MMU objects to ‘Vande Mataram’ singing competition in J&K

The recent objection by the Muttahida Majlis-e-Ulema (MMU), a prominent religious body in Jammu & Kashmir, to a 'Vande Mataram' singing competition, citing concerns related to religious faith, brings to the forefront a recurring debate in India: the delicate balance between national symbols, cultural integration, and fundamental religious freedoms. This incident is particularly significant in the context of J&K's evolving socio-political landscape following the abrogation of Article 370.

To truly grasp the gravity of this situation, one must understand the background context. Jammu & Kashmir has historically been a region with a unique constitutional status and a distinct cultural identity. The abrogation of Article 370 and Article 35A in August 2019, which stripped J&K of its special status and bifurcated it into two Union Territories (J&K and Ladakh), was a monumental shift. The central government's stated aim behind these changes was to fully integrate J&K into the Indian mainstream, foster development, and address security concerns. Part of this integration effort often involves promoting national symbols and cultural events that underscore national unity, such as 'Vande Mataram' competitions.

'Vande Mataram', meaning 'Mother, I bow to thee', is India's national song. Composed by Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay in 1875, it was an integral part of his novel 'Anandamath' (1882) and became a powerful anthem during India's freedom struggle. Its patriotic fervor resonated deeply, leading to its adoption as the national song in 1950, alongside Rabindranath Tagore's 'Jana Gana Mana' as the national anthem. However, its origins and certain verses have historically faced objections from some Muslim communities who view the anthropomorphic depiction of the nation as a goddess (Bharat Mata) as idolatrous and contrary to monotheistic Islamic tenets. This is not a new controversy; similar objections have been raised periodically since the pre-independence era, including debates within the Constituent Assembly.

In this specific incident, the key stakeholders are the Muttahida Majlis-e-Ulema (MMU), representing a collective voice of various Islamic scholars and organizations in J&K, and the government machinery (likely the local administration or educational departments) that organized the competition. The MMU's objection stems from a sincere belief that participation in such an event could violate their religious principles. They are essentially advocating for sensitivity and respect for religious diversity in official outreach programs, especially in a region with a significant Muslim majority and a history of distinct cultural practices. The general public and students in J&K are also stakeholders, as they are the target audience for such initiatives and are caught between governmental integration efforts and religious community sentiments.

This issue matters profoundly for India for several reasons. Firstly, it touches upon the core tenet of secularism enshrined in the Preamble of the Indian Constitution, which mandates equal respect for all religions and non-discrimination. The state's role is to foster national unity without coercing citizens into practices that conflict with their fundamental religious beliefs. Secondly, it highlights the ongoing challenges of national integration, particularly in regions like J&K, where historical narratives and identities are complex. Forced assimilation can be counterproductive, potentially alienating communities rather than integrating them. Thirdly, it tests the constitutional guarantees of religious freedom.

From a constitutional perspective, this issue invokes several crucial articles. **Article 25** of the Indian Constitution guarantees freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practice, and propagate religion, subject to public order, morality, and health. The MMU's objection directly references this right. While citizens have a **Fundamental Duty under Article 51A(a)** to abide by the Constitution and respect its ideals and institutions, including national symbols, this duty is generally understood not to compel participation in activities that violate religious conscience, especially when it comes to symbolic gestures like singing. The Supreme Court, in the famous **Bijoe Emmanuel case (1986)**, upheld the right of three Jehovah's Witness children not to sing the National Anthem, citing Article 19(1)(a) (freedom of speech and expression) and Article 25 (freedom of religion), as long as they stood respectfully. While 'Vande Mataram' is the National Song and not the Anthem, the principle of not compelling participation against religious beliefs is often invoked.

Furthermore, **Article 28** addresses freedom as to attendance at religious instruction or religious worship in certain educational institutions, and **Article 29** protects the interests of minorities to conserve their distinct language, script, or culture. These articles collectively underscore the constitutional framework that seeks to protect religious and cultural diversity while promoting national unity.

Looking ahead, this incident has several future implications. It will likely influence how the government designs and implements cultural and national integration programs in J&K and other diverse regions. There will be an increased emphasis on finding a balance that promotes national pride without infringing upon religious sensitivities. It could also lead to more nuanced policy discussions on the interpretation of national symbols and the scope of religious freedom in public spaces. For J&K, it highlights the continued need for sensitive governance that acknowledges the unique identity of its people while fostering greater allegiance to the Indian Union. The success of integration efforts will depend on dialogue, mutual respect, and policies that are inclusive rather than prescriptive, ensuring that national symbols act as unifying forces, not sources of division.