In defence of the right not to sing Vande Mataram
Organised religion should leave it to individuals to decide on organised patriotism
It is undoubtable that the fatwa against the singing of Vande Mataram (via DesiPundit) by Muslim clerics in Hyderabad is motivated by, and is a manifestation of, the phenomenon of competitive intolerance that has found purchase in contemporary India. It is inexplicable why now, almost a century after it first became an icon of Indian nationalism, Hyderabad’s religious establishment felt that it was aggravating enough to call for a religous injunction. Their action may be fairly criticised for its attempt to divide society through the communalisation of a well-regarded national icon. But it is equally important to recognise that citizens have the right to opt out of organised patriotism as much as they have a right to opt out of organised religion.
If, on account of personal beliefs, a citizen decides not to respect symbols or observe certain rites of patriotism, it should not automatically follow that the citizen is demonstrating a lack of patriotism. But this should come as a result of an individual’s free choice. National symbols are intended to be secular, but it need not be incumbent on each and every citizen to accept this interpretation. Acceptance of say, the Vande Mataram as a secular expression of patriotism has waxed and waned with general levels of tolerance, broad-mindedness and unity of purpose in Indian society. Regardless of perception, or even actual fact, individual citizens have a right to interpret the hymn in the light of their personal beliefs. So those Muslims who feel that the hymn is against the teachings of Islam should be free not to sing it. It is, however, a totally different matter for one or more of them to enforce their interpretation on their co-religionists, or for that matter, on anyone else. The decision not to sing Vande Mataram is defensible only on the grounds of individual freedom.
There are important caveats though — personal beliefs cannot condone breaking public law or private rules. They also cannot justify wilful disrespect of national symbols. If a school or an organisation that an individual has voluntarily joined requires certain songs sung or certain invocations made, then it is incumbent on the individual to respect those rules or part ways. Again this is a decision for individuals to make. Organised religion, in most of its forms, purports to place restrictions on individual freedoms. The Hyderabad fatwas must be condemned as much for their attempt to encroach on individual freedoms as for their insidious use of a national icon to further their political agenda.
Related Link: Americans are contending with similar issues too — Dan Drezner covers the US Senate’s move to make burning their flag illegal.
[...] In a brilliant post reflecting on the ongoing Vande-Mataram fatwa controversy, Nitin argues that that citizens have the right to opt out of organised patriotism, as much as they have a right to opt out of organised religion. [...]
Nitin,
Suppose if X (belonging to “Y” creed says that his(or her) scriptures do not recognize nation, the only distinction being that of “Y” and not “Y” , and hence he can not as a true believer recognize India. He preaches this to followers of “Y”, this he does without any violence or vandalism. Will that too be ok for you then.
At risk of being called a jingoist I believe the only way India can survive is “Organised Patriotism”.
Regards
Gaurav,
Yes. It’s not something I personally like or would desire, but such freedoms are necessary in a free society.
I would argue that India’s strength lies in ordinary people’s love and pride in their country. It is unnecessary to organise it for the purposes of survival of the nation.
I fully agree with Nitin here.
Although I personally think that valuing one’s religion more than one’s national interest is weasel-like attitude, the key principle is respect for individual rights and I would respect a person’s right, ‘not to participate in orgnized patriotism’ even though I may not agree with it myself.
Nitin,
I believe that ordinary Indians love India, I also believe that ordinary (or extraordinary)persons can be easily manipualted (A cynical point of view, I admit).
That is why partition in 1947 occured inspite of the fact that in all probability ordinary Indians at that time were no different from ordinary Indians of today.
Freedom can not come without responsibility.
Regards
Gaurav,
What you point out seems to be an issue of ‘education’. The solution may be in educating people of their rights as individuals. Organised patriotism (like Soviet-style and Maoist Communism) simply replaces one dogma with another.
Nitin,
You said”The decision not to sing Vande Mataram is defensible only on the grounds of individual freedom.”
Don’t you think the scope of individual freedom has been given a rather wide berth here? Other ethnic/religious groups may want to exercise their choices by the same parameters on similar/dissimilar issues. As a precedent, it may have repurcussions.
Nitin,
No, for the reason that “X” I cited above might be right (After all India is not a result of divine intervention or sanction) and in case I get convinced that his point of view is correct I would be the first to say so. Sadly, my education is incomplete and my ignorance is unbounded, hence I do not have a peg to hang my world view upon.What I am convinced however, is that existence of India is a “very” good idea, I am also convinced that once the mass of creed of “Y” who are convinced that “X” is correct, India will disintegrate. Therefore intentions of “X” in my view constitute danger to sovereignity & integrity of India. I propose to nip this in the bud.
Regards
Errate -
I am also convinced that once the mass of creed of “Y” who are convinced that “X” is correct *reaches a critical mass*
I believe the Narcissistic thoughts of opinion leaders should be expunged at the first step itself. Vande Matram in itself is a trivial issue for a passing of a religious edict (as it does no harm, not even emotional) but on the other hand it is vital for the secular feel of the country.
This is just a retrograde step as we march ahead.
Why cannot these clerics issue some fatwas against cultivation of opium in Afghanistan and Baluchistan. They won’t because it gets them money for their so-called Holy crusade.
Gaurav,
What you point out is possible.
But we must make a distinction between letting individuals have the freedom to act according to their personal beliefs and allowing seditious acts to go unchecked.
Gaurav,
u sound like India not disintegrating is more important than individual
freedom. Well, in my opinion, personal freedom is more important.
Whether India stays integrated or not should be decided by collective
interest of people. If enough people find the idea of India in their
self-interest, India should stay integrated.
The idea of self-interest (and hence personal freedom)
is way more important than whether or not india stays intgrated.
BTW,i personally feel, the idea of india is beneficial to me.So i want it to
stay integrated. But i have no right to impose this idea on others.
So if someone is choosing to not sing a song (and telling others not to),
so be it. They aren’t breaking any law, right ?
Patriotism is another opium that we are made to consume so
some people can further their self-interest (example: siphoning off defence budget), at the cost of you and i.
- Divya
The reason why clerics issued fatwa against singing vande mataram is, according to islam worshipping motherland is not acceptable.
Islam does not recognize national boundaries. Islam is above any nation. For muslims allah comes first and then comes motherland.
Such thinking divides a country. It has already. If our Govt. decides to vote against Iran on the nuclear issue, it is inviting troubles from muslims. Why? Shia muslims of India share a brotherhood with Iranian Shias. ‘India’s interest be damned but Shia’s interest be protected’ is the attitude.
Freedom is okay, but first comes responsibility and then comes freedom.
Ravi
Divya (12#),
“u sound like India not disintegrating is more important than individual freedom”
If some individual is a danger to integrity of India, then Yes ! (Hypothetically)In order to save India, I will not desist from trampling over freedom of individuals.
“Patriotism is another opium”
If that is the case, then idea of absolute individual freedom with no responsibility or concenr towards one’s fellow citizens, society or nation, is LCD, Speed, Crack, Cocaine,Hashish & Heroin combined.
Regards
This comment has been edited – Ed
This comment has been deleted – Ed
Comment edited – Ed
Personal freedom is subject to Collective interests of the Group. Human beings made this decision long, long ago in the prehistoric ages. Human beings unlike most animals do not have the ability to run fast, neither they have sharp claws or teeth to hunt on their own, nor the ability to eat and digest grass or raw meat.
Their very safety and survival depended on being part of a group. When they made that decision they made it fully conscious of the above facts and with their self-interests in mind which was safety and survival.
Even today the above holds good. Our self interest is in being part of a Group we cannot do as we please.
Any individual or sub-group within a group if it tries to hijack the Group from within must be either silenced or chucked out of the group.
This comment has been deleted – Ed
Zeusthegreat,
do u even know whose name you are spoiling ?
“Personal freedom is subject to Collective interests”
well, yes.. i don’t dispute that… and your harange around that
assertion is also acceptable to me. But are you saying that people
must sing a particular song just because it is considered by someone else
as “patriotic” ? I have read the anandmath book by Bankim and this song
is out and out a communal one. I can see why someone may object to it.
Comment edited – Ed
Me and communist. Marx and Engels will be rolling in their graves if they hear that.
To hell with that song. even i don’t care for that and I’am supposed to be Hindu. so lets lay that argument to rest.
If our ancestors had thought like u our species would have gone extinct millenia ago and mammoths and sabre toothed tiger would still roam the earth today .
The basic structure of Human society was built in the harsh jungles, deserts, mountains and endured the test of time Ice ages, famines et al and works in the real world as opposed to your theoretical concepts like marxism bulit in the safety of the British library in London with no sabre toothed tiger lurking behind to jump on karl marx or even liberalism built in the safe confines of Air conditioned rooms with not even fresh air around.
hence all these dogmas is only nice to hear but once u try to apply them in the real world it is a unmitigated disaster.
Liberalism is what will destroy the Human species if it is applied universally tomorrow because it is nothing but a bunch of wishy washy feel good goobledygook that will disintegrate the moment it comes into contact with the real world.
Btw can u explain why something is called the “Ten commandments” and not the “Ten Suggestions” or the “Ten proposals”?
Because u cannot have everything moving relative to each other. U need to draw a line somewhere and live in its bounds.
This comment has been deleted – Ed
This comment has been deleted – Ed
Hi all,
This is not a forum for personal attacks and trading insults. Being civil and polite costs nothing. Besides, that’s the rule on this forum. I’ve deleted/edited out comments that violate this.
sorry nitin. Comment edited -Ed . It won’t happen again.
Nitin,
I apologise for my diatribe.
To rephrase what I said earlier.
I find it disconcerting when people (of various ideological persuasions)consider disintegration of India in such a frivolous manner.Frivolity, I suspect borne out of insufficient grasp and appreciation of history and its lessons. (Hope this is not personal or insulting)
Regards
People should not and cannot be silenced to protect the country’s integrity. Otherwise there wouldn’t be much difference between the USSR, China, North Korea and India.
We chose to silence people on the problems in Kashmir also. How well did that really work out? Had there been a debate on how the Indian Army was really doing in Kashmir, any possible violations would have been rooted out far before Pakistan could take advantage of the situation there. But we kept silent and kept thinking everything was alright. History now tells us we were not.
There will always be a very small group of people who will put their (and their religious) interests above that of the country. They cannot be rooted out and should not be. US foreign policy on the Middle East is virtually dictated by American Jews and as has been demonstrated by now, it hasn’t always gone in the US’s favour in the long term.
The better way might be to ensure that the country is integrated, not by force but out of the choice of people. At the same time, those who issue fatwas against national symbols of any kind should probably be put under the microscope to see what other anti national activities they are upto. Speaking your mind is one thing. But acting against the nation’s interests, like aiding and abetting terrorists, while at the same time leeching the resources of the country, needs harsh punishment.
The question is, are our government’s ’secular’ leaders upto it? And do they know the difference?
*Sigh*,
1) There is a difference between Indian & USSR or North Korea.
I am not asking that “Brave people who spout non sensical rhetoric” be tortured or put behind jail.
I am not even asking them to be shown all Karan Johar movies back to back. What I am asking is, that along with right of free speech there should be some mechanism to ensure responsibility. That mechanism is social censure.
I want social censure against enlightened soul who claim that Kashmir is not a part of India
I want social censure against noble creatures who claim that India is an imperialistic power
I want social censure against who can not bring themselves to respect nation.
I want social censure against those who attempt to tar our national symbols in communal hues
I want social censure against those who claim frivolously of Indian disintegration just for certain ideals which are conceived in vacuum.
I want them ridiculed, I want them shunned, I want them treated with contempt. I want them cast out of civil society.
2) What happened in Kashmir has nothing to do with Indian Army, and everything to do with US funded Mujahideen & our “brother” across the borders. I know it is fashionable to portray Indian Army as “Blood drinking Monster” but truth doesn’t change with fashions.
3) Yes, I would want that Indians remain in India by choice (I would also like few millions), but in this case it is not so, I would prefer to see state use pressure rather than see India getting balkanized. This may cause moral outrage, but without this policy Punjab, Maoland,North East,J&K & TamilNadu win all probability would have seceded. *
4) Blaming Jews for every mess is trite. Middle east is in this state because Arabs prefer it that way.
Regards
* For heaven’s sake don’t people realize that partition was not an “accident” ! Why should noble intention imply suspension of reality !
Alok,
Although the examples you cite are questionable, I agree with your general point that open debate and public scrutiny of contentious issues is better than closing up.
Gaurav,
I’m almost done reading V P Menon’s “Integration of Indian States”. I think what Sardar Patel & V P Menon achieved is one of the most understated successes of independent India. Very few people know that on 15 August 1947, India was not one monolithic entity, but one that comprised of the provinces of British India and over 554 princely states. Forming a united Republic out of them has to be one of the greatest and unsung successes of the 20th century. Yet, even while the rulers of those states may have entertained notions of soveriegnty or independence, the people were overwhelmingly in favour of remaining a part of India (which didn’t even strictly exist as a nation-state at that time). You have a point there about valuing the integrity of the nation. But I think you underestimate its intrinsic strength.
Nitin,
I certainly hope that you are right. I can’t help it (underestimating that is) though, as Nietzche put it I have looked too long into the abyss
.
Just to clarify, even discounting cultural nationalism I do think that Indians stand a much better chance of prosperity and security (from “Enlightened moderation” as well as “Confuscian capitalism”) united rather than divided.
The reason Vande Matram controversy irks me is that this was the symbol of Indian freedom struggle.
Why is it impossible for Indians of today to recognize and respect this symbol which is a reminder of those who sacrificed their lives for our independence. Why so much pettiness for sake of dogma ?
(I admit this is emotive and not “rational”, but that is the only argument I can think of)
Regards
Gaurav – Here are the lyrics to Vande Mataram – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vande_mataram
This _is_ overtly religous. Would you like singing an Islamic equivalent that gives praise to Mohammed or the Imams made compulsory?
Also, the song was originally part of the book ‘Anandamatha’ which depicts Hindus rising in revolt and killing Muslims, and ends with them being satisfied with the thought of living as subjects of the British king. How patriotic is that?
Nitin,
Going by the logic, should paying respect to the national anthem also be relaxed? Or even the national flag? Well, Indians don’t bother much about resecting the national anthem anyway, so I guess they’re already a step ahead.
Personal freedom is a great thing, but protecting this personal freedom itself also needs sacrifices to be made. (I took it out of dubya’s book, by the way, and I agree with him on this one). Of course, too many sacrifices being sought makes the nation autocrat. Finding a balance is the way, in my view and there must be something to respect for a country as a symbol or anthem or other.
If Islam is a nation in itself, then why are there so many Islamic countries? As you mentioned, if the call had come much earlier, it might have been genuine. But coming after almost 60 years on independence, its nothing but another attempt to create intolerance in the muslim society. But again, why give so much importance to this fatwa only when there are others which seek to unite the country and create tolerance?
AS,
The symbiology of the the song is not any more religious than Ashoka Chakra, however I have not seen so far offended by Indian flag, guess you should start.While you are at it, why don’t you start campaign against Sanskrit Shlokas inscribed everywhere in Government building.
Further we are talking about nation not Imams or Avatars or Prophets, so your analogy makes no sense.
Also if I remember the novel depicts struggle against “Muslim and British rulers”, how is that against all Muslims.
Now, why did you have to shuffle, I guess truth was not sufficient for you.
Actually, between friends we had a debate on this also. As an atheist mine was the last comment and no one has replied yet to it. So here is my take on it most of it copy and paste from what I had written to my friends but first a few lines on what has been discussed here.
Gaurav, you need to go and get a lesson on Vande Mataram, either you have blind faith that Vande Mataram is a song of national pride or you have the blind faith that if a Muslim cleric has said what he has then he is wrong. The very reason Jana Gana Mana was picked over Vande Mataram as National Anthem was because of its religious connotation. And Gaurav, by saying Sanskrit should also be removed from all governement building by comparing it with Vande Mataram you are creating the grave mistake of either relating Sanskrit with religion (which is not right, it just happens that our religious books are in Sanskrit) or that Vande Mataram is secular which is also not true as rightly pointed out by AS. NEhru opposed Vande Mataram as it was not secular and Nirad Chaudhury has mentioned it in his book – An Autobiography of an Indian as to why the song became a song of freedom struggle.
Nitin, you have said that if one guy finds it offensive then why should he ask others to stop and on free choice etc. I would rather prefer informed choice than free choice. I would rather want to be informed fully of what a Vande Mataram signifies before making my choice. Singing Vande Mataram for me and am sure for most of us is not free choice, it was the only choice, it was a choice imposed upon us and we happily accepted because we never bothered to check what it meant. I fully agree that the reasons for the fatwa might not be the right one but I don’t think there is anything wrong in telling people to stop doing something if you think it is wrong. You have a view on global warming it is your free view but don’t tell me this was not influenced what people have to say around the world. So it is a free chice based on knowledge from informed sources. You just don’t wake up one day to find in teh newspapers that anit-Global Warming is the national agenda so you just follow it, absolutely not. We should challenge everything we see and then choose.
So here is selected portions of the text of my mail which shows that Vande Mataram is not a patriotic song at all it was just adopted as one for reasons of fervour:
First a bit of history from my personal knowledge of Vande Mataram. The song comes from the book Anandamatha. For those who have been to Kolkata will know that Anandmatha is a temple of Kali and this temple was the inspiration of Chatterjee to write the book. So the book was written not from the feeling of being an Indian but that of being a Hindu. Now I’m not saying whether it is right or wrong. It is open to interpretation whether you are interested only in the end (in this case the ultimate message) or the means to achieve the end (in this case the fact that it was inspired by Kali).
Now for the part I was not aware of. I don’t know how much research we have done in this area that we have taken the liberty to comment on it and start talking of education and awareness. Based on what I have seen I think we have ourselves failed on education and awareness when it comes to this topic.
I did my bit of educating myself and creating an awareness on the topic. My first inclination was to look at the translation of Vande Mataram to see if there was anything that the Muslims might find offending and here is the translation of one stanza:
Thou art Durga, Lady and Queen,
With her hands that strike and her swords of sheen,
Thou art Lakshmi lotus-throned,
And the Muse a hundred-toned,
Pure and perfect without peer,
Mother lend thine ear,
Rich with thy hurrying streams,
Bright with thy orchard gleems,
Dark of hue O candid-fair
The stanza preceding or following this does not say anything about Allah or Jesus or Buddha or Mahavir or Guru Nanak. To me the Muslims are right in saying they should not sing it.
On top of it, even though it is the national song, unlike Jana Gana Mana it is not obligatory but only voluntary and the reason for that is its Hindu inclination.
Apparently, the song held relevance during the independance struggle as it went with the fervor of the struggle. Additonally, it seems (I have not read it) in his Autobiography of an Unknown Indian, Nirad C. Chaudhuri has described the atmosphere of the times in which the song was written. “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.”
I have taken the above from http://www.frontlineonnet.com/fl1601/16010940.htm PLEASE read that article. As per the article, Satyananda a key character of the novel, lays down his sword after he is assured that a Muslim will not rule India but a British will. He is further told, you cannot defeat a British rule so accept it.
@Sachin
Muslim periodicals had been publishing critiques of Vande Mataram since the 1920s .So I don’t think this fatwa is anything new.The “idolatrous” nature of the song has always been a source of controversy within conservative muslim circles.This debate keeps popping up periodically.
Ultimately faith is transcendental and deals with the salvation of the soul which from a religious perspective is paramount over the exegencies of time.
Nitin says, “I’m almost done reading V P Menon’s “Integration of Indian Statesâ€. … You have a point there about valuing the integrity of the nation. But I think you underestimate its intrinsic strength.”
I couldn’t agree more with this paragraph especially the last line. There are plenty of Indians, not considering the India-hating foreigners to the west and east, who would love see India disintegrate for various reasons. But there plenty more Indians who want to see India succeed and prosper. I’ll beat on the latter than the former anytime.
history_lover,
(Without confirming what you are saying) I stand corrected.
I don’t have a problem with people not singing “this” particular song. But this incident is in a long series of incidents where symbols of nations have not been respected. It all leads back to the same point of majority of representatives of muslim society being intolerant to others and encouraging their followers to do their bidding. Which is their job, but strangely, no muslim ever disputes them in public atleast (Please save me the PILs which I can count in one hand).
I myself find this song as communal, but the point being where will this train stop? There will always be cases which the mullahs will find offensive. Do they realise that they are not living in Saudi A? They themselves are ghettoising the common muslims by trying to not let them be a part of the larger society, and then blaming others. India is a reasonably very tolerant society and checks must come from within the muslim society itself, if they in any way value the freedom they possess by being Indian (Sure, it wont help them get a travel visa any more easily, but travel and compare it themselves after they get that visa).
Islamic fundamentalists are conditioned to see “religion” where sensible people don’t. Apparently, their Islam can survive only by keeping “non-Muslim” influences out. Ramayan and Mahabharat are celebrated legends in Muslim Indonesia. Is that religion’? Eulogizing motherland (it is ‘mother’ land!) as mother divine is not religion — it is culture. It was a part of Indian culture long before some Indians were converted to Islam and Arab culture was imposed on them (especially the ‘culture’ of intolerance for native symbols of reverence.)
A nation is not merely a collection of individuals owing allegiance to the Constitution (even if that!) History, culture, legends, myths, folklore, symbols etc bind people of a nation emotionally together. Many Indians fought for freedom with ‘Vande Mataram’ on their lips. It was the war cry of a people who fought for freedom peacefully — not by strapping RDX to their waists. Vande Mataram is not merely a song, it is synonymous with our freedom struggle. The least the mad mullahs issuing fatwas against this song can do is exercise their right not to be Indian. Surely, they will be very welcome in Saudi Arabia.
The fatwa is ridiculous. This is secularism gone mad. It is important to note where this divisive zeal comes from. I believe it has more to do with politics than blasphemy.
Most of our laws and social practices are based on religion. Mostly the Christian religion. Thus we rest on the day the Christian god deemed that we must. Imagine if all of us went up in arms over this religious fact.
The concept of secularism itself is rooted in Christianity. The belief is that there is a kingdom of God and a kingdom of man. The Catholic church held sway over both, to start with. The Protestant revolution wrested power from the Church and declared that the kingdom of man must be governed by non-clerics (seculars) although the Church continued to have huge influence in all matters. The Enlightenment made further inroads into the authority of the church and redrew the lines between religious and secular. But in the final analysis, all of this is mostly smoke and mirrors. It is impossible to separate politics and religion. Most of US politics for example is religiously motivated – abortion, gay issues, middle east policy etc.
By contrast, Hindus, Jains, Buddhists do not separate the world into a kingdom of god and a kingdom of men. All of life is goverened by dharma. However, we embrace the concept of secularism – by redefining it to mean non-communal. But secularism is by no means a religion-neutral concept. It is a sham to talk of neutrality and secular ideals in the same breath.
Nitin, Divya (the first and the second), Gaurav, Zeus, History, Sachin, Prasoon: great stuff! Someone could organize the thoughts presented on this page into a pretty authoritative debate on the issue.
Sachin,
Under Indian law (The Flag Code and the Emblems and Names Act) abuse of national symbols is a punishable offence. The Flag Code suggests the right way to treat the flag, but is more in the line of recommendations. I think this is good both in principle and in practice.
Prasoon and others,
The literal religious connotation of national symbols (eg chakra on flag, Lion capital of Sarnath, Vande Mataram, and for that matter the Tiger, Peacock and Lotus) are about as redundant as the literal interpretation of Tagore’s Jana Gana Mana. Once these have been chosen as the symbols of a secular state, then they should be seen as such. Personally, I think it is the spirit that counts. But that’s my personal view. I would like everyone to see it this way. I can try to do so by education and argument. I can even try to do so through legal or legislative means. But if the law does not permit it, and I do not think it should (on the grounds of individual freedom), then I cannot compel anyone to see things as I do. If I were to do so, I would be just another issuer of fatwas.
Me too. The world would be a wonderful place if everyone made informed choices. However, an uneducated, largely illiterate and unmodern population didn’t deter our founding fathers from extending universal suffrage. That’s how it is.
Prasoon,
First I do know the history of Vande Matram inspite of what you might believe. Yes I am aware that AnandMatha is a temple of Kali, if that is your criteria then Sanskirt Sholokas have to be banned, because guess what, they are all from “Hindu” scriptures (Unless you believe that it was Jawahar Lal Nehru in previous birth who wrote these world of wisdom)
Second if secularism is your criteria then the Indian republic can not claim any symbol from the past becuase our past was religious (it might astound you but secularism is a recent ideal and judging from the intellectual jugglery adherent to this ideal play, a very questionable one).
Frankly speaking this whole argument of applying secularism to history and attempt to partition culture into neat secular and non -secular compartments is a non sensical idea. This fetish of secularism is meaningless and incorrect.
Britain and scores of western states have a cross on its flag does it mean that they celebrate christianity ? What next, Fatwa against lighting lamp before state ceremonies because it is a Hindu tradition !(I think it has already happened, one gentlemen from “secular” muslim league threw a hissy fit some years back on this issue)
Third Bankim Chandra was not anti muslim, he was a nationalist and a leading light of Hindu renaissance, he spoke against Muslim radicalism and excesses of Muslim rulers *,if “secular atheists” had the sense to listen to him, India would not have seen partition. I am seriously concerned with individuals who manipulate history just to fit their rosy world view.
The opposition to Vande Matram is not a recent phenomenan, it was raised by the same elements whose world view caused the partition.The reason “Jana Gana Mana” was chosen over “Vande Matram” is that “Indian Secularists/Atheists” have appeasement (of self proclaimed minorities)as their belief
* I did not raise this point earlier because I believed it was unneccessary, but the way some “worthies” are casting aspersion on a man of Bankim Chandra’s stature I had no option.
Excellent Gaurav. no doubt that this crusade to partition history and tradition into “secular” and “non-secular” is quite ludicrous. Our ancestors had no such notion and if we try to apply our ridiculous metrics on them we are bound to fall flat on our face.
btw Bankim rocks!!
who ever thinks ill of him or Indian tradition is free to migrate to saudi Arabia or pakistan or china or lala land wherever, just get lost and don’t bother us patriotic Indians anymore.
@Gaurav
People interpret the same issue in different ways.You say that Bankim Chandra was not anti-muslim.He was only against muslim radicalism.May be or may be not .But the point is -others (including many muslims) perceive him and interpret his writings to be anti Muslim.So what is the solution then ?
Be inclusive as far as possible.
You suggest that if “secular atheists†had the sense to listen to him, India would not have seen partition.But I thought that apart from other factors like the British divide and rule policy,this type of competitive hindu-muslim politics (and polemics) led to partition.
Nitin,
Its good that you have read the book by VP Menon. The book is a landmark as well as a very important reminder. This Republic we take so much for granted today, with gentlemen or gentle ladies making comments such as : u sound like India not disintegrating is more importatn than individual freedom.
was largely forged by the great efforts of the iron man with his equally great deputy Menon. The Sardar showed his mettle with Junagadh and Hyderabad, and could have done a great job with Kashmir as well but Nehru kept him out and handled it alone. We still live the consequences of that.
As for Vande Mataram, it was a great and inspiring song of the freedom movement, much loved and sung by the Indian nationalists. The entire freedom movement was overwhelmingly Hindu in character with hindu symbols and leaders dominating. So, this charge of communalism, largely cooked up by the muslim league is redundant.
Reading the VP Menons book, I hope you would have come to realize that the Sardar’s way was far more effective and produced results than the waffle of Nehru. I link this audacity of the muslims to proclaim fatwas against Vande Mataram with Nehru’s waffling response to the muslims post – partition.
Regards.
Pankaj,
I came to realise that Sardar’s way was more effective long before reading Menon’s book.
But what I write in this post has nothing to do with political secularism, or indeed about fatwas. But rather it is about individual freedoms and organised patriotism.
History,
I think I am inclusive as far as possible, but disparaging national symbols is where I draw the line. To say that singing national song is equivalent to religious worship and hence a violation of tenents of Islam or any religion is hogwash.Some years back some children of Jehovah’s witnesses had refused to sing Jana Gana Mana or salute the National flag because it violates their religiois tenents, they were summarily dismissed. In reality there is only so much latitude one can give.I would react similarly if someone asked Hindus not to sing “Sare Jahan Se Accha… ” (A beautiful poem) because Iqbal supported Pakistan.
When People talk about inclinations of Iqbal or Bankim Chandra, they forget what power these symbols had for our freedom fighters. I consider the attempt to brand Vande Mataram communal a insult to freedom struggle.
However as I said earlier I do not want such people jailed (which will make martyrs of such unworthies) but socially reprimanded (and not mollycoddled because they happen to belong to “minorities”). Peer pressure as a corrective measure is mostly unappreciated.
Regarding Hindu-Muslim polemics, if you mean to imply that Mahatma Gandhi and Sardar Patel were Hindu leaders (also levelled by many “conservative” muslims before partition) then yes it was, otherwise partition was result of inability of certain Muslim intelletual (predominantly from United Provinces and Bengal) to reconcile with an idea of India where the nature of authority will be predominantly Hindu.
Regards
Nitin,
While I do understand Gaurav’s POV, I am in complete agreement with your point. Those who do not want to sing the song should NOT sing it. There is an Issue only when someone starts proclaiming fatwas against it or organizing a movement against Vande Mataram to deride and abuse it. I think we must all protest when it comes to that.
We must understand the great history of the song and the reverance with which it was held at the time of our freedom movement. It would do much to prevent all the fake histories from dominating, as has been presented here by noted worthies.
For everyone’s information, Vande Mataram has a status equal to the national anthem. This link would be very informative.
http://parliamentofindia.nic.in/ls/debates/vol12p1.htm
Thanks and Best Regards.
Gaurav,
OT…
I am not sure why you think partition was a bad thing. Being an alternative history guy, I actually think partition, when it happened, was the best thing that happened to India despite the decades old terror and hatred that is spewed from across the western and eastern borders.
Partition got rid of most of the self-selected intolerant non-secularists (there will always be more). Imagine 850 million non-Muslims and 450+ million Muslims (65:35 ratio) packed in one country. Mix in the Congress I politics of appeasement, unequal laws, reservations, and vote bank. A 1945 India would be a dead waste land right now with far more killing than during partition and probably would have been spilt right in the middle at some latter date. It is also possible that there would be have been no al-qaeda or the taliban (without Pakistan). But radicalist Islam from the middle east would have knocked on non-partitioned India with even a bigger thud.
Pakistan, even better – a broken apart Pakistan, is the best thing that happened to current India.
Quoting, Alok Patel –
“Had there been a debate on how the Indian Army was really doing in Kashmir, any possible violations would have been rooted out far before Pakistan could take advantage of the situation there. But we kept silent and kept thinking everything was alright. History now tells us we were not.
There will always be a very small group of people who will put their (and their religious) interests above that of the country. They cannot be rooted out and should not be. US foreign policy on the Middle East is virtually dictated by American Jews and as has been demonstrated by now, it hasn’t always gone in the US’s favour in the long term.”
Do enlighten, Sir. What had the Indian Army been doing in Kashmir, which caused the militants/jehadis/terrorists/freedom fighters to unleash murder and mayhem in 1989?
Increasingly I have noticed this tendency amongst my compatriots to blame Israel in particular and the global Jewry in general for all midlle eastern ills. I wouldn’t be surprised if one day soon, the Jews get blamed for the problems in our own backyard.
So this is the first step for Indians becoming dhimmis.
An excerpt from http://tinyurl.com/dofdd
“Making a pig’s ear of defending democracy
By Mark Steyn
(Filed: 04/10/2005)
A year and a half ago, I mentioned in this space the Florentine Boar, a famous piece of porcine statuary in Derby that the council had decided not to have repaired on the grounds that it would offend Muslims. Having just seen Looney Tunes: Back in Action, in which Porky Pig mentions en passant that Warner Bros has advised him to lose the stammer, I wondered if for the British release it might be easier just to lose the pig.
Alas, the United Kingdom’s descent into dhimmitude is beyond parody. Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council (Tory-controlled) has now announced that, following a complaint by a Muslim employee, all work pictures and knick-knacks of novelty pigs and “pig-related items” will be banned. Among the verboten items is one employee’s box of tissues, because it features a representation of Winnie the Pooh and Piglet. And, as we know, Muslims regard pigs as “unclean”, even an anthropomorphised cartoon pig wearing a scarf and a bright, colourful singlet.
Cllr Mahbubur Rahman is in favour of the blanket pig crackdown. “It is a good thing, it is a tolerance and acceptance of their beliefs and understanding,” he said. That’s all, folks, as Porky Pig used to stammer at the end of Looney Tunes. Just a little helpful proscription in the interests of tolerance and acceptance.
“
[...] In an interesting piece Nitin defends the right not to sing Vande Mataram in the name of personal freedom. Though I broadly agree with his interpretation, I feel he has missed a couple of important points. First, this freedom is not available to any one else, for example we have not given the right to any citizen to burn the national flag. Till this right is non-sectarian and broad based it cannot be claimed. Second, this is no longer about individual rights. Because of the involvement of the Muslim Clerics, it has metamorphosed into a narrow community based issue. It is no longer about individual beliefs, but about a value system being orchestrated by those who claim they can decide for others. In the name of individual freedom such blatant interferences must be resisted. [...]
Yet another interesting case in the US was the one about the Pledge of Allegiance, where a father maintained that and how the words “under God” added to the Pledge in 1954 were in gross violation of constitutional rights. The father’s stand – the words “under God” was an unconstitutional “endorsement of religion”. The case was rejected by the Supreme Court in 2004, on terms of technicality. The court never addressed the question of separating church and state.
In 2005, a federal judge declared that reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools was unconstitutional.
A U.S. district judge ruled that the phrase violates children’s right to be “free from a coercive requirement to affirm God.” The issue is expected to return to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Bazargan, we, Indians, are already a long way towards becoming dhimmis. It’s Europes turn now and eventually US. Then minorities will have not rights in Islamic land whereas minorities will trimumph, in the name of tolerance, in the rest of the lands. Nice little formula.
I also wonder what the little towns in Britain would have said if the local Jews had a similar complain about pigs. I can just imagine.
On a somewhat different note, I am surprised that no-one has brought up devout Muslim AR Rahman’s approach to the Vande Mataram issue. Rahman is evidently of the view that the second line of the song is in some tension with his individual religious principles; yet he has a beautiful song called “Maa Tujhe Salaam” wherein “Vande Mataram” is a refrain; note that the “…I bow to thee” language hs been replaced by “Maa Tujhe Salaam” (i.e. “Hail to you, Mother”). As I read it it’s an interesting approach, signalling that for many of us the fact that certain lines in a certain song offend us does not mean that we cannot show equal patriotism in other ways.
Nitin,
The tone of the argument fundamentally unrealistic and immature.
What you have here is not a matter of choice.
It is utter blindness to take this fatwa in isolation and merely invent your own notions of propriety and choice and use those notions to analyze this case.
The purpose of the futwah is obviously not merely a matter of personal religious discipline. And We know pretty well the consequences of this “religious sentiment” in the creation of pukeland and the ongoing battle in Kashmir.
Let all of us hindu, muslim or christian realize, that our religious freedom is guaranteed by an act of national will. The kafir is fighting to protect the religious freedom of the momin. The unity of India is not a simple and trivial matter. Let it not be trivialized by the secularized apologists of the monstrous futwahs.
By all means individual preferences will prevail. There is no way I can enforce one variety of patriotism or another. But if the ulema of the momin has to proclaim his alligence to religion in this manner, let him in the same breath proclaim his stronger alligence to India. Or at the very least declare he has no intentions to remain an Indian citizen.
[...] In an interesting piece Nitin defends the right not to sing Vande Mataram in the name of personal freedom. Though I broadly agree with his interpretation, I feel he has missed a couple of important points. First, this freedom is not available to any one else, for example we have not given the  right to any citizen to burn the national flag. Till this right is non-sectarian and broad based it cannot be claimed. Second, this is no longer about individual rights. Because of the involvement of the Muslim Clerics, it has metamorphosed into a narrow community based issue. It is no longer about individual beliefs, but about a value system being orchestrated by those who claim they can decide for others. In the name of individual freedom such blatant interferences must be resisted. [...]