Mumbai, May 8: Amit Malviya, head of the IT cell of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), has delivered a strong rebuttal to Asaduddin Owaisi, the leader of the All India Majlis-e-Ittehad-ul-Muslimeen (AIMIM), regarding his opposition to ‘Vande Mataram.’ Malviya stated that labeling ‘Vande Mataram’ as unconstitutional is intellectually dishonest and historically selective.
Owaisi has opposed the elevation of the national song ‘Vande Mataram’ to the status of the national anthem. He questioned the creator of ‘Vande Mataram,’ Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay, claiming that the author had sympathies for British rule and harbored animosity towards Muslims. He noted that prominent figures like Netaji Bose, Gandhi, Nehru, and Tagore had rejected ‘Vande Mataram.’
In a post on X, Owaisi wrote, “‘Vande Mataram’ is a hymn to a goddess. It cannot be equated with the national anthem. ‘Jana Gana Mana’ celebrates India and its people, not any particular religion.” He further asserted that religion and nation are not equivalent.
In response, Malviya emphasized that India belongs equally to all its citizens, and its civilizational heritage is also a shared legacy. He stated that ‘Vande Mataram’ is an integral part of that heritage.
Malviya wrote on X, “Legally and constitutionally, ‘Vande Mataram’ holds a respected place in India’s national life. The Constituent Assembly did not reject it. On January 24, 1950, the Assembly adopted ‘Jana Gana Mana’ as the national anthem while explicitly granting ‘Vande Mataram’ equal respect and status due to its historical role in India’s freedom struggle. To claim that the framers of the Constitution ‘rejected’ ‘Vande Mataram’ is factually incorrect.”
Addressing Owaisi’s assertion that ‘Vande Mataram’ is merely a hymn to a goddess, Malviya countered, “This argument deliberately ignores India’s civilizational context. In Indian traditions, the motherland has long been personified as ‘Bharat Mata,’ not as a communal goddess, but as a cultural and emotional expression of dedication to the nation. Nations worldwide use symbolism, metaphors, and personification. ‘Britannia’ represents Britain, ‘Marianne’ represents France, and ‘Mother Russia’ represents Russia. India’s cultural symbolism cannot be selectively deemed illegal simply because it originates from Indian civilization.”
Regarding Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay, Malviya stated, “Reducing Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay to caricatures linked to his alleged views while ignoring the historical significance of ‘Vande Mataram’ is an attempt at ideological revisionism. This song became a rallying cry for India’s anti-colonial movement. Countless freedom fighters faced the gallows while proclaiming ‘Vande Mataram.’ Revolutionaries, reformers, and patriots from various fields adopted it as a symbol of resistance against British rule. Its emotional and political significance cannot be erased by any ideological perspective.”
He further noted, “The rejection of amendments invoking deities in the Constituent Assembly confirmed that the Indian state would not establish any official religion. India did not need to abandon its civilizational values, cultural memories, or spiritual vocabulary for this. Secularism in India has never meant hostility towards indigenous traditions or the removal of majority cultural symbols from public life.”
Malviya also addressed Owaisi’s comments on religion and nation, stating, “The claim that religion is not nation is a false dichotomy in the Indian context. India is neither a theocratic state, nor does its nationalism depend on adherence to a single religion. However, India is undoubtedly a civilization shaped by thousands of years of Indian thought, traditions, symbols, and philosophy. Honoring ‘Vande Mataram’ does not make India any less constitutional, democratic, or inclusive. It merely acknowledges the cultural spirit that invigorated the freedom struggle and continues to inspire millions today.”
Leave a Comment