Context:

·       A recent dispute in Kerala has erupted over the Governor’s decision to display a picture of Bharat Mata during official functions, sparking a major debate about constitutional propriety, symbolism, and the role of historical imagery in public institutions.

·       This seemingly small incident raises important questions about whether unofficial, emotionally charged symbols can be accorded official status within a constitutional democracy.

·       The controversy touches upon issues of constitutional protocol, the scope of gubernatorial power, and the risks of conflating political symbolism with national identity.

Overview of the Controversy:

·       The conflict began when the Governor of Kerala installed a painting of Bharat Mata—a female figure dressed in a saffron sari, holding a spear, and accompanied by a lion—at official ceremonies in Raj Bhavan. This room, adorned with the image and a brass lamp placed in front, has become the venue for official events.

·       The Governor consistently bows to the picture, offers flowers, and lights the lamp as part of the ceremonial rituals. However, the Kerala state government raised constitutional objections, arguing that this portrayal of Bharat Mata is not a nationally recognized symbol like the flag, anthem, or emblem.

·       As a result, Kerala’s government has boycotted official functions where this picture is displayed.

Symbolism, the Freedom Struggle, and Legal Considerations

• Symbolism and the Freedom Movement: The slogan ‘Bharat Mata ki Jai’ was a powerful emotional expression during India’s struggle for independence. It was chanted passionately during the anti-colonial resistance, evoking patriotism among freedom fighters. However, this slogan was not tied to any specific or official visual depiction of Bharat Mata. The symbolism was more abstract and focused on the idea of the nation rather than any standardized image. Although the concept of India personified as a mother began gaining ground in the 19th century, the contemporary saffron-clad Bharat Mata image has clear ideological origins. Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay’s novel Anandamath introduced the notion of a motherland but focused on Banga Mata rather than Bharat Mata. Later, Abanindranath Tagore painted a goddess-like Bharat Mata image, popularized by Sister Nivedita. Still, no single image of Bharat Mata was ever officially adopted during the independence movement.

• Constitutional and Legal Perspective: The Indian Constitution does not assign any official or legal status to any image of Bharat Mata. While cultural and emotional expressions are valid in a democracy, they cannot supersede constitutional norms or official protocols. The Governor’s picture, despite its historical background, has never been formally endorsed by the nation. Moreover, the image has become strongly linked with ideological groups such as the RSS and BJP, politicizing the symbol. This association makes the picture’s presence at official state events contentious and potentially exclusionary in a secular, pluralistic country. B.R. Ambedkar’s clear statement during the Constituent Assembly that Governors have no independent functions reinforces the constitutional limits on their authority. Governors must act according to the advice of elected governments, especially regarding official functions. Using an unofficial, ideologically charged symbol breaches the impartiality and secularism expected of constitutional offices.

The Nehruvian Ideal of Bharat Mata, Nationalism, and Governance

• Nehru’s Interpretation: Jawaharlal Nehru’s view of Bharat Mata, expressed in The Discovery of India, is particularly enlightening. Nehru described Bharat Mata not as a deity or goddess but as a symbol of India’s people—their hopes, struggles, and collective future. When explaining the slogan ‘Bharat Mata ki Jai,’ Nehru emphasized that it referred to “these millions of people,” underscoring the nation’s democratic and humanistic essence. This perspective aligns better with the secular and inclusive principles enshrined in the Constitution, contrasting with mythologized or sectarian visual representations.

• Nationalism, Imagery, and Modern Governance: This debate highlights a deeper divide in Indian nationalism between inclusive civic nationalism and ethno-religious symbolic nationalism. Gandhi’s vision was founded on moral values, pluralism, and unity amid diversity. On the other hand, anthropomorphic images with religious or sectarian undertones tend to exclude rather than unite, reinforcing ideological divisions. The revival of such imagery in current political discourse risks regressing to a 19th-century style of nationalism that does not suit India’s complex social and cultural fabric today. Given India’s immense diversity, a single image—especially one resembling a particular religious archetype—cannot represent the entire nation.

Governor vs. Government: A Recurring Pattern

The Kerala incident is not isolated; clashes between Governors and state governments have been common in Indian federal politics. The Supreme Court has issued clear guidelines limiting gubernatorial discretion, yet political tensions often arise due to differences between central and state authorities. Raj Bhavan, like Rashtrapati Bhavan, is not just a residence but an institutional space for constitutional functions. Symbols displayed there must have national legitimacy and reflect the neutrality of state institutions. Allowing personal or ideological symbols into these spaces undermines institutional impartiality and sparks avoidable political conflict.