PRESS

JANA GANA MANA

RASHTRIYA SAHARA, IN a commentary on December 5, writes: “The decision of the Supreme Court (SC) to play the national anthem and screen the national flag before the beginning of feature films in all cinema halls is demonstrative of its foresight. The objective of the SC is that when hundreds of persons in cinema halls join to show respect to the national anthem, it will send a new message to the country and a new sentiment of patriotism will be awakened among citizens. But in view of the cases of violation of such norms earlier — such practices started in 1960 — the question is if standing to show respect for the national anthem and the flag should be mandatory? If it is not done, what will the punishment be? There is no indication to this effect in the country’s constitution. Patriotism is a sentiment that is latently present in every true Indian’s heart. If an effort is made to arouse this sentiment forcibly, it could create an apprehension that one’s patriotism is being questioned.”

The editor of Inquilab, Shakeel Shamsi, on December 2, writes: “One wonders why, in an effort to demonstrate people’s patriotism and love for the country, cinema halls have been made a vast laboratory before which protests by social and political organisations are frequently staged against alleged objectionable content in the films shown inside. The Supreme Court too felt that the best places to demonstrate people’s love for the country were the cinema halls. Earlier too, long ago, the national anthem was played in cinema halls but due respect was not paid by sections of the audience (who wanted to leave the hall hurriedly). Following protests, that instead of respect there was disrespect shown to the anthem and the flag, this practice was stopped. Now that the anthem will be played at the beginning and not at the end of the film, one does not know what will happen when large numbers of cinema goers try to enter the hall while the national anthem is being played and the film is to start, as is seen now, creating a commotion and problem for those sitting in their seats in the dark.”

EXECUTIVE VS JUDICIARY

COMMENTING ON THE open exchange of allegations between the judiciary and the executive, Siasat, in its editorial on November 30, writes: “The Chief Justice of India T.S. Thakur has once again blamed the central government for delaying the appointments of over 400 vacant positions of judges in high courts across the country. On the other hand, the Union law minister, Ravi Shankar Prasad, has blamed the delay in the appointments on the judiciary. Whether it is due to the executive or the judiciary, the bitter truth is that huge numbers of positions of judges are vacant in the Supreme Court and the subordinate courts of the country, resulting in long delays in the hearing of cases.”

Jamaat-e-islami’s bi-weekly Daawat ,in a commentary on December 1, writes: “Confrontation between the judiciary and the executive is not new. But the matter is getting graver under the Modi government. No one had thought that the confrontation would reach a level where both would stand face-to-face and level allegations against each other. Such a situation is not good for a democratic country. Both have their responsibilities and limits.”

GENERALAND I NDIA

SIASAT, IN ITS editorial on December 1, writes: “The new chief of the Pakistani army, General Qamar Javed Bajwa, expressed his resolve to make efforts to reduce the tension on the LOC on the first day of assuming his office. This sentiment should be appreciated on both sides of the India-pakistan border. If an effort is made to emphasise the positive aspect of Bajwa’s expertise and experience on the LOC situation, there would not be any delay in removing the tension between the two countries. Bajwa is believed to be proud of his love for democracy. Therefore, the democratic governments of both the countries will have to avoid a confrontation with each other. It is also believed that he has the capacity to deal with the situation arising out of the developments in Kashmir... He will have to act positively on the complaints of India with regard to unprovoked firings and infiltration across the LOC. This will result in better diplomatic ties between India and Pakistan.”

Roznama Khabrein, in its editorial on November 30, writes: “There have been cases of attacks on Indian positions even after the hardliner Raheel Sharif has passed on his command to General Bajwa. Therefore, it is not difficult to infer that there would not be any considerable change on the ground situation despite the change in the army leadership of Pakistan.”

Compiled by Seema Chishti