National symbols belong to the nation, not to a political party. They are among the few things in public life that should rise above ideology, electoral rivalry and partisan loyalties. The Tricolour, the national anthem and the national song Vande Mataram occupy a special emotional space in the Indian imagination because they evoke the country's freedom struggle, its civilisational memory and the sacrifices through which India became a republic.
That is precisely why any political leader who appears to disrespect or dismiss a national symbol must expect public scrutiny. On August 15, 2026, Congress leader Sonia Gandhi was seen agitated and hand gesturing mid-way through a full rendition of Vande Mataram at the Congress headquarters entailing public wrath online.
Her questionable 'conduct' and the subsequent lame defence provided by her partymen have therefore provoked questions that go far beyond the immediate political controversy. That such a misconduct has come from senior Congress leader Sonia Gandhi - who had built a non-controversial public image until now - is disappointing. For common public - be it a Congress or the BJP supporter - the public disrespect shown to the national song is aggravating and demeaning.
Congress's contentious stance
The Congress has historically had a complicated but important relationship with Vande Mataram. The song was deeply associated with India's freedom movement and was sung at several important sessions of the Indian National Congress. It was adopted as the national song by the Constituent Assembly on January 24, 1950, with President Dr. Rajendra Prasad declaring it equal in status to the national anthem.
More so, when the Congress has long projected itself as a party with a special claim to the legacy of India's freedom movement, the misconduct of its senior leaders is puzzling. They cannot simultaneously invoke the sacrifices of the freedom struggle and appear casual about symbols that emerged from that very struggle.
There is, of course, an important distinction between legitimate disagreement over the political use of a national symbol and disrespect towards the symbol itself. In a democracy, nobody should be compelled to surrender their political beliefs. But national symbols require a degree of restraint precisely because they represent something larger than the political moment.
The larger concern is the message such gestures send.
India is already a deeply polarised political society. Political parties routinely accuse one another of being anti-national, communal, elitist or authoritarian.
False public image
The controversy also becomes more significant because of Sonia Gandhi's long curated public image.
For years, the Congress president and its most powerful figure was perceived, even by many political opponents, as someone who generally maintained a measured and dignified public persona. Her politics could be criticised, her decisions could be challenged, and her leadership could be opposed, but she largely avoided the kind of theatrical political behaviour that has become increasingly common.
That image appears to be changing.
Recently, people were also witness to Sonia Gandhi's remark referring to her party spokesperson Pawan Khera as the "white-haired man". This too has removed the myth about Sonia Gandhi being 'graceful' in her public conduct. Such personal remarks about age or appearance does not behove the 'first family' of the Congress party towards its loyal workers as it bespeaks of their lowly and insignificant existence.
In the age of technology and social media - when every little act, sigh and murmur are audible and visible - such gross behaviour tends to diminish the dignity of the person making them. Every politician is aware of this 24/7 scrutiny.
The higher the political stature, the higher the expectation of restraint.
Lessons from the controversy
There is a broader lesson here for India's political class. National symbols cannot become another battlefield in the permanent war between parties. The Tricolour does not belong to the ruling party, just as the Constitution does not belong to the Opposition. These are common possessions of Indians. Similarly, Vande Mataram can't be bracketed as a 'Congress's song' or 'BJP's song'.
Indeed, one of the saddest developments in contemporary politics is the tendency to convert everything into a partisan identity marker. A song becomes a test of ideology. A salute becomes a political statement. A national celebration becomes an opportunity for party mobilisation. The result is that things which should unite citizens become instruments for dividing them.
The answer cannot be to demand uniformity of thought. It must be to restore a culture of constitutional and national courtesy.
Criticism of Sonia Gandhi or the Congress on this issue should therefore not be dismissed as merely 'BJP propaganda'. Nor should every Congress supporter be painted as someone who blindly endorses everything the party does. Millions of Indians support political parties while retaining independent judgment. The democratic health of the country depends precisely on citizens being willing to question their own political camps.
And that is perhaps the most important point.
National pride should not be a monopoly of the Right. Nor should secularism be a monopoly of the Left. Patriotism should not require party membership. A person can disagree profoundly with the BJP and still stand respectfully for Vande Mataram. A Congress supporter can oppose the government's policies while holding the Tricolour with pride. India is large enough for all these contradictions.
Instead of living in denial, the Congress party in all its wisdom must acknowledge the disrespect and apologise to the nation.
Because ultimately, the question is bigger than Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi, Narendra Modi or any political party. Politicians come and go. Governments change. Elections are won and lost. Political reputations rise and fall. The nation remains.
(The author is Contributing Editor, NDTV)
Disclaimer: These are the personal opinions of the author
