Retributions  

Our trigger fatwa happy Mullahs have issued a fatwa against singing of Vande Mataram apparently because it is anti Islamic. They have gone to the extent of asking parents to withdraw their kids from schools if they are ”forced” to sing it. I am not sure how one can force anyone to sing anything but I digress.There are three principle arguments against Vande Mataram-First, it is against Islamic tenets which apparently places Allah above everything including the motherland. I find this argument preposterous and frankly dangerous. The pan regional consciousness of Islam has been responsible for the rise of Islamic terrorism and is a force which should be resisted with all might. Does this argument mean that Muslims soldiers should not be trusted in times of war of with a Muslim country as they might pay heed to the call of their religion. Our own army history proves that is not the case. at all. Finally, why only in India? I am yet to see any Muslims in US refusing to use the dollar bills because it carries ”In God We trust”Second, it contains references to Hindu Goddesses and hence should not be imposed on Non-Muslims. The point to be noted here is that though rich in religious references, it is not a religious song. Correct me if I am wrong, but I know of no Temple where it is used to worship the deity. The reference to the Goddess is purely incidental and shows the love for the Motherland placing her on a higher pedestal than the Gods.Third, the attack against Bankim Chandra as a Hindu Nationalist(sic) considering his book Anandamatha. Vande Mataram was composed six years prior to the publication of Ananda Matha and used only as a war cry in the novel. Admittedly, Anandamatha has some references which are anti-Muslim but no one is demanding that the novel should be our national novel, Vande Mataram must be judged independent of the novel.While I am all for secularism(and abolition of religion for that matter) we cannot judge our past by the present notions of secularism, at least not by the highly distorted version we follow in India. We cannot deny our cultural heritage just because it might have religious annotations incompatible with our present believes. By that yardstick, even state patronage to Taj Mahal would be anti secular as it is after all a Mausoleum constructed by a Muslim king.Bankim Chandra must be judged according to the moral compass of those times, the historical perspective including the long and often brutal Muslim rule of Bengal, to do otherwise would be akin to denying Henry Ford’s genius because his cars cannot compete with today’s Ferrari’s.In an interesting piece Nitin defends the right not to sing Vande Mataram in the name of personal freedom. Though I broadly agree with his interpretation, I feel he has missed a couple of important points. First, this freedom is not available to any one else, for example we have not given the right to any citizen to burn the national flag. Till this right is non-sectarian and broad based it cannot be claimed. Second, this is no longer about individual rights. Because of the involvement of the Muslim Clerics, it has metamorphosed into a narrow community based issue. It is no longer about individual beliefs, but about a value system being orchestrated by those who claim they can decide for others. In the name of individual freedom such blatant interferences must be resisted.In a modern and secular nation state, religion cannot be allowed to interfere with how the state functions. The nation’s polity must be shaped by a shared version and not the whims and fancies of the few. Those who find themselves incompatible with such a situation have every right to secede and go their own way. They cannot and must not be allowed to hijack public polity by the shrillness of their tone.Update1-Before any more charges of being a fascist are hurled at me, I must clarify that a) I have no interest in reducing singing VM to a test of citizenship or patriotism for that matter. b) When I say ”we” must sing it, I refer only those of us who decry this religious interference in matters of polity. I have no interest in forcing anyone to sing it. For those who are comfortable with such interference, or welcome it, well they are free to oppose my call.Update 2- Dhoomketu fisks my piece here, Dilip defends his postition here and here, Nitin devises an educative and entertaining scheme for his readers here and Reflextion clarifies his position here.