- 11 hours ago
Union Home Minister Amit Shah has stepped up criticism of Congress over its decision to sing only the first two stanzas of Vande Mataram, prompting the opposition party to accuse the BJP of diverting attention from key issues. Meanwhile, US Ambassador to India Sergio Gor has visited Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh, becoming the first US ambassador in over six years to visit J&K and the first to travel to Ladakh. The visit comes amid India-China tensions, a recent troop withdrawal and growing US-China competition across South and Central Asia. Gor's Central Asian background also aligns with Washington's broader regional economic and strategic outreach.
Category
🗞
NewsTranscript
00:00Good evening, you're watching India First. I'm Gaurav Savant.
00:03The Congress Working Committee has decided only the first two stanzas of the national song Vande Matram will be sung
00:10at the Congress Party events and functions and programs invoking nearly a nine-decade-old Congress resolution.
00:20The All-India Congress Committee General Secretary KC Venugopal, he said that the Congress Party would abide by the decision
00:27taken in 1937 when the CWC recommended only the first two stanzas of the national song would be sung at
00:37national gatherings or a Vande Matram would be sung at national gatherings.
00:41So the Congress Party is very clear that
01:05These are the two stanzas that the Congress Committee will sing because this was a resolution in 1937.
01:11The Congress then felt that these two had acquired national significance and contained in the appreciation that time nothing objectionable,
01:21while the later stanzas had religious references that could be in conflict with the belief of other religious groups.
01:30Congress leaders are now trying to bring back this position.
01:34They've invoked Mahatma Gandhi, Pandey Jawaharlal Nehru, Rabindranath Tagore, Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose and Valla Bhai Patel in defense of
01:42this position.
01:43Union Home Minister Amit Shah, he's come out all guns blazing.
01:47He's slammed the Congress Party for defying the protocol of singing the national song, of singing Vande Matram and sticking
01:55only to the two stanzas.
01:58Amit Shah said that in 1937, the Congress Party split Vande Matram into two parts.
02:06He blamed it on the Muslim appeasement politics of the Congress Party.
02:11He said that splitting the national song led ultimately to the partition of the nation.
02:19It laid the foundation for the partition of India and the creation of Pakistan.
02:25Amit Shah condemned this Congress resolution, adding that Congress under Rahul Gandhi is once again, according to Amit Shah, doing
02:34the same Muslim appeasement politics.
02:36And he termed this as the anti-national mindset of the Congress.
02:43But why has the Congress long opposed the four stanzas that were added in 1881?
02:50What, for example, can be objectionable?
02:54Now, you're an Indian, born in India.
02:58You belong to this civilization.
03:01What is the problem in singing?
03:21And when you talk about your mother, and when you talk about your motherland, when you say,
03:46So you're praising your motherland, what can be objectionable here?
04:10It talks about how crores and crores of Indians, crores and crores of Bharatwasis,
04:17are ready to bear arms, ready to lift a sword in defense of the motherland.
04:23When you talk about the mother's image, when you look at Bharat Ma, it's there in every shrine.
04:30Your mother is there in every shrine.
04:32And your mother, strong like Ma Durga, strong like Lakshmi, Ma Lakshmi, knowledgeable like Ma Saraswati.
04:42Prime Minister Narendra Modi has time and again criticized the Congress Party's 1937 resolution,
04:49saying it removed these very important verses from the national song.
04:55The Vandai Mataram showdown now is not just about the number of stanzas.
05:00It's a big debate about our culture, about our heritage, and about the civilization that believes in this land and
05:13what comes from this land.
05:15And that's our top focus story on India First.
05:18Coming up at 8.30 tonight, the US ambassador to India, Ambassador Sergio Gort.
05:23He was in Jammu and Kashmir, now he's arrived in Ladakh, he's arrived in May.
05:28This is his first visit, very historical visit.
05:33It's to a strategic frontier.
05:35Remember, this is where India held ground and pushed back against the Chinese incursion or attempted incursion in 2020.
05:44Remember, Galwan, when 20 Braves made the supreme sacrifice of their lives and ensured that they were deployed all along.
05:50There was mirror deployment of more than 50,000 personnel to ensure that no more salami slicing of Indian territory.
05:56The US envoys' presence in Ladakh is being very closely watched, this time by Beijing.
06:03Yesterday it was by Pakistan, today it's by Beijing.
06:06The visit comes even as India and China are pursuing a very cautious, oh, border talks, diplomatic engagements, they continue.
06:14But then, it's not the words, it's the action that India wants to see on ground, on peace and tranquility
06:21at the borders, to see how the relationship moves forward.
06:24We'll debate that.
06:25Ambassador Gort is also, he may get an audience with His Holiness, the Dalai Lama, tomorrow morning.
06:32We'll have to wait and watch.
06:34But after saying Jammu and Kashmir is an important part of India, Sergio Gore's visit to Ladakh is equally, if
06:42not more important and a very important signal that is being sent out by India and by the United States
06:49of America across a very sensitive region.
06:53We get you that story at 8.30.
06:54But first, I want to focus on our top story, this controversy over Vande Matram.
07:00The Congress Working Committee says it will stick to the 1937 resolution and sing only the first two stanzas of
07:06Vande Matram.
07:07The law now gives the same status to Vande Matram as it does to a national anthem.
07:14National song, national anthem, same respect, same laws apply.
07:18The singing of the full six stanza version, Union Home Minister Amit Shah has come out all guns blazing, accusing
07:25the Congress of once again resorting to Muslim appeasement politics like in 1937.
07:31And that showdown over Vande Matram perhaps is only set to escalate.
07:36First, we get to this report.
07:46National song, two stanzas, nearly one century old decision and now a full-blown political firestorm.
07:55The Congress Working Committee has decided to stick to its 1937 resolution, singing only the first two stanzas of Vande
08:03Matram at party events.
08:05I stand very clear on that the 1937 resolution, Mahatma Gandhi ji, Pandit Jawaharlal Nagar ji, Jabindran Dattagur ji, Subhash
08:15Chandra Bose ji, this type of, Sardar Patel ji, this type of, topmost leadership of that point of time, decided
08:24that whatever the decision they took, we will abide that decision.
08:30But the BJP has condemned the decision and launched a sharp attack, calling Congress New Muslim League.
08:37Union Home Minister Amit Shah has accused Congress of reviving the same Muslim appeasement politics of 1937,
08:44alleging that the national song was split then, laying the foundation for partition and eventually leading to the birth of
08:51Pakistan.
09:20And she said,
09:21Shah's charge is explosive.
09:24Congress under Rahul Gandhi, he says,
09:26is repeating the same appeasement mindset
09:28and insulting the freedom fighters.
09:56Congress has hit back hard,
09:58saying that there is nothing new here
10:00and that it has followed the two stanza tradition
10:02for over 90 years.
10:30It further asked if Shah considers himself superior
10:33to Sardar Patel and Mahatma Gandhi.
11:00Congress Chief Malika Junkarge too asked
11:03if this version was good enough
11:05for Gandhi, Nehru, Patel and Vajpaye,
11:07then should cases be filed against them too?
11:33This year, Vande Mataram was played for the first time
11:36before the Prime Minister's Independence Day speech
11:38from the Red Fort, adding fresh weight
11:40to the raging debate over the national song.
11:48And speaking at the launch of the 150-year
11:51commemoration of Vande Mataram in November 2025,
11:54Prime Minister had criticized Congress' 1937 resolution,
11:58which he said removed important verses.
12:23Vande Mataram
12:37The question is no longer just how many stanzas, but who gets to define the legacy of Vande Mataram.
12:44Bureau Report, India Today.
12:58Vande Mataram's place in history, in our freedom struggle, was not limited just to Hindus singing this.
13:05This was the clarion call. Vande Mataram. We worship our mother, our motherland and fight against the British.
13:14Especially when the British tried to divide Bengal.
13:17That was the time that whether Hindus or Muslims, everyone was singing this.
13:21This was the clarion call and the British realised this.
13:23Several prominent Muslim leaders associated with the Congress party.
13:28Session after session, this song was sung in full before 1937.
13:32Take for example 1896 at the Congress session, at the Calcutta session, Gurudev Ravindranath Tagore.
13:38He famously sang Vande Mataram. The session was presided over by who?
13:42By Rehmatullah Sayani.
13:45Was there any objection to singing Vande Mataram? All stanzas?
13:481918. Vande Mataram was the inaugural song at the Bombay Congress.
13:55Who was presiding?
13:56Sayyad Hassan Imam.
13:591920.
14:01Again the inaugural song at the Congress special session in Delhi.
14:04Who was presiding?
14:06Moulana Abul Kalam Azad.
14:09The same year, Nagpur Congress.
14:10Vande Mataram was the lead song.
14:121050 Muslim delegates among participants.
14:16They sang 1927 lead song in Madras Congress.
14:19Presided over by M.A. Ansari.
14:241931.
14:25Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan.
14:27Frontier Gandhi.
14:28He led the red shirt volunteers into Karachi Congress.
14:32Singing, chanting Vande Mataram.
14:37And now, people have objections beyond the first two stanzas.
14:411937 onwards, Home Minister and the Prime Minister says,
14:44Muslim appeasement politics in 1937 led to partition in 1947.
14:49The same mindset according to the Home Minister is being displayed even today.
14:54Joining me now on this special broadcast is Sajal Chattupadhyay.
14:58Bankim Chandra Chattupadhyay's great grandson.
15:01Sir, welcome to your question.
15:03Sir, welcome to your question.
15:05The Congress Working Committee has been given the question.
15:08The two stanzas will be passed.
15:11What is it in the form of the two stanzas?
15:13What are you seeing in the form of the two stanzas?
15:16The two stanzas are being passed.
15:18In 1937, the debate is going on.
15:21The two stanzas were going on.
15:23The one that was done,
15:23the one that was done was actually Muslim.
15:28The one that was done was done by Muslim.
15:29Actually, 100% of the truth is that the people who cut it from 6 and 2 and 2 were
15:38done,
15:38the only reason is that they did this for the community.
15:44Those people thought that if this will happen,
15:46then the Hindu-Muslim debate will happen in a problem.
15:55That's why the people have done this.
15:57That's why the people who have done this,
16:02that's why Rahul Gandhi, Sonia Gandhi, Congress is doing this.
16:09This is what the President Amit Shah has said.
16:13This is the rule of Islam of Islam.
16:17Is it wrong?
16:19Is it wrong?
16:21Is it wrong?
16:54Yes.
17:01Yes.
17:04It's wrong.
17:10It's wrong.
17:21It's wrong.
17:24It's wrong.
17:29It's wrong.
17:32It's wrong.
17:59It's wrong.
18:02It's wrong.
18:02It's wrong.
18:03It's wrong.
18:30It's wrong.
19:01Thank you very much.
19:28Thank you very much.
19:32Thank you very much.
20:02Thank you very much.
23:31Uh,
23:39It's a different situation in India. Tensions were rising in the subcontinent, as we all know.
23:43Rajendra Prasad wrote a letter to Sadaar Vallabhai Patel on September 28, 1937, saying that this is an issue.
23:51We need to do something about it.
23:53Gurudev Rabindranath Tagore was consulted.
23:56He said two stanzas should be recited.
23:59And so in 1937 in Calcutta, Gandhi, Nehru, Patel, Subhash Chandra Bose, Maulana Azad and Rajendra Prasad all signed on
24:07to the resolution
24:08that two stanzas will be sung.
24:10Now, the Constituent Assembly also looked at this issue and they decided that the national song can be restricted to
24:16two stanzas.
24:17And I want to remind you that Syama Prasad Mukherjee was a part of the Constituent Assembly.
24:21So now if Mr. Amit Shah and if Mr. Chattopadhyay, who just spoke, think that the decision made by Sadaar
24:28Patel, Bose, Nehru, Gandhi,
24:31they are better informed and better judges of what should be done, then they are welcome to that view.
24:35Fair enough. Let me bring in Radhika Khera.
24:38Radhika Khera, the Congress says, you heard them only honouring a decision that was taken by party elders in 1937.
24:46Why is it being termed anti-national now?
24:51Am I audible, Gaurav?
24:53Strength five, go on.
24:56Am I audible now?
24:57Yes, ma'am. Go on.
24:59Gandhi Mataram.
25:00Gaurav, today Jairam Ramesh released 12 historical letters from 1937 invoking Dr. Rajendra Prasadji and Sardar Patelji
25:07to hide Congress's shame.
25:10Taking it one notch further was Pawan Khera and his wife that you just played,
25:14who was indulging in complete distortion of history to cover up his party's glint.
25:18Now let me smash this Congress's hypocrisy right here with hard, undeniable historical facts.
25:23And please give me the same amount of time you give to the Congress spokesperson.
25:26Now the Congress is dropping Sardar Vallabhai Patelji's name as a shield.
25:30So let's set the court straight for once.
25:32First of all, Sardar Patelji never endorsed slicing Bandai Mataram.
25:36When Jinnah came to Sardar Patelji demanding a ban on the Bandai Mataram,
25:40Sardar Patelji stood firm and rejected Jinnah's diktat.
25:43The fact is when Jinnah approached Patel Sahib, KM Munshi Ji and Maulana Otaadji
25:48demanding that Bandai Mataram be dropped from Congress assemblies,
25:52Sardar Patelji explicitly refused to yield to Jinnah's ultimatum.
25:56The letter that the Congress is citing between Rajendra Prasadji and Sardar Patelji
26:01was about managing British-instigated communal tensions,
26:04and it was never an endorsement to Mangala national song.
26:07Secondly, Tagoreji's advice was about musical duration and not an ideological ban.
26:12Gurudev sang Bandai Mataram himself in 1896,
26:15and you have spoken about that right in the beginning.
26:18He suggested that two stanzas be sung for quick assembly singing.
26:22Now, Jawaharlal Nehru's 1937 CWC,
26:26twisted Tagoreji's musical note into a political surrender to Jinnah.
26:30Third, looking at what Dr. Rajendra Prasadji did in independent India.
26:34On January 24th, 1950,
26:37when Rajendra Prasadji adopted Bandai Mataram with equal status,
26:41did he issue a decree banning the truncating or truncating the last postanzas?
26:45No.
26:46He never said that.
26:47Did he do that?
26:47No.
26:48He adopted Bandai.
26:49He said that Bandai Mataram and Jandagan Man should be adopted with equal status.
26:54There was no talk about banning or truncating the last postanzas.
26:58So, when the Congress and Pawan Khera say this,
27:01it is very, very clear that they are hiding that Sardar Patelji resisted Jinnah in 1937,
27:06but Rahul Gandhi is surrendering to Jinnah Ghos in 2026.
27:10Sardar Wallabhai Padilji managed a tactical situation.
27:13And Rahul Gandhi is insulting Bharat Mataram and independent India.
27:17Let me get Ashutosh to weigh in.
27:21You heard the Home Minister Ashutosh when he said that this is the same Muslim appeasement politics.
27:28You heard Radhika Khera when she says that if in 1920,
27:32you know, Bandai Mataram could be sung at the inaugural session of the Congress
27:36presided over by Mawlana Abul Kalam Azad,
27:39or in Nagpur Congress it could be sung,
27:41why have a problem with it now?
27:47See, Gaurav, I was expecting that Amit Shah should have courage to say that
27:55Mahatma Gandhi, Subhash Chandra Bose, Ravina Tigor, Sardar Patel, Govind Balla Pant,
28:02Dr. Rajinder Prasad, all of them were anti-national
28:05and they were indulging into the Muslim appeasement.
28:10Similarly, they could, they should, Amit Shah should come openly and say
28:14the whole constituent assembly was appeasing Muslims.
28:17So they were, the constituent assembly was also anti-national.
28:21They should have this much of courage of their own conviction.
28:25Let me tell you why, why, why this debate is so, so, so dear to BJP and RSS.
28:32I'm holding this book.
28:34This is called Anand Mat.
28:36Yes.
28:37Written by Bankim Chattupadhyay.
28:39Yes.
28:39Page number 158 and 159.
28:42Last.
28:46This is called Anand Mat.
29:15foreign
29:23foreign
29:39Sanatan dharma ka udhaar
29:41nahi ho sakhega
29:42baut lumbi debate hai phir aage chalte ho
29:45kehte hai angrej rajdand
29:47le
29:48is liye santano ka vidro hua
29:50yani angrej raja banay
29:52is liye santano ka vidro hua
29:55in Anand Mat was actually
29:57recommending British Raj
29:59seriously is that your argument
30:01sir
30:01no no no
30:02let me complete
30:06we will have a longer academic
30:08debate
30:09but if that is the argument
30:10that you are giving
30:11that Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay
30:13was actually recommending
30:14British Raj
30:15through Vandemaatram
30:16let me complete first
30:18okay
30:19quickly sir
30:19last me
30:20last me
30:21last me
30:21who is shatru
30:22who is shatru
30:23who is shatru
30:23who is not
30:24who is not
30:24angrej is our
30:25mitra
30:25now
30:271882
30:28Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay
30:30was talking about
30:31Hindu Rasht
30:32that is the secret
30:34of RSS love affair
30:36with Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay
30:38and Vandemaatram
30:38I want Ratan Sharda
30:39wants to
30:40I want Ratan Sharda
30:41to respond
30:42that whether he really
30:43believes
30:44whether he really
30:45believes
30:45that angrejzoh ki wajah se
30:47sanantan dharm ka uddhar ho ga
30:49what he has to say
30:50on this
30:50angrejzoh ki wajah se
30:52sanantan dharm ka uddhar ho ga
30:53because Vandemaatram
30:54the entire
30:55clarion call of Vandemaatram
30:57was
30:57get rid of the British
30:59but anyway
31:00we will get Ratan Sharda
31:01to respond to you
31:03see I don't want to
31:04divert the debate
31:05from the key issue
31:06of Vandemaatram
31:06to singh or not singh
31:08to discussing
31:09the critique
31:10of
31:12Anand Mat
31:13and nor is Anand Mat
31:15required reading
31:16an RSS
31:17no you are avoiding
31:18you are avoiding
31:19the issue sir
31:20okay
31:20sir
31:22Ashutosh you spoke
31:23now let Ratan Sharda
31:24respond
31:25no he is not
31:26answering my question
31:27he is avoiding the issue
31:28simple
31:29sir I am
31:30I will be asking
31:31the question
31:32but go on
31:33Ratan Sharda
31:33I already said
31:35because he doesn't
31:36listen
31:36everybody can see
31:37prepared you know
31:38debate
31:38I said
31:40this debate is
31:41about Vandemaatram
31:41the way it inspired
31:42the people
31:43does RSS make
31:44Bankim Chandra
31:46as one of its
31:46guiding light
31:47does it make
31:47Anand Mat
31:48as a historical book
31:49no
31:49now coming to
31:50the main issue
31:51what has happened
31:52that congress
31:53has reduced
31:54Muslims to the
31:55level of
31:55Sharia
31:56mosque
31:57namaz
31:58without ever
31:59thinking of
32:00economic well-being
32:01without thinking
32:02of their
32:02progress
32:03and that is
32:05the real problem
32:05the congress
32:06party gave the
32:07leadership
32:08from the
32:09forward-looking
32:09Muslims
32:10to the
32:11orthodoxy
32:12of
32:12Mullahs
32:13and Maulwis
32:13that they
32:14dictate the
32:15term of
32:15Muslim
32:16politics
32:16that is
32:17the reason
32:17everybody
32:18is going
32:18to them
32:18modern
32:19forward-looking
32:20Muslims
32:20has no
32:21place
32:21in
32:21politics
32:22those
32:22who
32:22come
32:22cannot
32:22win
32:23elections
32:23that is
32:24the grip
32:24of this
32:25Maulana
32:25Maulwi
32:25so congress
32:26went into
32:26those elements
32:27which resulted
32:28in partition
32:29sir that's a
32:30great charge
32:31you level
32:31let me get
32:32Amitabh Dubey
32:33to respond
32:33that's a very
32:34grave charge
32:34that you level
32:35against the
32:35congress
32:36and Ashutosh
32:36I'll get you
32:37to win
32:37and I'll bring
32:38Radhika in
32:38but quickly
32:39Amitabh Dubey
32:40since it's a
32:41charge at the
32:41congress party
32:42that congress
32:43is in the
32:44hands of
32:44is doing
32:45a sajda
32:46to radical
32:47Islamists
32:48so words to
32:49that effect
32:49respond sir
32:50yeah
32:50so let me
32:51as I explained
32:52to you
32:52in 1937
32:53Rajendra
32:54Prasad
32:54and Sardar
32:55Patel
32:55were working
32:56on trying
32:56to get
32:57the first
32:57two stanzas
32:58what else
32:58was happening
32:59in 1937
33:00since the
33:00accusation
33:01is about
33:01partition
33:01VD Savarkar
33:03in December
33:0437
33:04in the
33:05Ahmedabad
33:05Hindu
33:06Mahasabha
33:06session
33:07said
33:07India
33:08is not
33:08a unitarian
33:09homogenous
33:09nation
33:10there are
33:10two nations
33:11in India
33:12Hindu
33:12and Muslim
33:13then in
33:141941
33:15the Hindu
33:16Mahasabha
33:16forms
33:17coalition
33:17governments
33:17with the
33:18Muslim
33:18League
33:18in Frontier
33:19in Sindh
33:20and with
33:21Fazlul Haq
33:21who passed
33:22the Pakistan
33:23resolution
33:23in Lahore
33:24in West
33:25Bengal
33:25and Shama
33:25Prasad Mukherjee
33:26is the
33:27finance minister
33:28now who
33:29is trying
33:29to save
33:30the union
33:30and who
33:31is trying
33:31to divide
33:32hand in glove
33:33with the
33:33Muslim
33:33League
33:33is clear
33:34for everyone
33:35who reads
33:35Indian
33:35history
33:37fair
33:37enough
33:38Radhika Khedha
33:38you want
33:39to respond
33:39stop
33:42Gaurav
33:43Ratan
33:44Shardha
33:44was so
33:44quickly
33:44coming
33:45first
33:45Ratan
33:45Shardha
33:46then
33:46Radhika
33:47Khedha
33:47gave the
33:47call
33:47for
33:48two
33:48comms
33:48it was
33:49not
33:49Savarkar
33:50it was
33:50Sayyad
33:50Ahmed
33:51Khan
33:51who said
33:51it
33:51and
33:52Savarkar
33:53never
33:53said
33:53partition
33:54India
33:54he said
33:55everybody
33:55should
33:55have
33:56same
33:56right
33:56not
33:57based
33:57on
33:58community
33:58or
33:58caste
33:59or
33:59religion
33:59but
34:00based
34:00on
34:00this
34:00particular
34:01country
34:01and
34:02that
34:02is
34:02very
34:02clearly
34:03Hindu
34:03in
34:03Hindutva
34:04itself
34:04so
34:05let
34:05or
34:05his
34:05entire
34:06discussion
34:07about
34:07it
34:07so
34:07let
34:07us
34:08not
34:08try
34:08to
34:08compare
34:08what
34:09Sayyad
34:10Ahmed
34:10Khan
34:10said
34:11and
34:11what
34:11Muslim
34:11league
34:12did
34:12and
34:12what
34:12Savarkar
34:13said
34:13so
34:13you
34:14are
34:14trying
34:14to
34:14divert
34:14the
34:15debate
34:15and
34:15wrongly
34:16say
34:16that
34:16Savarkar
34:17talked
34:17of
34:17two
34:17nation
34:17theory
34:18that
34:19is
34:19the
34:19problem
34:19with
34:19congress
34:20and
34:20further
34:20as
34:21saying
34:21did
34:22the
34:22truncating
34:23of
34:23Vande
34:24Matan
34:24stop
34:24the
34:25direct
34:26action
34:26did
34:27it
34:27stop
34:27the
34:27Mopla
34:27riots
34:28did
34:28it
34:28stop
34:29the
34:29partition
34:30nothing
34:30of
34:30it
34:30so
34:31what
34:31price
34:31did
34:32we
34:32pay
34:32if
34:32after
34:32paying
34:33all
34:33this
34:33price
34:34I
34:34still
34:34have
34:34to
34:35apologize
34:35for
34:35singing
34:36the
34:36whole
34:36Vande
34:36Matram
34:37I
34:37think
34:37the
34:38entire
34:38waste
34:38of
34:39effort
34:39I
34:39mean
34:39you
34:40amended
34:41constitution
34:41hundred
34:42times
34:42if
34:43constitution
34:43is
34:43so
34:43secular
34:44why
34:44did
34:44you
34:44amend
34:44it
34:45okay
34:45but
34:46on
34:46the
34:46point
34:47that
34:47you
34:47raised
34:49Ashutosh
34:55did
34:56not
34:56stop
34:56either
34:57the
34:57riots
34:58direct
34:58action
34:59or
34:59partition
35:00what
35:01was
35:01the
35:01point
35:01of
35:02as
35:02Ratan
35:03Sharda
35:03puts
35:03it
35:03surrendering
35:04to
35:05the
35:05Muslim
35:06point
35:06of
35:06view
35:06see
35:07I
35:07was
35:07really
35:08heart
35:08it
35:09was
35:09very
35:09heartening
35:09to
35:10listen
35:11what
35:11Ratan
35:11Sharda
35:12was
35:12talking
35:12about
35:13profusely
35:14praising
35:14Muslims
35:15that
35:15he's
35:15taking
35:15sides
35:16of
35:16the
35:16Muslim
35:16this
35:17is
35:17the
35:17book
35:17I
35:18should
35:18remember
35:18bunch
35:19of
35:19thought
35:19page
35:19number
35:22177
35:23can I
35:23please
35:23come in
35:25Hindustan
35:25Muslim
35:27Christians
35:28and
35:28wo
35:31it's
35:31very
35:32opportunistic
35:32kind
35:32of
35:33thing
35:33you
35:33know
35:33I
35:34can
35:34describe
35:34you
35:35can
35:35describe
35:35me
35:36I
35:36can
35:36tell
35:36you
35:371971
35:38you
35:39will
35:39about
35:401940
35:41and 50
35:42you
35:44don't
35:45talk
35:45I
35:46don't
35:47don't
35:48talk
35:48I
35:48don't
35:48talk
35:48I
35:53don't
35:54talk
35:58Just let Ashutosh complete his point, I will come back to you to respond.
36:02Out of context, you quote outdated theories, you don't talk about 1970, in 1971, MS Golovac said that we all
36:12are one, there is no need to change the religion of Muslims, if they say they are also Hindus.
36:19Fair enough, Ashutosh has a point sir, Ratan Sharada ji, let Ashutosh complete his point, let Ashutosh complete his point,
36:28I will come to you to rebut it, only Ashutosh.
36:32I can take out another book, which is supposedly a plagiarized book, by Golovacar, where he says that Muslims should
36:39make a city in another, I don't want to go in that book.
36:42I am trying to say this, this is what the RSS is, in 1937, Savarkar propounded the theory of two
36:51nations, before Jinnah.
36:54And he is saying, Savarkar never said anything, just imagine.
36:57Sir, you have made your point, now Ratan Sharada wants to respond and only Ratan Sharada, before I bring in
37:05Radhika Khera.
37:06Let me complete, please, you are not letting me complete.
37:08And I want Ratan Sharada to talk about this.
37:11Sorry, you don't have entire day for you, you will eat away everybody's time.
37:15Only Ratan Sharada, let Ratan Sharada respond to the direct allegation that has been made, go on sir respond.
37:22First of all, when Guruji said it, what was the time? Partition time, thousands of people lost their lives,
37:27lakhs of people lost homes, and all that happened, so Guruji said this.
37:30But Guruji again said in 1971, that if the Muslims and the leaders of this country consider this as Bharat
37:36Mata,
37:37they consider our forefathers as their forefathers, they are as good as us, there is no need to convert, they
37:43are Hindus for us.
37:44This is 1971, so you will go back in time in 1939, you will go back in time in 1960,
37:50but we will not say the last words of Guruji before he died.
37:54So this is the way you discuss history, that is the problem, that you will quote something that suits you,
37:59but you will not listen to what doesn't suit your own narrative.
38:02You come here to target RSS, not about Vande Mataram.
38:04You had no words for Congress, you had no words about why Vande Mataram was truncated.
38:08You just wanted to bring all the book about Bankim Chandra and Guruji, but you will not say what RSS
38:15second, Balasab Devaras said, what Sudarshan Ji said.
38:18That is not the theory.
38:19Guruji is not guru of RSS understand.
38:22Guruji is not RSS understand.
38:23Guruji is not RSS guru.
38:24Guruji is not RSS guru.
38:24He is one of the philosophers of RSS.
38:26The debate is truncating Vande Mataram strictly.
38:31Gaurav, Gaurav, have you heard Pandi Jawala Nehru withdrawing even one word from discovery of India?
38:37Have you heard Mahatma Gandhi withdrawing even a sentence from Hindu Swaraj?
38:42Why RSS need to withdraw a bunch of thought?
38:46Why?
38:46Are they saying, isn't Ratan Sarda saying he may have held a view in 1930s?
38:51No.
38:51He has held a different point, a different viewpoint subsequently.
38:55Aren't people, can people not change their thought?
38:58Is the point that Ratan Sarda raises.
39:01However, this isn't a debate on RSS today.
39:04It's on Vande Mataram and Radhika Kheda respond to the Congress party saying that these are just diversionary tactics.
39:11It is not Congresses.
39:13It is not Muslim appeasement.
39:15Because was, you know, were the elders in 1937 doing Muslim appeasement when they chose just two stanzas?
39:24Gaurav, the moment Congress and their sympathizers get trapped on their own CWC resolution,
39:28they start chanting Savarkar, Go Volkar, Hindu Muslim.
39:32Why?
39:33Because they cannot defend the indefensible Rahul Gandhi's anti-national stance on national television.
39:37Every time Jinnah threw a communal tantrum, it is the Congress that surrendered.
39:42First on Vande Mataram in 1937, then on separate electorates, and ultimately on the soil of Bharat Matha.
39:48The fact is that Anand Mat is set in 1770 during the Great Bengal Famine
39:52under the oppressive corrupt rule of Nawab Mir Jafar and his revenue officer, Muhammad Reza Khan.
39:58And Ashutosh here is cherry picking two pages out of context.
40:01The rebellion in Anand Mat was fought against the local administrative tyranny and mass starvation.
40:06And Bankim Babu, how does that have to do anything with not singing, not accepting Vande Mataram today?
40:15What Bankim Babu wrote in the 18th century book then, how does that justify that Rahul Gandhi and the Congress
40:23is refusing to accept Vande Mataram?
40:26That is unfair.
40:27The situation of the country at that time was very, very different.
40:32We were getting our independence, we were getting our freedom.
40:34You had to look at certain things.
40:36And we know that Congress surrendered.
40:38The Congress surrendered to Jinnah and what he wanted.
40:41And then we were running away from the theory.
40:45Amitabh Dubey wants to respond.
40:45Amitabh Dubey wants to respond.
40:47Amitabh Dubey wants to respond.
40:48Amitabh Dubey wants to respond.
40:49Okay.
40:50Okay.
40:50Okay.
40:53If there is a law today and the law gives the same status to Vande Mataram as the national anthem,
40:59the national song, the national emblem, is the Congress still going to stick just to those two stanzas
41:05irrespective of what the law says, sir?
41:08Well, let's first be very clear about what the law says.
41:11It is about disrespect to the song.
41:12It does not force everyone to sing that song in any situation.
41:15It lays out where the full stanzas, three minutes as opposed to one minute.
41:20Radhika Khaira was going on about talking about Congress rejecting Vande Mataram.
41:24It's very clear this is a debate of two versus six stanzas.
41:26It is not about four against Vande Mataram.
41:30And as a party, we have decided to stick to the 1937 resolution.
41:34It's very clear about that.
41:36So, you know, the tragedy is, I'm very sorry to say that we are making a mountain out of a
41:42molehill,
41:43except Vande Mataram.
41:44Vande Mataram is a song we have sung for decades.
41:46And rather than talk about the issues that are affecting this country,
41:50whether it is the Chinese occupation of territory in Arunachal,
41:54whether it is the students, whether it is all the other issues, Chanda Chori,
41:57we are being diverted by this very pointless and diversionary debate just to pick up air time.
42:02You call it pointless.
42:04Radhika Khaira wants to respond quickly.
42:07I have 30 seconds on this part of the show, ma'am.
42:09It is very sad.
42:10Those people who claim that they were the ones who have given their independence,
42:14today are coming and giving these very weak and very sad arguments.
42:18What is the problem?
42:20Yes, you have dishonored Vande Mataram by saying,
42:24and we have decided categorically your leaders have gone on record to say,
42:27the Karnatak state president,
42:29you are disrespecting the law and going against the law by passing a resolution
42:36that only two standards are what Vande Mataram is.
42:38And let me tell you, sir, the Congress is not above the Constitution.
42:42The Congress is not above the law.
42:43You do not have the company.
42:44Please keep your primary limited thoughts to yourself.
42:47You cannot decide what and be above the Parliament,
42:50be above the Constitution and be above the people of India.
42:53Ultimately, it is...
42:55And the days of surrendering before the Gandhi Parivar are done and ducted with.
42:59Which is why you do not come to power again and again,
43:01and you don't want to learn, don't learn.
43:03We don't care.
43:04From insulting the Prime Minister,
43:05from insulting Vande Mataram, continuously...
43:07I mean, you remember, Baurav,
43:09when Rahul Gandhi was singing Vande Mataram,
43:11was Vande Mataram being played on one of their programs.
43:13There was a national song in Nepal.
43:15And Rahul Gandhi took about 40 seconds to realize
43:18that our national song is not.
43:20So what are they going to come and talk about Vande Mataram?
43:2230 seconds that I have on this part of the show, sir.
43:24Quickly.
43:25You know, she is...
43:27I'm sorry to say, but Radega Khaira is yelling and screaming
43:30and making all sorts of incoherent comments
43:32just to use up air time.
43:33This is completely besides the point.
43:35She can throw any allegations she wants,
43:36make it up, left, right and center.
43:38The issue is, it's very clear...
43:40It's the hall for everyone to see.
43:41Fair enough.
43:42The Congress party is the one
43:44that was trying to tap down tensions.
43:46The BJP by allying with...
43:48The Hindu Mahasaba was trying to...
43:50By going down to Jinnah.
43:51If it was trying to tap down tensions in 37...
43:54He's wrong.
43:55The situation in 2026 is very different.
43:59Is there merit then in the Home Minister's allegation
44:03that it's an appeasement politics that is being played?
44:07We leave it to our viewers to decide.
44:09It is for our viewers and the voters in this country to decide.
44:14We've got you all sides of the story.
44:16I want to thank all our guests.
44:18So after saying Jammu and Kashmir is an important part of India,
44:21while he was in Srinagar,
44:23the US ambassador to India, Sergio Gaur, is currently in Leh.
44:27He's likely, they say,
44:29that he may get an audience with His Holiness, the Dalai Lama.
44:33Now, Sergio Gaur's visit to Ladakh carries tremendous significance.
44:37It's way beyond diplomatic engagement.
44:39Sergio Gaur is the first serving US ambassador
44:42to visit the Union territory of Ladakh.
44:45This is strategically a very sensitive region
44:47where India shares contested frontiers,
44:51both with China and with Pakistan.
44:54So India shares a border with Tibet
44:56that China is in control of right now.
44:59The visit comes nearly six years after the Galwan clash in 2020
45:04and the India-China military standoff in Eastern Ladakh.
45:08New Delhi and Beijing,
45:09they've started a cautious process of normalization of relationship,
45:13including some troop disengagement and renewed diplomatic engagement.
45:17The underlying strategic distrust remains.
45:21So a serving US ambassador traveling to the sensitive border zone,
45:25areas close to the line of actual control, puts a lot of focus.
45:29It puts the spotlight on the visit and the situation.
45:33For Beijing, the optics are equally important.
45:36Ladakh remains at the center of the India-China territorial tensions,
45:40and a senior American diplomat visiting the region
45:43could be seen as Washington DC taking a keen interest in India's position along the LAC.
45:51The timing also matters.
45:53US and China rivalry is expanding beyond the Indo-Pacific,
45:58where there's competition over trade, technology,
46:01critical minerals influence over Central Asia.
46:03For Washington DC, it's a chance to underline India's importance in this region.
46:08For New Delhi, it's an important opportunity to reinforce the strategic significance,
46:14and of course, India's actions.
46:16Now, India has been taking a lot of very strong measures all along,
46:21in Jammu and Kashmir and in Ladakh.
46:23So there's peace, there's development, and there is security.
46:27I quickly want to bring into this conversation,
46:29left-in-general Shaqeen Chauhan, former director-general of Assam Rifles.
46:33He is someone who served extensively in Ladakh, has been deployed,
46:38commanded a division in that area.
46:40He joins us on the show.
46:42Arzu Kazmi joins us from Pakistan on Sergio Gaur's comments in Kashmir
46:47and the impact in Pakistan, and I'll come to her in just a moment.
46:50But General, how do you view Ambassador Sergio Gaur's visit to Ladakh?
46:55Good evening, Gaur.
46:57Exactly as you said this, it's definitely not a tourist visit.
47:00It's an extremely important visit.
47:03There are three aspects here.
47:04First is the aspect of the BRICS summit that is coming across in a couple of days,
47:10a couple of weeks, in which President Xi from China is to attend.
47:15And anything to do with Ladakh and anything to do with the Dalai Lama
47:18and anything to do with the Tibetan community is going to be seen
47:22in an extremely important light as far as China is concerned.
47:26That's the first issue.
47:27The second issue is this comes from Sergio Gaur actually having gone to Srinagar
47:31and having given that important statement that Jammu and Kashmir belonged to India.
47:36And now the visit to Ladakh is the cornerstone, the fulcrum of our border issues with China at the present
47:48moment.
47:49And the fact that the American ambassador is going there is a very important aspect
47:55because it gives a very clear signal to China that, look, the Americans are willing to look at India's strategic
48:02geography.
48:03They're willing to look at Jammu and Kashmir and the area of Ladakh from India's point of view
48:08and to see what exactly is the problem.
48:11And secondly, also, is the aspect of the fact that, as you said, America and China are actually competing with
48:20each other in a lot of places.
48:21But we have to be very careful that this competition doesn't come on to India.
48:28Oh, absolutely.
48:30Absolutely.
48:32Shouldn't make the mistakes that were made in the past, especially 1950s and 60s.
48:37Exactly.
48:37India has to be very clear moving forward with China.
48:40Exactly.
48:42I want to bring in Arzu Kazmi into this conversation.
48:45And Arzu, the reaction in Pakistan, there seems to be a lot of panic.
49:07So, I don't know why people are saying that they will not allow any third party or any country to
49:17interfere in India-Pakistan relations or for Kashmir.
49:19So, I don't know why people are celebrating this.
49:22because there is no issue to solve it, India, Pakistan
49:25issue to operation
49:26to solve it
49:28no, Pakistan
49:30to be honest, America's role
49:32is not, but
49:33Pakistan
49:34why do you think Pakistan is so much
49:36in the middle of it, obviously
49:39Pakistan is so bad if our side
49:41Kashmir
49:42could say that
49:43foreigner or diplomat
49:45that this Pakistan
49:47is not because
49:47Bharat
49:48is so
49:48here
49:49there is no
49:50same
50:06that's true
50:07Gaurav
50:08but
50:08it's not
50:09that
50:11Kashmir
50:12dispute
50:12and
50:13when the dispute
50:14will not be
50:16journalists
50:17will not be
50:17going to
50:18Kashmir
50:19in our side
50:19but the problem
50:20comes again
50:21that
50:22if it comes to this
50:24statement
50:24comes to Pakistan
50:25the reaction
50:26will come
50:26if anything
50:27happens or not
50:28but definitely
50:29the reaction
50:31will come
50:31and when the dispute
50:33both countries
50:34will not be solved
50:34if it comes to this
50:36statement
50:36comes to the Americans
50:37it comes to the
50:39so it will record
50:39a protest
50:40this is the other
50:41thing that we can't say
50:41much more
50:42America
50:42can't say anything
50:43no
50:44because if
50:45there is no
50:45approval
50:45and no
50:46help
50:47then Pakistan
50:48will be
50:48completely
50:48but I want to bring
50:51General Shaqeen Chauhan
50:52into this conversation
50:53once again
50:54General Chauhan
50:56Pakistan is upset
50:59a US statement
51:00could this be seen as
51:02fine he is in India
51:03he is an Indian ambassador
51:04he will say all the nice
51:05things even if he is in Kashmir
51:07the US ambassador
51:08to Pakistan
51:09may
51:09if the situation
51:11improves
51:11and when the situation
51:12improves
51:13you know
51:14one day travel
51:15to POJKN
51:15she may say something
51:18completely different
51:19so you know
51:19America is playing
51:20both sides
51:21could that be the scenario
51:22or is there a definite
51:23change in your view
51:24in the American policy
51:26after Pakistan
51:27over promised
51:28and under delivered
51:29on Iran
51:31Gaurab
51:31the last thing
51:32I think India
51:33wants to do
51:34is to have
51:35India plus US
51:36against China
51:37or India plus US
51:38against Pakistan
51:39we have repeatedly
51:40said all the time
51:42that this is a
51:43dispute
51:45it's an issue
51:46not a dispute
51:47because we are
51:47absolutely clear
51:48that Kashmir is ours
51:49this is an issue
51:51with us in Pakistan
51:52it's a bilateral issue
51:53and as far as we are
51:54concerned
51:54we don't need
51:55anyone's labels
51:56so
51:57but the good
51:58thing is
51:59the good thing is
52:00that we have
52:01an American ambassador
52:02who is willing to look
52:03at the strategic
52:04geography of India
52:05are the India's
52:07point of view
52:08and to articulate
52:09it clearly
52:10that's a good thing
52:11it's nothing to do
52:12with the dispute
52:13it's nothing to do
52:14with any aspect
52:14and we are not
52:15looking for labels
52:16because we are
52:17strong enough
52:17and we are confident
52:18enough to not
52:19need anyone's
52:20okay
52:20and that we have
52:22displayed during
52:23Operation Sindur
52:23but what I want
52:24to emphasize
52:25once again
52:26the only dispute
52:28so that nobody
52:29gets confused
52:30the only dispute
52:31is India retaking
52:33Pakistan occupied
52:34Kashmir
52:35and Gilgit
52:36and Baltistan
52:36do I understand
52:37that correctly
52:38that is the only
52:39conversation
52:39if at all
52:40with Pakistan
52:41sir
52:42as far as we are
52:43concerned
52:44the entire
52:45Jammu and Kashmir
52:46the entire kingdom
52:47of Jammu and Kashmir
52:47has seceded to India
52:49so all parts
52:50of Jammu and Kashmir
52:51are actually parts
52:52of India
52:52that's a very clear
52:53aspect
52:55as and when
52:56the people
52:57the awam
52:57as you mentioned
52:58decide that
52:59they do not want
53:00to live anymore
53:01with Pakistan
53:01and come to us
53:02I am certain
53:03they will come to us
53:03because it's an
53:04intrinsic part of India
53:06and as I have
53:08often said
53:08and even in my book
53:09I said
53:10that Pakistan
53:10is actually a country
53:11between two
53:12artificial lines
53:13one is the line
53:14of control
53:14and the other
53:15is the durian line
53:16so in both aspects
53:17and it's bleeding
53:18on both those lines
53:19and perhaps
53:19if it doesn't wake up
53:21it will continue
53:22to bleed
53:23either side
53:23and no one
53:24in the population
53:25is happy
53:25as far as
53:26they are concerned
53:27so it's not
53:27as if they can say
53:28that they are happy
53:29Pakistani Punjabis
53:30are happy
53:30in fact
53:31Tariqe Labaik
53:32has risen
53:33against the
53:33Pakistani state
53:35Imran Khan's
53:36people are very angry
53:37Pakistan Tariqe
53:38in Saf
53:38so Sindh burning
53:39Balochistan burning
53:40Khaybar Paktoonkhoi
53:42in trouble
53:42POJK in trouble
53:43and we'll be tracking
53:44that story very closely
53:45Arzu Kazmi
53:46and General Shaqeen Chauhan
53:47for joining me here
53:48on this India First
53:49special broadcast
53:49many times
53:50thanks
53:50thank you
Comments