Events & Issues
New Delhi, 18 August 2022
The
NewEmblem
VALUING
THE SIGNIFICANCE
By
Dusmanta Kumar
In his 9th
address to the nation on the 76 Independence Day, Prime Minister Narendra Modi made
an innovative as well as evocative speech. His innovation consisted mainly of
the five determinations; the citizens should make for nation-building which he
called Panchpran.The evocative tone was evident when he referred to ‘Har
Ghar Tiranga’ campaign. Modi said, “The nation’s enthusiasm for Tiranga
seen in the last three days could not have been imagined by many experts and it
symbolises the nation’s reawakening.”
The sight of national
flags fluttering across the streets, on the roof of vehicles, on rickshaws
pulled by hawkers, and children running around with them,is pointingto a surge
of nationalist feeling across the nation, and to the importance of symbols. Also,
a discussion perhaps is in order on the recent controversy about the national
emblem on the new Parliament building.
For every country,
the national emblems and symbols are significant. They represent people’s
culture, civilisation and aspirations in addition to the collective past and
pride. People are motivated by invoking their proud history and rich heritage
whichinspire their successive generations. The emblems and icons also
constitute nationalism which in turn, consists of collective capacity,
sentiments, and a shared culture.
Nationalism, however
articulated is necessary for nation building. It need not be expressed in
antagonistic terms as it is often perceived. Political scholars and
commentators prefer patriotism to nationalism. However, both are
interchangeable and synonymous with minor distinction in perception. Patriotism
is supposed to be inclusive and accommodative whereas nationalism excludes and
repels certain entities as ‘the other’. Without going into the semantics, we
are referring to nationalism as nation-builder.
A left-liberal
thinker Prof. Lord Bhiku Parekh argued that India needed a heavy dose of
nationalism which will stimulate an internal churning as it transits to a
single, big and powerful country. He was perhaps inadvertently reflecting the
opinion by Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose who advocated an enlightened
dictatorship for a limited period as India after Independence was shaping up as
a country. The idea was discarded but the spirit underlying the suggestion
should be acknowledged. He was referring to discipline, unity and commitment.
As said, the major
component of nationalism is culture, which is represented by emblems, symbols,
heritages and icons. Let it be noted that a national culture predates
religions, languages, regions etc. Look at Muslim majority country like
Indonesia that retains the Hindu culture and its symbolism despite having a new
religion. Their national airline is called Garuda which is the vehicle of Lord
Vishnu. The epic drama like Ramlila is quiet popular in that country.
A Buddhist country
like Thailand has the portrait of Lord Krishna,at its main airport charioting
Arjuna in the epic battle of Mahabharata. Bangladesh, another Muslim country
still uses Hindu names and follows Hindu customs like wearing sarees and
bindis; their language also is Bengali not Urdu.
A word about the
culture and its critics, India has multiple and unique ways of perceiving life
and the Universe. The pluralism of such perspectives is called Indian culture.
The national emblems, icons and symbols signify that culture. These have,however,
sadly come under criticism and attack at times on various grounds. One could
infer that such resistance and rebellion are arising out of confusion or misconception
about the emblems and icons, and their connotations.
In the light of the
established interface between nationalism and culture, emblems and their
significance, let us scan the sad controversy about the national emblem just
installed in the Parliament. There are two objections - technical and
architectural - to the Lion Capital perched on the Ashoka Pillar at the top of
the Central Foyer of the new Parliament building.
The objections raised
are really to the presentation of the emblem. Quite a bit of thesehas come on
the public domain. However, to read the controversy in correct perspective, let
us recapitulate some of the main points. Before that, let me throw a small
caveat. In a democracy, it is natural to expect criticism and counter-points on
any issue or many issues. That is how democracy survives and thrives vibrantly.
Yet, one would expect that the national symbols and emblems are kept out of
party-political differences.
What are the
objections? The Opposition parties found the lions in the emblem angry and aggressive
without the grace and glory of the original. This is a distortion or deviation
from the original. The history of the national emblem and the process of its
adoption in the Constituent Assembly are well-known. The emblem was constructed
in 250 BC to commemorate the first lesson of Gautama Buddha containing Four
Noble Truths of Life. The emblem was mounted on a base constituted by smaller
sculptors including a horse, a lion, a bull, an elephant moving in a clockwise
direction.
The four animals are
supposed to guard four directions – north, south, east and west. They are
separated by the wheel called Dharmachakra of Buddhism. The chakra has been
adopted as the part of the national flag. The Mauryan emperor Ashoka used this
emblem to spread Buddhism across and beyond India with its emphasis on
non-violence and compassion.
The Constituent
Assembly decided on the Sarnath Pillar as the national emblem. The members of
the Assembly felt that the pillar symbolised power, courage and confidence of a
free and new nation. The emblem also depicts a two-dimensional sculpture with Satyameva
Jayate(Truth alone triumphs) inscribed on it in Devnagri script. On 26
January, 1950, the Lion Capital of Ashoka of Sarnath became the national emblem
of India.
History has it that
the emblem was sculpted by the renowned artist Nandalal Bose and his five
students. One of them Dinanath Bhargava was advised by Bose to visit the
Kolkata zoo to observe the movement and mannerisms of the majestic animal, the
lion. Bhargava travelled hundreds of kilometres to visit the zoo many times. He
has designed the initial 30 pages of the Constitution.
What do the critics
say? The AICC spokesperson Jairam Ramesh said, “The new emblem is nothing but a
brazen insult to a national symbol”. The RJD tweeted, “the original emblem has
mild expression, but the new one shows a man-eaters’ tendency to consume
everything in the country”. Jawahar Sircar of TMC questioned the whole process
including the cost etc.
The official reply to
each of these questions has been provided, the main points being, the new emblem
is huge, has to be appreciated from a distance. The original structure was 1.6
meter tall, whereas the new one is 6.5 meters. Also the original was at the
ground level and the new one is at the height of 33 meters from the ground.
Therefore, it is a matter of perspective deserving deep appreciation of the
differences between the old and the new.
To conclude, let us
strive for consensus on certain issues and identities which are national and above
party-politics. Politics in a democracy is and should be driven by competitive
electoral contests. But while democracy allows dissent, nation building demands
unity and loyalty. ---INFA
(Copyright, India
News & Feature Alliance)
New Delhi
16 August 2022
|