The Madras High Court’s observation that there is no legal bar on Tamil Nadu playing its State song, Tamil Thai Vazhthu, before Vande Mataram or the National Anthem may appear, at first glance, to be a narrow question of protocol. It is not. It exposes a far more serious weakness in the way the Union Government has been framing rules concerning national symbols: leaving critical spaces undefined and then allowing courts, governments and political interests to fill those spaces with their own interpretations. The irony is difficult to miss. The Narendra Modi Government has been emphatically asserting the importance of national identity, national symbols and national unity. It has sought to restore Vande Mataram to a position of greater national prominence and has issued detailed protocols governing its rendition alongside Jana Gana Mana. Yet the controversy in Tamil Nadu demonstrates that the Government appears to have stopped short of doing the one thing that should have been obvious—clearly defining the position of State songs when they are rendered alongside national symbols. The Centre’s clarification is technically defensible. Its protocol governs the inter se order of Vande Mataram and Jana Gana Mana; it does not expressly prohibit a State song from being rendered before them. The Ministry of Home Affairs subsequently made the position clearer by directing that, where a State song is also sung, it should come first, followed by Vande Mataram and then Jana Gana Mana. But that is precisely the problem. If the Government had intended this hierarchy all along, why was it not stated unequivocally in the original protocol? Why leave a matter touching the symbolism of national unity to interpretation and litigation in the first place? The danger is not that Tamil Nadu respects Tamil Thai Vazhthu. There is nothing inherently incompatible between cultural identity and national identity. A State can celebrate its language and heritage without diminishing the nation. The danger arises when State identity is permitted to acquire a ceremonial precedence that can be politically presented as an assertion of State sovereignty over national symbols. Tamil Nadu has now gone further. Its Assembly has unanimously resolved that Tamil Thai Vazhthu should be the mandatory opening song at public events, before Vande Mataram and Jana Gana Mana. That development should make the Centre sit up and take notice—not because Tamil culture needs to be suppressed, but because national protocol cannot be allowed to become a patchwork of competing State interpretations.
What happens tomorrow if another State decides that its own State song must invariably precede every national symbol? What if a politically assertive non-BJP government decides to stretch the principle of federalism further and argues that its legislative autonomy permits it to establish practices that directly collide with broader national policy? And what happens when similar arguments are made on other sensitive constitutional questions, from reservations to the application of nationally enacted laws? This is where the Modi Government needs to understand the difference between political intent and legal drafting. A government cannot proclaim One Nation, One Election, advocate a Uniform Civil Code and repeatedly emphasise national integration while simultaneously leaving avoidable legal and administrative loopholes through which the very principle of uniformity can be challenged. The Constitution certainly recognises Bharat’s federal structure. But federalism does not mean that every State can construct its own ceremonial version of the nation. Bharat is a Union, not a loose federation of competing sovereignties. Article 1 itself describes Bharat as a “Union of States”. That Union derives its strength precisely from the existence of institutions and symbols that rise above linguistic, regional and political identities. Vande Mataram is not merely another song in a government programme. It is inseparably associated with Bharat’s freedom struggle and has been accorded the status of the National Song. If the Union Government wants to strengthen its position and accord it the dignity it deserves, it must ensure that its protocols leave no ambiguity about where national symbols stand in relation to State-level ceremonial practices. The answer is not to pick a fight with Tamil Nadu or any other State. The answer is much simpler: draft better rules. The Government needs legal and constitutional experts who anticipate the next challenge rather than merely defend the last one. Every protocol concerning national symbols must clearly define the hierarchy, scope and applicability of national and State ceremonial practices. Every ambiguity becomes an invitation to litigation; every lacuna becomes an opportunity for political interpretation; and every judicial clarification subsequently becomes a precedent that other States can invoke. The Modi Government has rightly argued that a strong nation requires common standards. It must now apply that principle to its own law-making and administrative drafting. National integration cannot be achieved merely through slogans or political speeches. It requires precision in legislation, clarity in executive orders and foresight among those who draft them. Otherwise, the Government may discover an uncomfortable truth: its biggest challenge to “One Nation” may not come from its political opponents at all. It may come from the loopholes it leaves behind.
