When the Lok Sabha devoted almost 10 hours to debating Vande Mataram during the winter session this December 2025, the avowed intention was to mark the 150th birth anniversary of India's national song. What transpired instead was one of the longest cultural-symbol debates in recent parliamentary memory and a lightning rod for public discussion about legislative priorities, political messaging, and the evolving relationship between national identity and governance. On the surface, there is nothing unusual about discussing a national symbol in a parliamentary democracy. The meaning of a country's emblems, anthems, and historical texts gets reinterpreted from time to time. Yet, the extent and fervor of this debate underscored some urgent questions: Was a full day of legislative time warranted for a cultural symbol when so many pressing policy matters were before the parliament?

The debate was held on Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay's Vande Mataram (1875), which had an important role to play in India's independence and cultural domination. Marking its 150th year was an opportunity to reaffirm national pride, revisit historical decisions, and correct what they perceived as past political distortions, but things didn’t go as planned. A large part of the debate revisited the 1937 Indian National Congress decision to adopt only the first two stanzas of the song for public events, excluding the later verses with explicit references to Hindu deities. Whereas the opposition defended the decision as an act of inclusivity in a country with a diverse religious population, the ruling party saw this historical event as an early instance of "appeasement politics." However, as the hours-long legislative session moved forward, a completely different narrative started to emerge as Parliament's procedural objectives. All the issues India faced in 2025, like disputes over regulations on artificial intelligence and data protection, failing urban infrastructure, unemployment, and economic deficits, were rendered unnecessary for an entire legislative day.

This disconnect did not go unnoticed. Whereas supporters celebrated the debate as a moment of cultural introspection, critics, including cultural figures, writers, and public intellectuals, voiced skepticism that such an extended discussion had any place in Parliament. This disconnect did not go unnoticed. While some applauded the debate as cultural introspection, some people, including cultural figures and writers like Vishal Dadlani, questioned whether it was the right thing for such an extended discussion, which costs 2.5 lakh rupees for each minute of the Parliament. Several artists and film personalities publicly expressed dismay that a day meant for governance had turned into what they described as “performative nationalism.” Dadlani criticized the House for “spending ten hours on a song while farmers wait for relief and young people wait for jobs,” a sentiment that resonated widely on social media. The parliamentary process strikes a balance between substantive lawmaking and ceremonial meditation. Analysts pointed out that several significant measures about social welfare, science and technology policy, and judicial reform that were pending during that session were postponed to later times, with some of them being carried over completely and resulting in backlogs in the legal system.

Another layer to the critique was, of course, that of the politicization of history itself. The ruling party used the platform to couch the 1937 decision in terms of evidence of ideological weakness in the early Congress leadership, while the Opposition charged that the government was deliberately rewriting history with the intention of discrediting contributions by leaders such as Jawaharlal Nehru and Mahatma Gandhi themselves. The prolonged debate, therefore, became less about the song and more about a long-standing ideological rivalry that shapes much of contemporary politics in India.

From a parliamentary procedures point of view, the debate raised questions about agenda setting, who decides what gets discussed, and why. Time is generally considered one of the most valuable resources for any legislature in most democracies. A ten-hour discussion signals priority. Critics contended that the decision to devote such time to Vande Mataram was less an imperative of procedure than a piece of political choreography. Given the timing of the session, with state elections looming amid rising political polarization, it helped solidify the impression that the debate served electoral messaging over legislative purpose. But the ruling party countered with the view that Parliament is not only a lawmaking body but also a guardian of national identity. They said explaining the historical trajectory of national symbols has implications for understanding India’s cultural cohesion. They further said that symbols such as Vande Mataram continue to inspire millions and therefore deserve sustained attention.

The public reaction showed some polarization. While many hailed Parliament for its move to honor the song, others saw the debate as reflecting a disconnect between lawmaking and what matters to citizens. Social media was filled with celebratory patriotic notes and satire about MPs spending a whole day debating a text from 150 years ago, while other national challenges were still unresolved. Ultimately, the episode underlined something more profound: a debate over what Parliament is for. How might a democracy weigh the balance between symbolic politics and policy imperatives? At what point do such debates shape public trust in institutions?

The 10-hour Vande Mataram debate showed how national symbols can simultaneously unify and polarize, and how legislative time can be mobilized to reinforce larger narratives that spill over from governance. The debate may, in retrospect, prove to be less about what was said of the song and more about what it exposed of the priorities, strategies, and symbolic politics that dominated and showcased Indian parliamentary life in 2025.

.    .    .

Sources:

• Desk, I. T. E. (2025, December 10). Vishal Dadlani criticises Parliament's 10-hour Vande Mataram debate. India Today. https://www.indiatoday.in