Nehru's Musical Logic: Why India Chose Two National Songs
As India's Parliament commemorates the 150th anniversary of 'Vande Mataram', the debate over the nation's musical identity reveals the pragmatic considerations that shaped modern India's constitutional framework. Prime Minister Narendra Modi's recent criticism of the Congress party for adopting a shortened version of the national song has reignited discussion about one of independent India's earliest policy decisions.
The Musical Dilemma of Nation-Building
When Jawaharlal Nehru faced the choice between 'Vande Mataram' and 'Jana Gana Mana' as India's national anthem in 1948, his decision was driven by practical rather than political considerations. In a detailed Cabinet note from May 21, 1948, Nehru outlined his reasoning with characteristic analytical precision.
"A National Anthem is, of course, a form of words, but it is even more so a tune or a musical score," Nehru wrote. "It is played by orchestras and bands frequently and only very seldom sung. The music of the National Anthem is, therefore, the most important factor."
Nehru described 'Vande Mataram' as "plaintive", "mournful" and "repetitive", arguing it was "not an easy tune for orchestral or band rendering". He noted it was "particularly difficult for foreigners to appreciate as a piece of music" and lacked the "distinctive features" of Rabindranath Tagore's composition.
Balancing Heritage with Inclusivity
The decision reflected broader challenges of building an inclusive democracy. 'Vande Mataram', composed by Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay in 1875, had become deeply associated with India's independence movement. However, its later stanzas contained religious imagery that concerned Muslim leaders, who viewed certain passages as promoting idol worship.
Mohammed Ali Jinnah had opposed parts of the song, claiming it was a "hymn to spread hatred for the Musalmans". The Muslim League's objections created a diplomatic challenge for the Congress party, particularly as it governed several provinces in the 1930s.
Historian Sabyasachi Bhattacharya noted in his 2003 work 'Vande Mataram: The Biography of a Song' that the charged political atmosphere following Bengal's 1905 partition had made the song "one of many causes of Hindu-Muslim conflict".
A Pragmatic Compromise
The Congress Working Committee's 1937 resolution, drafted with Nehru's input, acknowledged the validity of Muslim concerns while preserving the song's historical significance. The committee recommended limiting official performances to the first two stanzas, which contained "nothing to which anyone can take exception".
Even Tagore, the composer of 'Jana Gana Mana', supported this approach. In a letter to Nehru, Tagore noted that while he was "the first person to sing it before a gathering of the Calcutta Congress" in 1896, he could not "sympathise with the sentiments in the latter stanzas of Vande Mataram".
Contemporary Relevance
The Constituent Assembly's 1951 decision to designate 'Jana Gana Mana' as the national anthem and a shortened 'Vande Mataram' as the national song represented a constitutional compromise that balanced heritage with inclusivity. This dual approach allowed India to honour its revolutionary past while building a secular democratic future.
Today's parliamentary debate demonstrates how these early nation-building decisions continue to resonate in contemporary Indian politics. The discussion reflects ongoing tensions between different visions of Indian identity, with some viewing the shortened version as necessary accommodation and others as historical revisionism.
For observers of Indian democracy, the debate illustrates how constitutional democracies must navigate between historical legacy and contemporary inclusivity. Nehru's emphasis on practical considerations over symbolic politics offers insights into the pragmatic approach that shaped India's early constitutional framework.
As India continues to evolve as a diverse democracy, the 150-year journey of 'Vande Mataram' serves as a case study in how nations balance competing claims on their cultural and political identity while maintaining democratic consensus.