Patriotism by fiat
Source: By Amulya Ganguli: The Statesman
Like love for mother, loyalty to the country is an innate sentiment. Its inborn nature permeates society and is imbibed by every individual from childhood. No one seeks a rational explanation for the overt display of devotion to the land of one’s birth by standing up when the national anthem is played. Instead, it is mentally absorbed in the early years of one’s life by seeing how homage is paid to the nation and then becomes a kind of conditioned reflex.
The anthem itself is carefully chosen by each country to ensure that its words and melody have a stirring effect. India is lucky in that the Jana Gana Mana was written and set to tune by one of its greatest poets. So is Bangladesh whose national anthem, Sonar Bangla, was also penned and set to music by Rabindranath Tagore.
Few in the two countries fail to be moved by these melodious tributes to the motherland. Given the spontaneous nature of the response, which has been in evidence ever since India and Bangladesh became independent, it is odd that an element of compulsoriness should be sought to be introduced in social life to test a person’s loyalty. Patriotism is a matter of the heart. It does not need official or judicial imprimatur. Yet, there has been a tendency in recent years on the part of some of the BJP’s members to check whether every Indian is moved by the same nationalistic fervour which informs their party.
The judiciary, too, is now showing a similar inclination. As for the BJP members, they are not the only Rightwingers who want to shine the spotlight on the inner selves of every individual to find out where his or her loyalty lies. One of the most celebrated politicians in this respect was the British Conservative Party’s Norman Tebbit who wanted to test the commitments of the browns and blacks living in Britain by seeing which team they cheered when England played, say, India or the West Indies. The BJP, on its part, chose the mantra of Bharat Mata ki Jai (BMkJ) to conduct a similar examination. The depth of the anger which the Hindutva brigade felt over the disloyal citizens could be gauged from the grisly prescription of a fellowtraveller, yoga guru Baba Ramdev, who said that if the law allowed, he would have cut off the heads of the traitors if they refused to chant the slogan about Bharat Mata. Others like Maharashtra chief minister Devendra Fadnavis were more restrained in that they merely wanted the offender to leave the country. The controversy over BMkJ has died down if only because it is difficult to sustain an artificial booster for patriotism for long.
But its place has been taken by the recent Supreme Court diktat on the national anthem. Although the judges have now modified their earlier directive by saying that the handicapped need not stand when the anthem is played in cinema halls or that the doors of the halls should not be bolted, the original order about playing the anthem before every show stands. The judges have also clarified that there will be no exceptions for those who may attend multiple shows at a film festival. In such cases, if the members of the audience have to stand up 20 or more times, they will have to do so. The objective of the judgment is to instill patriotism.
But it can be asked why the need for this exercise has suddenly arisen in the 70th year of independence. Is there incontrovertible proof that the country has suffered gravely in its absence? Or is this judicial intervention in the sociopolitical arena a sign of the times considering that hypernationalism is currently officially encouraged by the ruling dispensation.
Moreover, Right-wing sentiments have been on the rise in Europe and America where xenophobia is the flavour of the season which makes anyone whose loyalties are suspect earn the wrath of the state and self-appointed vigilantes. In India, such chauvinism has been seen in the heart of the national capital where Leftist students of the prestigious Jawaharlal Nehru University have been charged with sedition and even beaten up by lawyers affiliated to the BJP in the presence of the police in a court room. In Hyderabad Central University, a bright student committed suicide after a confrontation with members of the Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad, which is the BJP’s student wing, in the wake of a Union minister’s charge that the university has become a den of anti-nationals.
Any attempt to categorize citizens on the basis of patriotism is unwarranted in a democracy which calls for a level playing field and shuns labelling except on the basis of legal proof. It is also unnecessary to put them repeatedly through a test to scan their loyalty. Unless a person is guilty of an egregious misdemeanour, his or her love for the country has to be taken for granted.
To suggest otherwise is a humiliating slur. What is worse, if a test becomes something of a compulsive routine, it can invite a defiant refusal to submit to it. In that case, the cure becomes worse than the disease.
