The Poet Who Refuses To Whisper: Manoj Muntashir On Faith, India And His Unfiltered World At Republic Summit

Mumbai: From first love and heartbreak to poetry, cinema, faith, and his idea of India, lyricist, writer and poet Manoj Muntashir brought many shades of his personality to the Republic Summit 2026 stage in Mumbai. What began as a conversation about the emotions that first turned into words soon travelled through culture, identity, Bollywood, language, Vande Mataram and politics.

There are writers who write about India, and then there are writers who turn their idea of India into an argument. At the Republic Summit 2026 in Mumbai, Manoj Muntashir did both. The lyricist, writer and poet moved between memory and ideology, poetry and provocation, speaking about the experiences that shaped his writing while also addressing some of the most contested questions around faith, culture and identity in contemporary India.

And, true to the voice that has often placed him at the centre of public conversations, he did not shy away from controversy.

A Mistake Is A Page. A Relationship Is The Whole Book

Muntashir began by reflecting on mistakes, forgiveness and the relationship between an individual and the country. Looking back on a mistake he made, he spoke of the forgiveness he received from the country and used the metaphor of a book to describe how one mistake should not define the entire relationship.

“This country knows that a mistake is just a page and the relationship is a whole book.” He went on to explain the metaphor further. “If ink falls on a page, if a stain is left, tear that page and throw it away. It is not wise to throw away a whole book.” For Muntashir, the idea was also deeply personal. He said that despite his mistake, the country did not sever its relationship with him.

“So, despite my mistake, this country forgave me and did not break the relationship with me.” It was a striking way to begin a conversation that would repeatedly return to the themes of identity, belonging and the relationship between an individual and the nation.

When ‘Secular’ Became A Question, Not An Answer

The conversation then turned to one of the most contentious subjects: secularism. Muntashir was unequivocal in describing his own identity. “I am not secular. I am a Hindu, and that is enough.” He questioned the addition of the word ‘secular’ to the Preamble through the 42nd Amendment, arguing that India’s historical experience differs from countries where religious institutions directly controlled political power.

He also invoked Swami Vivekananda while explaining his position. “Swami Vivekananda used to say, say with pride that we are Hindus.” His comments then moved from personal identity to his argument about political power and secularism. Muntashir said that those who want India to remain secular should consider the religious identity of the person occupying the country’s highest political office.

His remarks reflected a larger argument he has made about the relationship between Hindu identity and the character of the Indian state.

Vande Mataram: When A Song Became A Fault Line

Few moments in the conversation carried as much historical weight as Muntashir’s discussion of Vande Mataram. He questioned why, decades after Independence, the country debates whether the national song should be sung in full. He recalled the song’s association with the freedom movement and the 1896 Congress session, pointing to the role of Congress president Rehmatullah Sayani and later debates around the song.

For Muntashir, the issue is not merely about how many stanzas are sung. It is about what he believes the decision represents. “Our culture was censored.” He questioned why only selected portions should be performed when, according to him, the expression at the heart of Vande Mataram is simply an invocation to the motherland.

“What is the meaning of Vande Mataram? If we ask directly, Vande Mataram. Maa Tujhe Pranam.” And then came the question at the heart of his argument: “If you consider this earth as your mother, what is the problem in paying your respects to it?”

When Bollywood Becomes More Than Entertainment

Muntashir's relationship with Bollywood was another major thread of the conversation. He criticised what he described as recurring portrayals and narratives that, in his view, treat Hindu religious figures and symbols disrespectfully. He rejected the argument that such instances should automatically be defended as artistic freedom, saying that repeated instances cannot simply be dismissed as coincidence.

“I call it conspiracy because... If it had happened once, twice, four times, ten times... Till then you could have believed that... In a country where there are hundreds of films being made... Such things may have happened a few times. But if it has been happening continuously... Since the beginning of cinema, it has been happening till now.”

He then delivered his conclusion: “Then it is not a coincidence; it is a conspiracy. And we will have to understand this.” His comments reflected the larger cultural battle he believes is playing out through cinema—one where storytelling, religion and politics increasingly overlap.

Three Reasons. Three Births. One Political Choice

As the conversation approached its final stretch, the anchor asked Muntashir to respond to a series of names. The first was Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Muntashir gave three reasons for his stated political support: “Article 370, 3 divorces, and Ram Mandir. I have these 3 reasons; for the next 3 births, I will continue to vote for the BJP and Narendra Modi.”

His comments about Modi were followed by references to the political leader's resilience in the face of criticism. The conversation then moved through a rapid-fire list of public figures, including Yogi Adityanath, Rahul Gandhi, Kangana Ranaut, Baba Bageshwar and Sushant Singh Rajput.

For Yogi Adityanath, Muntashir offered two words: “Tapasvi Raja.” For Rahul Gandhi, he turned the answer into a joke about distance: “Rahul Gandhi's chair is 16 crore kilometres away.” And for Kangana Ranaut: “Kangana Ranaut, my lovely, stubborn little sister.”

The mood changed when Sushant Singh Rajput's name came up. “Kahaani khatm hui, aur aise khatm hui, ke log rone lege taliyan bajate hue.” Then simply: “We miss you, Sushant.”

And Then Came Hanuman Ansh

The final stretch of the conversation brought Muntashir back to faith. Speaking about Hanuman Ansh, he described Lord Hanuman as Siddh Devta, Chiranjeevi and jagrat, before explaining what he believes the larger cultural contribution of Hanuman Ansh should be. “Bajrangbali Siddh Devta hain, ye humko pata tha. Wo Chiranjeev hain, ye humko pata tha.”

But he said the significance goes further. “Lekin, sabse wada contribution, jo Hanuman Ansh ka hai, wo is daur mein, wo ye siddh kar dena hai, ki wo jivit hain, wo jagrat hain, wo Chiranjeevi hain, unse kuch maang ke dekho, wo dete hi.” It was an ending that brought the conversation full circle, from the writer's personal journey to his understanding of faith and cultural identity.

The Poet Who Refuses To Stay Inside One Box

By the time Muntashir left the stage, the conversation had travelled a long distance. From mistakes and forgiveness to poetry. From Vande Mataram to secularism. From Bollywood and language to caste, Jauhar and faith. From political leaders to Sushant Singh Rajput. From literature to Hanuman.

There were moments of tenderness, moments of humour and moments that were deliberately provocative. But perhaps the most revealing aspect of the Republic Summit conversation was how closely Muntashir's poetry and public persona remain intertwined. For him, words are rarely just words. A song can become a cultural statement. A poem can become an argument. A historical memory can become a question about the present.

And throughout the conversation, one thing remained unmistakable: Manoj Muntashir does not appear interested in being easily categorised. He would rather make the room debate what he has said.

Also Read: Maharashtra FDA Suspends Licence of 122-Year-Old Kyani & Co. in Mumbai