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.

Sacred Attire

Updated: Jan 30, 2025

The Siddhivinayak Temple Trust’s recent decision to implement a dress code prohibiting short skirts, torn jeans and other revealing attire is a necessary move to uphold the sanctity of religious spaces. Temples are spiritual spaces where devotees seek solace, offer prayers, and connect with the divine. Temples are not mere tourist attractions but sacred sanctuaries. The least that visitors can do is dress accordingly.


The Jagannath temple in Puri, Odisha, and the Banke Bihari temple in Vrindavan have already implemented similar rules, reflecting a growing recognition that religious spaces require a modicum of decorum. In the case of Siddhivinayak, the temple attracts thousands of devotees daily, many of whom have expressed discomfort over attire that they feel clashes with the temple’s spiritual ambience.


Few would question the need for decorum in a courtroom, a government office, or even an upscale restaurant. Yet, when religious institutions enforce dress codes to preserve their sanctity, a chorus of indignation often rises in the name of personal freedom, with such ‘critics’ arguing that such rules reflect moral policing or an imposition of traditionalist values.

But this argument confuses religious sanctity with public space liberalism. No one is being compelled to enter the temple, and those who do should respect the customs that govern it. Even in non-Hindu religious spaces, dress codes are the norm. One does not enter a gurdwara without covering their head, nor a mosque or church dressed in attire deemed unsuitable for prayer. The sanctity of a religious institution should not be sacrificed at the altar of modern whims.


To dismiss this as an encroachment on personal liberties is to misunderstand the nature of such spaces. Religious sites operate under different expectations than public thoroughfares or commercial hubs. They are designed for reflection, devotion, and ritual. While Indian society has rightly evolved towards greater personal freedom in many spheres, faith-based institutions must be allowed to maintain traditions that are integral to their identity. The temple trust has made it clear that its goal is not to impose regressive restrictions but to ensure that all visitors feel comfortable and that the sanctity of the temple is upheld.


Moreover, the argument that religious sites must remain entirely open-ended in their dress codes simply does not hold water. Many of the people who object to these restrictions would scarcely question the need for appropriate attire at a formal event or while meeting a dignitary. The principle is the same -respect for the setting dictates the mode of dress. Those who seek to frame this as a battle between liberalism and conservatism fail to grasp that such measures are about propriety, not repression.


In an era where the lines between cultural expression and decorum are increasingly blurred, it is worth remembering that not every rule is an infringement on liberty. If people can abide by dress codes in secular spaces, they should extend the same courtesy to places of worship.

Comments

bottom of page