New Delhi, Aug. 21: Rajya Sabha MP Kapil Sibal on Friday criticised Union Home Minister Amit Shah over his remarks against the Congress on the Vande Mataram controversy, questioning whether Prime Minister Narendra Modi, during his tenure as Gujarat chief minister, or former prime minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee had sung the complete version of the national song at official or private events.
Sibal’s comments came after Shah accused the Congress of being “anti-national” for deciding to sing only the first two stanzas of Vande Mataram. The Independent MP questioned whether BJP leaders who had not sung all the stanzas could also be labelled anti-national.
In a post on X, Sibal referred to the Congress Working Committee’s decision and asked whether the BJP had consistently sung the complete composition at official or private functions since 1950. He specifically mentioned Modi’s tenure as Gujarat chief minister and Vajpayee’s period as prime minister.
Sibal also accused the BJP of using the controversy for political purposes, alleging that the criticism reflected “vote-bank politics”.
The dispute over the national song escalated after Shah launched a strong attack on the Congress on Thursday. He alleged that the party’s decision to restrict the rendition to two stanzas amounted to an anti national act and was driven by political considerations.
The Congress rejected the charge. Senior party leader Jairam Ramesh hit back at the BJP, describing its leaders as “fraudulent nationalists” and defending the party’s position on the song.
The controversy stems from the Congress Working Committee’s decision on Wednesday to retain only the first two stanzas of Vande Mataram for its rendition. Ramesh cited a 1937 resolution recommending that the first two stanzas be used at national gatherings, arguing that the position reflected the views of several prominent leaders of India’s freedom movement.
The exchange between the BJP and Congress has since turned the rendition of Vande Mataram into another political flashpoint, with both sides defending their respective interpretations of the national song’s historical and political significance.