Debate on a non-debatable issue

India is confronted with an extraordinary range of issues that demand urgent and substantive deliberation in parliament, the nation’s highest public forum. Inflation continues to erode household savings and purchasing power; unemployment, especially among the youth, remains a structural challenge; economic growth, while headline-strong, exhibits significant unevenness across sectors; and the crisis in Manipur-unresolved for more than a year-still looms over the nation as a troubling reminder of the fragility of social harmony. Equally pressing is the controversy surrounding the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) process undertaken by the Election Commission of India, which has raised serious questions about electoral integrity, voter roll accuracy, and institutional accountability. These are matters on which Parliament is expected to exercise its constitutional responsibility. Yet, despite this crowded and consequential agenda, the BJP government appears remarkably willing to devote disproportionate time and attention to debates around Vande Mataram. This is not the first instance in which symbolic or emotive issues have been foregrounded in the parliamentary space, but the persistence of this strategy warrants closer scrutiny. Vande Mataram (“I bow to thee, Mother”), India’s national song, holds an undeniable place in the country’s cultural and political history. Composed by Bankim Chandra Chatterjee in the 1870s and later included in his 1882 novel Anandamath, the song became a powerful emblem of anti-colonial resistance. Its first public rendition at the 1896 Congress session by Rabindranath Tagore marked a significant moment, after which the song became a rallying cry for the freedom movement. The historical debates around the song-particularly concerning certain stanzas interpreted as having religious rather than civic symbolism-were not insignificant. However, these discussions took place at a moment when the newly independent nation was negotiating the delicate balance between cultural heritage and secular constitutional principles. During the tenure of Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, Home Minister Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, constitutional architect Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, and even opposition figures such as Shyama Prasad Mukherjee, an understanding was reached that reconciled divergent viewpoints. By the late 1950s, Vande Mataram was formally accepted as the national song, while Jana Gana Mana was affirmed as the national anthem. For decades thereafter, the matter was considered settled, and political consensus largely prevailed. It is therefore surprising that the BJP government has chosen to reopen a debate that had long ceased to be contentious. The resurrection of this issue does not arise from any new cultural conflict or public demand. Rather, it aligns with a broader pattern in which symbolic identity questions are repeatedly foregrounded to shape and sometimes polarize public discourse. The BJP government’s renewed emphasis on Vande Mataram can be interpreted as part of a deliberate political strategy to prioritise symbolism over realism. In this case, raising the Vande Mataram issue provides a convenient opportunity to target the Congress, critique the Nehruvian legacy, and categorize opposition parties under reductive labels such as “leftist,” “liberal,” or “appeasement-oriented.” These rhetorical strategies simplify political debate and deflect attention from policy performance. The demand of the opposition to debate on the ECI’s arbitrary and opaque deletions under Special Intensive Revision(SIR) cannot be brushed under the carpet. Patriotism cannot be measured by singing Vande Mataram, nor does resisting such distractions diminish one’s national commitment. The real question is whether Parliament will be allowed to be the forum where India’s genuine, complex challenges are prioritized?.