Corporate airbrushed patriotism

Come August 15th everyone goes patriotic on me and I suffocate. The media leads the charge of the patriotic brigade. And, that is the way I saw the article profiling the corporate honcho-cum-politician Naveen Jindal (Colours of patriotism, Sangeeta Barooah Pishroty, The Hindu, Metroplus Weekend supplement, August 13, 2001).

Outside of glossies if you wanted to see airbrushing, this article is the pièce de résistance, particularly as it has come from the supposedly staid stable of The Hindu. That is what patriotism does to people. I am trying to be immune to it.

The piece is about 1,200 words long (a guess-estimate), and what do we read there? It carries repeated paeans to the “youngest scion of the steel giant Jindal group” on his successful initiative to allow the flying of the national flag by the so-called “common man”, a measure of patriotism. To be not so subtle about it, we also read that celebrating the flag is “the right of every patriotic Indian.” Never mind that it was the industrial powerhouse Jindal Steel, and not any “common man” that wanted to fly the flag on its factory premises on non-allocated days and was denied permission.

So, Naveen Jindal, showing his métier as a budding politician, got the Supreme Court to do his bidding. His talent was in phrasing the application in the language of the “Common man” – as he recounted, “…every Indian can fly the flag all year round …[it is] a symbolic gesture [my emphasis] that allows citizens to come under one identity … ended the established tradition [my emphasis] of flags being the sole property of the State [my emphasis]”.

It is rather unfortunate he does not think beyond the words he mouths or seek out meanings between the lines. At the risk of being tagged unpatriotic, let me state very clearly that the Supreme Court was wrong, not because of what it said but because what it refused to acknowledge. And, presumably for forcing the Supreme Court to make this mistake, he was hoisted on to the people as their representative.

Coming to the flag issue, when there is a law against desecrating or bringing insult to the flag, it cannot be allowed to be manifestly admired either. In the interest of balance, admiring the flag should be limited, ironically, to protect it from abuse, real or imagined. Symbolism read in conjunction with freedom of expression demands this. I had written a blog on this years ago (http://raghuram-ekambaram.sulekha.com/blog/post/2003/10/flag-and-freedom-of-speech.htm). There seems to have been no takers for my arguments then, and I do not expect people’s minds would have changed by now. Yet, it is hard to accept that a political leader, Naveen Jindal, is severely straitjacketed in his thinking.

Naveen Jindal did not understand that he who protects something, like the flag, is not necessarily its manifest owner, say the government of the day, the military, or even the State. The national flag has never been considered the property of the State and it cannot be accorded such a status in a democracy. The State is merely invested with the responsibility of its protection, while its ownership is always with the collective, the people of the nation. A leader who cannot discern such nuances … I pity my India. These are some of the incidences of airbrushing in the article.

Now, let me come to the question, why now. You must remember that he is a steel industry tycoon. Then, think Bellary. Think Karnataka Lokpal, Justice Santosh Hegde. Think the report against illegal mining and other such nefarious activities of the so-called industrialists. Then, you may understand the context of this corporate airbrushing. There is an emergency to project Naveen Jindal’s patriotism, just so his corporate house will be protected on the legal front. Yes, I m being cynical, but please allow me this liberty.

Oh, to be balanced about Naveen Jindal and the article, I must mention that the controversy he created by siding with khap panchayats is mentioned briefly and even here it was airbrushed – it merely “seemed” that he was supporting the khap panchayats. Gag me!

Now, Naveen Jindal, in the background of the horrendous sex ratio in Haryana, talks about population explosion as a cause. He does not seem to have read recent reports about China’s failure with its one-child policy. He says, “… we need to debate on whether having two children is better than just one.” The funny thing is the author of the piece concludes that quote with, “says the father of two.” Is that the final irony?

No. For that, I must point out the incongruence between his claim that it was his sustained campaign that “ended the established tradition …” In the khap panchayat issue he defended tradition! He wanted to honor that tradition, of the panchayat demanding “honor killing”! That is the final irony.

There is much fluff about his sporting prowess, interests, his family and such. But on the meatier stuff, “[He] goes into a blank when asked to name a change that he ushered into his constituency.” Yet, she ends quoting him, “I am doing a good job as a citizen, as a good corporate citizen and as a parliamentarian.” The author’s final airbrush – “Well, what more can you ask!”

Indeed, I escaped suffocation enough to have my mouth go dry on me. Airbrushed patriotism does that to me.

Raghuram Ekambaram