Priaynaka gandhi countered PM Modi’s claims by citing Nehru, Subhas Bose, and Rabindranath Tagore to show that Congress never diluted the national song
New Delhi, December 8, 2025:: The 150th anniversary discussion on Vande Mataram—meant to be a commemorative moment—rapidly escalated into a sharp ideological exchange in Parliament, with Congress leader Priyanka Gandhi Vadra delivering one of her most forceful speeches yet. Bit by bit, she attempted to dismantle the BJP’s narrative that Nehru and the Congress had undermined Vande Mataram under pressure from the Muslim League, accusing the government of weaponising history ahead of elections and distracting from present-day governance failures.
Her address, which combined historical references, personal lineage, and pointed political counterattacks, became the focal point of the debate.
1. Questioning the Premise: “Why Debate the Undebatable?”
Priyanka Gandhi’s first challenge was directed at the very need for such a debate. She asserted that Vande Mataram “is alive in every part of the country” and enjoys deep cultural acceptance, leaving “no scope for debate.”
This framing allowed her to position the BJP’s insistence on a parliamentary discussion as politically motivated rather than patriotic.
According to her, the government was using Vande Mataram as a diversion:
“The government wants us to keep delving in the past because it does not want to look at the present and future.”
She directly linked the timing of the debate to the upcoming Bengal assembly elections—a state where the BJP routinely deploys nationalist rhetoric.
🔥 Priyanka Gandhi dismantled Modi’s nationalist theatre in Parliament.
While 700M Indians face constitutional crises & economic collapse, the PM’s 10-hour “Vandemataram debate” served one purpose: deflecting from electoral desperation in Bengal.
Priyanka’s verdict: “You’re… pic.twitter.com/gKaWsEQEDw
— Sincere Dibya (@TheSincereDude) December 8, 2025
2. Accusing the BJP of Selective History
Prime Minister Modi had earlier accused Jawaharlal Nehru of “surrendering before the Muslim League” and sidelining parts of Vande Mataram that “could irritate Muslims,” implying that the Congress compromised national pride for appeasement.
Modi argued that this echoed Jinnah’s objections from 1937, even suggesting that Nehru followed the Muslim League’s arguments.
He framed the Congress Working Committee’s 1937 decision as a moment of capitulation that shaped the party’s “appeasement politics” and contributed to the mindset that “led to Partition.”
Priyanka Gandhi countered this foundational claim by accusing PM Modi of selectively quoting Nehru and ignoring the full historical record. The real debate, she said, was being warped for political gain.
READ: Breakthrough for Baldness: New Drug Shows 500% Hair Regrowth
READ: Hyderabad Plans Trump Avenue, Google Street, Microsoft Road
3. Introducing the “Chronology”: Letters, Context, and Tagore
Priyanka’s strongest counter came from what she called the “chronology”—a detailed historical reconstruction intended to show that neither Nehru nor Congress diluted Vande Mataram under pressure, but rather followed a nuanced consensus involving leaders like Subhas Chandra Bose and Rabindranath Tagore.
She directly quoted Nehru’s letters, where he described the objections to Vande Mataram as “manufactured by communalists”—a phrase she emphasised to show that Nehru was resisting communal polarisation, not endorsing it.
She then invoked Tagore’s correspondence, noting:
Tagore had said the two stanzas traditionally sung were so significant that separating them from the rest was appropriate.
He warned that the later-added stanzas could be interpreted as communal in the political atmosphere of that time.
This provided cultural and moral legitimacy to the stance taken decades earlier by the Congress Working Committee.
4. Reinforcing That Vande Mataram Was Never Rejected
Priyanka underlined a crucial argument: the Congress never rejected Vande Mataram. It chose the stanzas that were universally sung during the freedom movement to preserve unity.
Quoting former exchanges between Nehru, Bose, and Tagore allowed her to demonstrate continuity, not compromise.
She emphasised that:
The CWC declared Vande Mataram the national song in 1937—hardly evidence of surrender.
Her argument reframed the BJP’s accusation: instead of Congress diluting nationalism, it tried balancing national pride with national unity during volatile times.
5. Reclaiming the Nehru Legacy and Shifting the Lens Back to Governance
In a sharp political pivot, Priyanka suggested that the BJP compile all its perceived insults toward Nehru and hold a single dedicated debate to “close the chapter,” so Parliament can return to its “actual duties.”
This rhetorical move achieved three goals:
-
defused personal attacks on her family by owning the legacy,
-
exposed the repetitive nature of the BJP’s anti-Nehru rhetoric,
-
and redirected attention to governance.
Her broader critique: the BJP repeatedly resurrects historical controversies because it cannot answer questions about jobs, inflation, or governance.
6. Opposition Allies Add Weight
Priyanka’s arguments found support across opposition benches.
DMK’s A Raja backed her claim that Nehru viewed the outrage as “manufactured by communalists,” while also noting—as Nehru himself had—that some grievances had “some substance.”
This nuanced reinforcement helped portray the opposition’s stance as scholarly and fact-based, versus the government’s allegedly selective storytelling.
7. The Larger Symbolism: Culture, Identity, and Political Ownership
With the BJP framing Vande Mataram as a civilisational symbol “betrayed” by Congress, and the Congress presenting it as a shared inheritance politicised for electoral messaging, the debate became a contest over who gets to define India’s cultural icons.
The historical weight of Vande Mataram—composed by Bankim Chandra Chatterjee in 1875, popularised by Tagore, sung by revolutionaries—added emotional depth to the parliamentary clash.
For the BJP, Vande Mataram is a test of nationalism.
For the Congress, it is a symbol of unity that should not become a political weapon.
Priyanka Gandhi’s intervention attempted to shift the narrative from identity politics to historical integrity and constitutional responsibility.
Priyanka Gandhi’s speech was not merely a rebuttal—it was a strategic attempt to reclaim historical space, contest the BJP’s interpretation of nationalism, and challenge the political utility of reviving century-old disputes.
Whether it shifts public perception remains uncertain, but within Parliament, she succeeded in disrupting the BJP’s narrative flow by:
-
questioning motives,
-
invoking authoritative historical texts,
-
reframing the debate as a distraction,
-
and positioning Congress as the custodian of balanced nationalism.
