top of page

By:

Correspondent

23 August 2024 at 9:59:04 pm

Edited Patriotism

Edited Patriotism In its decision to stick to the 1937 resolution and sing only the first two stanzas of Vande Mataram at party events, the Congress party has once again exposed its deep discomfort with the vocabulary of Indian nationalism. The Congress Working Committee’s reaffirmation of the 1937 position came even as the Central government moved to accord the National Song a stronger legal status. The uncomfortable question is why Congress remains so eager to preserve a concession made...

Edited Patriotism

Edited Patriotism In its decision to stick to the 1937 resolution and sing only the first two stanzas of Vande Mataram at party events, the Congress party has once again exposed its deep discomfort with the vocabulary of Indian nationalism. The Congress Working Committee’s reaffirmation of the 1937 position came even as the Central government moved to accord the National Song a stronger legal status. The uncomfortable question is why Congress remains so eager to preserve a concession made in an era when Muslim League opposition and the politics of communal appeasement exerted enormous influence over the national movement. Vande Mataram was not some obscure religious composition dragged into politics by the BJP. Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay’s hymn is one of the great battle cries of India’s freedom struggle. Generations of freedom fighters embraced it as an expression of devotion to the motherland. Yet Congress leaders chose to dilute its public rendition after objections that references to Hindu deities could be considered objectionable or exclusionary. The present controversy has stripped away the pretence that this is merely about historical precedent. Rahul Gandhi was caught on a hot mic referring to the Congress rendition as “our version” of Vande Mataram. This is a breathtaking assumption. Vande Mataram is not Congress property, neither is it a Gandhi family possession. It is not a party anthem to be edited according to the sensitivities of its political managers. It belongs to the Indian people. What exactly does “our version” mean? Is there a Congress Mother India distinct from the India to which millions of Indians owe their allegiance? The answer lies in the Congress’s larger political ecosystem that has repeatedly treated Hindu cultural expression as something to be negotiated, diluted or apologised for, while accommodating the most regressive forms of identity politics in the name of secularism. The party, throughout its political history, has practiced appeasement dressed up as pluralism. The result has been a grotesque asymmetry where Hindu civilisational symbols were expected to become less Hindu so that nobody else would be offended, while Congress politicians cultivated constituencies through precisely the kind of communal calculations they publicly claimed to oppose. The Vande Mataram controversy is not really about whether Congress sings two stanzas or six. It is about whether the oldest national party can finally shed the political reflex that made Hindu sentiment the easiest currency of compromise. The Congress claims the legacy of the freedom struggle. It should remember that the freedom struggle was not fought to create a nation permanently apologetic about its own civilisation. India does not need Congress’s permission to love its motherland. And Vande Mataram certainly does not need Congress’s edited approval.

Dangerous Departures

Updated: Oct 30, 2024

Dangerous Departures

In yet another shocking incident adding to Mumbai’s infamous tryst with stampedes, chaos erupted at Mumbai’s Bandra Terminus following a weekend stampede that left at least ten persons injured, two critically so. A crowd surged toward the Gorakhpur-bound train with nearly 1,500 people vying for seats in 22 unreserved compartments, leading to the stampede. Several others narrowly avoided tragedy, with some even pushed onto the tracks. This is not a unique episode but rather a recurring theme in Mumbai’s bedevilled crowd management, one that has haunted the city’s public spaces, particularly as festive seasons magnify the crowds.


Mumbai is no stranger to stampedes. A horrifying incident in 2017 at Elphinstone Road Station left 23 people dead and nearly 50 injured. The cause was a familiar one: an overwhelming crowd confined to a narrow footbridge during peak rush hour. The tragedy sparked an outcry, with promises from authorities to upgrade infrastructure and enhance safety protocols. Yet seven years on, crowd-related incidents continue to be a constant danger. Today’s incident reveals a similar lapse—a lack of foresight in managing the thousands who gather on platforms ahead of Diwali, eager to return to family. That the Gorakhpur Express was unreserved and heavily crowded was predictable.


The issue lies beyond simply crowd density; it is emblematic of deeper systemic negligence. The Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC), responsible for local public safety, along with the Railways Ministry, bear responsibility for ensuring order at such high-risk hubs. Although the BMC acknowledged the “festive rush,” it appears little was done to pre-empt it. Swift action could have been taken to either disperse the crowd or reroute passengers. Instead, chaos prevailed.


Political reaction has been swift but uninspiring. Aaditya Thackeray, son of Uddhav Thackeray, launched a scathing attack on the Union Railways Minister, Ashwini Vaishnaw, branding the incident a result of the minister’s “incapable” leadership. This hardly addresses the immediate need: a substantive plan to manage crowds and prevent similar incidents.


Mumbai’s transport infrastructure remains sorely outdated. Platforms are undersized, signalling systems frequently falter, and crowd control mechanisms are grossly inadequate. Despite repeated accidents, there has been little investment in comprehensive crowd management systems or the deployment of personnel trained in emergency response. While railway footbridges were widened after the Elphinstone tragedy, Bandra’s incident demonstrates that such incremental changes are insufficient. Mumbai, which sees a swelling populace during festivals, demands a robust strategy to address its vulnerabilities. This should include technology-driven crowd monitoring, clear communication channels to inform passengers of platform conditions, and additional security and medical staff on high-demand days. It is essential that crowd management training for personnel becomes a priority rather than a reaction to tragedies.

Comments

bottom of page