Why Indian Supreme Court’s ruling ordering mandatory singing of national anthem in cinema halls militates against the spirit of the Constitution and undermines civil liberties
PROF RAM PUNIYANI | Clarion India
[dropcap]T[/dropcap]he recent Supreme Court Order on national Anthem (November 2016) has asked cinema theaters to play the national anthem before a film show begins “for the love of the motherland”. This has yet again started the debate over the 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 are arguing that this compulsion undermines civil liberties.
Let’s recall that a few decades ago, in many places the national anthem used to be played at the end of a film screening. Many in the audience would leave the hall during the anthem. Now at many places, like in Maharashtra, the playing of anthem has started in the beginning of a film screening. The Supreme Court order by a 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.
In India, there are already laws to ensure the protection of national symbols like the national flag. There are some landmark cases which have shown the conflict between state norms and individual liberties.
In the well-known ‘Jehovah’s witness’ case the students belonging to Jehovah faith had refused to sing the anthem; their argument being that it would tantamount to idolatry and was not permitted by their faith. The students were expelled by the principal of the school. The matter went up to Supreme Court which ruled in favor of the students and their expulsion from school was revoked.
In a democracy a balance must be struck between individual rights and duties towards the state. Indian Constitution is an attempt to bring in ‘rights of citizens’ and ‘freedom of expression’ to the fore. While a decade ago the Court could rule in favor of individual liberties; now it seems the trend is just the opposite as ‘love for the motherland, nationalism, patriotism’ are being flaunted at the drop of a hat.
All those not agreeing with the policies of the government of the day are being dubbed anti national. It is being said that they are ‘not patriots’. This when even standing in queue for withdrawing cash from 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 demonetization brought in by Narendra Modi. The top court order comes in the backdrop of times when words like patriotism and nationalism are dominating the scene under the BJP Government.
We also recall that since Modi came to power the patriotism/nationalism of those who are dissenting from the ruling Government’s policies are being challenged by the ruling dispensation.
In the well-known ‘Jehovah’s witness’ case the students belonging to Jehovah faith had refused to sing the anthem; their argument being that it would tantamount to idolatry and was not permitted by their faith. The students were expelled by the principal of the school. The matter went up to Supreme Court which ruled in favor of the students and their expulsion from school was revoked. In a democracy a balance must be struck between individual rights and duties towards the state. Indian Constitution is an attempt to bring in ‘rights of citizens’ and ‘freedom of expression’ to the fore. While a decade ago the Court could rule in favor of individual liberties; now it seems the trend is just the opposite as ‘love for the motherland, nationalism, patriotism’ are being flaunted at the drop of a hat.
In the case of Rohith Vemula, the late PhD scholar of Hyderabad Central University, the activities of the Ambedkar Students Association were dubbed ‘anti-national’ and so the whole pressure of the Ministry of Human Resource Development was brought on the Vice Chancellor to expel him from hostel and stop his fellowship, leading to Rohith’s suicide.
Again, in an attempt to close down Delhi’s Jawaharlal Nehru University, the Government resorted to nationalism ploy and the doctored CD was played on some TV channels to demonize Kanhaiya Kumar and his friends. He was labeled Deshdrohi (anti-national). It is another matter that Kanhaiaya Kumar had not shouted those ‘slogans’ and that even Constitutional position is that mere shouting of slogans does not constitute anti-national activity.
In the present charged up atmosphere, the hysteria around patriotism and nationalism, in Goa a wheelchair-bound person was beaten up for not standing up during the singing of national anthem in a movie theater. In Mumbai a young scriptwriter was heckled out of cinema hall for not standing during the anthem.
Such an atmosphere of intimidation and intolerance around the issue of nationalism should be a matter of concern for political parties in the country. 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, meting out of death punishment etc. During 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 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 British. They were patriots for Queen of England. Their organization, United India Patriotic Association was the progenitor of nationalism in the name of religion, Muslim nationalism and Hindu nationalism. These formations did remain loyal and patriotic to British rule all through.
The anti-colonial nationalism was comprehensive and inclusive and not merely ethnic nationalism. The nationalism of Muslim League and Hindu Mahasabha-RSS was built around their religious identity. The nationalism built around democratic values and secularism, the one led by Mahatma Gandhi, had inherent liberalism in it. Post Independence, the nationalism of the communal organizations as such has the feudal mindset of unquestioning loyalty to the state and no scope to have differences from the state. That is what the Kings demanded from their subjects.
That’s what dictators demand in 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, the state is supreme and citizen should be burdened with duties alone. It seems the SC judgment on mandatory national anthem in cinema halls has the overbearing influence of such a mindset.
Ultra-nationalism, while operating in the broad democratic setup, is an attempt to instill the values of a dictatorial state. Hope such a realization will prompt the Supreme Court to revisit the judgment with a larger bench.
