Vande Mataram
“Vande Mataram”
For the benefit of those who are not aware, let me say that “Vande Mataram” is the first line of a patriotic song written by Bankim Chandra Chatterjee and incorporated in his novel “Ananda Math”. The music was composed by Rabindra Nath Tagore.
This song (only the first paragraph) was officially declared by the Government of India as the National Song.
Recently a controversy has been doing rounds in India because some political organizations declared that this song must compulsorily be sung by the school children on October 7, 2006 in remembrance of 100 years of its composition.
The main point of the debate has been on the meaning of the song. It literally means “Mother, I sing in thy praise” or “Mother, I salute thee”; the “Mother” here meaning the motherland. Many Muslim clerics (religious leaders) have objected to singing of this song by Muslims. Their argument is that according to Koran, no Muslim should bow to anything or anybody other than Allah.
Those who do not agree with the Muslim religious leaders say that “Vande” actually means “sing in praise” or “salute” and does not mean “bowing” as is done at the time Namaz. In fact Muslims do salute the respected ones like, say, the king; the salute here is called “kurnish”. There are other forms of salute like salam walekum or adab which is freely exchanged between equals. So saluting is no big deal among Muslims. So, why this objection to saluting the Motherland? It is definitely not against Islam.
But the Muslim mollahs (religious leaders) remained adamant, and on that day many Muslim children were absent from school to avoid trouble; and in many Muslim schools Vande Mataram was not sung.
There are two sides to this controversy. One is that such an order making it compulsory for the children to sing a particular song is itself unjustified, even ridiculous, I should say. So, the school children should be free to choose whether they sing the song or don’t.
But the second is more important. It is that there is a general feeing in India that the Muslims in India have not fully identified with their being Indians. Some Muslims still feel that Pakistan is there rightful place. So, they naturally have difficulty in totally identifying themselves as Indians. This incident of refusing to sing Vande Mataram and instructing all Muslims to refrain from singing this song because it is anti-Islam has deepened the feeling that the Muslims in India consider themselves to be Muslims first and Muslims last, and not Indians. This is not good for the so-called ‘integration of Muslims’ into the Indian psyche. The expression “integration” itself is a misnomer, because an Indian Muslim is an Indian; and there is no question of their “integrating” with India. Probably, “integration” here means ‘psychological integration’. In any event, this is bad for India as a nation.
For the benefit of those who are not aware, let me say that “Vande Mataram” is the first line of a patriotic song written by Bankim Chandra Chatterjee and incorporated in his novel “Ananda Math”. The music was composed by Rabindra Nath Tagore.
This song (only the first paragraph) was officially declared by the Government of India as the National Song.
Recently a controversy has been doing rounds in India because some political organizations declared that this song must compulsorily be sung by the school children on October 7, 2006 in remembrance of 100 years of its composition.
The main point of the debate has been on the meaning of the song. It literally means “Mother, I sing in thy praise” or “Mother, I salute thee”; the “Mother” here meaning the motherland. Many Muslim clerics (religious leaders) have objected to singing of this song by Muslims. Their argument is that according to Koran, no Muslim should bow to anything or anybody other than Allah.
Those who do not agree with the Muslim religious leaders say that “Vande” actually means “sing in praise” or “salute” and does not mean “bowing” as is done at the time Namaz. In fact Muslims do salute the respected ones like, say, the king; the salute here is called “kurnish”. There are other forms of salute like salam walekum or adab which is freely exchanged between equals. So saluting is no big deal among Muslims. So, why this objection to saluting the Motherland? It is definitely not against Islam.
But the Muslim mollahs (religious leaders) remained adamant, and on that day many Muslim children were absent from school to avoid trouble; and in many Muslim schools Vande Mataram was not sung.
There are two sides to this controversy. One is that such an order making it compulsory for the children to sing a particular song is itself unjustified, even ridiculous, I should say. So, the school children should be free to choose whether they sing the song or don’t.
But the second is more important. It is that there is a general feeing in India that the Muslims in India have not fully identified with their being Indians. Some Muslims still feel that Pakistan is there rightful place. So, they naturally have difficulty in totally identifying themselves as Indians. This incident of refusing to sing Vande Mataram and instructing all Muslims to refrain from singing this song because it is anti-Islam has deepened the feeling that the Muslims in India consider themselves to be Muslims first and Muslims last, and not Indians. This is not good for the so-called ‘integration of Muslims’ into the Indian psyche. The expression “integration” itself is a misnomer, because an Indian Muslim is an Indian; and there is no question of their “integrating” with India. Probably, “integration” here means ‘psychological integration’. In any event, this is bad for India as a nation.
posted by SENsible at 8:13 pm
9 Comments:
Thank you for initiating an important conversation on the web.
I think this issue is the tip of the iceberg -- the real question is what does it mean to be an Indian? What is the Indian psyche? Will singing this song make one an Indian? Does bowing or saluting an idea of being Indian enough? Or, to be even more subversive, is nationhood itself a moral ideal? What is the meaning of any human identity?
These are not rhetorical questions for me -- in other words I dont have a pat answer to these questions. But the storm about Vande Mataram -- to the extent it does not answer, or, diverts attentions away from these real questions -- is problematic.
I have to admit, in the interest of full disclosure, that I am deeply suspicious of any issue given national attentio by a political party.
BTW the blog does not allow anonymous comments -- which means effectively that only users of this blog site can respond. This will limit your responses.
Also, I would go to the "comments" section in edit mode of you blog, and activate "word verification". This reduces the risk of robots posting random (and sometimes embarassing messages) on your site -- it forces a human to type in a word verification to post a comment.
Atin
For one, I suppose the poitical leadership has to first prove its their own loyality to the nation before making self righteous noises.
For another, Muslims are 'self-alienated' in which ever society they live in, except in 'Muslim' countries.
On another note, it will be interesting to see what the Government does in the face of the recent change in clemency powers.
By and large I tend to agree with kalyug.It would be interesting to know the views of economicus on the comments of Kalyug
To my judgment, to be an Indian one must have full allegiance to the country. It is not a question of a political party making a demand about a song or whatever. But I qustion the loyalty and allegiance of the people who TELL you to refuse to salute India when, for example, a devout Moslem like Hussain had saluted Medina (his birthplace) when leaving for Karbala.
The political leadership of India by and large dont care about making Indians better off. I have to admit though that Indians have a tendency to blame their political leadership for sins that they commit themselves! Indians have the leadership they deserve. Indians are corrupt -- yes that includes the rank and file and not just the leadership. As long as people feel no ethical compunction in stealing software, giving (yes I said giving!!) bribes, shortchanging customers, lying on their vita's, and yes throwing garbage on streets after cleaning their houses -- need I go on?? -- they will get the leadership they deserve. Just as an illustration -- I was at a Rotary meeting in India recently where the speaker was an ethicist. At the end he asked "should people behave ethically in their personal lives?" I was amazed at the open response that -- no they should not!! If people can be this open about their own lack of honesty then why blame the elected leaders!!
My comments above are related to the issue of allegiance as well -- Saluting a flag or swearing allegiance is really a surface problem. Terrorists would not hesitate to salute the Indian flag if that meant they could get closer to blowing up their target -- does that make them patriotic? The BJP-RSS combine salute the Indian flag all the time and yet they do not hesitate to place burning tyres around innocent people simply because they happen to be muslim. Are they patriotic? However, it is patriotic to be honest, to participate in public discussions with civility, to stand up against wrong actions even if it does not directly affect us (and wrong actions ultimately affect all of us!!).
The "self alienation" of muslims is probably a meaningless construct. But muslims are alienated in india -- they also happen to be disproportionately poor, uneducated, forced to live in ghettos etc..etc.. all good reasons to feel alienated. Some of this is true for Hindu women as well -- though Hindu women stand a much higher chance of being murdered before they are born. However, Islam allows the alienation to coalesce around Mecca whereas Hindu women really have no way to organize around some structure. My point is that the visibility of islam as a force around which alienated muslims coalesce makes it easy to say they are self alienated when hindu women have the same forces acting to alienate them in much less visible ways.
In a nutshell -- being Indian or being American or a Hottentot is not as important an issue as being personally honest and socially responsible to both ones own race and a wider humanity.
If people can be this open about their own lack of honesty then why blame the elected leaders!!
This sounds like a chicken and egg question. To be noted is that an electe MP or MLA has taken a public oath to act and live in a certain way; thereby he is legally, ethically and morally bound to be "honest". The citizen has no such compulsion and will be whatsoever his conscience dictates.
The "self alienation" of muslims is probably a meaningless construct
Not true at all. The scarf issue in France, the veil matter in UK ... and the communities resistance to local laws are all expamples of alienation (greatly self-imposed). This is 1st world society we are talking about here, no Mohammed Ali Road poverty here.
I also believe that a country or a nation gets a government that it deserves. Basically Indians (for that matter, perhaps,people in the sub-continent) are dishonest; and I agree with economicus when he says this. Bound by oath or not it is the basic nature of the people that matters. I believe, America is great and powerful because its people by and large are honest in thought and action. This is also true of other Western countries. I don't mean that there are no crooks or mean people in these countries; far from it. But it is the general attitude of people not to do anything that would harm their country. We never think in those terms. except for a few (like the three of us???)
To answer Kaliyug's comment on self alienation -- muslim immigrants in France are disproportionately poor. Indeed the riots in the banlieu's are primarily driven by poverty -- the hardcore muslims stayed home when cars were being burnt by jobless (muslim by birth) immigrants. France and Europe is probably not the example Kaliyug wants to use to make his/her point.
Post a Comment
<< Home