Ramesh invokes historians to reaffirm Vande Mataram’s legacy, debunks ‘distorted’ claims

Senior Congress leader Jairam Ramesh on Friday, 7 November, invoked a rich tapestry of historical references to reaffirm the significance of Vande Mataram in India’s national and political consciousness, while also countering what he described as the “distortions” propagated by the BJP-RSS ecosystem about the origins of Jana Gana Mana.

In a post on X, Ramesh drew from the works of noted historians Sabyasachi Bhattacharya and Rudrangshu Mukherjee, underscoring how both Vande Mataram and Jana Gana Mana occupy parallel and honoured places in the nation’s history.

Quoting Bhattacharya’s 2003 definitive biography of Vande Mataram, Ramesh highlighted the song’s evolution from Bankimchandra Chattopadhyay’s composition to its adoption as a symbol of the freedom struggle.

He recalled that on 24 January 1950, during the final sitting of the Constituent Assembly, Dr. Rajendra Prasad had formally declared Vande Mataram to have “equal status” with Jana Gana Mana, recognising the historic role it played in India’s march to independence.

Ramesh also referenced Rabindranath Tagore’s first public rendition of Vande Mataram at the 1896 Congress session in Calcutta, and his later role in defining its place in public life through the Congress Working Committee resolution of 29 October 1937.

Turning to Jana Gana Mana, Ramesh cited historian Rudrangshu Mukherjee’s recent work, which he said “debunks the nonsense peddled by the RSS/BJP distorian brigade” about the anthem’s origins and intent.

The Congress leader further recalled another facet of Bankimchandra Chattopadhyay’s intellectual legacy, pointing to his five essays titled Samya (1872–76), a “scathing indictment of caste-based inequalities in India”, later translated into English by Bibek Debroy in 2002 as Equality.

Through his post, Ramesh sought to frame the debate around Vande Mataram and Jana Gana Mana within its true historical and constitutional context — a reminder, as he put it, that India’s symbols of nationhood were born of pluralist ideals, not partisan appropriation.