Constitutional patriotism

Don’t ask.

I read the above phrase in a news article detailing the pronouncements of a judge of the Indian Supreme Court, in the context of a PIL (Public Interest Litigation) “seeking a set of parameters on what amounts to abuse of the anthem”.

A small detour: Why is this in public interest? Is “public” in the singular or plural? PIL, a legal innovation, admired by judges of impeccable integrity, was to give voice to the voiceless, a way to establish locus standi of people who have great difficulty accessing the Supreme Court, typically on matters affecting public weal.

The PIL was brought on by a well-meaning individual, of course. How did he sense a level of urgency in this matter? Did he see a horde of people abusing it? I doubt it. That is, the matter perhaps is in the interest of the public, in the plural, but not enough to bring on a PIL. Nonetheless, the Supreme Court took it up. I suspect it felt that the justices have enough time on their hands; the system overload is not an overload, after all!

But, is the matter “abuse of anthem”, of any great significance, immediately and even in the foreseeable future? My humble opinion is, it is not. The court case, to be uncharitable and cynical too, merely allows one to enjoy his 15 minutes of fame. This PIL may have died a natural death, but something happened that triggered it.

As the telling goes, “The Supreme Court’s decision to consider this PIL followed after [sic] a wheel-chair bound woman man was assaulted by a couple at a cinema hall in Panaji for not standing up during the rendition of the anthem.” I would point out quickly that if you sense a cause-effect link, disabuse yourself o that line of thinking. Note that the PIL was brought on prior to this incident, which is one of public nuisance, and not much more.

Now, to the substantive matter at hand and what the Bench said; and it said many things.

For starters, “People must feel this is my country. This is my motherland... Arrey, who are you? You are an Indian first.”

I have some issues with that. Not that I am challenging what the highest court of the land said (as though I am in any position to do so), but I simply cannot understand how forcing people to hear the national anthem standing up in a darkened hall would instil any kind of patriotism, much less, “a sense of committed patriotism and nationalism."

The follow-up unease – there is something called “uncommitted patriotism.” The way I understand, either you are a patriot or you are not. It is almost like “unnecessary waste.” How can anything be necessary and be waste, simultaneously?

Take friction. It is fashionable to say it is a “necessary evil”. In fact, I declare that in my first year class on mechanics. But, I quickly reboot my thoughts and say, “No! No! Friction is necessary ... period. To see it as waste is complete nonsense.” Taking a cue, I can only wish that the Bench will clarify that the adjective it used did not belong.

The next point – is there a difference between a patriot and nationalist? That is, can you have a patriotic anti-national; or, to go the other way, an unpatriotic nationalist? Is there any way we can differentiate the two?

As I understand it, our Constitution starts, in the preamble (copying the US Constitution), “We the people ...” We have decided that we would follow these rules. Following the rules that we set for ourselves, is that not enough show of our patriotism? We already have the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act of 1951. Why has the Court been asked to pronounce on what has already been averred?

Oh, you say, the word “Insult” is the point here. Fine. If that be so, why single out cinema halls? Oh, you say that was the petition. So, your patriotism will be tested only in cinema halls; and that too only till the film starts. Our jurisprudence almost regularly does not blink an eye when extending the remit far and beyond what has been petitioned, but suddenly it got sharply focussed. Go figure!

When does life begin? We do not want to discuss that here. But, when does an IPL match begin? I would tend to think, given all the focus on the coin toss, at the toss. Therefore, for the sake of consistency, the anthem must be played before the coin toss, when, typically, the stadium is practically empty. Will that be disrespectful, singing to empty seats? But, now it is played only much later. Is IPL disrespecting the national anthem and flag? Someone has to think of bringing in a PIL against IPL!

Unfortunately, the Bench, it appears, did not want to take cognizance of insults to national symbols, the flag and the anthem, at other events. If the anthem should be played at the beginning of the movie, how can it be allowed at the end of other events? This is happening. By my reckoning, it indeed must precede the regular first item on the program: “Invocation”. In many college functions, with constitutional functionaries in attendance, the anthem is played at the end. So, your patriotism is attested to only for those few seconds, at the very end when you are tired of listening and your torture (by the pure fact of compulsion) is extended - not necessarily a place and time to invoke patriotism, you would agree. I can only hope that the final judgment puts paid to this implicit discrimination.

The next point: How does one identify “undesirable and disgraceful” places? Is it not context-specific, whether a place is “undesirable” and/or “disgraceful”? I think so. Then what the judgment, interim it may be, has done is to invite further court cases, now the petitions seeking guidance from the Supreme Court on case-to-case basis. As I said earlier, the case load is just not too heavy!

Now I want to go beyond our shores and reach into the SCOTUS. America witnessed the spectacle of an athlete kneeling in disrespect of the national anthem, and saying that it is his protest against what is happening in his nation, implicitly endorsing the Black Lives Matter movement, and he would continue doing so till the nation respects the flag and the anthem.

His stance was endorsed by many but also criticized, by some powerful people, including one of the so-called liberal judges of SCOTUS. She said that the act was “dumb and disrespectful”. This must have been a shock to many who were aware that SCOTUS had earlier declared that any law infringing upon the freedom of expression of a citizen – including burning the national flag – is unconstitutional. The honourable judge of the SCOTUS later said, in a manner of walking back her comment, that it was “inappropriately dismissive and harsh. I should have declined to respond.”

Now, our Supreme Court justices need not walk back their judgment in toto. But they must balance it. How? Extend it to all occasions in which the anthem would be played. You must think I am crazy. I am not.

Go back a few decades, about four, and there was this anthem playing at the end of film shows. Slowly but steadily people stopped waiting for it to end and started towards the exit even as it was playing. Finally, the anthem stopped playing. My guess is, if the judgment is extended across all events, it would be ignored over time.   

Compelling one to show respect ensures that one cannot judge whether that show of respect is meaningful. You have heard about the famous “Double-slit experiment” physics. The moment you monitor through which slit the particle negotiates the obstacle, you lose information about its true behaviour, which anyway is indescribably weird.

Likewise, the moment you start commanding respect, you lose track of who truly respects the article/person intended for veneration.

I respect our Supreme Court but whatever criticism I have directed at it in this post will be measured in precisely the terms opposite to my intention and feelings towards it. That sounds like a disclaimer but it is not.

Go deeper, higher and definitely think harder; as I did when I reached Gangotri more than a decade ago. The intense feeling I felt there, looking at the gushing waters and the snow-clad mountain peaks against the backdrop of deep blue sky, people taking in the harsh conditions T more than 4,500 m altitude) in their stride, was: This land is mine! These people are mine! I am in love! I am proud!

The above is my way of expressing whatever – you call it patriotism, committed or not, that is OK with me. You call it nationalism, that is OK with me too. These, I differentiate from the real thing, my deep feelings.

I am not sure listening to the National Anthem in the darkened cinema hall is going to evoke that feeling in me.

Raghuram Ekambaram