Enforced patriotism

Mechanically intoning 'Jai Hind' makes little sense

It can be said safely that at 71 years, the Indian nation is mature enough for mandatory demonstrations of patriotism to be redundant. A year ago this month, the Supreme Court made precisely this point when it modified its 2016 ruling making it compulsory for cinema halls to play the national anthem. Making the action voluntary, the court observed that Indians cannot be expected to wear their patriotism on their sleeve. Somehow, politicians in Gujarat appear not to have gotten the memo on this. From this month, the state government has decided on an initiative to have school students respond with “Jai Bharat” or “Jai Hind” instead of “present” or “yes” in the daily roll call.

The motive: To instill patriotism, which they believe is lacking in the new generation. Given that patriotism is a complex value that is hard to define, this is a remarkable observation. Instead of demanding such quotidian responses from school kids, politicians of Gujarat would do better to wonder why the younger generation, that too in India’s most prosperous and certainly most nationalist state, should be thinking this way (if indeed they are). Would it, for instance, have anything to do with the lop-sided development in the state? It is uncertain how mechanically intoning “Jai Bharat” on a daily basis would encourage a student to become a model patriotic citizen — to pay her taxes, help the poor, keep the streets clean, lower her carbon footprint, and so on.

To pose the issue differently, can the following acts be considered patriotic: Beating up people who choose not to or cannot stand during the national anthem, or suing Shashi Tharoor (a member of Parliament) and Infosys co-founder N R Narayana Murthy for allegedly disrespecting the national anthem? Mulling on the case in a private lecture recently, Mr Narayana Murthy pointed out that Indians seem to be wholly tolerant of rampant corruption but were unduly sensitive to patriotism. He was sued for choosing an instrumental version of the anthem at a company function in deference to foreigners who were attending. The case, which went right up to the Supreme Court, cost him Rs 48 lakh in lawyers’ fees. Mr Tharoor was sued for interrupting the singing of the national anthem to exhort those around him to put their hands over their hearts, American style. Apparently, this stance contradicted some section in a law called Prevention of Insult to National Honour Act, 1971. The Act imposes imprisonment, for as much as three years, for anyone who intentionally prevents the singing of the national anthem. Since Mr Tharoor’s “interruption” had an uber-patriotic motive, a lower court sensibly dismissed the case. The sensitivity that Mr Tharoor’s litigious opponent showed is ironic when Indian businessman Naveen Jindal had to fight a case — again, in the Supreme Court — for the right of all citizens to fly the tricolour. 

Still, it is noteworthy that last year, the apex court thought it necessary to direct the government to set up an inter-governmental panel, headed by the home secretary, who surely has better things to do, to come up with recommendations on the playing of the national anthem and modifications to the Act.

Should a state define how its citizens should demonstrate their patriotism? This is not a settled issue even in advanced democracies, which allow a degree of political incorrectness against public figures that Indians can only envy. Witness Donald Trump’s tweet tantrums over black footballers kneeling during the US national anthem protesting police brutality against African-Americans. History has shown repeatedly that overt demonstrations of patriotism tend to morph into militant nationalism with all its destructive potential (two world wars being compelling evidence). In a country where nationalism is being touted as a valued ethic and is sought to be given an exclusionary religio-political dimension, enforced demonstrations of patriotism have a dangerous, chauvinistic element that the Indian republic can do well without.