Critics of the Vande Mataram Bill argue that the Constituent Assembly decided to recognise only its first two stanzas as the National Song, and extending recognition to the complete composition violates the constitutional foundations laid by the Assembly. Does the Constituent Assembly’s decision to use only the first two stanzas carry binding constitutional or legal force? Was this decision formally incorporated into the Constitution, or does it remain part of constitutional history surrounding the adoption of the National Song? If Parliament passes a Bill giving the complete text of Vande Mataram official status, would such legislation be open to judicial review on the ground that it departs from the Assembly’s decision?
— K Shenbaganathan, Anna Nagar, Chennai
The adoption of Vande Mataram in this country has a chequered history. Written in 1870 and inserted by Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay in his novel Anandamath in 1882, it had a tinge of religious overtones, with verses depicting Lakshmi, Saraswati and Durga representing wealth, learning and valour respectively. It was sung on public platforms of the Congress to rouse the patriotic spirit. When the Congress came to power in 1937, an attempt was made to adopt it as the National Song. At the Calcutta session, leaders agreed to adopt only the first two stanzas, leaving out references to Hindu deities so that people of all religions could sing it. The present contention that this slicing was done under British pressure is unfounded. Later in the Constituent Assembly, Vande Mataram competed to take the place of the National Anthem.
However, the Assembly, presided over by Dr Rajendra Prasad, resolved to accept Jana Gana Mana as the National Anthem by a unanimous decision. After 75 years, the Modi government appears bent on reversing history, passing a law to declare Vande Mataram a National Song in its full form, with disrespect carrying a penalty of three years in jail. The Kerala government has already declared that only the first two stanzas are acceptable. Instead of uniting India, this move to compel the singing of the complete text, including the praise of Hindu goddesses, risks having a divisive effect, which aligns with the BJP government's agenda.
Can a person holding a constitutional office, such as that of the Speaker, publicly speak or act against abortion rights that are legally protected in India? Some argue that as a high constitutional office-holder, the Speaker is expected to uphold secular principles, and that attending a religiously backed rally calling for an abortion ban could raise questions about neutrality. On the other hand, there is a view that merely participating in a religious meeting or expressing support for a particular position on abortion falls within personal freedom. Does holding a constitutional office impose any additional restrictions on personal views, speech or participation in such events?
— R Kannagi, Chetpet, Chennai
A woman’s right to abortion is a constitutional right declared by the Supreme Court of India in this country. Despite that, there are religious notions that creation is God’s will and no one has the right to put an end to it.
In the last century, Annie Besant was punished by a British Magistrate for propagating small family norms, as it went against religious tenets. In the US recently (2022), the US Supreme Court reversed a 1973 verdict which gave women full rights to abortion.
However, our country’s laws are more progressive, and our Supreme Court is far more advanced in this regard. We should ignore some lawmakers attending their religious meetings and trying to reverse this constitutional right. Their voices are merely reminiscent of the past.