Ram Puniyani analyses the recent verdict of a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court on singing of the National Anthem in cinema halls, and hopes that the situation building around it would prompt the Supreme Court to revisit the judgment with a larger bench.
The 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 a debate over 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 argue that this compulsion undermines civil liberties.
Let’s recall that a few decades ago, National Anthem used to be played at the end of the film screening at many places. 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 National Anthem has been started in the beginning of the film screening. The Supreme Court order of the two-judge bench 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 protection of national symbols like our 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 the Jehovah faith had refused to sing the Anthem; their argument being that it would be tantamount to idolatry not permitted by their faith. The children were expelled by the principal of the school. The matter went up to the Supreme Court which ruled in favour of the students and their expulsion from the school was revoked.
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 ‘rights of citizens’ and ‘freedom of expression’ to the fore. While a decade ago the Court could rule in favour of the individual liberty, now it seems the trend is just the opposite as ‘love for motherland’, ‘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 an 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 demonetisation brought in by Prime Minister Narendra Modi. The present Court order comes in the backdrop of the times when the words like patriotism and nationalism are dominating the scene in the rule of BJP Government.
We also recall that since the 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’; hence the whole pressure of the MHRD Minister on the complying Vice Chancellor to expel him from the 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 demonise Kanhaiya Kumar and his friends. He was labelled as Deshdrohi (anti-national). It is another matter that Kanhaiya had not shouted those ‘slogans’ and that even the Constitutional position is that mere shouting of slogans is not tantamount to an anti-national activity. In the present charged up atmosphere, the hysteria around patriotism and nationalism, a wheelchair-bound person in Goa was beaten up for not standing during singing of National Anthem. In Mumbai a young script writer was heckled out of the cinema hall for not standing during the Anthem singing.
Such growing atmosphere of intimidation and imposition around the 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 and death punishment, etc. During the 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 the 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 the British. They were ‘patriots’ for the Queen of England. Their organisation, United India Patriotic Association was the progenitor of nationalism in the name of religion. These formations did remain loyal and patriotic to the British rule all through.
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 respective religious identities. The nationalism built around democratic values and secularism was the one led by Mahatma Gandhi, which had inherent liberalism in it. Post-Independence the nationalism of the communal organisation as such has the feudal mindset 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 the 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 citizens should be loaded with duties alone. The present judgment seems to have the overbearing influence of such a mindset.
Ultra-nationalism, while operating in the broad democratic setup, is an attempt to instil the values of a dictatorial state. Hope such a realisation will prompt the Supreme Court to revisit the judgment with a larger bench.