We the people of India
A year on, Supreme Court ruling on National Anthem has the country on opposing sides of the judgment. PREEJA ARAVIND tries to figure out why
T he latest video making the internet round is that of a few students in a Jammu & Kashmir institution being disrespectful of Indian national anthem at a ceremony. Jana Gana Mana for most of us was about being sung off-key at school assemblies. We didn’t know what the song meant, but we knew there was a decorum to be maintained while the national anthem played. Decades later, decorum and national anthem have come into limelight again, thanks to a November 2016 order by Supreme Court. The debate has only intensified since then. Supreme Court’s amended rulings on the matter haven’t been helpful either. Now, to be compliant with the order, whenever the national anthem plays in cinema halls, people shuffle to a standing position, either reluctantly or eagerly. None of them seem to be patriotic, which was the reasoning for the apex court’s order.
Where is Constitutional Patriotism?
The order dated November 30, 2016, by the Bench of Justices Dipak Misra and Amitava Roy stated: “…it is the sacred obligation of every citizen to abide by the ideals engrafted in the Constitution... one such ideal is to show respect for the National Anthem… a time has come, the citizens of the country must realize that they… are duty bound to show respect to National Anthem which is the symbol of the Constitutional Patriotism and inherent national quality.”
There’s no question about disputing this observation. However, is coercive patriotism really the path to take to renew nationalistic ideology in millennial citizens? Renowned historian Ramchandra Guha, at last month’s Bangalore Literature Festival, tried to explain the distinction among patriotism, jingoism and nationalism. “Nationalism is a 19th century European invention, just as the telegraph, the electricity, the theory of evolution … Except that nationalism is somewhat more problematic than any of the above,” Guha had said.
In another lecture, Guha explained the inherent difference between patriotism and jingoism. According to Guha, a patriot is a person who loves his or her country, wishes for public prosperity and endeavours to promote it. A jingoist, by definition, is an individual who can incite a crowd. For jingoism to succeed, said Guha, there has to be a crowd.
Is Supreme Court a bully?
Supreme Court, with its unclear ruling, invariably straddled the line that divides a bully from a leader. First it tried to be a bully by saying cinema halls must play the national anthem, then tried to take a “nonthreatening” stance by allowing cinema halls discretion to play the national anthem or not.
However, what needs to be questioned here is the court’s belief that playing a national anthem in a public space will invoke love for the nation. You are either patriotic, or you are not. Standing while national anthem plays does not prove a person’s patriotism. Not doing so, however, proves that they are disrespectful of a country that has provided them with the perks of a free sovereign nation. Case in point: the students who were busy taking selfies while others showed their respect for the national anthem.
Citizens have a duty to their nation—and disgracing the national anthem or any other Constitutional symbol is worth prosecuting. There is no question about that. But the Bench’s observation that this ruling will “instill a feeling within one a sense of committed patriotism and nationalism,” is oversimplification, to say the least.
The Bench said it was time people expressed their “love for the motherland”. If the Bench had mandated that the national anthem be played in a sporting arena where national teams or individuals have a face off, it made sense: the pride for the country is collective and even contagious on these occasions.
Where is Jana Gana Mana?
In this confusion of “should you shouldn’t you” people lost track of why the ruling came about in the first place. The judgment was an interim order in a public interest litigation that sought clarification on where the national anthem can be played without losing its importance. The petition, filed by a Shyam Narayan Chouskey, had sought for the issuance of protocol for the national anthem, especially at functions where constitutional dignitaries are present.
It seems Supreme Court was so eager to let its opinion on nationalism known that it misguidedly turned cinema theatres — entertainment hubs for people — into places of nation worship. Conversely, it quashed a similar petition — over technicalities — regarding the national anthem to be played in all judicial courts across the country, which would have, according to the petition promoted “fraternity, unity and national integration.”
In India, nationalism as a concept has been unique — the term might have been borrowed from Europe, but its definition is very much Indian. By forcing it on us, the apex court is courting a civil disorder within Indian boundaries. Any national anthem is sacred; it is a hymn to the deity that is the sovereign state. However, no one can be forced to be a devout to that deity.