India, Aug. 26 -- Recently, the Parliament amended the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971, to extend the legal protection, long given to the National Anthem, to the National Song - Vande Mataram. The bill, introduced by the Union home minister Amit Shah and passed by the Rajya Sabha by voice vote with no substantive floor debate, makes intentionally preventing or disturbing the singing of the National Song punishable with up to three years' imprisonment, a fine, or both. The Statement of Objects and Reasons anchors this in Dr Rajendra Prasad's remark to the Constituent Assembly in 1950 that Vande Mataram would be 'honoured equally' with the National Anthem. A few facts are worth setting alongside this history. Article 51A(a) of the Constitution asks citizens to respect the National Flag and the National Anthem specifically but does not name the National Song. The government's own standing orders on the National Song state that schools 'may' open the day with its community singing, leaving room for choice. That permissive language has stood for decades. The controversy has also come at the cost of legislative time that elected representatives owe to other crucial issues. This was also seen in Himachal Pradesh when the assembly was repeatedly adjourned after ruling and Opposition party members clashed over the song's non-rendition at the start of the monsoon session. Kerala offers the clearest state-level example of continuity rather than confrontation. The state issued orders that Kerala's government functions would continue with only the first two couplets, 'as always,'. In Punjab, by contrast, the issue has not been raised on the floor of the assembly, nor has the state government produced a comparable, clearly stated position on the issue - a gap worth closing. The relevant issue is not patriotism, which is not in dispute, but the specific content of the composition being imposed on citizens. The commonly sung opening two stanzas of Vande Mataram describe the motherland's fertility and beauty in terms any citizen can embrace. The complete six-stanza composition, prescribed in full in the government's own official version, goes further: it addresses the motherland directly as Durga, 'bearer of ten weapons,' and states that her image is enthroned in every temple. Sikh doctrine begins with Ik Oankar - one, formless, timeless Creator - and Gurbani repeatedly directs devotion (bhagti) to that One alone. Guru Granth Sahib states plainly that the One is Sikh's true Mother and Father, and that worship of idols and stone does not by itself constitute devotion. On this basis, a Sikh can love, serve and if necessary die for the homeland without performing a verse that identifies that homeland as a specific goddess whose image belongs in temples. This is a doctrinal distinction and not a judgment on Hindu practice. The Constitution already provides a framework for holding both realities together. Article 25(1) protects freedom of conscience, not only organised religious practice. In Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala (1986), the Supreme Court upheld the right of Jehovah's Witness schoolchildren to stand respectfully during the National Anthem without singing it, on grounds of religious conscience. This has established that respectful conduct can be required while affirmative profession of belief cannot. That precedent, decided in the context of the anthem itself, offers a clear reference point now that criminal liability is being extended to the song as well. Taken together, these facts point toward a modest and achievable position. The continued state honour for Vande Mataram and preservation of the long-standing, government-sanctioned practice of singing the opening stanzas as the default civic expression. Kerala's cross-party continuity on this point offers one working model; Punjab, home to Guru Granth Sahib and a long constitutional tradition of arguing for conscience, has reason to arrive at a similarly clear and calm position of its own. A republic built on plurality does not require uniform speech to demonstrate unity; it requires the freedom for that plurality to be expressed without penalty....