware of it till a few days ago. I’m joining the party almost a year late
My last post was in response to the sentences in Girish’s post re: democracy that caught my eye, and wasn’t a comment on the Vande Mataram issue.
From what I can tell from my limited reading on this issue, the truth lies somewhere in the middle. I don’t believe that anyone should be forced to sing a song, but I’ve also read that many Muslims (now and before independence) sang this song. So, I think there are arguments on both sides. I’ll write more if I have something meaningful to add to the discussion.
Vichara,
No, the religion based objections/reason are NOT to be given more importance in a secular nation, and that’s not what I was arguing.
Regarding same-sex marriage and civil unions, I believe there are very few states (10 out of 50) that have passed a law to recognize either same-sex marriage, civil union or domestic partnership, whereas a lot more states have explicitly passed laws to define marriage as between man and woman.
I think the religious right is much more powerful in the US (especially in the Bible-belt) and that was one issue that brought out voters during the last Presidential election. Of course, the negative impacts of gay marriage on heterosexual marriages still needs to be proved.
But, we’re getting way off-topic here.
Mohib, Girish and Vichara:
I love all your comments! I think we all agree that nothing in terms of religion should be forced by the State. So no quarrel on that one.
Where Vichara and Mohib/Girish paradigm differ is:
Mohib: It does NOT agree with my religion – so why force it on me?
Vichara: I LOVE this song and it COMPLETELY agrees with my religion so why take it away from me?
BOTH the views are valid. Just like you cannot impose something on someone.. you cannot take it away from someone.. just because YOUR religion does not make it “kosher”.
And that is where the arguments of Mohib run wrong – It does not agree with Islam is clear and BECAUSE of that Mohib should NOT be forced to sing – 100% agree with it!
BUT, what I find downright hypocritical is that when Mohib and others start insinuating the intention of the poet and start ascribing wilful conduct of a perpetrator of religious intolerance!
If that be so, then I am pretty sure most of what Guru Gobind Singh did and said in those days was equally reprehensible! Should we start discussing the “saffronite fascist” (in today’s lingo of popular media) Guru now?
It is a FACT of history that the Mughal and Muslim rulers and the Zamindars/Nawabs of pre-independence era were either barbarians or simply inhuman in their treatment of others. Except for Akbar, there were very few who can claim to be ANYWHERE near anything called Secularism as we discuss it today!
So, it is pretty clear that in that time, ONE of the ways to fight the Muslim Rulers and autocracy of the day – fanatic and of low secular content as it was – was to appeal to the religious differences and motivate people (if indeed that was the “sin” of Anand Math – which Girish denies).
This sin, by the way, would be NO DIFFERENT from the actions of Guru Gobind Singh either!
In fact, in EVERY war against Pakistan (even in the Kargil War) – the Sikh regiments have been motivated using the example of Guru Gobind Singh and the call to kill the “Muslims” – the killers of Gurus sons and father,Guru Tegh Bahadur – is made!
So, should we ban our Army?
Where is it that we draw the line?
Mohib: Therefore the road you have taken is a VERY VERY slippery one! If I were you, i would raise it as an issue of INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY and DEMOCRACY… and NOT one of RELIGIOUS Freedom. That, in my view, is where you (and most Muslims) go wrong!
Cheers,
Desh
Drishtikone.com
Desh:
I am sorry but I don’t get the gist of your argument.
I never said that others should not be allowed to sing Vande Mataram. Here is what I wrote:
Also, how come I am acting hypocritical when I provide the reasons I feel about Bankim Chand Chatterjee the way I do? You may choose not to agree with my reasons but I fail to see why it is hypocritical.
You say that Mughals/Muslim Rulers/Zamindars/Nawabs were either barbarians or simply inhuman in their treatment of others. I don’t know why would you even make such a generalized statement. And you call it a fact of history?
I don’t get any of your stuff about Guru Gobind Singh et al. Sorry.
Hell yes, I would raise it as a freedom of religion issue which is a part of my individual rights. Why would you make the distinction between individual liberty and religious freedom? Why do you think they are different?
As I mentioned in the beginning, I just don’t get the gist of your argument.
[quote post="109"]It is a FACT of history that the Mughal and Muslim rulers and the Zamindars/Nawabs of pre-independence era were either barbarians or simply inhuman in their treatment of others. Except for Akbar, there were very few who can claim to be ANYWHERE near anything called Secularism as we discuss it today![/quote]
A very sweeping statement and quite inaccurate too.
Putting mughals, lodhis, turks and afghans as one lump of “muslim rulers” is height of ignorance. I suggest you read A. Eraly’s “The Mughal Throne”. Eraly is no muslim apologist. I am sure you will find many instances of religious intolerance there but by and large mughal rulers’ “secular” credentials were far advanced for their times and quite comparable to today’s standards. Except for Aurangzeb (and to some extent Shah Jehan in his later days), no one else can be accused of any ill treatment on basis of religion. The goodwill that the title of “mughal emperor” carried in 1857 – even after a lapse of full century of any real mughal rule – could not have been earned without popular support.
Secondly, even if you do not agree to their policies, calling them “barbarians” is the biggest joke I heard. You may have to redefine dictionary meaning of “barbarians” if you call mughals as “barbarians”. Here are some of the biggest patrons of art and culture that India has ever seen and call them barbarians! Not just that, quite often they were themselves very accomplished artists/ musicians/ poets. Hawkins, who had come in Jehan Gir’s time mentions that there is not a single person in the emperor’s court who does not write poetry!
I see nothing wrong in reciting the national song as long as it does not amount to worshipping. Actually, all the confusion was on account of the word, ‘Vande‘. After consulting different dictionaries I found that the word has several meanings which also includes worship. Islam clearly bans worship of anyone other than Allah. You cannot even worship the Prophet.
I am giving one example ….aadmi‘, which ordinarily means ‘man’. However it could also be used both for a servant as well as a husband.
The originator of this Post has forced so many of us to waste time over something so trivial.Orginially I thought that i will give it a bye but on reading again Mohib to me seems very radical in guise of being a secular cosmopolitian.
The National song has no religious overtones in itself and this is being unnecessarily raked up by vested Interests on both sides.
Religion is one’s Private matter whereas respect to the nation is a Public matter. The issue itself has occured because people like Mohib had to raise it up by refusing to sing the National Song.
There are things in Indian constitution that may go against a Particular religion but then Laws are not made with religions in Mind but for the Welfare of people of the Country.So lets not use religion as a basis of forming whats acceptable and whats not.Enough harm has already been done on that account.
And Abhilash, i dont know what is your understanding of History but there can be no bigger travesty of truth than calling Mediaval and Pre British Muslim rulers as secular.There are enough stories of their barbarism.Not that their Hindu counterparts were any less but then during those Periods Muslim rulers ruled most of the country and so they have to take the Lion’s Share of the Blame.