Can Compulsions Elicit Respect? Singing of National Anthem in Cinema Halls

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 The matter went up to Supreme Court which ruled in favor of the students and their expulsion from school was revoked.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.

Courtesy: BBC

The anti-colonial nationalism was comprehensive, inclusive and not merely ethnic nationalism. The nationalism of Muslim League and Hindu Mahasabha-RSS was built around their religious identity. The nationalism built around democratic values and secularism, the one led by Mahatma Gandhi had inherent liberalism in it. Post-Independence the nationalism of the communal organization as such has the feudal mind set of unquestioning loyalty to the state and no scope to have differences from the ruling state. That is what the Kings demanded from their subjects. That’s what dictators demand in present times. The present atmosphere created by RSS-BJP smacks of the mindset of the norms of authoritarian systems. In these systems like Kingdoms, Kings were supreme and people were mere subjects. In dictatorship again the rights of citizens are undermined. As per RSS-BJP politics state is supreme and citizen should be loaded with duties alone. It seems the present judgment is has the overbearing influence of such a mindset.

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.    

Read More

Re-Debating Secularism: A Secularist Responds to Minister Rajnath Singh

 Ram Puniyani

The celebration of Constitution day ( November 26 2015) marked the revival of the debate, rather questioning of the concept of secularism, yet again. Rajnath Singh, the home minister repeated the arguments which the RSS parivar has been raising time and over again. He said that the perverse use of the term secularism is causing social tensions. As per Singh, secularism is the most misused term in the country and it is this misuse of the term which is causing social tensions. He repeated that this term has Western roots and stands for separation between religion and state. In India since its religion itself is secular such a concept is not needed here. He repeated the earlier arguments of RSS ideologues that there is no need to have the word Secularism the Preamble of Indian Constitution. 

Most of these arguments which keep coming from Sangh parivar have a deeper purpose. They are uncomfortable with the very concept of a secular state so they bring forward this debate in different guises. One recalls that on the eve of Republic Day January 26 2015, the Government issued an advertisement in which the words secular and socialist were missing. The argument put forward after a strong protest was that these words were inserted into the Preamble during the Emergency were not there originally. The point however is that the Indian Constitution has all the provisions for secular values in different clauses of our Constitution, still in the face of rising communal politics this addition to the Preamble made in 1975 merely reinforces the goals of our Constitution. 
Is secularism a Western concept? It is true that this value originated in the Western World but the context of the word is not mere geographical it has all to do with the process of modernization, the rise of industrialization and modern education accompanying the process of abolition of kingdoms, feudal values. It runs parallel to coming of the society with equality of all human beings. This process comes in the wake of a change in societal dynamics whereby the hold of organized religion, the clergy, on social affairs starts diminishing or is abolished altogether. This process of secularization heralds the beginning of the modern society where religion, the organized institution in contrast to other facets of religion, is relegated to the margins of society. 
The argument that India is different as here there was no organized Church, this concept is not needed in India. As far as the scattered clergy of Hinduism is concerned, it played the same role, allying with the feudal powers to sanctify the divine power of kings or landlords, is no different. For that matter whatever be the religion, the clergy does play the same role in every pre-industrial society. It is a bane of South Asian countries that clergy or ‘politics in the name of religion’ keeps dominating the and acts as an obstacle to the strengthening of democratic values and relationship of equality. 

The assertion that the Indian religion, Hinduism is secular, defies all sociological understanding of India, Hinduism and society here. Hinduism, of course is not a Prophet based religion, but is dominated by the Brahminical clergy, which was part of the ruling social powers. Hindu clergy, namely the Brahmins had the same role in giving sanctity to the feudal lord-king as any other clergy had, although in one sense the most visible of this is the organized Catholic Church and so that becomes the most cited example. 

In the BJP scheme of things the religions of Indian origin, Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism are all the sects of Hinduism. This is a political elaboration; not a theological one as all these religions are full-fledged religions as far as scriptures, rituals and values are concerned. This is deliberately done to create ‘the other’ in the followers of Islam and Christianity. So to say that the religions of Indian origin are the only Indian religions is faulty again. Religions don’t have nationality, they are universal. 

The origin of religion in that sense is incidental. Look at the spread of Buddhism. Look at the followers of these religions trotting all over the globe. The very formulation of Indian versus foreign religion is a political construct. Hinduism does have different sects like any other religion having many sects. India has many religions thriving here. What are Indian religions is well answered by Gandhi. Gandhi states that in India “Apart from Christianity and Judaism, Hinduism and its offshoots, Islam and Zoroastrianism are living faiths.” (Gandhi’s collected works, Volume XLVI p. 27-28). This is very contrary to the RSS-BJP formulation of Islam and Christianity being foreign religions. 

It is true that the practice of secularism has been tardy in India due to the weakness of the political leadership and due to the absence of effective land reforms. In tune with that, the RSS parivar has been coining different terms to criticize secularism as such and to hide its total opposition to religious pluralism and secularism. 

First it began with the term appeasement for the affirmative policies of the Congress, and then went on to coin the term pseudo secular and lately sickular as a derogatory term for those trying to uphold the Constitutional values of secularism. The BJP slogan of ‘Justice for all and appeasement of none’ in a way underlines the way Hindu nationalism will operate, with no concern for the weaker religion minorities. Its agenda has been structured around identity issues related to a section of Hindus. Earlier the major issue used on the ground was the Ram temple, and today and the ‘Cow as mother’ is the reigning identity issue. 

‘India First’ the highly emotive phrase coined by Prime Minister Narendra Modi as a substitute for secularism is a clever maneuver to bypass the word secular, which is a big obstacle to the agenda of Hindu nationalism of the RSS-BJP. While the freedom movement was totally diverse, plural and secular to the core the ideological foundations of today’s BJP lay in the Hindu nationalism as brought up by Savarkar and later by RSS. This begins with the formulation of India as a Hindu nation from times immemorial, in contrast to the self understanding of Indian national movement that ‘we are a nation in the making’. 

Although the BJP currently has no choice but to uphold the Indian constitution it is trying to subvert the spirit of secular values by various means. And that’s what the RSS pracharak Rajnath Singh is doing as a minister in the Indian Government! Such distortions of the spirit of Indian Constitution need to be combated at the ideological, social and political level.

Read More

What did Colonialism do to India?

Ram Puniyani

A video of Shashi Tharoor speaking at Oxford on a debate related to the colonial period has been ‘viral’ on the social circuit for a while. In this video Tharoor makes a passionate plea to the British that they make reparations for the losses to Indian economy during the British rule. He puts the blame of India’s economic decline on the British and also recounts Jalianwala Bag, Bengal famine as the major highlight of British rule which reflected the attitude of British towards this colony of theirs’. Tharoor points out that resources from India were used by British to build there economic prosperity and to fund their Industrial revolution.

Shashi Tharoor

However, Dr. Manmohan Singh (2005), the previous prime minister, had made a very different kind of argument. In this Dr. Singh as a guest of British Government extols the virtue of British rule and gives them the credit for rule of law, constitutional government, and free press as the contributions which India benefitted from.

So where does the truth lie? Not only the context and tone of the speeches by these two Congressmen is totally different, the content is also totally on different tracks. Dr. Singh as the guest of the British Government is soft and behaving as an ideal guest and points out the contributions of the British rule and there is some truth in that. Tharoor as an Indian citizen with memory of the past; is narrating the plunder which this country suffered due to the British rule. He is also on the dot. These are two aspects of the same canvass. What Tharoor is saying is the primary goal of British and what Dr. Sigh is stating is an incidental offshoot.

British (East India Company) did come here looking for markets for their industrial products, gradually went on defeating one after another king, ruling in different areas and brought the whole subcontinent under a single rule, which became one of the ‘Jewel in the Crown’ for British as the whole wealth, raw material, resources from India were pumped out to Britain. In order to achieve this goal they did go on to introduce railways, communication network-postal, telegraph-telephone and modern administrative system and modern education to create the assistants for their officers ruling here.

The lacuna in our systems were primarily because the primary goal of British was to plunder the country and as an incidental thing; as by product; the new institutions, rule of law and later some reforms against ghastly social practices also began (like abolition of Sati). Perceptions do matter while Singh and Tharoor are talking of the same phenomenon from two different angles. The third angle is the one that was articulated by British themselves. British presented their rule as part of “Civilizing mission of the East”! There is very little truth in this, but it can be said that British also did help in the process of social reforms at times.

The major point which is unseen in these perceptions is one which had dangerous consequence on the social-political scenario and that was- British planted the seeds of divisive politics. As such broadly speaking the colonial-imperialist rule sows the seeds of ‘divide and rule’ and in this subcontinent they did it with gay abandon. In the wake of 1857 revolt, when the British East India Company’s rule was shaken, British identified existence of two major religious communities where the wedge could be driven. This is where they introduced communal historiography as a part of ‘divide and rule’ policy. James Mill with his ‘History of British India’ periodized the history on communal lines (Ancient Hindu Period, medieval Muslim period and modern British period). Supplementing this were Elliot and Dawson with ‘History of India as told by her historians’, which reduced the history to the eulogizing account of the courtiers of the kings. These played a major role in deepening the communal understanding of the past.

At social level we see emergence of modern classes, industrialists-workers and modern educated classes while the old classes of feudal lords and kings survive though with some reduced influence. The modern classes came forward to build up anti colonial movement; this movement led by Gandhi with people from all regions, religions, men and women both is what built modern India on the infrastructure of industrialization-modern education. This movement tied the people together in the bond of ‘Indian-ness’ and had imbibed the values of the central pillars of transformations of caste and gender relations. The latter aspects most highlighted by Jotirao Phule, Bhimrao Ambedkar and Periyar Ramasamy Niacker on one side and introduction of girls education with Savitribai Phule opening the girls school on the other. This group underlined that ‘India is a nation in the making’.

On the other hand the declining sections of landlords-kings, both Hindu and Muslim, threatened by the modern changes and seeing the rise of their vassals who were escaping from their grip, shouted that their religion is in danger. They upheld the communal historiography introduced by British. Muslim elite gradually came to form Muslim League. For them the raison d’être of their coming together was Islam being in danger. They held that here the Muslim Nation had been there since the time Muhammad bin Kasim had won over Sindh from Hindu Daher in eighth century and so they have to work for creation of a Muslim nation. That’s how they remained aloof from the freedom movement, which was aiming at the Secular democratic India.

The Hindu landlords Kings in due course came to form Hindu Mahasabha and then RSS. For them this had been a Hindu nation from times immemorial and Muslims and Christians are the alien invaders. They also remained aloof from freedom movement and harped on building Hindu nation in contrast to the goal set by National movement, that of secular democratic India. They constructed their own history of a glorious past of the Hindu rulers and its corruption by the Muslim invaders. Gradually they came to construct the ideology that all the ills of Hindu society are due to the Muslim invaders.

While the national movement brought together the people of all the regions, religions, castes: women and men both, the communal streams nurtured the seeds of divisiveness sown by British, and this is what led to communal violence and later the tragic partition of the country. Here also what is generally analyzed mostly is the fault of leader A or B for partition while overlooking the fact that partition was the part of continuing British policy, to have their interests preserved in the sub continent and that’s how they played their cards well enough to create a situation where partition became an inevitable calamity.

If one has to point the major problem which the British rule introduced; apart from the impact on the socio economic life of the sub continent; it is undeniably letting the feudal classes-kingdoms to continue in the face of changing scenario of industrialization-modern education. So in the sub continent on one side we see the emergence of the values of Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity as an ideology of the emerging classes, while the feudal ideology of ‘caste and gender hierarchy’ persists as the flag-mast of declining sections of society which came to be represented in the communal organizations, Muslim League, Hindu Mahasabha and RSS. These declining groups construct the ideology of ‘Religion based Nation state’ which is a unique synthesis of feudal values with the modern concept of nation state, their communal politics is a modern phenomena but derives its identity from as ancient as time as possible. As neither Hindu nor Muslim nor Christian Kings were ‘religious nationalist’ so to say; as actually they presided over on the empires based on taxation of the toiling peasants in their kingdoms. Their goals of power-wealth were written on their sleeves; sometimes they adorned the masks of Dharmyudh, Jihad or Crusade for their ambitions of expanding power.

So during freedom movement we see those working for anti colonial movement are saying, ‘India as a nation in the making’ the concept which runs parallel to modernization in transport, industrialization, education and administration in particular. Muslim League said we have been a Muslim nation from eight century and Hindu Mahasabha-RSS asserting that we are a Hindu nation from times immemorial Muslim league derives identity from the Kings’ rule while Hindu Mahasbha-RSS project the concept of nation to times when people were having pastoral pattern and later made a transition to settled agriculture.  For the communalists the major transition of industrialization and modern education is of no consequence.

While the declining classes do eulogize the kings of their religions, it is interesting that none of the kings in the history set out to spread his religion, they set out to expand their empires. To make this rule grounded there of course is an exception, Emperor Ashok who did spread his religion.

Today we cannot say what might have been the course of History had India not been colonized, what patterns of Industrialization-modernization would have taken place, but one thing can be hypothesized that this communal politics, abuse of religions’ identity for political goals might not have been here to torment us, to kill and maim the innocents, may not have been ruling our streets and asserting for authoritarian structures right within the democratic institutions which the country has nourished from last six decades.

So while Tharoor and earlier Manmohan Singh are pointing to two supplementary aspects of British rule, we also need to delve deeper and see the result of their policies which gave rise to communal politics, the politics which is tormenting South Asia as a whole and India is witnessing the worst in the form of Hindu Nationalism, Hindutva which is dominating the political ideology.

Read More