Political Diary
New Delhi, 6 December 2016
It Is Only A Song
MUCH ADO ABOUT NATIONAL ANTHEM
By Poonam I Kaushish
What’s in a song? Everything if it is the national anthem.
This was strummed by the Supreme Court last Wednesday to instill “committed
patriotism and nationalism”. Its another matter that the beautiful and
melodious Jana Gana Mana is being
turned besura by our judicial
drumbeaters.
The Apex court ordered the “national anthem to be played before
the start of a film in all cinema halls with all present obliged to stand up to
show respect as part of their secret obligation to abide by the ideals
engrafted in the Constitution” on a PIL filed by a retired engineer from
Bhopal. Sic.
Underscoring that “Bharat is the
epitome of gyaan and vigyaan…people
must feel this is my country…You are an Indian first.” It further prohibited
the anthem’s “commercial exploitation” for incurring commercial benefits or
using an abridged version.
However, it did not impose penalty
or punishment for not standing when the 52 second long Jana Gana Mana is played. Yet what is sauce for the goose is not
sauce for the gander as the court turned down the plea to play the anthem in
courts as it would be ‘an overreach’.
Predictably, the Saffron Sangh and
its cahoots are rejoicing by stating this order was long overdue as the
national song is just another prop to celebrate the nation State and undue
importance mustn’t be given to it.
Others aver that singing Jana
Gana Mana must neither be made a test case of patriotism nor should people
be obstinate about not singing it. Unfortunately, why does not a sense of
patriotism kick in where it should for most people? The fact that six women are
raped every minute or that we are famous for littering does not bother our
so-called desh-bhakts.
Not a few argue that legal intervention in promoting and
inserting national pride amid people is a problematic idea. As the notion that
playing the National Anthem before a movie screening would instill some sense
of national pride is debatable at best.
Either which way, in one fell stroke the Court has put curbs
on individual freedom in the name of nationalism. Raising a moot point: Should
the Court entertain such issues? Is it the learned judges’ function to go into
whether a person is patriotic or not? How can they decide whether an aam aadmi’s loves his country?
Is standing up for Jana Gana Mana the sole barometer for judging one’s patriotism and
showing respect to the national anthem? Does singing it define and decide nationalism,
national identity, integrity and Constitutional patriotism? By that token any
rascal can stand up without believing in the Constitution or the national flag.
What of him?
Besides, does one wear patriotism on one’s sleeve? Can one
force people to be patriotic? What of people who might not want to stand up for
intellectual or religious reasons as they believe that their religious beliefs
prevent them from doing so? If a
terrorist’s stands up for the national song to fool security forces does that
make him patriotic? And is a desh bhakt
who does not adhere to the Court order a desh
drohi?
Undoubtedly, the Court’s intent
might be good but the manner in which it has gone about it is not. Also true
the Constitution’s Article 51(A) (a) enjoins: “It shall be the duty of every
citizen of India
to abide by the Constitution and respect its ideals and institutions, the
National Flag and the National Anthem”.
Questionably, how and who will
implement this order “in letter and spirit”? Who will oversee how many people
are standing or sitting while the anthem is playing? And who will do a head
count? What about the physically disabled, infirm and aged? And if somebody
urgently needs to go to the washroom will a cinema hall owner be responsible?
Moreover, by asking the cinema
owners to close the exit doors while the anthem is being played does not smack
of reason. What if a fire breaks out? Remember the Uphaar tragedy where over 59
people lost their lives because the exit doors were closed by the management.
Clearly, this is an instance of judicial overreach specially
against the backdrop that the “Constitution practises tolerance” while the
Supreme Court is the custodian of our Fundamental Rights and Constitutional
freedoms. There are so many Fundamental Duties will they give directions to
enforce them? Also, it is not judicially enforceable
Pertinently, the Apex Court seems to have forgotten its own
order in the Bijoe Emmanuel & Others vs
State of Kerala & Others in 1986, wherein it ordered a Kerala school to
take back three children it had expelled for not singing the national anthem as
it was a violation of the Fundamental Right to Freedom of Conscience and freely
to profess, practise and propagate religion.
Adding, there was no legal provision that obliges anyone to
sing the anthem. The children didn’t sing the anthem because of their
conviction that their religion did not permit them to join any rituals except
in their prayers to Jehovah.
In fact, the practice to play to play the national
anthem in cinema halls was first introduced after the 1962 India-China war.
Those were the times when national fervour was high and it was played at the
end of the movie, no matter the aam
janata simply walked out when the film’s ‘The End’ flashed on the screens.
Perhaps this is the reason why the practice of playing it
slowly faded and was eventually discontinued, until 2003 when a NCP MLA lobbied
and got the Maharashtra Government to order cinema halls to do it again.
Undeniably, forcing someone to stand up for the national
anthem is an insult to its very idea and promise. More so as people go to see
cinema as a form of entertainment and recreation, seek solace from rozi-roti problems or just passing time.
Think. Even as the Constitution
allows one freedom of expression it simultaneously calls for respect of the
freedom of expression of thoughts which one might not agree with. Consequently,
this order should not be incitement to vigilantism and violence wherein people
are targeted for their unwillingness to adhere to a certain belief. Recall, an
AIMIM MLA was suspended from the Maharashtra Assembly for refusing to chime Bharat Mata ki Jai.
The Supreme Court could take a leaf out of its US counter
part. In a 1989 case of Texas vs Johnson
it shot down a law which prohibited the desecration of certain venerated
objects, such as State and national flags and proscribed the State from
criminalising or penalising any action that did not satisfy the more tearing
concept of either allegiance to the state or respecting national honour.
According to the court, these acts were shielded by the
First Amendment, which guarantees citizens the freedom of speech. The American
law, unlike the Indian law, does not cite a ‘reasonable restrictions clause on
these freedoms.
In sum our judiciary needs to realise its limitations,
practise what it preaches and stick to the lakshman
rekha. Ironically, written by Nobel laureate Rabindranath Tagore in Bengali
the underlying message of Jana Gana Mana
is pluralism. Hence, our Constitution keepers need to keep in mind, India’s
multi-pluralistic character, pulsating democracy and that its civil society is
neither rigid nor frozen in time. It is constantly evolving.
True, one song cannot make or mar the future of a nation or
its people. After all as Samuel Johnson said: Patriotism is the last refuge of
a scoundrel. ----- INFA
(Copyright,
India News and Feature Alliance)
|