Ram Puniyani
Supreme Court Order on
national Anthem (November 2016) has asked theatres to play the national anthem
before a film show begins “for the love of the motherland”. This has yet again
started the debate over the personal freedom and legal obligations in present
times. This is in the backdrop of growing intolerance. The point is whether
nationalistic pride can be injected by such legal dictates. Some commentators
are arguing that this compulsion is a undermining of civil
liberties. Let’s recall that few decades ago, in many places national Anthem
used to be played at the end of the film screening. The observation was that
many in the audience will leave the hall during the anthem. Now at many places,
like in Maharashtra, the playing of anthem has been started in the beginning of
the film screening. The Supreme Court order of the two judge bench; court makes
it mandatory for this singing to be done all over the country and this order
also asks for closing of the doors during this period.
There are laws to ensure
the protection of national symbols like National flag. There are some landmark
cases which have shown the conflict between the state norms and the individual
liberty. In the well known ‘Jehovahs witness’case
the students belonging to Jehovah faith had refused to sing the anthem; their
argument being that it would tantamount to idolatry not permitted by their
faith. The children were expelled by the principal of the school. The matter
went up to Supreme Court which ruled in favor of the students and their
expulsion from school was revoked.
 |
| Courtesy: BBC |
In a democracy there is a
balance between the individual rights and the duties towards the state. The
whole Constitution is an attempt to bring in ‘rights of citizens’ and ‘freedom
of expression’ to the fore. While a decade ago the Court could rule in favor of
the individual liberty; now it seems the trend is just the opposite as ‘love
for mother land, nationalism, patriotism’ are being flaunted at the drop of the
hat. All those not agreeing with the policies of the ruling government are
being dubbed anti national, it is being said that they are ‘not patriots’. Even
standing in queue for withdrawing cash from ATM or Bank is being glorified as
an act of patriotism, for the sake of the country. This is in the wake of the
painful demonetization brought in by Narendra Modi. The present Court order
comes in a back drop of the times when words patriotism; nationalism are
dominating the scene in the rule of BJP Government.
We also recall that since
Modi Government has come to power the patriotism/nationalism of those who are
dissenting from the ruling Government’s policies are being challenged by the
ruling dispensation. In case of Rohith Vemula the activities of the Ambedkar
Student Association were dubbed ‘anti-national’ and so the whole pressure of
the MHRD minister on the complying Vice Chancellor to expel him from Hostel and
stop his fellowship, leading to Rohith’s suicide. In an attempt to close down
JNU, the Government resorted to nationalism ploy and the doctored CD was played
on some TV channels to demonize Kanhaiya Kumar and his friends. He was labeled
to be Deshdrohi (anti national). It is another matter that Kanhaiaya Kumar had
not shouted those ‘slogans’ and that even Constitutional position is that mere
shouting of slogans does not tantamount to anti-national activity. In the
present charged up atmosphere, the hysteria around patriotism and nationalism,
in Goa a wheel chair bound person
was beaten up for not standing during singing of national anthem. In Mumbai a
young script writer was heckled out of cinema hall for not standing during the anthem.
Such growing atmosphere
of intimidation and imposition around issue of nationalism is a matter of
concern for the political culture which is being built up in the country. As
such in India the whole concept of patriotism begins in a very strange fashion.
During kingdoms the kings were eliciting and demanding absolute loyalty from
their subjects. The punishments for not complying with such patriotism-loyalty
were severe, cutting off hands, meting out of death punishment etc. During
colonial period we had two types of nationalism which came up simultaneously.
On one hand were the rising classes of Industrialists, workers and educated
classes veering around anti-colonial movement for secular democratic India.
They opposed the British rule. They were not patriots. The nationalism in the
name of religion began with the Kings and landlords coming together and
pledging their loyalty to British. They were patriots for Queen of England.
Their organization, United India Patriotic Association was the progenitor of
nationalism in the name of religion, Muslim Nationalism and Hindu Nationalism.
These formations did remain loyal and patriotic to British rule all through.
Ultra nationalism, while
operating in the broad democratic setup, is an attempt to instill the values of
dictatorial state. Hope such a realization will prompt the Supreme Court to
revisit the judgment with a larger bench.
0 comments:
Post a Comment