‘Unnecessary imposition’: Tharoor on full Vande Mataram rendition; BJP reacts

COngress MP Shashi Tharoor questioned the exercise of rendering all pentad verses of Vande Mataram at the starting time and terminate of functionary functions, describing it as an "unnecessary imposition" on audiences. His remarks prompted sharp response from Bharatiya Janata Party leader Amit Malviya, who asserted that the prescribed rendition of the national song is "not optional" under government guidelines.The controvery over the national song has erupted months after the Parliament held long discussions over the issue earlier this year. Tharoor questions full rendition at official eventsTharoor said there was no disagreement over respecting Vande Mataram, but raised objections to making the entire song compulsory at the beginning and end of official programmes.Also read | ‘I was thrown out of Breach Candy Club’: Shashi Tharoor’s story of racism at exclusive Mumbai club"Vande Mataram is the national song and we stand up in respect when it is sung. The first verse, or the first couple of verses, is something most people know by heart," he said, as quoted by news agency PTI on Monday. According to Tharoor, public functions have traditionally followed a different format, with Vande Mataram being sung once and the national anthem played separately."Now they want all five verses to be sung at the beginning of every event and again at the end. I think that is an unnecessary imposition," the Congress MP said.Referring to the ongoing debate in Kerala, he said the state government had taken the position that singing the full version was optional, while Governor Rajendra Vishwanath Arlekar appeared to hold a different opinion.Also read | Shashi Tharoor senses opportunity for Opposition in Cockroach Janata Party's rise"It may ultimately have to be adjudicated because there is no law passed by Parliament requiring this. It is more a matter of convention," he said.Tharoor maintained that his remarks should not be interpreted as opposition to the national song itself."We all respect Vande Mataram. I can happily sing it for you," he remarked.He also cited his experience at a recent book launch attended by Vice President C P Radhakrishnan in New Delhi, where the complete song was played both before and after the programme."For the audience, standing through a relatively unfamiliar and lengthy song twice became an issue," he said.BJP hits back, cites Union guidelinesThe BJP responded sharply to Tharoor's remarks, with party's IT department chief Amit Malviya asserting that the prescribed rendition of Vande Mataram at official functions is governed by Union government guidelines and cannot be treated as optional.In a post on X, Malviya said, "Singing Vande Mataram in full is not “optional,” nor is it a matter of a State casually choosing whether to comply." He said the Ministry of Home Affairs had already laid down clear norms regarding the song's rendition at official events."The Ministry of Home Affairs guidelines are explicit: whenever Vande Mataram is rendered at official functions, the full official version is to be sung, and all six stanzas are to be played at designated government events. The guidelines further prescribe the occasions on which it must be rendered and the protocol to be followed, including standing in attention."Rejecting the argument that parliamentary legislation was required before such directions could become binding, Malviya said executive instructions issued by the Union government carry authority in matters relating to official ceremonies and national observances."The argument that Parliament must first pass a law before such protocols become binding on government functions is flawed. Every aspect of governance does not require a separate Act of Parliament. The Union Government routinely issues executive directions, protocols, and administrative instructions governing official ceremonies, state functions, national symbols, and public administration. These flow from the executive authority of the Union under the Constitution."He further argued that states could not selectively decide whether to follow national protocols.(With inputs from PTI)