A political controversy erupted on Thursday after Karnataka Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) MP Vishweshwar Hegde Kageri was seen in a video allegedly claiming that India’s national anthem, Jana Gana Mana, was composed to welcome the British monarchy. The remarks, coming ahead of nationwide events marking 150 years of the national song Vande Mataram, prompted the Congress to issue a strong rebuttal and accuse the BJP of propagating distorted historical narratives influenced by what they described as “RSS WhatsApp history.”

The controversy began when Priyank Kharge, Karnataka minister and senior Congress leader, shared a video clip of Kageri on social media. In the clip, Kageri purportedly states that although there had been a strong push historically to adopt Vande Mataram as the national anthem, India’s “ancestors” also included Jana Gana Mana, which he claimed was composed to welcome the British. According to media reports – though not independently verified – Kageri referred to an earlier “chorus” in favour of Vande Mataram, and suggested that both it and Jana Gana Mana were adopted as part of a compromise.

Kharge responded forcefully, calling the claim “utter nonsense” and accusing the BJP MP of repeating a long-debunked falsehood. He wrote that this was yet another example of what he termed an “RSS WhatsApp history lesson,” pointing out that such claims have circulated informally for years within circles sympathetic to the organisation but have no basis in scholarly or historical fact. Kharge reminded the public that Rabindranath Tagore composed the hymn Bharoto Bhagyo Bidhata in 1911, and its first stanza became Jana Gana Mana, adopted as India’s national anthem by the Constituent Assembly on January 24, 1950.

Kharge further emphasised that the song was first sung on December 27, 1911, at the Indian National Congress session in Calcutta. This historical detail, he argued, directly contradicts the idea that it was written as a tribute to the British monarch, for that Congress session was neither attended by British dignitaries nor convened to honour the colonial rulers. Rather, the session was a political gathering of Indian delegates advocating national interests.

To strengthen his case, Kharge cited Tagore’s own statements. The Nobel laureate clarified, notably in 1937 and again in 1939, that the poem hailed the “Dispenser of India’s destiny,” a reference to the divine and not to any human figure, let alone a British king. Tagore specifically rejected interpretations suggesting that the hymn referred to George V or George VI, stating unequivocally that no earthly monarch was meant to be praised in the composition. These clarifications, Kharge argued, have been part of the public record for decades, and any claims to the contrary represent either deliberate distortion or profound ignorance of history.

Kharge also launched a broader attack on the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), the ideological parent of the BJP. He urged RSS functionaries to “revisit history,” claiming that the organisation historically opposed or disrespected the national anthem, the national flag, and the Constitution. He referred to instances in which members of the organisation had been accused of refusing to sing the national anthem or hoist the national flag in certain contexts. In a sharp remark, Kharge concluded that this “viRSS” needed to be cured, suggesting that the organisation’s approach to national symbols had long been problematic.

The controversy gained additional traction because it unfolded on the eve of a significant national commemoration. On November 7, India is set to mark 150 years of Vande Mataram, the iconic national song composed by Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay in the 1870s. The Union government has planned programmes at 150 locations across the country, with Prime Minister Narendra Modi scheduled to attend a central event at the Indira Gandhi Stadium in Delhi. Against this backdrop, Kageri’s remarks acquired heightened political sensitivity, particularly as debates over national symbols often become flashpoints for discussions about nationalism, identity, and the legacy of India’s freedom movement.

The BJP MP’s alleged statement has been widely circulated in the media, though HT.com noted that it could not independently verify the Kannada words spoken in the viral clip. Some outlets, such as NDTV, quoted Kageri suggesting that India’s forebears decided to include Jana Gana Mana alongside Vande Mataram even though it was “composed to welcome the British.” However, at least according to the reports, Kageri also appeared to indicate that he did not wish to reopen historical debates, suggesting that his comments were intended to reflect a past discussion rather than advocate for changes in the present.

Nonetheless, the Congress seized on the remarks as symptomatic of a larger trend. The party argued that the BJP and its ideological affiliates frequently promote historical inaccuracies to serve political narratives, especially those that cast doubt on the contributions of figures not aligned with their worldview. In this case, the Congress portrayed the BJP MP’s claim as part of a longstanding effort by some factions to delegitimise Rabindranath Tagore’s contributions or reframe national symbols through a sectarian or revisionist lens.

Political observers note that controversies around national symbols are not new. Over the years, debates have arisen over the relative status of the national anthem and the national song, the ideological lineage of historical figures, and the interpretation of India’s freedom struggle. What makes the present dispute particularly notable is its timing. With the country preparing to commemorate Vande Mataram’s 150th anniversary, parties appear keen to position themselves as the true custodians of Indian nationalism.

For the Congress, defending the historical integrity of Jana Gana Mana allows it to reaffirm its connection to India’s constitutional legacy and the inclusive nationalism of the early 20th century. For the BJP, invoking Vande Mataram resonates strongly with segments of its support base that associate it with cultural pride and Hindu nationalist sentiment. That a BJP MP’s remarks questioning Jana Gana Mana’s origins were amplified in this context highlights the ideological contest surrounding India’s symbols and narratives.

While Kageri has not issued a detailed clarification, the backlash from Congress leaders reflects a broader political confrontation that extends beyond a single statement. It touches on questions of historical authenticity, respect for national symbols, and the ideological battle between the Congress’s secular constitutionalism and the BJP’s cultural nationalism.

As events marking Vande Mataram’s 150th year proceed, the debate sparked by Kageri’s alleged comments serves as a reminder of how deeply entwined music, poetry, and national identity are in India’s political imagination. It also underscores the enduring sensitivity surrounding interpretations of national symbols, especially when invoked during periods of heightened political activity. With both parties preparing for key state elections and national-level events, the controversy is unlikely to fade quickly, instead becoming part of a broader discussion on how India remembers, interprets, and honours its past.