Oct 24 2014 : Mirror (Pune)
Worshipping false Gods
The lack of awareness of the law on the national anthem among law enforcers is disturbing
It is a controversy brewing into a storm. A patriotic mob in Mumbai turned its fury against a foreign national, who did not stand to attention when the national anthem was played in a movie hall. Dismissing both the mob and the victim, police officers are reported to have discouraged the couple against filing an official complaint, by suggesting that not standing up for the national anthem could amount to a crime.The national anthem and the lack of awareness of the law around it is turning it into a social nightmare. In August this year, a Kerala magistrate had refused bail to a student of philosophy who had refused to stand up for the anthem. The magistrate is reported to have commented that his alleged crime was worse than murder. The local police took the incident as a cue to go through his Facebook posts, and charged the kid with sedition. The kid eventually got bail from the high court, but only after spending a month in jail, with the next few years of his life consigned to legal proceedings.
In 2004, dealing with public interest litigation, the Madhya Pradesh High Court directed that the movie Kabhi Khushi Kabhi Gham should not be screened in any movie hall unless the national anthem scene embedded in the film were deleted.The grouse was that the anthem would be insulted if viewers did not stand up when it played in the movie. The court directed the film's certification to be revoked unless this cut was made. On appeal, the Supreme Court set it aside. The court took on board instructions from the Government of India that clarified that the audience was not expected to stand to the national anthem if incidentally played in a film. The court ruled that standing to the anthem in the midst of a movie “would create disorder and confusion, rather than add to the dignity of the national anthem“.
Way back in the 1980s, the Supreme Court had intervened firmly and clearly to hold that three Kerala kids belonging to the Jehovah's Witnesses sect had done no wrong when they refused to sing the anthem, which they believed would violate their freedom to profess their religious faith. The students would stand to attention for the anthem but refused to sing along. The school, in response, rusticated the kids. (The clash of beliefs of this sect with social themes worldwide is legendary. The judiciary in the UK has had to rule on members of the sect refusing blood transfusion, which has also inspired a recent book The Children Act, by Ian McEwan).
The Kerala High Court found the case to be in favour of the school while the Supreme Court directed that the kids be re-admitted to school and be permitted to continue without hindrance. Allowing the appeal with costs, the Supreme Court sighed in closing: “We only wish to add: our tradition teaches tolerance; our philosophy preaches tolerance; our Constitution practises tolerance; let us not dilute it.“
Yet another lunatic example of the anthem being used to foment trouble was a private criminal complaint against Shashi Tharoor for exhorting an audience to place their right hand on the heart when singing the anthem. He was being American, seeking patriotic zeal right after the Mumbai terror attacks, apparently. He was discharged only last year. The complainant surely did not know much about the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh's chest salute.
The philosophy student in Kerala and the foreign national in the Mumbai movie hall have intellectual issues about standing up for the anthem, just as the Jehovah's Witnesses have religious issues with it. But they cause no disruption to those differently minded.
The lack of awareness of the law -for sure, on the part of the mob, and sadly, also on the part of the law-enforcers, worshipping false Gods -is disturbing. The only real legal provision relating to dishonouring the anthem is Section 3 of the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971. It criminalises intentional prevention or disruption of singing of the anthem. Surely, someone who does not subscribe to the notion of standing to attention, without disrupting or preventing others, would never be guilty.
TWITTER@SOMASHEKARS
In 2004, dealing with public interest litigation, the Madhya Pradesh High Court directed that the movie Kabhi Khushi Kabhi Gham should not be screened in any movie hall unless the national anthem scene embedded in the film were deleted.The grouse was that the anthem would be insulted if viewers did not stand up when it played in the movie. The court directed the film's certification to be revoked unless this cut was made. On appeal, the Supreme Court set it aside. The court took on board instructions from the Government of India that clarified that the audience was not expected to stand to the national anthem if incidentally played in a film. The court ruled that standing to the anthem in the midst of a movie “would create disorder and confusion, rather than add to the dignity of the national anthem“.
Way back in the 1980s, the Supreme Court had intervened firmly and clearly to hold that three Kerala kids belonging to the Jehovah's Witnesses sect had done no wrong when they refused to sing the anthem, which they believed would violate their freedom to profess their religious faith. The students would stand to attention for the anthem but refused to sing along. The school, in response, rusticated the kids. (The clash of beliefs of this sect with social themes worldwide is legendary. The judiciary in the UK has had to rule on members of the sect refusing blood transfusion, which has also inspired a recent book The Children Act, by Ian McEwan).
The Kerala High Court found the case to be in favour of the school while the Supreme Court directed that the kids be re-admitted to school and be permitted to continue without hindrance. Allowing the appeal with costs, the Supreme Court sighed in closing: “We only wish to add: our tradition teaches tolerance; our philosophy preaches tolerance; our Constitution practises tolerance; let us not dilute it.“
Yet another lunatic example of the anthem being used to foment trouble was a private criminal complaint against Shashi Tharoor for exhorting an audience to place their right hand on the heart when singing the anthem. He was being American, seeking patriotic zeal right after the Mumbai terror attacks, apparently. He was discharged only last year. The complainant surely did not know much about the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh's chest salute.
The philosophy student in Kerala and the foreign national in the Mumbai movie hall have intellectual issues about standing up for the anthem, just as the Jehovah's Witnesses have religious issues with it. But they cause no disruption to those differently minded.
The lack of awareness of the law -for sure, on the part of the mob, and sadly, also on the part of the law-enforcers, worshipping false Gods -is disturbing. The only real legal provision relating to dishonouring the anthem is Section 3 of the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971. It criminalises intentional prevention or disruption of singing of the anthem. Surely, someone who does not subscribe to the notion of standing to attention, without disrupting or preventing others, would never be guilty.
TWITTER@SOMASHEKARS
