The order of the Supreme Court making it mandatory for the national anthem to be played in cinema halls and for viewers to remain standing was totally unnecessary. That it was an assault on individual freedom of thought and expression is more disturbing. The fundamental rights enshrined in the constitution are not absolute and one always looked to the highest court in the land to protect and expand these rights. Instead the court has curbed them in the name of nationalism. In one stroke of the pen we have moved from voluntary nationalism to enforced nationalism. Till the passing of this order, standing up for the national anthem in cinema halls was voluntary. One did not do it to prove one’s patriotic credentials, but out of respect for the nation and its symbols, in this case the national flag. Now one will have to do the same thing under a blanket of fear pulled over the nation by the Supreme Court.
Patriotism is an emotional feeling of attachment to one’s nation and mother land. National pride is something that emerges from within. It is an expression. It cannot be extracted by force. Sport is an arena where patriotism manifests itself without being contaminated by ideology or political attachment. Or else how would one explain the feeling of elation when the national team wins or the sense of dejection when it loses. The surge of emotion when the Indian girl’s hockey team wins the final in the movie, ‘Chack De! India’ drives home the point that patriotism is something that emerges from within. That the Supreme Court felt the need to enforce this feeling through an order reflects poorly on the court and not the nation.
The symbols of the nation cannot be guarded by law. It is the people who are its guardians and custodians. And if, for some reason they lose faith in these symbols, then it is the duty of government to ascertain the cause of this dejection. In 1989 the US Supreme Court ruled that the act of burning the Stars and Stripes, while odious, is protected by the First Amendment of the constitution. In August 1986 a bench of the Supreme Court was faced with a difficult question: Did the refusal of three children, belonging to the Jehovah’s Witnesses sect, to sing the national anthem during the morning assembly because it was against the tenets of their religion justify their expulsion? The court said there is no provision in law that makes it mandatory for a citizen to sing the national anthem. It called the expulsion a “violation of the fundamental right to freedom of conscience ….”
In both these cases courts upheld the fundamental right of a citizen to disagree. That right has now been curbed by the same court. Only a larger bench can overturn this order and restore the freedoms granted to the citizen under the Constitution.
