The directive mandating the observance of Vande Mataram may benefit from a thoughtful reconsideration but it should be voluntary, keeping with democratic values and constitutional principles.
Share
(The Right to Speech Must Equal the Right to Silence)
In a diverse and pluralistic nation like India, the strength of democracy lies not merely in its constitutional framework, but in its ability to accommodate and celebrate differences—differences of belief, culture, language, and identity. It is this rich diversity that has long been regarded as India’s greatest strength, forming the very foundation of its unity. The Indian idea of nationhood has never been rooted in uniformity; rather, it thrives on the harmonious coexistence of multiple identities, each contributing to the collective whole.
However, from time to time, certain policies and administrative directives emerge that test this delicate balance between unity and diversity. These moments call for careful reflection, sensitive engagement, and a reaffirmation of constitutional values. One such issue that has recently come to the forefront in Arunachal Pradesh is the directive mandating the observance of the Indian National Song, Vande Mataram, in educational institutions and official functions.
At the outset, it is important to state with clarity and sincerity that the people of Arunachal Pradesh, like citizens across the country, hold deep respect for the nation and its symbols. Their commitment to the unity, integrity, and sovereignty of India is unwavering. There is no element of hostility or disregard towards national sentiments. However, what is being thoughtfully raised is not a question of patriotism, but a matter of principle—specifically, the principle of freedom of conscience and the right of individuals and communities to preserve their cultural and religious identities without compulsion.
Arunachal Pradesh is not merely a geographical entity; it is a land of profound historical consciousness, vibrant traditions, and diverse indigenous cultures. The people of the state have, for generations, lived in an environment that values mutual respect, community harmony, and peaceful coexistence. Churches, temples, mosques, and other places of worship stand side by side, functioning in an atmosphere of mutual understanding. This coexistence is not accidental—it is the result of sustained efforts, cultural sensitivity, and a shared commitment to peace and inclusivity.
In such a context, the directive mandating the singing or playing of Vande Mataram raises important and legitimate concerns. It is essential to emphasise that the concern does not arise from the song itself. Vande Mataram occupies a significant place in India’s freedom struggle and holds deep emotional value for many citizens. The concern, rather, lies in the element of compulsion associated with its observance.
For some communities, the imagery and expressions contained within Vande Mataram are devotional in nature and are closely associated with particular religious traditions. While such expressions are meaningful and revered by many, they may not resonate in the same way with individuals belonging to different faiths or belief systems. In a country as diverse as India, it is natural that symbols and expressions may be interpreted differently by different communities.
The Constitution of India, which serves as the supreme law of the land, guarantees to every citizen the freedom of thought, conscience, and religion. This includes not only the right to profess and practice one’s beliefs but also the right to refrain from participating in practices that may conflict with those beliefs. This distinction is crucial. Freedom is not merely about participation—it is equally about the choice not to participate.
When a directive mandates participation in a symbolic or cultural expression, it risks crossing the fine line between encouragement and coercion. While encouragement fosters unity through voluntary participation, coercion may inadvertently create discomfort, alienation, or a sense of exclusion among certain sections of society.
Educational institutions, in particular, must be spaces that nurture open-mindedness, critical thinking, and respect for diversity. They play a formative role in shaping young minds and instilling values that will guide future generations. It is, therefore, essential that these institutions remain inclusive environments where diversity is respected and individual freedoms are upheld. Imposing uniform practices in matters of belief or expression may run counter to the very purpose of education, which is to broaden perspectives rather than restrict them.
The concerns being expressed by the people of Arunachal Pradesh are also supported by internationally recognised principles of human rights. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights affirms the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion, including the freedom to adopt, practice, or abstain from certain beliefs. Similarly, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which India is a signatory, explicitly prohibits coercion that interferes with an individual’s freedom of belief.
For indigenous communities such as those in Arunachal Pradesh, these issues carry even deeper significance. The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples recognises the rights of indigenous communities to preserve, protect, and strengthen their cultural traditions and institutions. Policies that are perceived as imposing external cultural practices, particularly without meaningful consultation, may be seen as undermining these rights.
It is important to understand that the people of Arunachal Pradesh are not merely a demographic group; they are indigenous communities with distinct identities, languages, and traditions. Their relationship with the Indian state has evolved over decades through dialogue, cooperation, and mutual understanding. Trust has been built gradually, and it remains a cornerstone of this relationship. Any policy that affects their cultural or religious sensitivities must therefore be approached with care, empathy, and respect.
The recent responses from students, civil society organisations, and community leaders reflect the depth of these concerns. It is noteworthy that these expressions have largely remained peaceful and democratic in nature. They are not acts of defiance but rather sincere appeals for dialogue, understanding, and respect. Such expressions should be viewed not as challenges to authority, but as opportunities to engage constructively and strengthen democratic processes.
In a vibrant democracy, dissent is not a sign of weakness; it is an indication of active citizen participation. When people raise concerns about policies that affect their identity and beliefs, they are exercising their democratic rights. Engaging with such concerns in a respectful and responsive manner can lead to better policy outcomes and stronger social cohesion.
The way forward, therefore, lies in dialogue, consultation, and mutual respect. Policies, particularly those affecting culturally sensitive regions, should be formulated with the active involvement of local stakeholders. This inclusive approach not only ensures that policies are more effective and contextually appropriate, but also fosters a sense of ownership and trust among the people.
At the same time, it is important to reaffirm the principle of secularism, which forms one of the foundational pillars of the Indian Constitution. In the Indian context, secularism does not imply the absence of religion; rather, it signifies equal respect for all religions and belief systems. It requires the state to maintain neutrality and to avoid promoting or imposing any particular religious or cultural expression.
In light of these considerations, the directive mandating the observance of Vande Mataram may benefit from a thoughtful reconsideration. Encouraging voluntary participation, while respecting individual choices, would be more in keeping with democratic values and constitutional principles. Respect for national symbols should go hand in hand with respect for individual conscience and cultural diversity.
Ultimately, the objective of any policy should be to strengthen unity without diminishing diversity. True unity cannot be achieved through uniformity alone; it must be built on a foundation of mutual respect, understanding, and acceptance of differences. Arunachal Pradesh, with its rich cultural tapestry and tradition of peaceful coexistence, stands as a powerful example of how diversity can coexist with unity.
In conclusion, the concerns raised by the people of Arunachal Pradesh serve as a timely reminder of the importance of maintaining a delicate balance in a diverse society. They call upon us to reaffirm the core values that underpin our democracy—freedom, dignity, inclusivity, and respect for all.
Addressing these concerns with sensitivity, openness, and a willingness to engage in dialogue will not only strengthen trust but also reinforce the ideals enshrined in the Constitution. It will demonstrate that India’s unity is not fragile, but resilient—capable of accommodating differences while remaining firmly rooted in shared values.
The time has come to listen with empathy, to engage with sincerity, and to act with wisdom. By doing so, we can ensure that the bonds of unity are strengthened in a manner that is both meaningful and enduring, and that every citizen feels respected, valued, and included in the national journey.
Yumri Taipodia
(The writer is a columnist in various dailies)