A December 2025 study examining the influence of religion on the internet revealed that belief systems are shaping digital conversations and curiosity.
Many of you might think I got something so wrong in National Interest pieces written this year. I might disagree! But some deserve a Mea Culpa. I’d deal with the most recent this week.
Talaq-e-hasan is often described as the “preferable” method because it stretches the process for three months, but it is not fair. It remains a one-sided, extrajudicial mechanism in India.
The good and the bad in the Islamic tradition are so intertwined that there is no good Islam to fight the bad one. The way out is not the true Islam, but the true nationalisation of it.
Nick Jonas is not trying to modernise the mangalsutra, but his gesture shows that choices can be equal. If commitment must be flaunted, it need not be gendered.
If Imposition of Vande Mataram is Fair, Then Let’s Make It Truly Universal
You argue that there’s ‘nothing wrong’ with enforcing Vande Mataram on Muslims because it’s a ‘national song’ and its meaning can be interpreted as patriotic, not purely religious. You say Muslims are ‘making a fuss’ over nothing.
Then, by that exact same logic, there should be nothing wrong with a small amendment to make it genuinely inclusive for all Indians.
Let’s preface Vande Mataram with ‘Bismillah-ir-Rahman-ir-Raheem’ (In the name of God, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful) and conclude it with ‘Allahu Akbar’ (God is the Greatest).
Here’s why this is the perfect solution, using your reasoning:
1. It’s Pan-Religious in Meaning: You claim Vande Mataram’s meaning (“I bow to thee, Mother”) is not inherently Hindu but a cultural homage to the land. Fantastic. Then you must agree that ‘Bismillah’ simply means “In the name of God,” a universal deity. ‘Allahu Akbar’ translates to “God is the Greatest,” a statement of reverence any theist can make. If we are judging by translational meaning alone, these phrases are even more universally theistic than ‘bowing to the Mother.’
2. It Ensures True Uniformity: If the goal is to force a single form of patriotic expression on everyone regardless of their personal faith, then that expression should not bear the cultural imprint of only one community. Adding these phrases balances the cultural footprint, making it a truly collective, enforced national symbol.
3. It Tests the Real Principle: Your objection to this proposal will reveal your actual principle. If you say, ‘No, that’s Islamic! That would be imposing their religion on Hindus!’ — you have just proven the exact point Muslims are making. You will have felt the visceral objection to being forced to utter phrases from another religion’s core liturgy. That is precisely how they feel about ‘Vande Mataram,’ which, regardless of your interpretation, uses Sanskrit imagery deeply entwined with Hindu worship.
Conclusion : You cannot have it both ways. You cannot defend imposition by saying “it’s just words, get over it,” and then reject this same logic when applied to phrases from another faith. The very discomfort this idea causes you is the argument. It proves that forced liturgical expressions—from any tradition—are a violation of conscience. The debate should end here, because the underlying principle of coercion has been shown to be unworkable and hypocritical.
This essay provides one with the ultimate understanding of the never-ending Vande Mataram debate. The best to date. The way the author, Mr. Bharati, builds up a picture of what it is all about is of the first order. In fact, every article written by him is so instructive it should be circulated widely. I have confessed earlier and will confess again that no matter how well-versed in a given subject I happen to be, when Mr. Ibn Khaldun Bharati discusses it, I feel further enriched.
I wish the author had delved more accurately on how the word “Vande” is perceived by Hindi/Sanskrit reading believers in Hinduism, which I see as coming from commonly aligned word Vandana. Then explored if this does align at all with Islam’s belief system. I also wish the current reality of mob lynching which are executed as scripted in Anandamath was given true reality check.
The article didn’t highlight that beyond first 2 paras, the poem is clearly worshipping Goddesses as worshipped in Hinduism.
I can not wish much from The Print in terms of bringing up diverse dimension, rather than preaching Muslims to read the poem from Mosques and Madrassah which are already under Buldozer demolition.
If Imposition of Vande Mataram is Fair, Then Let’s Make It Truly Universal
You argue that there’s ‘nothing wrong’ with enforcing Vande Mataram on Muslims because it’s a ‘national song’ and its meaning can be interpreted as patriotic, not purely religious. You say Muslims are ‘making a fuss’ over nothing.
Then, by that exact same logic, there should be nothing wrong with a small amendment to make it genuinely inclusive for all Indians.
Let’s preface Vande Mataram with ‘Bismillah-ir-Rahman-ir-Raheem’ (In the name of God, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful) and conclude it with ‘Allahu Akbar’ (God is the Greatest).
Here’s why this is the perfect solution, using your reasoning:
1. It’s Pan-Religious in Meaning: You claim Vande Mataram’s meaning (“I bow to thee, Mother”) is not inherently Hindu but a cultural homage to the land. Fantastic. Then you must agree that ‘Bismillah’ simply means “In the name of God,” a universal deity. ‘Allahu Akbar’ translates to “God is the Greatest,” a statement of reverence any theist can make. If we are judging by translational meaning alone, these phrases are even more universally theistic than ‘bowing to the Mother.’
2. It Ensures True Uniformity: If the goal is to force a single form of patriotic expression on everyone regardless of their personal faith, then that expression should not bear the cultural imprint of only one community. Adding these phrases balances the cultural footprint, making it a truly collective, enforced national symbol.
3. It Tests the Real Principle: Your objection to this proposal will reveal your actual principle. If you say, ‘No, that’s Islamic! That would be imposing their religion on Hindus!’ — you have just proven the exact point Muslims are making. You will have felt the visceral objection to being forced to utter phrases from another religion’s core liturgy. That is precisely how they feel about ‘Vande Mataram,’ which, regardless of your interpretation, uses Sanskrit imagery deeply entwined with Hindu worship.
Conclusion : You cannot have it both ways. You cannot defend imposition by saying “it’s just words, get over it,” and then reject this same logic when applied to phrases from another faith. The very discomfort this idea causes you is the argument. It proves that forced liturgical expressions—from any tradition—are a violation of conscience. The debate should end here, because the underlying principle of coercion has been shown to be unworkable and hypocritical.
This essay provides one with the ultimate understanding of the never-ending Vande Mataram debate. The best to date. The way the author, Mr. Bharati, builds up a picture of what it is all about is of the first order. In fact, every article written by him is so instructive it should be circulated widely. I have confessed earlier and will confess again that no matter how well-versed in a given subject I happen to be, when Mr. Ibn Khaldun Bharati discusses it, I feel further enriched.
I wish the author had delved more accurately on how the word “Vande” is perceived by Hindi/Sanskrit reading believers in Hinduism, which I see as coming from commonly aligned word Vandana. Then explored if this does align at all with Islam’s belief system. I also wish the current reality of mob lynching which are executed as scripted in Anandamath was given true reality check.
The article didn’t highlight that beyond first 2 paras, the poem is clearly worshipping Goddesses as worshipped in Hinduism.
I can not wish much from The Print in terms of bringing up diverse dimension, rather than preaching Muslims to read the poem from Mosques and Madrassah which are already under Buldozer demolition.