Making Vande Mataram compulsory is an attack on religious and constitutional freedom: Muslim Personal Law Board

The All India Muslim Personal Law Board has expressed strong concern over the move to make the insult of Vande Mataram a punishable offense by passing an amendment bill in both houses of Parliament, terming it contrary to the country's constitutional, secular, and democratic spirit and a serious attack on citizens' religious freedom. According to the Board, imposing a particular religious concept or belief on all citizens of the country through legislation is in conflict with the basic spirit of the Indian Constitution.

The spokesperson of the All India Muslim Personal Law Board, Dr. Syed Qasim Rasool Ilyas, said in a statement that attempting to impose Vande Mataram on all classes and religious communities through legal coercion is not only undesirable but also against the basic principles of the Constitution. He said that during the constitution-making phase, the Constituent Assembly accepted only the first two verses of Vande Mataram at the national level after deep deliberation, while other parts of it were not considered in harmony with the country's secular character.

Dr. Ilyas said that some provisions of Vande Mataram are based on religious concepts that present the country as a goddess and invite her worship. For a Muslim, this concept is in direct conflict with his fundamental belief in the oneness of God. He clarified that a Muslim worships only Allah, the One and Only, and any degree of polytheism in His person, attributes, rights, and powers is contrary to his faith. Therefore, it is unacceptable to force a Muslim to participate in any religious concept, song, slogan, or action that is against his belief.

He said that Article 25 of the Indian Constitution gives every citizen the freedom to practice and follow their religion, while Article 19 guarantees the freedom of expression. These constitutional guarantees clearly require that no citizen can be forced to adopt any song, slogan, ideology, or symbol that is against their religious belief and conscience. The spokesperson cited the Supreme Court's landmark judgment in the case of Bijoe Emmanuel vs. the State of Kerala, in which the court recognized the principle that if a person's religious belief prevents them from participating in a particular act, they cannot be punished solely for non-participation. The court also clarified that the freedom of expression includes the right to remain silent in certain circumstances and that respectful non-participation cannot be considered disrespect.

Dr. Ilyas said that love for one's country and worship of the country are two different concepts. Muslims consider love for their country as part of their religious and civic duty, but they cannot give the country the status of a deity or goddess. He said that the criterion for patriotism is not the recitation of a particular slogan or song, but loyalty to the country, its Constitution, its people, and their rights. He emphasized that the government should focus on solving the real problems facing the country - unemployment, inflation, poverty, education, health, economic inequality, and social injustice - rather than taking sensitive and divisive measures.

Dr. Ilyas said that diverting the public's attention from basic issues to emotional and religious controversies is neither in the country's interest nor in the interest of democracy. He stated that a strong and united India will be one where every citizen has equal dignity, justice, and freedom, where patriotism is not measured by one's religious belief, and where the supremacy of the Constitution, religious freedom, and citizen rights are ensured at all times.