Defence Minister Rajnath Singh has intensified the political debate over Vande Mataram, accusing the Congress of taking an “unconstitutional” and “reprehensible” position by standing by its 1937 decision to restrict the singing of the national song to its first two stanzas.
In a video message shared on social media, Singh questioned whether the Congress’s position was consistent with respect for the Constitution and India’s national symbols. He argued that decisions and laws made through Parliament must be followed.
Singh said that refusing to follow such provisions could raise questions about an individual’s commitment to the Constitution. He also linked the debate over Vande Mataram to the broader issue of patriotism.
Why Is The 1937 Congress Resolution Back In The Spotlight?
The controversy centres on a Congress resolution passed in 1937 concerning the use of Vande Mataram. The party has recently reaffirmed that historical position, bringing the issue back into the centre of political debate.
Singh criticised the decision and argued that the Congress had made compromises in the past to accommodate the Muslim League. He claimed that such political concessions contributed to divisions that eventually played a role in the circumstances leading to Partition.
“Compromising with radical elements has always proven fatal for the country,” Singh said while attacking the Congress’s position.
The Defence Minister further described the 1937 decision as a warning and accused the Congress of following what he sees as a similar approach towards “radical elements” in the present day.
BJP-Congress Clash Over National Song
The latest exchange comes as the BJP and Congress remain divided over how Vande Mataram should be treated and performed.
The BJP has been demanding greater recognition for the national song, while the Congress has defended its historical position regarding the first two stanzas.
The dispute has also reopened a wider discussion about the difference between Vande Mataram and Jana Gana Mana, India’s national anthem, and the historical circumstances surrounding both national symbols.
Singh’s latest remarks are therefore likely to add further political heat to an already sensitive debate involving nationalism, history, religion and the Constitution.
