When Patriotism Becomes an Order: The Constitutional Question Behind Vande Mataram

The argument about Vande Mataram, which has kept Parliament and various state legislatures occupied for the last few weeks, is, at its core, not really about a song. Behind the political theatre lies a more difficult question: whether the state can mandate patriotic expression without violating the Constitution’s promises about individual freedom.

The controversy intensified when the Union government issued directives in January requiring all six stanzas of Vande Mataram to be sung at official functions with mandatory standing. It marked a significant departure from seven decades of settled practice. For most of independent India’s existence, only the first two stanzas had been performed at state events. This wasn’t administrative convenience or historical accident. It was a deliberate constitutional compromise, one that has now become a central point of contention.

The Religious at the Heart of the Song

To completely comprehend the surrounding argument, it is necessary to explore the song’s structure. Bankim Chandra Chatterjee wrote Vande Mataram in the 1870s, filling it with rich theological imagery that invokes deities like Durga and Lakshmi while seeing the motherland through the perspective of the Hindu pantheon. The early verses contain enough poetic ambiguity to allow for metaphorical interpretation; the following stanzas take on a more obvious religious tone.

This religious foundation raised reasonable concerns among residents whose religious traditions prohibited the union of spiritual devotion and national sentiment—a truth recognised by India’s political leadership for almost a century. 

In 1937, the Congress Working Committee resolved this problem by consulting with Rabindranath Tagore, the composer of Jana Gana Mana. He offered measured advice: preserve the opening verses for national use, allow the fuller theological expression to remain as cultural heritage rather than state ceremony. Jawaharlal Nehru later wrote that while he found the entire composition unobjectionable, he understood the concerns of those who experienced its theology differently.

By 1950, when Rajendra Prasad announced the final arrangement, the framework seemed elegant: Jana Gana Mana would serve as the national anthem, Vande Mataram would hold equal symbolic importance, and neither would be subject to legal compulsion. The compromise held for three-quarters of a century.

How a Long-Standing Constitutional Settlement Was Disrupted

The new directives issued this January, framed around commemorating 150 years of the song, have altered this arrangement. State governments have moved quickly to implement the expanded protocols. Uttar Pradesh announced plans to mandate singing in all educational institutions. Similar measures followed in other jurisdictions. Within weeks, what was presented as honouring the song’s legacy became a test of compliance.

Islamic organisations have filed formal objections, with the Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind describing the directive as a violation of constitutional protections for religious conscience. Education boards have reported confusion about implementation. Schools are navigating the gap between new government mandates and settled constitutional law.

What has not been adequately examined in the current discourse is what the Constitution actually permits on this question.

The Supreme Court’s Clear Limits on Enforced Patriotism

The landmark judgment remains Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala, decided by the Supreme Court in 1986. Three Jehovah’s Witness students were expelled from a school in Kerala for refusing to sing the national anthem on the grounds of religious conscience. The expulsion, they argued, violated their fundamental rights. The Court agreed.

Justice O. Chinnappa Reddy’s reasoning has proven durable across subsequent decades: “No provision of law obliges anyone to sing.” The judgment found that Articles 19 and 25 of the Constitution, protecting freedom of speech and freedom of conscience respectively, extend to the right not to participate in patriotic ritual. The state may demand respectful standing during the anthem. It cannot demand active participation in singing.

The Court’s reasoning held that compelled patriotic expression fundamentally contradicts the purpose it purports to serve. Patriotism extracted through state coercion loses whatever authenticity it might claim. Respect manufactured through legal obligation becomes mere performance.

The judgment remains good law. Its reasoning remains uncontradicted by subsequent case law.

What the Constitution Allows and What It Forbids

Articles 14, 15, 19, and 25 form a protective framework around individual liberty regarding matters of conscience and expression. Article 25 guarantees freedom to profess, practice, and propagate religion. Article 19(1)(a) protects freedom of speech and expression, a guarantee that jurisprudence has extended to include the right to silence.

These protections do not suggest that Vande Mataram lacks importance or deserves less respect. They establish something narrower and more precise: that the state’s authority to compel its expression has constitutional limits.

The distinction matters, particularly in educational contexts. Schools occupy a unique constitutional space. They are instruments of state policy, yet also spaces where students develop fundamental understandings of citizenship and belonging. When the state mandates a particular form of patriotic expression in these environments, it implicitly conditions full membership in the national community on conformity to that expression.

Why Coerced Patriotism Fails

Consider what occurs when patriotic expression becomes mandatory. In schools where students come from different religious traditions, mandatory singing of verses with explicit theological content creates a practical problem: participation becomes either an act of religious compromise or defiance of state authority. Neither outcome serves genuine patriotism.

Moreover, there is substantial evidence that compelled patriotic expression produces the opposite of its intended effect. Students who experience mandatory patriotic rituals as violations of their conscience often develop alienation rather than stronger national identification. The attempt to legislate emotional attachment to the nation frequently backfires, particularly among religious minorities who experience such legislation as implicit statements about whose patriotism the state trusts.

The Constitution’s architects understood this implicitly. They built protections for individual conscience precisely because they grasped that genuine patriotism cannot be manufactured. It must emerge from voluntary identification with the nation’s constitutional values.

A Question of Constitutional Balance

For‌‍ seven decades, India maintained a system that both acknowledged the historical and emotional significance of Vande Mataram and, at the same time, safeguarded the citizens from being compelled by the state to perform‌‍ ‍it.

That balance resulted in a particular understanding of patriotism in a constitutional democracy: a love for one’s country expressed through loyalty to the constitutional principles rather than through the forced submission to the rituals that are prescribed and imposed by the‌‍ ‍‌state.

The current directives represent a deliberate narrowing of this arrangement. They test whether the state can expand its authority over patriotic expression without encountering constitutional resistance.

The courts have already answered this question. Whether political actors will regard that answer as binding remains to be seen. But the Constitution’s position is unambiguous: patriotism functions best when chosen rather than compelled. The moment it becomes a legal obligation, something fundamental about its meaning changes.

Whether that distinction still matters, whether the Constitution’s protection of conscience in these matters will be honoured, may well determine how Indian citizens experience their relationship to the nation in the years ahead.