top of page

By:

Correspondent

23 August 2024 at 9:59:04 pm

Edited Patriotism

Edited Patriotism In its decision to stick to the 1937 resolution and sing only the first two stanzas of Vande Mataram at party events, the Congress party has once again exposed its deep discomfort with the vocabulary of Indian nationalism. The Congress Working Committee’s reaffirmation of the 1937 position came even as the Central government moved to accord the National Song a stronger legal status. The uncomfortable question is why Congress remains so eager to preserve a concession made...

Edited Patriotism

Edited Patriotism In its decision to stick to the 1937 resolution and sing only the first two stanzas of Vande Mataram at party events, the Congress party has once again exposed its deep discomfort with the vocabulary of Indian nationalism. The Congress Working Committee’s reaffirmation of the 1937 position came even as the Central government moved to accord the National Song a stronger legal status. The uncomfortable question is why Congress remains so eager to preserve a concession made in an era when Muslim League opposition and the politics of communal appeasement exerted enormous influence over the national movement. Vande Mataram was not some obscure religious composition dragged into politics by the BJP. Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay’s hymn is one of the great battle cries of India’s freedom struggle. Generations of freedom fighters embraced it as an expression of devotion to the motherland. Yet Congress leaders chose to dilute its public rendition after objections that references to Hindu deities could be considered objectionable or exclusionary. The present controversy has stripped away the pretence that this is merely about historical precedent. Rahul Gandhi was caught on a hot mic referring to the Congress rendition as “our version” of Vande Mataram. This is a breathtaking assumption. Vande Mataram is not Congress property, neither is it a Gandhi family possession. It is not a party anthem to be edited according to the sensitivities of its political managers. It belongs to the Indian people. What exactly does “our version” mean? Is there a Congress Mother India distinct from the India to which millions of Indians owe their allegiance? The answer lies in the Congress’s larger political ecosystem that has repeatedly treated Hindu cultural expression as something to be negotiated, diluted or apologised for, while accommodating the most regressive forms of identity politics in the name of secularism. The party, throughout its political history, has practiced appeasement dressed up as pluralism. The result has been a grotesque asymmetry where Hindu civilisational symbols were expected to become less Hindu so that nobody else would be offended, while Congress politicians cultivated constituencies through precisely the kind of communal calculations they publicly claimed to oppose. The Vande Mataram controversy is not really about whether Congress sings two stanzas or six. It is about whether the oldest national party can finally shed the political reflex that made Hindu sentiment the easiest currency of compromise. The Congress claims the legacy of the freedom struggle. It should remember that the freedom struggle was not fought to create a nation permanently apologetic about its own civilisation. India does not need Congress’s permission to love its motherland. And Vande Mataram certainly does not need Congress’s edited approval.

England Jinx

India’s latest World Cup defeat to England was another reminder that, for all the progress made by Indian hockey, some old habits remain remarkably resistant to change.


Earlier, India had led England 2-1 at half-time and had every reason to believe that a famous victory was within reach. Harmanpreet Singh’s penalty-corner drag-flick had restored parity after Nicholas Bandurak’s opener, before Dilpreet Singh completed an excellent move to put India ahead. Then came the familiar second-half unravelling when England scored three times by exploiting gaps and hesitation to win 4-2.


This, despite that India actually had 51 percent possession throughout the match. But England were clinical and India were not. That distinction has haunted Indian hockey for years. England is not an unbeatable superpower. Yet at the World Cup, they have repeatedly found ways to frustrate India.


India’s last World Cup victory over England came in 1994. Since then, England have beaten India in 2002, 2006, 2010 and 2014, with a goalless draw in 2023. For a country with India’s hockey pedigree, this is an extraordinary jinx. But jinxes are usually just patterns that have been allowed to become psychological facts.


India’s problem has been less a lack of talent than a failure to manage the game once they had seized control. In Monday’s match, England returned after half-time with greater intensity, while India increasingly appeared content to protect a slender advantage. That is a dangerous strategy against a side capable of sustained pressure. Stuart Rushmere’s equaliser in the 39th minute was followed quickly by Henry Croft’s goal four minutes later. Bandurak’s second, from a penalty corner in the 55th, merely confirmed what the momentum had already suggested.


This is where India must mature. Modern international hockey is unforgiving. Nothing matters much if a team cannot turn opportunities into goals or defend a lead without surrendering initiative. The defeat also makes today’s meeting with Pakistan considerably more consequential. India need at least a draw to survive while defeat would end their campaign. That is hardly the position expected after beating Wales 3-1 in the opener.


There is a larger lesson. India cannot continue treating every encounter with England as an examination of destiny. The way to break a jinx is not to discuss it, but to render it irrelevant. That requires composure when ahead, ruthlessness in the circle and the confidence to keep attacking rather than retreating into defensive anxiety.


India has the players. What they still lack, on occasions like this, is the killer instinct to make superiority count.


England did not win because they were destined to. They won because, when the match turned, they were better at it. India’s task is to ensure that the next time the two meet at a World Cup, the script finally changes.

Comments

bottom of page