Vande Mataram: Revered, Not a Political Plaything

When the Lok Sabha convened to discuss Vande Mataram, the nation expected more than political theatre. This was meant to be a moment to reflect on a song that has shaped India’s identity, a chance to honour a symbol that has inspired generations, and an opportunity to demonstrate that parliamentary debate can rise above mere partisanship. Instead, the discussion quickly devolved after Priyanka Gandhi Vadra directed personal remarks at Prime Minister Narendra Modi. What could have been a solemn engagement with history became yet another example of how national symbols are too often dragged into performative politics, exposing the decline of dignity in legislative discourse.

Vande Mataram is not simply a patriotic song; it is a historical emblem that accompanied India’s struggle for freedom. Penned by Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay in the late 19th century, it was sung at countless rallies, protests, and marches, infusing courage and hope into ordinary citizens who shared little but a vision of an independent India. Figures such as Subhas Chandra Bose and Aurobindo Ghose drew inspiration from its verses, and it became a unifying anthem across linguistic, religious, and regional divides. To debate such a symbol without acknowledging its moral and historical weight is to risk trivialising the collective memory of a nation. Criticism in a democracy is vital, but when it targets the emotional core of national identity, it loses moral authority. This is exactly what unfolded in the recent Lok Sabha exchange: personal attacks overshadowed serious argument.

Priyanka Gandhi’s remarks highlighted a disconnect between the gravity of the topic and the tone of intervention. Whether intentional or not, the comments clashed with the sentiments of millions who regard Vande Mataram as a force of unity. Across India, and particularly in the Northeast, young citizens increasingly view national symbols as essential markers of self-respect and cultural rootedness. Leaders invoking such symbols are expected to exercise restraint, sincerity, and a sense of shared responsibility, rather than using them as instruments of political point-scoring. The government’s response, emphasising the sanctity of national symbols, resonated widely precisely because it reflected this broader cultural expectation.

Parliamentary discourse today unfolds under relentless scrutiny. Every word is circulated, dissected, and amplified within minutes through media and social platforms. Gone are the days when a sharp remark remained confined to official records. Today, a single phrase can dominate public discussion for weeks. In this environment, emotive attacks may generate applause from partisan supporters, but they undermine the long-term purpose of debate: reasoned dialogue, intellectual contestation, and the advancement of ideas. India’s parliamentary history is rich with leaders who combined ideological rigour with profound respect for national values—from the eloquence of N.G. Goray to the principled debates of Atal Bihari Vajpayee. Reclaiming that ethos is essential to restoring the dignity of discussion.

The political and cultural climate of the last decade has further raised public expectations. The government has emphasised heritage conservation, promotion of indigenous languages, traditional knowledge systems, and civilisational identity. Initiatives such as national heritage corridors, museum renovations, digital archiving, and regional festival promotion signal a broader ambition: to foster cultural self-confidence and assert India’s civilisational narrative globally. Opposition strategies that dismiss or ridicule national symbols increasingly appear out of step with citizens who see cultural pride as integral to national progress.

Dissent remains vital to democracy, but it gains legitimacy only when rooted in facts, alternatives, and constructive vision rather than provocation. There is a profound difference between critiquing government policy and undermining symbols that embody the nation’s collective memory. Political leaders addressing Vande Mataram must do so with sensitivity and responsibility. While the remarks by Priyanka Gandhi may have energised her political base, they did little to enhance the moral or intellectual weight of the opposition’s position.

The consequences of politicising national symbols extend beyond Parliament. Public trust in democratic institutions, social cohesion, and civic responsibility are all influenced by how leaders conduct themselves in high-profile debates. Treating unifying symbols as tools for political gain risks eroding the reverence citizens hold for them, particularly younger generations, who are forming their understanding of citizenship and national identity.

Restoring dignity in debate requires discipline and intention. Leaders must prioritise substance over spectacle, empathy over antagonism, and historical understanding over

fleeting applause. Constructive engagement with national symbols, informed by historical research and cultural insight, enhances credibility and inspires trust. A discussion of Vande Mataram grounded in its historical and cultural significance could have united citizens across ideological divides, reaffirming the value of Parliament as a forum for reasoned dialogue rather than theatrical display.

India now stands at a critical crossroads, where cultural confidence, civic responsibility, and political accountability intersect. The treatment of national symbols in parliamentary debate is not trivial; it reflects the maturity of democratic practice. Leaders bear a moral duty to ensure that debate elevates public discourse rather than degrades it. The Vande Mataram episode serves as a lesson: the power of symbols lies not in how they are exploited for politics but in how they are honoured, debated responsibly, and integrated into the moral imagination of the nation.

For India’s youth, especially in the Northeast, the lesson is clear: national symbols are not props for political theatre. They are threads connecting citizens across time, space, and ideology. Parliament, as the highest forum of democratic deliberation, must honour these threads, demonstrating that reasoned debate and cultural respect can coexist. Only by upholding this principle can India reclaim the dignity of its discourse, ensuring that symbols like Vande Mataram continue to inspire unity, courage, and pride for generations to come.