EDITS | Tuesday, November 17, 2009 | Email | Print | 
Going back to square one
A Surya Prakash
The resolution adopted by Jamiat Ulama-e-Hind at its annual conference at Deoband endorsing the fatwa of the Darul Uloom Islamic Seminary that Muslims should not recite Vande Mataram because it is against the religious principles of Islam, has once again reminded us of how some people can disturb the secular rhythm of India by raking up issues which were settled long years ago when we adopted our Constitution and chose to become a democratic republic.
Even more annoying is the fact that the arguments that are now being advanced against the National Song by Muslim leaders, is a rehash of the arguments that were put forth by the Muslim League when it demanded the country’s partition. Mohammed Ali Jinnah raised a dispute over the National Flag, Vande Mataram and Hindi while addressing delegates at the Muslim League Conference in 1937. He argued that the flag, the song and the language were all Hindu symbols and that, therefore, they were unacceptable to the Muslims. Anxious to avert partition, India’s political leaders offered to treat only the first two stanzas of Vande Mataram — which describes the bounteous gifts that nature has showered on India — as the National Song. But, despite this and many other concessions offered to him, Jinnah achieved his ambition of vivisecting the country and carving out an Islamic state a decade after he announced his opposition to Vande Mataram, the tricolour and Hindi.
However, despite the partition and the creation of a separate Muslim state, secular India’s political leadership, in deference to the religious sensitivities of the Muslims who chose to stay back in India, decided to retain only the first two stanzas of Vande Mataram as the National Song. It is therefore sad to see present day Muslim clerics — all citizens of secular, democratic India — echoing the views of Jinnah, who wanted the communal division of India.
We need to ask those who oppose Vande Mataram as to what their objection is. Here is Sri Aurobindo’s translation of the first two stanzas: Mother, I bow to thee!
Rich with thy hurrying streams, bright with orchard gleams, cool with thy hands of delight, dark fields waving Mother of might, Mother free; Glory of moonlight dreams, Over thy branches and lordly streams, Clad in thy blossoming trees, Mother, giver of ease, laughing bow and sweet!; Mother, I kiss thy feet, Speaker sweet and low!
Mother, to thee I bow.
Pray, what is the problem with this song? This is an ode to our motherland which talks of the abundant riches that nature has showered on her including the many rivers, the lush fields and the trees in full bloom. Poets in hundreds of languages have, over many centuries, paid such eulogies to nature and to their lands of birth. Shall we all now begin to view the work of every poet through the prism of religion and expurgate much of the poetry that is taught in our schools?
India’s founding fathers and Constitution makers had no doubt in their minds about the exalted status that the people accorded to Vande Mataram. Just take a look at what transpired in the Constituent Assembly on the day India became independent and on the day its members signed the first copies of the Constitution. The Constituent Assembly met at 11 pm on August 14, 1947. This historic session, which marked the transfer of power from Britain at the stroke of midnight, began with the signing of the first verse of Vande Mataram by Sucheta Kripalani. The session concluded with Kripalani singing the first lines of Sare Jahan Se Accha and the first verse of Jana Gana Mana. The Constituent Assembly met for the last time on January 24, 1950. This meeting began with a statement by its President, Rajendra Prasad on the National Anthem. Prasad said: “The composition consisting of the words and music known as Jana Gana Mana is the National Anthem of India …………and the song Vande Mataram, which has played a historic part in the struggle for Indian freedom, shall be honoured equally with Jana Gana Mana and shall have equal status with it. I hope this will satisfy the members”.
The meeting ended with members signing the English and Hindi copies of the Constitution. After the signing ceremony was over, Purnima Banerji and other members sang Jana Gana Mana. This was followed by Vande Mataram sung by Pandit Lakshmi Kanta Maitra and other members, after which the Assembly adjourned sine die. Thus, the Constituent Assembly, which wrote the Constitution, declared that Vande Mataram “shall be honoured equally with Jana Gana Mana and shall have equal status with it”. This is non-negotiable. Nobody can now be allowed to re-open this issue or to show disrespect to the National Song.
Jamait Ulama e-Hind’s stand may be compatible with an Islamic state, but it is certainly against the fundamental tenets of a democracy like India. The Preamble to the Constitution expects all citizens to promote fraternity. Further, the chapter on Fundamental Duties says it is the duty of every citizen “to promote harmony and the spirit of common brotherhood amongst all the people of India transcending religious, linguistic and regional or sectional diversities”.
National symbols offer a point of convergence in a democracy whose citizens belong to different races, cultures, languages and religious persuasions. When the polity is so diverse, as in India, the national flag and the national songs constitute the focal point of unity and act as the secular adhesive that holds the mosaic together.
It is through these devices that fraternity and common brotherhood are achieved. What prevents those who question Vande Mataram from raising a dispute tomorrow about Jana Gana Mana or the National Flag? If Vande Mataram is ‘un-Islamic’, is Jana Gana Mana compatible with tenets of that religion? What about the Asoka Chakra inside the National Flag and the tricolour itself? Shall we now await the verdict of the mullahs on the Ashoka Chakra and on the colours of the flag? We just cannot grant this veto power to Muslim clerics in a secular, democratic country. Nor can we take minority rights to such lofty heights that they begin to dwarf the few secular symbols that unite us all.
Email | Print | Rate:
|