New Delhi : India’s national symbols carry memories of the freedom struggle, sacrifice and the making of the Republic. Among them, Jana Gana Mana and Vande Mataram occupy distinct but deeply respected places. The question today is not necessarily whether one should replace the other, but whether both can be honoured without turning patriotism into a test of personal belief.
The issue has gained fresh attention following the Prevention of Insults to National Honour (Amendment) Act, 2026, which extends statutory protection to Vande Mataram alongside the National Anthem. The amended law makes it an offence to intentionally prevent the singing of either the National Anthem or the National Song, or to cause disturbance to an assembly engaged in such singing.
That legal change, however, does not erase the constitutional questions surrounding individual conscience. The Supreme Court’s landmark 1986 ruling in Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala, involving three schoolchildren who respectfully stood during the National Anthem but did not sing it for religious reasons, remains an important reference point in understanding that distinction.
Two symbols, two different histories
Jana Gana Mana and Vande Mataram have different historical journeys.
Jana Gana Mana is India’s National Anthem, while Vande Mataram is recognised as the National Song. At the Constituent Assembly meeting on January 24, 1950, President Dr Rajendra Prasad stated that Vande Mataram, which had played an important role in the freedom struggle, should be honoured equally with Jana Gana Mana.
The two symbols therefore need not be viewed as competitors.
Jana Gana Mana acquired its place as the formal anthem of the Republic, while Vande Mataram became closely associated with the anti-colonial movement and the emotional awakening of Indian nationalism.
The 2026 amendment has now brought the two under the same statutory protection against deliberate obstruction or disturbance. It does not, however, mean that the historical, literary or religious questions surrounding the two compositions have disappeared.
Why Vande Mataram has remained a sensitive issue
The story of Vande Mataram is more complicated than its status as a patriotic song might suggest.
Composed by Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay, the song was later included in his 1882 novel Anandamath. Its opening verses celebrate the motherland through images of fertile fields, rivers, greenery and abundance. Later portions of the larger composition, however, use imagery associated with Hindu deities.
That difference became significant in the freedom movement.
For many Indians, Vande Mataram represented courage, resistance and devotion to the motherland. For some communities, particularly those whose religious beliefs do not permit the worship or veneration of a personified deity, portions of the composition raised genuine matters of conscience. The song’s history and literary context are documented in accounts of Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay and Anandamath.
This is why the decision to use the first two stanzas for public and official occasions acquired importance. The intention was to retain the song’s powerful patriotic character while avoiding language that could alienate sections of India’s diverse population.
The Constitution offers an important lesson
The most important part of this debate may not lie in the songs themselves, but in how a constitutional democracy responds to disagreement.
Article 51A(a) of the Constitution places a fundamental duty on citizens to respect the Constitution, its ideals and institutions, the National Flag and the National Anthem. The provision specifically refers to the National Anthem, while the National Song has not been named in the same constitutional text.
The 2026 amendment has nevertheless given Vande Mataram statutory protection against intentional obstruction and disturbance. The amended Section 3 addresses conduct that interferes with the singing of either national symbol.
There is an important distinction here.
Respecting the right of others to sing is not necessarily the same as compelling every individual to sing.
That distinction was central to the Supreme Court’s decision in Bijoe Emmanuel.
A 1986 judgment still speaks to today
The case involved three siblings from Kerala belonging to the Jehovah’s Witnesses faith. During their school assembly, they stood respectfully when Jana Gana Mana was sung but did not join in singing because of their religious convictions.
The children were expelled after the issue was raised.
Their father challenged the decision, and the matter eventually reached the Supreme Court. Justice O Chinnappa Reddy and Justice M M Dutt considered whether a genuine religious objection could justify respectfully remaining silent during the National Anthem.
The Supreme Court set aside the children’s expulsion and directed their readmission. It found that their conduct did not amount to disrespect because they stood respectfully and did not interfere with the singing of others. The judgment considered the constitutional protections of freedom of speech and freedom of conscience.
The significance of the judgment extends beyond that particular school.
It established an enduring constitutional principle: patriotism cannot automatically be measured by outward conformity when an individual is acting from a genuine conscientious belief and is not preventing others from expressing their patriotism.
Justice Reddy’s observations on India’s tradition of tolerance remain particularly relevant whenever national identity and individual liberty appear to come into conflict.
The new law changes protection, not necessarily conscience
The 2026 amendment has an important and specific purpose.
The amended law protects assemblies singing both the National Anthem and the National Song from deliberate obstruction or disturbance. The punishment can extend to three years’ imprisonment, a fine, or both.
The legislation therefore strengthens legal protection for the act of collective singing.
But the wording of the amended provision focuses on preventing singing or disturbing an assembly. It does not, by its wording, create a general offence simply because an individual chooses respectful silence.
This distinction is particularly important in a country as religiously, linguistically and culturally diverse as India.
A person may disagree with another person’s choice without treating that person as less patriotic.
A freedom fighter’s sacrifice adds another dimension
The history of Vande Mataram also contains stories of extraordinary personal courage.
One such figure was Vandemataram Ramachander Rao, who participated in the Hyderabad State freedom struggle against the Nizam’s rule. During the Arya Samaj Satyagraha, singing Vande Mataram was prohibited in parts of Hyderabad State.
According to the account presented in the source material, Rao continued reciting Vande Mataram even while imprisoned. He refused to abandon the song despite severe punishment and continued chanting it during the flogging until he lost consciousness.
His story illustrates why Vande Mataram evokes such powerful emotions for many Indians.
For people who fought colonial or autocratic rule, singing the song could represent far more than a ceremonial act. It could mean defiance, freedom and the refusal to surrender one’s voice.
That history deserves to be remembered.
At the same time, remembering such sacrifices should not require forgetting India’s equally important constitutional commitment to freedom of conscience.
Can patriotism make room for both?
Perhaps the answer lies in allowing both symbols to be honoured without turning them into instruments of division.
There is no inherent contradiction in respecting Jana Gana Mana as the National Anthem and Vande Mataram as the National Song. Both can be celebrated for their historical contributions while recognising that they emerged from different contexts and carry different meanings for different citizens.
India’s strength has never rested on everyone being identical.
Its constitutional experiment rests on people with different languages, faiths, customs and traditions sharing one Republic.
The recent debate should therefore be approached with both patriotism and restraint. Those who passionately sing Vande Mataram should have the freedom to express that devotion. Those who respectfully stand aside because of a genuine religious or conscientious objection should not automatically be branded disloyal. And nobody should be permitted to disrupt or prevent others from expressing their respect.
The distinction is simple but profound: one person’s freedom to express patriotism should not become another person’s reason to lose freedom of conscience.
The lesson from Justice Reddy remains relevant
Nearly four decades after Bijoe Emmanuel, Justice Chinnappa Reddy’s constitutional vision continues to offer a useful guide.
India does not become stronger when patriotism is reduced to compulsory uniformity. It becomes stronger when citizens can express their love for the country in different ways while respecting one another.
The National Anthem and National Song can both be honoured. Their histories can both be remembered. Their patriotic significance can both be celebrated.
But the deeper national commitment must remain tolerance.
That is perhaps the real answer to the question: Why not sing both?
And where conscience calls for silence, perhaps the Constitution’s wisdom is to ensure that respectful silence does not become an excuse for exclusion.