When I first went to Britain in the early 1950s, its national anthem, “God Save the Queen”, was always played at the end of commercial film shows. A picture of Queen Elizabeth in uniform on horseback with the Union Jack fluttering behind her dominated the screen, and audiences stood up in deference to Her Majesty. The practice was discontinued by the time I left Britain. Shades of my old friend, Soli Sorabjee saying a decision must be “capable of effective implementation”, the practical British weren’t going to insist on what couldn’t be enforced. They preferred pragmatism
to patriotism.
Or, rather, to false patriotism, which, the faithful Boswell tells us, is what Samuel Johnson really meant when he famously called patriotism the last refuge of a scoundrel. He drew a distinction between the chest-thumping bombast of Indian politicians and the reticence of the Indian National Army veteran from Malaysia I met when the indomitable Lakshmi Sahgal revisited Singapore. He refused to claim any official recognition. “Too many people who have never been to jail or have been jailed for some criminal offence say they were freedom fighters,” he told me.
The frauds he mentioned probably lose no chance of lustily singing “Jana Gana Mana”. So probably do prosperous non-resident Indians in the US with green cards or American passports, who make conscience-money donations to ultra-nationalist Indian political parties but have no intention of ever suffering the inconveniences of permanently living here. These synthetic patriots roundly scold us stay-at-home desis for neglecting ceremonial observances.
Cinema-house anthems provoked controversy even in 1950s’ Britain. There were angry mutterings on one occasion when almost an entire row remained seated. They were accused of disrespect until it emerged they were inmates of a disabled people’s home and had no legs to stand on.
However, there was also sometimes a mild stampede to get out before the anthem’s opening bars were struck. I doubt if everyone who rushed out had a pressing engagement or desperately needed the loo. Many probably saw no point in the discomfort of standing about a draughty hall.
More From This Section
Not that the British ever lacked respect for Queen and country. They would readily fight for both as they had done in two world wars. It’s also only honest to admit that enlisted British soldiers couldn’t have been more unlike our brave jawans. Given India’s economic condition, the paltan is an attractive form of employment for able-bodied but landless village youth across the country. All Britons have alternative employment options. The military is a choice, never a necessity.
Soli Sorabjee being as wise as he is erudite has understandable doubts about the Supreme Court’s ruling on “Jana Gana Mana”. But I can understand the sentiment that inspired the judges, as I can appreciate the concern of the Bhopal engineer, Shyam Narayan Chouksey, who petitioned the court. It is outrageous that paper dinner plates should be inscribed with any portion of the National Anthem and, worse, that they should be thrown on a rubbish heap after the meal. But I am not certain the Supreme Court’s ruling is the right medicine.
As for Sorabjee’s view that “judges must not feel that they are the only people who can save the country and democracy”, I tend to agree with Penderel Moon that the British did a great disservice by foisting their judicial system on India. Not only is the fine spirit of Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence beyond the multitude’s understanding but my experience of the courts tells me how grossly the system is abused. When I mentioned the doctrine of falsus in uno falsus in omnibus (false in one thing, false in everything) to a senior lawyer once, he laughed and said, “That’s not applicable in India! How can it be when so often everything is falsus from top to bottom?” The Supreme Court is India’s highest court of appeal. But law is not synonymous with values or morality, and it’s illogical for the Supreme Court to set itself up as the ultimate arbiter in matters of culture, nationalism, patriotism and principle.
It can and should ban the abuse of National Symbols like the Flag or Anthem for undignified private use. But it can’t compel people to do something that goes against reason. It should study the British experience and realise that if it stretches judicial authority too far, court rulings will be treated with even greater disregard. That’s not something we can afford. India needs to be guided by common sense rather than cheap gestures that play to the gallery.