What's new

Accept Vande Mataram or go to Pakistan

Actually it is and especially when we know the song is talking about Durga maan when it says Maan. Durga being a Hindu Goddess cannot be imposed under secular law.

Even the Indian National Anthem, which may not be Hindu, but is either religious or is a poem written by Rabindranath Tagore praising George the IV at the time of his coronation.

Which makes the national song that Indians sing to be a song for their former colonial master:


You have been mistaken and that is a myth. The Indian national anthem was composed much before but also read in the presence of King George V when he came to India. There was another song on the same day sung in his praise, not this song. This is where some misleading newspaper reports started because of their confusion on who sang what. Tagore and Jana Gana Mana

Also, anyone who understands Bengali would confirm that the song uses feminine terms to describe Bharat. Clearly, Rabindranath Tagore knew that King George V was not a female.

And lest we have any doubts, his letter clarifies that his song was not in praise of the English king but in defiance of him.
"A certain high official in His Majesty's service, who was also my friend, had requested that I write a song of felicitation towards the Emperor. The request simply amazed me. It caused a great stir in my heart. In response to that great mental turmoil, I pronounced the victory in Jana Gana Mana of that Bhagya Vidhata [ed. God of Destiny] of India who has from age after age held steadfast the reins of India's chariot through rise and fall, through the straight path and the curved. That Lord of Destiny, that Reader of the Collective Mind of India, that Perennial Guide, could never be George V, George VI, or any other George. Even my official friend understood this about the song. After all, even if his admiration for the crown was excessive, he was not lacking in simple common sense."

Jana Gana Mana - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It is interesting that you would mention that the Congress would choose a song as a national anthem that would be in praise of "former colonial masters".

What surprises me is that while nationalist muslims and hindus of the Congress were fighting for freedom were being killed by the British and jailed for years. However, not a single Muslim League leader was ever jailed or killed or even condemned by the British for being anti national. Many nawabs and the likes actually treated the British as their colonial masters just like their counterparts of the Hindu Mahasabha and the later avatar of the Jan Sangh who was actually praised for not taking part in freedom struggle in the 40's by the British. These two groups were never part of the freedom struggle and were infact collaborators of the British at many levels.

Abdul Gaffar Khan of NWFP who was allied to the Congress gave his life fighting for freedom of a united India and any person would be moved when he reads about his life story. This great freedom fighter who rallied the pathans both hindus and muslims in a non-violent struggle against the British. Whose life is full of poignant stories like when he was leading a non-violent procession against the British and a Hindu Rajput regiment was ordered by the British to fire on the predominantly muslim crowd but refused to fire on their countrymen and dropped their guns and joined them shouting for freedom. This great freedom fighter who fought against the "Colonial masters" was treated as a traitor by the Muslim League and kept in prison for 20+ years during the 60s and 70s.
Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
The moment Muslims advocate secularism, one has to ask if Islam is secular?

If secular means a French or Turkish system where religion is negated and no religion is allowed then no. But if its the UK, America, Australian or Indian secular system where freedom of practicing religion is allowed then of course yes. The problems is that most muslims who oppose secularism think that it means they have to adopt the Turkish style.

For more information please check out Muslims for Secular Democracy
 
I hold claim to no great stature.

But surely you've heard more famous people (mostly Indians) other than me, make these claims before? I didn't come up with it, other... better people did it.



If you're that sensitive to it, sure... why not, I don't care. I won't forbid it, but I personally don't have any interest. Other than pointing out that there are many things that were adopted as a mistake and if the anthem has been called to be "fixed" by Indians in the past... Then why not the removal of an enforced religious song?

Especially when your guys ready to banish people to Pakistan for not singing it.

I sing Vande Mataram: Javed Akhtar

This controversy is old and obsolete. Vande mataram is part of Bankimchandra Chatterjee’s novel Anand Math.

All the villains in this novel are Muslims. Ultimately, the Muslims lose and the novelist feels happy that the Britishers have come to save us from these so-called ‘barbaric’ Muslims. This is the song of the militant sadhus in this novel.

There were two stanzas of strong religiosity in this song. When talk arose of making Vande mataram a national anthem it was pointed out by rational elements that the novel was anti-Muslim. The Congress decided to take out the two rabidly religious stanzas and the rest of the song was retained. The controversy ended there. What is this new resistance? The objection is redundant. You don’t want to sing Vande mataram? Don’t! Who is forcing you? I sing it. I don’t see it as objectionable. If you do, don’t sing it. Why do you insist on bringing such irrelevant matters centrestage?

It’s a non-issue and uneccessarily provocative. I’ve written songs with Vande mataram in them. I used the term Vande mataram in Priyadarshan’s Saza-e-Kala Pani. Then I used the term for a song in Phir Bhi Dil Hai Hindustani and finally for a song that’s used at the military academy at Dehra Doon. Please don’t make an issue out of a non-issue. These are non-entities.”

I sing Vande Mataram: The Times of India
 
I thought that most Indian members had more than clarified the situation on vademataram and how Uddhav's ploy is nothing but a politcal gimmick because he has no real issue to raise. I'm sure soon enough VHP/BD/e.t.c(who don't represent all Hindus by the way) will come out with their own sentiments but before anyone parades their statements as some official GoI decrees, which they are not, I though I might put my 2 cents in as well

To talk about the historical context or association with the novel and the song about durga puja in that novel may be valid but not necessary. Lets clarify The first two stanzas were composed before the objectionable novel and the rest of the song was composed. The first two stanzas was composed in the 1870s while the novel and the rest of the durga puja song was written in 1882. Even the rest of the song is in simple Bengali while the first two stanzas are in sanskritised Bengali.
The rest of the song was removed precisely because it clashed with beliefs of not only muslims but others including Hindus of the Arya Smajis (Swami Agvinesh was also present there and endorsed this view), Sikhs, parsees , christians e.t.c. and the first two stanzas was requested to be taken as separate from the novel as it was penned before that separately.


This was done precisely because the founding leaders of India wanted to affirm its secularism and this concern for religious beliefs affirmed its secular credentials. This is simple for any neutral person to understand.
Eg: Saare Jaha Se Accha is still used as the song for the Indian defence forces and the tune to which the army marches on republic day, even though the author was a member of the Muslim League. Many Indians proudly sing this song because of its beautiful verses because of the sentiment of the song rather than the association of Iqbal who was with Muslim League. Gandhiji use to sing the first couplet numerous times while he was imprisoned by the British. Its another point that Iqbal was not in favor of the Pakistan scheme which many people conveniently don't know. Still it doesn't reduce the importance of saare jahan se accha. The same applies to the history of vande mataram and that even though it might have been added to a novel that definitely had anti-muslim content, the national song was based on the two initial stanzas and the rest of the song that was objectionable was removed. The rest of the song was not even well known by the people in any case when it was used a slogan during the freedom struggle

Now coming to just the two stanzas that are actually relevant as the national song. There are many words in English, Arabic e.t.c. where a word can have multiple meanings, similarly vande has multiple meanings where it can be used as praise as well as salutations. So vande does not have to be replaced with salam precisely because in sanskrit it will be vande.

For example if I say Ishwar ki puja, it is the same as saying Allah ki Ibadat. But it might sound offensive to someone who doesn't know the meaning and thinks puja = idol worship only when infact puja is just worship.

Lack of knowledge of Bengali and that the national song consists of only the two stanzas and not the entire poem are part of some misunderstandings. If a muslims' intention in saying vande mataram is salutations, how can it be shirk (associating partner with Allah) which she/he can never do? Keeping this in mind there are many ulema who have agreed that singing the song is allowed if it is only the defined national song is sung and because of the use of vande to mean salutations. Let us remember that a fatwa is only a legal (religious) opnion and non-binding unlike in Catholicism for example. And based on this many muslims do sing it just like many sikhs, Christians or even arya samajis sing it despite some amongst them who don't.

The slogan "vande mataram" was used by Bengali congressmen both hindus and muslims opposing the partition of Bengal on communal grounds in 1905. Similar slogans like Jai Hind, Inquilab Zindabad, Karenge ya Marenge definitely have sentimental value. These slogans were banned by the British and anyone uttering vande mataram or jai hind would be liable to be punished.

Of course only people well versed in bengali (which is what this song is written in) can understand what it means. Maulana Azad who was a son of a Bengali Afghan father and meccan mother was linguistically capable of understanding the language and a muslim scholar was part of the committee on deciding the national song and national anthem. The committee adopted the first two stanza and stated that this will be the national song and should be treated as separate from the rest of the song that had referenced to idol worship as these two stanzas were penned much earlier and would have an equal status with the national anthem which would be jana gana mana. While the organizers have the option of utilizing any other national song in place of vande mataram if they feel like it. So if a school wanted to decide to sing Jana gana mana and Saare jahan se accha to instill patriotism, they would have the right to do so.

These two articles provide a good overview of the history and nothing has changed since the song was first adopted.
www.outlookindia.com | Vande Mataram: FAQ
www.outlookindia.com | 'The Significance Of This Song'

Having said that, it is completely stupid to question patriotism based on who sings or does not sing the song. Making the song compulsory is even worse and as proven by Supreme court verdicts unconstitutional. Almost every Indian member who mentioned this said that singing this song can't be enforced but is voluntary and there is no reason to doubt that the majority of the Indians think the same way.

Hockey is the national sport of India, if I don't even know the rules of how to play this game, am I less patriotic now? Hindi is the national language, but the reason why English was also given national language status was because Tamils, Keralites e.t.c. opposed imposition of Hindi. Are they less patriotic for opposing Hindi? No of course not. And majority of the Indians understand this.

The JUH, the organization who actually organized the convention, have been in the forefront of the freedom struggle before independence, lost many lives and 100s of their leaders were imprisoned by the British, opposed communal politics of the Muslim League and the creation of Pakistan. Even the text of the resolution (out of the 20+ resolutions against terrorism and for communal harmony among others) does not degrade the status of the song but mainly aims at asking not to rake up this issue in a provocative manner. The full text is below:
This grand session of Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind while expressing deep concern over communal hatred and violence exploiting the issue of Vande Mataram, and condemns the provocative activities in this connection. For some time, Vande Matram is being exploited for targeting Muslims. On the pretext of an edict of Darul Uloom, Deoband, attempts are being made to fan hatred in Deoband and its outskirts. In a provocative manner, the effigy of Darul Uloom Deoband was set on fire.
This house of Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind would like to clarify that patriotism does not require singing Vande Matram. We love our country and have proved this several times, but Vande Mataram violates our faith in monotheism that is the foundation of our faith. We can love and serve our country, but cannot elevate it to the status of Allah, the only one worshipped by Muslims. Welove and respect the mother, but do not worship her. The fatwa of Darul Uloom is correct. The judgment of the Supreme Court also clearly states that nobody can be compelled to sing Vande Mataram. This house demands that the issue of Vande Matram not to be deliberately raised for causing communal discord and threat to law and order.

And let me remind you that the head of the Jamiat-ulema-i-hind is the same maulana Madani who dressed down Musharraf in the India Today conclave available on a number of youtube videos.

Respect of the song is earned not imposed. AR Rahman's rendition went a long way in showing that respect were he clearly did not worship India but saluted her. It is only the BJP-led governments that have started this practice of compulsory singing which started raking up the issue. Will they now start compulsory hockey games as well? Or compulsory use of Hindi in all states? If the song is optional no person including the Jamiat members, arya samajis or their counterparts of Christians or Sikh groups will oppose it and they can still give the respect by staying silent while those who want to sing (be they muslim or non muslims) can sing will full gusto.

It is interesting to note here that the precursor of the VHP type groups, Jan Sangh and the Hindu Mahasabha was never part of the freedom struggle and none of their leaders ever used "vande mataram" to fight the British. And now they somehow to compensate for this loudly shout how important is singing this song to show loyalty to the country. However, the first two stanzas which was the only popular song was in itself no doubt a symbol of patriotic Bengalis both Hindus and Muslim against the British in pre-Independace times although only later spread to other parts of India later.
 
Last edited:
OT

Ejaz, since you mentioned of Muslim League leaders not being jailed, I was wondering, how long was Mr Jinnah jailed? I have been looking for it for sometime, and so far it appears that he was never put to jail by the British. Do you have information.
 
@toxic_pus

As far as historical records go, Jinnah was never jailed by the British. Jinnah was always careful not to go out of bounds of the constitution when he was an Indian nationalist and in the 1930s and 40s, communal organizations were given a free hand by the British as riots worsened and organizations that actually tried to stop riots and spread relief like Khudai Khitmatagar and Congress workers were imprisoned on the charge of orchestrating riots or disturbing public harmony
 
Ejaz, very well written. That post of yours should ideally be the last post of this thread.
For example if I say Ishwar ki puja, it is the same as saying Allah ki Ibadat. But it might sound offensive to someone who doesn't know the meaning and thinks puja = idol worship only when infact puja is just worship.
Couldn't have said it better:tup:
Of course only people well versed in bengali (which is what this song is written in) can understand what it means.
Not just well versed in Bengali, one has to be well versed in that specific Sanskritized Bengali. Bankimchandra wrote in a typical Sanskritized Bengali, which required a thorough understanding of Sanksrit as well.

I remember in school, we used to avoid Bankimchandra's pieces like e-bola virus:rofl:
 
EjazR - You are one of the saner and balanced poster here and I do not want to engage in futile discussions and arguments but once people start senseless threads like these, it does two things - it exposes the Pakistani member's hypocrisy and eventually discussion will move towards controversial topics.

Now a question for you - You argued that Islam is secular similar to US/Indian style. Let me agree with you. Now, my next question, are Muslims secular?

If secular means a French or Turkish system where religion is negated and no religion is allowed then no. But if its the UK, America, Australian or Indian secular system where freedom of practicing religion is allowed then of course yes. The problems is that most muslims who oppose secularism think that it means they have to adopt the Turkish style.

For more information please check out Muslims for Secular Democracy
 
The moment Muslims advocate secularism, one has to ask if Islam is secular?

In a so-called secualr country when you promissed them secularism then it doent matter whether they are secular or not.

You are bound to fulfill your promise.

BTW Nice try to divert the discussion
 
What surprises me is that while nationalist muslims and hindus of the Congress were fighting for freedom were being killed by the British and jailed for years. However, not a single Muslim League leader was ever jailed or killed or even condemned by the British for being anti national. Many nawabs and the likes actually treated the British as their colonial masters just like their counterparts of the Hindu Mahasabha and the later avatar of the Jan Sangh who was actually praised for not taking part in freedom struggle in the 40's by the British. These two groups were never part of the freedom struggle and were infact collaborators of the British at many levels.

Prime Hindutva leader Vir Savarkar had to spend to 11 year in prison in Kalapani(Andaman and Nicobar Islands) for revolutionary activites. He joined Hindu Mahasabha soon after his release fron prison in 1922 and concertrated on Hindu political rights and empowerment for most part of his political life.

Interestingly its congress leader like , even as the Indian National Congress and leaders such as Mahatma Gandhi, Vithalbhai Patel and Bal Gangadhar Tilak demanded unconditional release of In 1920.
Vinayak Damodar Savarkar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Prime Hindutva leader Vir Savarkar had to spend to 11 year in prison in Kalapani(Andaman and Nicobar Islands) for revolutionary activites. He joined Hindu Mahasabha soon after his release fron prison in 1922 and concertrated on Hindu political rights and empowerment for most part of his political life.


Vinayak Damodar Savarkar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

These are differences of opinion created by Britishers then but that's not the point of discussion as per the thread topic.
 
Prime Hindutva leader Vir Savarkar had to spend to 11 year in prison in Kalapani(Andaman and Nicobar Islands) for revolutionary activites. He joined Hindu Mahasabha soon after his release fron prison in 1922 and concertrated on Hindu political rights and empowerment for most part of his political life.


Vinayak Damodar Savarkar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Savarkar didn't become the Sarvarkar that we know of today, when he went to prison. It was in prison he went through his transformation phase and after he came out he became what he became.

In that sense and to that extent, Ejaz's point stands.
 
EjazR - You are one of the saner and balanced poster here and I do not want to engage in futile discussions and arguments but once people start senseless threads like these, it does two things - it exposes the Pakistani member's hypocrisy and eventually discussion will move towards controversial topics.

Now a question for you - You argued that Islam is secular similar to US/Indian style. Let me agree with you. Now, my next question, are Muslims secular?

Islam teaches that you should always speak the truth and never lie. Do all muslims speak the truth and never lie?
Islam teaches us to give money in charity and spend on the poor and needy regardless of religious affiliation. Do all muslims do that?
The Quran explicitly prohibits suicide, drinking wine, sex outside marriage, do all muslims follow these rules? The answer is unfortunately no, many do not.

Similarly, many Muslim majority countries are not secular as in providing equality irrespective of religion but they are a work in progress and many have been improving their rights even though they may not explicitly declare themselves secular. For example recently Bahrain appointed a native Jewish ambassador to US and many gulf countries have temples and Dubai even has gurudwaras. There are some countries who have a better record and some don't.

So what you need to understand is that muslims are not a monolith. There are a range of opinions and those who oppose secularism is primarily because of systems shown by Turkey and France. However, the same word is treated in a different way in the US for example and that has to be explained that this is what we mean by secular. Still you will have a hardcore section who will not see any reason and shut their eyes. There are also muslims like these too. So at the end of the day, you will see muslims all across the spectrum, but majority if they look at secular as the Indian or US model would have no problem with it because it provides freedom to practice your religion.
 
As the anniversary of the cataclysmic event of 26/11 draws near, undoubtedly the country will relive the painful and humiliating memory of its powerful financial capital held hostage for more than 36 hours by a group of murderous terrorists sneaking in from Pakistan, challenging the might and capabilities of the Indian nation. But instead of replaying those dark moments, Indians ought to remember with pride the aftermath of the tragedy. The days after the terror strikes saw a spontaneous nationwide outpouring of sympathy for Mumbai with all communities united in their anger and outrage at the impunity with which Pakistan-based jihadi terrorists had struck at India.

Indeed the Indian national spirit triumphed in that dark moment with thousands of citizens of diverse cultural and social identities rallying together to support Mumbai in that traumatic phase. There was a remarkable absence of communal violence with even the Shiv Sena in Mumbai resisting the political temptation of baiting Muslims in that stressful period. As a new generation of Indians made the political class and the political system the targets of their ire, one refreshing change was that there was absolutely no focus on communal and social identities. Projected was a collective sense of “we Indians” against the external intruders. All this showed that the enduring sense of national unity was a solid asset that helped the country tide over what could have been a deeply disintegrative challenge.

It is clear that with the United Progressive Alliance government emphasising its commitment to secular governance and the preservation of cultural pluralism, the minorities, especially the Muslim community, find little conflict between their civic identities as Indian citizens and their cultural and religious affiliations. When national identity is defined in cultural nationalist terms, the loyalty of minority groups to the national identity comes under intense pressure. In an increasingly disturbed security environment with terrorism sharpening in intensity in Pakistan, it is imperative that the UPA remain unswerving in its acknowledgment that without secularism and internal communal harmony, it would be difficult to fight terrorism.

In a departure from its usual reticence, the election campaign for the 2009 Lok Sabha saw both Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Congress president Sonia Gandhi asserting that terrorism and communalism were two aspects of the same challenge and that a country divided by communalism could not fight terror. The logic of that argument needs to be sustained forcefully today in the face of renewed challenges to the minority groups’ assertions of their cultural rights. The UPA must not allow the BJP which is battling its own internal demons to resurrect majoritarian Hindutva campaigns mounting pressure on the cultural rights of the minorities especially Muslims. The latest incident in which BJP leaders Murli Manohar Joshi and Mukhtar Abbas Naqvi have sought to put Union Home Minister P. Chidambaram and a section of the Muslim community on the defensive is a case in point. The 30th general session of the Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind at Deoband, western Uttar Pradesh adopted a resolution on November 3, upholding a fatwa of 2006 by the Deoband Ulema, describing the singing of the Vande Mataram as anti-Islamic because some of its verses were against the tenets of Islam.

The Deoband clerics apparently took pains to ensure that their objections to the singing of the Vande Mataram were not to be seen as being unpatriotic. The resolution that was adopted said categorically “Patriotism does not require singing of the Vande Mataram. We love our country and have proved this several times but Vande Mataram violates our faith in monotheism that is the foundation of Islam … We love and respect the mother but do not worship her.” It went on to demand that “the issue of Vande Mataram should not be deliberately raised for causing communal discord and threat to law and order.” It was also pointed out after discussions amongst the participants in the meeting that the resolution was necessitated by the fact that the song was being introduced in several government schools in BJP-ruled States.

It must be recalled that historically the Vande Mataram song did not become the national anthem precisely for the reason that it had strong Hindu connotations by depicting the Indian nation as Goddess Durga. Not only did Muslims object but virtually every other minority had objected, leading to the Jana Gana Mana being adopted as the Indian national anthem. The essence of the idea of cultural pluralism is to ensure that every religious or social group is allowed its own cultural space in which it has the right to practise its own beliefs and traditions. How would it be right to question the patriotism of Muslims and other minority groups because of their rejection of a song that is by no means the national anthem?

To accuse the Deoband Ulema, a critical support group in the fight against terror, given that it issued a fatwa against terror last year, of “a separatist mindset” as the BJP’s Mr. Naqvi did on Wednesday is to needlessly provoke a confrontation. Mr. Chidambaram who had clearly made a special effort to underline the UPA’s commitment to cultural pluralism by participating in this conference did well to assert that “a nation can ignore its minorities only at its peril”, that Islam could not be viewed as “an alien faith” and that India was for Muslims, the land of their “forefathers” and of their “birth”. But subsequent attacks on his participation in the Deoband conference by Dr. Joshi and Mr. Naqvi, asserting that his presence gave legitimacy to the resolution opposing the Vande Mataram song appear to put the Home Minister on the defensive with his stating that he was not present when the resolution was passed.

The UPA government, which in its second term has promised that it views communalism and terrorism as two equally dangerous aspects of the same challenge, must not waver in its defence of the rights of minority groups to have their unique cultural assertions. Given that the Indian national identity as defined in the Indian Constitution is anchored to civic and territorial parameters, there is no inherent conflict between loyalty to the Indian nation and a community’s own religious beliefs. To question the patriotism of the Muslim community on the ground that it refuses to “worship” India as a concept is to make a mockery of the real meaning of patriotism and national loyalty.

As the framers of the Constitution wisely concluded decades ago, when they rejected the idea of including a reference to God in the Preamble to the Constitution, imposing such a concept would go against the spirit of the Constitution. As H.N. Kunzru told the Constituent Assembly during the debate on the Preamble, “Such a course of action is inconsistent with the Preamble which promises liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship to everyone. How can we deal with this question in a narrow spirit?”

For Dr. Joshi and his cultural nationalist colleagues to persist with describing the Deoband fatwa against the singing of the Vande Mataram song as “against the provisions of the Constitution” would be to misread recent Indian history. There can be no clearer assertion of the responsibility of the Indian state to provide for cultural pluralism and also of the rights of the citizens of India to enjoy cultural and religious freedoms, than is set out in the Indian Constitution. Cultural pluralism remains India’s strongest card and its best defence against attempts to wreck its integrity or weaken its national structure from inside and outside.

© Copyright 2000 - 2009 The Hindu

http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/...2009110554830900.htm&date=2009/11/05/&prd=th&


Balanced and informative home those who were abusing Indian ulemas here should have some guts to accept they were wrong
 
You have finally spat out the truth.

Secularism is a two-way street. I can not be secular with you, if you are not secular with me.

btw - nice attempt to avoid the relevant question.

What you are talking about is pure hypocrisy.

In a so-called secualr country when you promissed them secularism then it doent matter whether they are secular or not.

You are bound to fulfill your promise.

BTW Nice try to divert the discussion
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom