Staff Reporter
The All India Muslim Personal Law Board has strongly objected to the reported decision of the Centre to grant “Vande Mataram” a status equal to the National Anthem and make all six stanzas compulsory in schools, colleges and government institutions across the country.
In a sharply worded statement issued on Thursday, AIMPLB spokesperson Dr S Q R Ilyas described the move as an attempt to impose a majoritarian cultural identity and warned that it could undermine the secular principles of the Constitution.
The organisation particularly opposed the inclusion of all six stanzas of “Vande Mataram,” arguing that several portions of the song contain references to Hindu deities, including Goddess Durga, which it said conflict with Islamic beliefs based on the concept of one God.
“This is not patriotism but coercion in the name of nationalism,” Dr Ilyas said, asserting that citizens in a secular democracy cannot be compelled to participate in practices that go against their religious faith.
The AIMPLB also referred to historical objections surrounding the song, noting that Rabindranath Tagore had reportedly advised in 1937 that only the first two stanzas be used publicly because the later verses carried overt religious imagery. The board said the Constituent Assembly had adopted a similar position in 1950 while recognising “Vande Mataram” as the National Song.
According to the AIMPLB, making all six stanzas mandatory would disturb the constitutional balance that sought to respect India’s religious and cultural diversity.
The board further accused the government of using nationalism for political purposes amid rising social polarisation in the country. It said India’s unity could not be built through “forced conformity” or religious majoritarianism.
The controversy comes in the backdrop of the BJP’s controversial victory in West Bengal, which opposition parties including the Trinamool Congress and the Indian National Congress have described as a “stolen mandate.”
The AIMPLB has demanded that the reported order be withdrawn immediately and warned that it may move court if the decision is implemented, potentially triggering a major constitutional debate over nationalism, religious freedom and the powers of the state in a secular democracy.