The hearing currently taking place in the Supreme Court over Vande Mataram has once again brought to the fore the debate over Indian secularism, a debate that is often presented in different ways according to convenience. The question is not merely whether an individual should sing Vande Mataram or not. The larger question is: what does secularism mean in India? Does secularism merely protect the right to religious dissent, or does it also demand equal constitutional treatment of all religious communities in the policies of the State?
When questions begin to be raised even about the fundamental consciousness of a nation and its national symbols, doubts deepen among a large section of citizens as to whether secularism is being used to ideologically divide the country. On 22 September 2026, the Supreme Court sought a response from the Central Government on a petition filed by Carnatic musician T.M. Krishna. The petition challenges the amendment made in 2026 through which Vande Mataram was brought within the ambit of the law concerning the prevention of insult to national honour, on a footing similar to the national anthem. During the hearing, the Court indicated that a person who does not sing Vande Mataram because of a religious or genuine conscientious objection should not face criminal consequences, and that the principles laid down in the 1986 Bijoe Emmanuel judgment would continue to apply.
In reality, this legal battle has once again placed the question of national identity before the courts. One must consider whether respect for national symbols should also depend upon an individual's personal choice. Indeed, while discussing the constitutional and national status of Vande Mataram, the proceedings of the Constituent Assembly on 24 January 1950 cannot be ignored. Dr Rajendra Prasad, President of the Constituent Assembly, had stated that Jana Gana Mana would be the national anthem and that Vande Mataram, which had played a historic role in the freedom struggle, would be accorded equal respect and equal status. The original proceedings of the Constituent Assembly are the official evidence of this.
The new official legal factsheet also underlines the historical significance of Vande Mataram in the freedom movement. The song was composed by Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay, published in 1875 and subsequently incorporated into Anandamath. At the 1896 session of the Indian National Congress, Rabindranath Tagore set it to music and sang it. During the Swadeshi movement of 1905, it emerged as an important symbol of national resistance. Given such a distinguished history, Vande Mataram cannot be viewed entirely through a religious lens.
Constitutional perspective: the actual interpretation of Articles 25, 26 and 27
Article 25 of the Constitution gives every person freedom of conscience and the right to profess, practise and propagate religion. Article 26 grants religious denominations the right to establish religious and charitable institutions, manage their religious affairs, and own and administer property in accordance with law. Article 27 provides protection against taxation specifically imposed for the promotion or maintenance of any particular religion.
This means that secularism is not a system designed to eliminate religion. It prevents the State from becoming an advocate of any particular religion while protecting the religious freedom of citizens. Therefore, when secularism is invoked in the context of Vande Mataram, the same test should also be applied in other matters. If a question arises concerning the faith, institutions or property of any religious community, decisions should be based upon the same constitutional principles, law and transparency. Does this appear to be happening anywhere in India today on the basis of equality?
The question of an equal standard for temple, waqf and church property
This is where an important question concerning Hindu society arises. If secularism means that the State must play an equal and impartial role in matters concerning religious institutions, then the same constitutional standard should also apply to questions of administration and property relating to temples, waqf properties, church institutions and other religious trusts. Why has this not been done so far?
The question must certainly be asked: why is the basis for the State's role in the administration of religious institutions not the same for all communities? The same question applies to the property of madrasas, churches and missionary institutions. Why have they been given exemptions? Why has the waqf board been created? How can halal certification operate in India?
Minority Commission and the politics of selective secularism
Similarly, what exactly are the Minority Commission and the Ministry of Minority Affairs doing in India? If all religions are supposed to be equal in the eyes of the State, then why, under the guise of secularism, is money from the Hindu majority community being spent on these minority institutions? The frequent invocation of Articles 29 and 30 of the Constitution, which protect cultural rights and the rights of religious and linguistic minorities to establish and administer their educational institutions- should, in that case, also cease.
Every child in the country has an equal right to education. Therefore, education cannot be divided into minority versus majority. Yet what is happening in practice is before us today. Minority schools and colleges operate under their own systems, and some do not even admit children under the Right to Education framework. Is this what selective secularism is supposed to mean, that merely because a person belongs to the majority, that section of society should be treated as a second-class community?
A child who is born has no idea where he or she is being born. Yet here, simply because a child is born into the majority community, that child is allegedly being deprived of various facilities which, as a citizen of the State, should be available on an equal basis to every other citizen. In such circumstances, those who oppose Vande Mataram in the name of secularism should also ask whether the Ministry of Minority Affairs of the Government of India, which currently treats Muslim, Christian, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain and Parsi communities as notified minority communities and operates various schemes for them, should itself be abolished.
Why is there not an equal discussion of the rights of Hindu society?
The reality is that the historical role of Hindu traditions in India's civilisation, culture and public life is increasingly being acknowledged across the world. Hindu philosophy, traditions, pilgrimage centres, literature, art and social institutions have made an extensive contribution to India's cultural heritage. Therefore, placing the protection of the cultural rights of Hindu society in opposition to the constitutional rights of other communities is not a solution to the problem.
Equality means precisely this: the rights of citizens belonging to the majority should be regarded as equally real and legitimate as the rights of minority citizens, which have been recognised in India since the Constitution came into force in 1950. In reality, when policymakers appear excessively sensitive towards protecting the rights of only one section while remaining silent on the historical heritage and fundamental civic rights of the majority community, the emergence of social discontent is understandable.
One nation, equal citizenship rights and a complete principle
The point, therefore, is that secularism cannot be selectively invoked in the name of Vande Mataram. If religious freedom is important, it is equally important for Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains and every other citizen. If respect for national symbols is essential, the expectation of such respect should also apply equally to everyone. If religious institutions have the right to manage their affairs in accordance with law, State regulation should likewise be based upon an equal constitutional standard.
India should not be governed on the basis of the religious superiority of one community or a system of political privileges for another. The emphasis should be on strengthening equal citizenship rights and equal laws. If secularism is genuinely a constitutional value, then it must be accepted as a complete constitutional principle for everyone, rather than being used as a matter of selective convenience.
The protection of every citizen's religious freedom, the prevention of discrimination against any community on the basis of religion, and, at the same time, the protection of respect for national symbols and the rule of law, this is the balance that a plural and multi-religious democracy such as India requires. There is no question here of Hindu, Muslim or any other faith, sect, religion or creed. If only the citizens of India opposing Vande Mataram could understand this much!
---------------
Hindusthan Samachar / Mayank Chaturvedi
