Gist of daily Article /the Hindu/Indian Exp : 19 Feb 2026

Based on the article by Shashi Tharoor, the argument against forcing people to sing Vande Mataram is centered on the idea that true patriotism comes from the heart, not from a government order.

Religious Beliefs:

While the first part of the song celebrates nature, the later verses use Hindu religious imagery (referring to goddesses like Durga and Lakshmi). For some groups, such as Muslims, Christians, or atheists, singing these verses might conflict with their personal faith or beliefs.

Patriotism Cannot Be Forced:

The author argues that patriotism is a “sentiment of the heart.” When a state forces someone to perform a verbal act of loyalty, it actually weakens the meaning behind the song. It turns a gesture of love into a “mandated drill.”

The “Right to be Silent”:

The article references a famous 1986 Supreme Court case (the “Jehovah’s Witness case”). The court ruled that as long as a person stands respectfully, remaining silent is not a sign of disrespect. True nationalism should be broad enough to include:

• The dissenter (those who disagree).
• The quiet observer (those who prefer not to sing).

Voluntary Reverence vs. Coercion:

The strength of a national symbol lies in the voluntary respect it inspires. If people are forced to sing under threat of punishment or social shunning, it creates friction rather than unity.

Counter View:

Secularism as Cultural, Not Religious:

One could argue that Vande Mataram is not a religious hymn but a cultural and personified tribute to the land.

• The Counter: In many cultures, the “Motherland” is personified (like “Mother Nature” or “Liberty”). Referring to the land as a mother or goddess is a literary device used to inspire deep respect for the soil that sustains us, rather than a demand to switch one’s religion.

Historical Debt and “Equal Status”:

Tharoor mentions that the Constituent Assembly gave Vande Mataram “equal status” to the National Anthem.

• The Counter: If it holds equal status, it should be treated with the same level of ceremony. Opponents argue that since this song was the “war cry” of the freedom struggle—the very song that inspired martyrs to face the gallows—refusing to sing it is seen as a dismissal of the sacrifices made for India’s independence.

 Unity through Shared Rituals:

Tharoor argues that diversity is found in many “varied notes.”

• The Counter: A nation needs common threads to bind its people together. If every group chooses to opt-out of national symbols based on personal interpretation, it could lead to fragmentation. Constant “exceptions” for different groups might weaken the collective identity that a national symbol is supposed to build.

Distinguishing “Silence” from “Objection”:

Tharoor relies on the 1986 Supreme Court case regarding the “right to be silent.”

• The Counter: Critics argue there is a difference between a small minority (like Jehovah’s Witnesses) having a specific, established theological tenet and a broad political movement using “silence” as a form of protest. They argue that if the intent of the silence is political defiance rather than genuine religious restriction, it harms the “sanctity” of the song that Tharoor himself claims to respect.

The “Minimum Standard” of Patriotism:

The argument against Tharoor’s “voluntary reverence” is that society requires certain civic duties.

• The Counter: We don’t make taxes or traffic laws voluntary based on “sentiment.” Proponents argue that singing the national song is a basic “minimum standard” of civic participation that demonstrates a citizen’s commitment to the state over their personal or communal preferences.

Summary of the Debate:

Tharoor’s Point	Common Counter-Argument
Individual Conscience	National Duty (State symbols precede personal preference)
Religious Imagery	Metaphorical Patriotism (It’s about the land, not a deity)
Right to Silence	Active Participation (Unity requires outward expression)
Avoid Coercion	Establish Standards (Consistency prevents social fragmentation)

Balanced perspectives:

The Argument for Encouragement/Mandate:

Proponents believe that certain symbols are necessary to bind a diverse nation together.

• Historical Legacy: Vande Mataram was the rallying cry of the Indian freedom struggle. Supporters argue that honoring the song is not about religion, but about acknowledging the blood and sacrifice of those who died with these words on their lips.
• Civic Duty: Article 51A of the Constitution lists “Fundamental Duties,” including respect for the Constitution, the National Flag, and the National Anthem. Many argue that a “National Song” (accorded equal status in 1950) inherently deserves the same active participation.
• Secular Nationalism: From this view, the “Mother” being praised is the soil, the rivers, and the geography of India. It is a metaphorical goddess, similar to “Lady Liberty” in the US or “Marianne” in France—a way to love one’s country without literal idol worship.

The Argument for Choice (The Tharoor View):

Opponents believe that forcing patriotism actually destroys its value.

• Freedom of Conscience: India is a secular democracy. Forcing a citizen to perform a ritual that feels religious (specifically the later stanzas of the song that mention Hindu deities like Durga and Lakshmi) can be seen as an overreach by the state.
• The Power of Silence: As established in the Bijoe Emmanuel (1986) Supreme Court case, standing respectfully but remaining silent is not an act of disrespect. It is a protected right.
• Genuine vs. Performance: This view holds that patriotism is a feeling. When it is mandated, it becomes a “box-ticking exercise” or a “ritual” rather than a sincere expression of love for the country.

Comparison Table: A Balanced View:

Feature	Support for Mandate	Support for Voluntary Use
Primary Value	Unity: Shared rituals create a strong, singular national identity.	Liberty: Freedom of choice reflects a truly confident democracy.
Interpretation	Cultural: It is a historical anthem of the land, not a prayer.	Personal: It has religious imagery that may conflict with certain faiths.
Goal	Remembrance: To ensure young generations don’t forget the freedom struggle.	Inclusion: To ensure that dissenters and minorities feel they belong without conforming.
Risk	Alienation: Forcing it might make some feel like “second-class” citizens.	Fragmentation: Total freedom might lead to a loss of shared national symbols.