The Union Government has amended the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971, in August 2026. Through this amendment, Vande Mataram has been given legal protection similar to that given to the National Anthem, the National Flag and the Constitution.
Concerns are being raised about the law that permits legal action to be taken for refusing to recite the song at government or private programmes. There is considerable concern among Muslims across the country because they believe that the song conflicts with their religious beliefs and Muslims may violate the law. Islam teaches the worship of one and only one God, Allah, whereas Vande Mataram, according to their interpretation, presents India as a divine figure worthy of worship.
For Muslims, this raises the question of shirk, or associating anyone or anything with Allah in worship. Several Muslim organisations, including Jamaat-e-Islami Hind, All India Muslim Personal Law Board and Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind, have reportedly criticised the law and called for its withdrawal. Some organisations have also challenged it in the Supreme Court.
One of the organisations that have challenged the law is the Hakim Ajmal Khan Forum for Peace and Harmony (HAKFPH). In an interview with senior journalist Syed Khalique Ahmed, Forum’s general secretary Dr. Syed Ahmed Khan gives the reasons for challenging the mandatory singing of the Vande Mataram song at government functions, in schools, colleges and other institutions for people from all faiths. Hakim Ajmal Khan was a prominent freedom fighter and a strong advocate of Hindu-Muslim unity. He established Ayurvedic and Unani Medical College in Karol Bagh in Delhi and worked throughout his life to promote communal harmony.
Dr. Syed Ahmed Khan is a retired Deputy Director and former In-Charge of the Unani Medical Centre at Safdarjung Hospital, who served for over 30 years in the Central Council for Research in Unani Medicine (CCRUM) under the Ministry of Ayush, Government of India.
After his retirement, he is very active in public health advocacy and promotion of Unani and Ayurvedic medicines. He is currently serving as a General Secretary of All India Unani Tibbi Congress (AIUTC) and participating in national Unani health camps and academic lectures on pharmaco-vigilance. Besides, he also takes part in activities involving community amity and national integration through HAKFPH.
Senior journalist Syed Khalique Ahmed talks to Dr. Syed Ahmed Khan on the various aspects of Vande Mataram Controversy. Here are the excerpts of the interview:
Dr. Syed, we would like to understand why your organisation has challenged the law concerning Vande Mataram. On what grounds have you challenged it, and why?
Dr. Syed Ahmed Khan: Our position is that whenever legislation is enacted, whether in Parliament or state legislatures, certain fundamental questions must be considered. First: Is the proposed law genuinely in the public interest? Second: Could it hurt the religious sentiments of any section of society?
The law making the recitation of Vande Mataram compulsory was introduced and passed in a haste without any discussion in Parliament. The government did not consider the sentiments of the Muslims about the song. Muslims had always opposed its mandatory singing ever since 1947. It was because of this reason the then Congress government and subsequent governments of other parties never agreed to Vande Mataram’s compulsory singing. Hence, the passing of the law by the BJP government has created concern among people who believe in the absolute Oneness of Allah.
Muslims believe that there is only One God and that no one besides Allah is worthy of worship. As the Upanishadic expression “Ekam Brahma, Dvitiyam Nasti” (God is One, no second God exists) also conveys the idea of one supreme reality, our belief is that worship must be directed exclusively towards Allah.
Muslim organisations, including All India Muslim Personal Law Board, Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind and Jamaat-e-Islami Hind, have discussed this matter extensively and opposed the recitation of Vande Mataram strongly.
Our objection is that certain portions of the song, calls for something that Muslims consider as ‘shirk’ (polytheism or associating somebody or something with Allah). Since ‘shirk’ is prohibited in Islam, Muslims cannot participate in an act that has an element of ‘shirk’ in it.
We must understand that loving one’s country and worshipping one’s country are two entirely different things. Loving India does not mean that we must give the country the status of a deity or worship it. Every Muslim who offers prayers does so while standing on the earth. However, the Muslim worships Allah alone and believes that there is no deity worthy of worship except Him. That is the distinction we are making. We have highlighted this aspect in our petition, based on which we have demanded that the singing of the song should not be made compulsory for Muslims. Muslims should be exempted from its singing. But there seems to be political purpose behind the making of the recitation of the song compulsory for people of all faith groups.
You have raised two important issues. First, you have questioned whether the law was enacted in accordance with the interests and sentiments of the people. Second, you have argued that making the recitation of Vande Mataram compulsory may clash with the religious beliefs of Muslims. You have also questioned the necessity of this legislation. Since India already has a National Anthem, Jana Gana Mana, why was there a need to make the recitation of Vande Mataram compulsory? You have suggested that there may be a political purpose behind this decision. Could you explain your concerns?
Dr. Syed Ahmed Khan: The first question is why such a law was needed in the first place. The government has to consider whether legislation is necessary and whether it serves the public interest. A considerable amount of public money is spent on making and implementing laws. Therefore, the government should explain the need for such legislation.
India already has a National Anthem, Jana Gana Mana, which people have been singing for decades. Why was it necessary to introduce another legal requirement concerning a song that had not previously been compulsory? Our concern is that the decision may have political implications. We believe that the government should consider whether such legislation could create divisions between religious communities.
Our Forum’s founder-president, Tej Lal Bharti, is a veteran Congress leader who was associated with Mahatma Gandhi and Hakim Ajmal Khan. He has worked for Hindu-Muslim unity for many years. He was expected to attend this interview of yours but could not do so due to his failing health as he is more than 90 years old now. He has consistently spoken against developments that he believes may create divisions between communities.
Our Forum has also been involved in other matters concerning communal harmony and constitutional rights. For example, we previously approached the Supreme Court regarding the status of Urdu as a second official language in several states. In its judgment dated 4 September 2014, the Supreme Court of India held that Urdu could constitutionally be declared the second official language, alongside Hindi, for specified official purposes. So, the Supreme Court recognised the importance of India’s shared cultural traditions and the rights of its citizens.
The broader principle is that people should not be compelled to accept the beliefs or cultural practices of others. India has a long tradition of Hindu-Muslim coexistence. We should preserve that tradition rather than introduce measures that create unnecessary controversy.
You have emphasised that legislation must be consistent with the Constitution, particularly the fundamental rights of citizens. You have also expressed concern that making Vande Mataram compulsory could increase polarisation between Hindus and Muslims. Do you believe that compulsory recitation could create greater distance between the two communities?
Dr. Syed Ahmed Khan: Our founder-president, Tej Lal Bharti, has expressed similar concerns. He believes that laws and policies should bring Hindu and Muslim communities closer together rather than create divisions between them. We should not look at India’s population merely as separate religious communities. We should recognise that we are all citizens of the same country. When people are divided along religious lines, the entire country suffers.
History shows that whenever social divisions and communal tensions increase, the consequences are harmful. The government has a responsibility to maintain peace and harmony among citizens. It should create conditions in which people belonging to different religions can live together with mutual respect.
India’s democracy is based on the principle that every citizen deserves equal dignity and equal rights. A citizen’s rights should not depend on whether that person belongs to the Hindu majority, the Muslim minority or any other community. Every citizen should enjoy the rights guaranteed by the Constitution.
Therefore, lawmakers must carefully consider the constitutional implications of any legislation they introduce. They should ask whether the proposed law respects fundamental rights and whether it serves the interests of the country as a whole.
While hearing petitions challenging the Vande Mataram’s mandatory singing, the SC on September 22 indicated that people whose religious sentiments would be violated by singing Vande Mataram should not be compelled to recite it. The bench included Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M. Pancholi. What is your response to the Supreme Court’s position?
Dr. Syed Ahmed Khan: We welcomed the Court’s observations because they recognise the importance of respecting people’s religious sentiments. We believe that the government should consider these observations seriously. The Court has not yet delivered its final judgment, and the hearing is still continuing. Therefore, we should not treat the observations as the final resolution of the case. However, the Court has raised an important constitutional question. The government should consider whether legislation concerning national symbols can be implemented without violating the religious freedom of citizens.
We have consistently maintained that no law should be introduced that unnecessarily hurts the religious sentiments of any community. The Court’s observations provide an opportunity for the government to reconsider the matter. We believe that the government should examine the amendment again and consider whether it needs to be revised.
Do you demand that the government reconsider the amendment and withdraw the requirement making the recitation of Vande Mataram compulsory?
Dr. Syed Ahmed Khan: Yes. We believe that the government should reconsider the amendment and withdraw the compulsory aspect of the requirement. For decades after independence, successive governments did not make the recitation of Vande Mataram compulsory. This was the case under governments led by different political parties, including the Congress, and other non-BJP government.
Even during the tenure of late Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee, the recitation of Vande Mataram was not made compulsory in the manner now being discussed. The country continued to function without such a requirement. The important question is whether the absence of compulsory recitation weakened India’s patriotism or national unity. We do not believe that it weakened the national unity. Similarly, we do not believe that making the song compulsory will automatically increase patriotism.
Love for one’s country is a personal feeling. It cannot be measured simply by whether someone sings a particular song. Citizens demonstrate their commitment to the country through their conduct, their contributions to society and their respect for fellow citizens. Therefore, compulsory recitation should not be treated as a test of patriotism.
Vande Mataram contains eight stanzas. Some people argue that the first two stanzas do not contain anything that conflicts with the belief in one God. However, the subsequent verses contain imagery that Muslims interpret as religiously objectionable. If the requirement extends to the entire song, does that create a problem for Muslims?
Dr. Syed Ahmed Khan: Yes, this is an important issue. There is a distinction between the first two stanzas and the subsequent verses. Some people believe that the first two stanzas can be recited without raising the same theological concerns. However, the later verses contain religious imagery that Muslims consider to be attributing divine qualities to the motherland or invoking the worship of deities.
For Muslims who interpret those verses in this way, reciting them would conflict with their religious beliefs. The question is, therefore, not simply whether someone wishes to sing a patriotic song. The question is whether the state should require a person to recite words that the person sincerely believes violate their faith.
Our concern is that such a requirement may conflict with the religious freedom guaranteed by the Constitution. Articles 25 and 26 protect religious freedom, subject to the conditions and limitations provided by the Constitution. We believe that these constitutional protections must be considered when legislation concerning religiously sensitive matters is introduced. The government should not assume that every citizen can participate in the same religious or cultural expression without difficulty.
Does the decision to make Vande Mataram compulsory send a message that citizens belonging to minority communities must accept the religious or cultural practices of the majority? Could this create the impression that the cultural traditions of the majority are being imposed on everyone?
Dr. Syed Ahmed Khan: This is precisely the concern that many people have expressed. India is a secular and democratic country. Its Constitution guarantees religious freedom and recognises the rights of citizens belonging to different communities.
No citizen should be compelled to accept the religious beliefs or practices of another community. We must remember that India belongs equally to all its citizens. The rights of a Muslim citizen are not inferior to those of a Hindu citizen. The same principle applies to every religious and cultural community.
If a law requires people to participate in an expression that they sincerely believe conflicts with their religion, the government must carefully consider the constitutional implications. Such a law is not compatible with a constitutional democracy. A democratic government should not impose the cultural or religious preferences of one group on others. It should protect the rights and dignity of all citizens.
Our concern is that compulsory recitation could create the impression that the religious or cultural traditions of the majority must be accepted by everyone, including minorities. We believe that such an approach would be harmful to India’s pluralistic traditions.
The Supreme Court has reportedly indicated that the status of Vande Mataram as the National Song will remain unchanged. However, the question whether its recitation can be made compulsory is still under consideration. There is also a legal question about whether the amendment itself expressly describes Vande Mataram as the National Song. Could you explain your understanding of this issue?
Dr. Syed Ahmed Khan: The matter is still before the Supreme Court, and we must wait for its final decision.
There is a distinction between recognising the status of a song and requiring every citizen to sing it. The fact that a song has national significance does not automatically resolve the question of compulsory participation. We believe that the law must be examined in the light of the Constitution. The Court will have to consider what the legislation actually provides and whether it is consistent with the fundamental rights of citizens.
The question whether the complete song should be compulsory is particularly important for people who have religious objections to certain verses. We hope that the Court will examine the matter carefully and consider the rights guaranteed to every citizen in this matter in the light of the SC’s 1986 judgement in Bijoe Emmanuel vs State of Kerala case.
You have referred to the Supreme Court’s famous Bijoe Emmanuel judgment. In that case, the Court considered the rights of students who declined to sing the National Anthem because of their religious beliefs. How does that judgment relate to the present controversy?
Dr. Syed Ahmed Khan: The Bijoe Emmanuel judgment is important because it recognised that freedom of conscience and religious belief must be respected. The Supreme Court held that students who respectfully declined to sing the National Anthem because of their religious convictions could not be punished merely for that refusal.
The judgment established an important principle concerning the relationship between national symbols and individual conscience. We believe that this principle is relevant to the present controversy. If a person sincerely believes that singing a particular song would violate their religious beliefs, that person should not automatically be treated as disloyal to the country. The government must distinguish between deliberate disruption of a national event and a peaceful refusal to participate on grounds of conscience.
Our position is that no citizen should be punished simply because they cannot participate in a particular religiously contested expression. However, the precise legal implications of the 2026 amendment will have to be determined through the ongoing proceedings.
Some people argue that anyone who wishes to live in India must sing Vande Mataram. They suggest that refusing to sing the song indicates a lack of patriotism. What is your response to this argument?
Dr. Syed Ahmed Khan: We do not agree that patriotism should be measured in this way. India has been independent for decades, and during much of this period, citizens were not legally required to sing Vande Mataram. Did that mean that people were not patriotic? Did the country become less loyal or less united because the song was not compulsory? We do not believe so.
A person’s love for their country is a matter of conscience and personal commitment. It cannot be established simply by forcing someone to sing a particular song.
A Muslim citizen can love India, work for its development and contribute to its welfare while maintaining the belief that worship belongs exclusively to Allah. There is no contradiction between loving one’s country and following one’s religion.
The government should not turn the recitation of a song (Vande Mataram) into a test of national loyalty. Instead, it should encourage citizens to respect one another and work together for the country’s progress.
You have argued that India already has a National Anthem that is widely accepted. Why, then, was it necessary to make compulsory signing of Vande Mataram?
Dr. Syed Ahmed Khan: That is a question the government should answer. India already has Jana Gana Mana, which is recognised as the National Anthem. Citizens have been singing it for decades. We must ask what additional purpose is served by making another song compulsory. Will compulsory recitation of Vande Mataram solve the country’s problems? Will it eliminate corruption? Will it improve education, healthcare or employment? Will it strengthen social harmony?
We believe that the country has many important challenges that require the government’s attention. The government should focus on development, public welfare and the problems faced by ordinary citizens. We should not introduce unnecessary measures that could create religious controversy or social division. The priority should be to strengthen the country through constructive policies and mutual respect.
You have mentioned corruption and other development-related issues. Do you believe that the country should focus more on these problems rather than creating controversy over compulsory recitation?
Dr. Syed Ahmed Khan: Yes. There are many important issues that require serious attention. Corruption remains a major concern in our country. Unless corruption is addressed, the development that we hope to achieve will remain difficult. The government should focus on the welfare of citizens, economic development, education, healthcare and the improvement of public institutions.
The purpose of government should be to improve people’s lives. Creating divisions between communities does not help achieve these objectives. We believe that national progress requires peace, unity and cooperation. Citizens should be encouraged to work together rather than being divided over religious or cultural differences.
The government may argue that the law is intended to protect the dignity of national symbols. How do you respond to the argument that compulsory recitation is necessary to preserve respect for the National Song?
Dr. Syed Ahmed Khan: We understand that national symbols have importance and that they should be treated with respect. However, respect cannot be established through compulsion alone. There is a difference between protecting a national symbol from deliberate insult and requiring every citizen to participate in a particular expression.
A person who declines to sing because of a religious conviction is not necessarily insulting the country. The government should distinguish between deliberate disrespect and a sincere objection based on conscience.
Our position is that national unity should be based on mutual respect rather than coercion. Citizens should be able to express their patriotism in ways that are consistent with their religious beliefs.
What is your advice to Muslims who are concerned about the requirement to recite Vande Mataram?
Dr. Syed Ahmed Khan: Muslims should remain calm and act responsibly. They should seek guidance from recognised religious scholars and institutions that understand the theological issues involved. The All India Muslim Personal Law Board and other Muslim organisations have been addressing this matter. Muslims should continue to respect the law while also making use of the constitutional and legal remedies available to them. They should express their concerns peacefully and maintain good relations with people belonging to other communities.
The issue should not become a source of hostility between Hindus and Muslims. We must remember that our neighbours, colleagues and fellow citizens belong to different religious traditions. Mutual respect is essential for maintaining peace and harmony.
What message would you like to convey to the government, the ruling party, citizens across the country and particularly to Muslims?
Dr. Syed Ahmed Khan: Our message to the government is that every law should be enacted in accordance with the Constitution. The government must consider the fundamental rights of citizens and ensure that legislation does not unnecessarily hurt religious sentiments.
Our message to citizens is that we should preserve peace, harmony and mutual respect. India is a diverse country, and its strength lies in the ability of people belonging to different religions and cultures to live together.
Muslims who have religious objections to reciting Vande Mataram should seek guidance from their recognised religious scholars and institutions. Organisations such as All India Muslim Personal Law Board have a responsibility to address these questions and provide guidance for their communities. At the same time, every citizen should recognise the importance of respecting the religious beliefs of others. And Muslims should remain committed to peace, harmony and constitutional values. We must continue to work together for the progress of India.
We hope that the government will consider the concerns raised by the Supreme Court and by different sections of society. We also hope that the final judicial decision will clarify the relationship between the law and the constitutional rights of citizens.
