In a fiery intervention in the Rajya Sabha on Wednesday, Congress MP Jairam Ramesh accused the government of “weaponising nationalism” while disregarding the historical debates that shaped India’s national song, Vande Mataram. Speaking during the debate marking 150 years of Vande Mataram, Ramesh cautioned against the politicisation of history, asserting that the ruling side was pushing selective narratives without acknowledging decades of deliberation by India’s foremost freedom leaders.

Opening his speech, Ramesh remarked pointedly: “We have too little history in our politics and far too much politics in our history,” taking aim at ministers and Prime Minister Narendra Modi for what he described as attempts to “become historians.” According to Ramesh, this trend of selective interpretation distorts the story of the nation’s struggle for independence and undermines the nuanced debates that shaped key decisions.

Ramesh drew attention to letters exchanged among prominent leaders between 1937 and 1939, including Rajendra Prasad, Subhas Chandra Bose, Rabindranath Tagore, Vallabhbhai Patel, Jawaharlal Nehru, and Mahatma Gandhi. These exchanges, he noted, reflected careful scrutiny of Vande Mataram’s lyrics to ensure that the song promoted unity rather than alienation.

Quoting from historical documents, Ramesh highlighted that Rajendra Prasad had written to Patel in September 1937raising concerns over specific lyrics. Bose, he added, sought Tagore’s advice twice in October of the same year, receiving responses from both Tagore and Nehru. This deliberation ultimately culminated in a Congress Working Committee (CWC) resolution on 28 October 1937, attended by Gandhi, Bose, Nehru, Patel, Govind Ballabh Pant, and Acharya Kripalani.

Ramesh emphasised that this scrutiny was not an attempt to demean or disrespect the song but rather an effort to ensure it served as a unifying symbol for all Indians. “You are accusing the very leaders who shaped this country,” Ramesh said, challenging the ruling benches. “If you attack the CWC decision, you attack Gandhi, you attack Bose, you attack Nehru, you attack Patel.”

The Congress MP further alleged that attempts to frame Vande Mataram as a communal flashpoint in the 1930s were not initiated by the Congress but by organisations that, he hinted, “are celebrating their 100th anniversary today.” Without directly naming the RSS, Ramesh suggested that groups now claiming ownership of nationalism had historically fanned communalism, reflecting a selective reinterpretation of history.

Beyond the song itself, Ramesh also praised Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay, the author of Vande Mataram, for his broader contributions to Indian society. He highlighted Chattopadhyay’s role in founding the Indian Association for the Cultivation of Science, an institution that would later house Nobel laureate C.V. Raman. Ramesh criticised the government for attempting to “pit Bankim against Tagore, and Tagore against Nehru,” framing it as a deliberate politicisation of cultural heritage.

Ramesh’s speech drew protests from the ruling benches, with some members objecting to the reinterpretation of historical narratives. He concluded by urging lawmakers to respect the historical record rather than rewriting it for political purposes. “Read history — do not rewrite it. Nationalism cannot be built on erasing truth,” he said.

The intervention reflects broader tensions in Indian politics over the narrative surrounding national symbols and the freedom movement. While the government has consistently sought to emphasise patriotic sentiment and celebrate Vande Mataram as a unifying anthem, Ramesh’s remarks underscore the ongoing historical debate over its interpretation and the need to acknowledge the diversity of thought and opinion among India’s founding leaders.

Experts note that Ramesh’s citations of correspondence among leaders from the late 1930s shed light on a period when the song’s lyrics were actively debated to ensure inclusivity, particularly given India’s religious and cultural diversity. By invoking these historical exchanges, Ramesh sought to remind parliamentarians that the national movement involved deliberation, dissent, and compromise—elements often absent from simplified political narratives today.

Ramesh’s critique also touches upon the broader issue of politicisation of culture. By framing historical icons and their decisions as part of a political agenda, he argued, the government risks undermining the rich, nuanced history of India’s struggle for independence. His intervention in the Rajya Sabha thus not only highlighted the importance of historical accuracy but also served as a caution against using history as a tool for contemporary political advantage.

The debate over Vande Mataram is likely to continue, as it intersects with issues of national identity, cultural heritage, and political symbolism. Ramesh’s insistence on consulting historical records, letters, and official resolutions from the freedom movement era emphasizes that understanding the past requires careful scholarship and respect for context rather than partisan interpretation.

In conclusion, Jairam Ramesh’s remarks in the Rajya Sabha drew attention to the fine line between patriotism and politicisation of history. By highlighting the deliberations of India’s key freedom leaders and warning against rewriting history to fit contemporary narratives, Ramesh reinforced the argument that national symbols must unite, not divide, and that the study of history must remain rigorous, inclusive, and free from political expediency.