Popcorn and Indian national anthem

On issues of country’s borders and security, Indians come together as few can or ever have. But in day to day business, nationalism is not a sentiment that rules their psyche

Had Nobel laureate Rabindranath Tagore been around, he would be among the first to criticize the Supreme Court order that makes it mandatory for movie halls to play the national anthem. 

 The Supreme Court had recently ordered all cinema halls across India to play the National Anthem before the screening of a movie. The court  also asked the theatre owners to flash the national flag on the screen while National Anthem is being played.
 It also stated that everyone present in the cinema halls must rise and pay respect to the National Anthem. However, it directed that National Anthem should neither be dramatized or commercially exploited. 
 The court order would not be music to the poet’s ears. If his views on patriotism serve as an indicator, then Tagore pitched humanity above patriotism. In a letter written way back in 1908, Rabindranath Tagore wrote: “Patriotism can’t be our final spiritual shelter. I will not buy glass for the price of diamonds and I will never allow patriotism to triumph over humanity as long as I live.” Whether Tagore had bargained for the Jana gana mana to be synonymous with Indian nationalism will always remain debatable given that he was clearly critical of overstating nationalism. it. His views, if read in the present day context, could easily be dubbed as anti national. If the current dispensation led by the BJP and its interpretations are anything to go by, then the probability of slapping a sedition case on Tagore could, indeed, be  quite high. 
The BJP government, it may be recalled, has come down heavily on its critics including students and activists. In February this year, the Delhi Police arrested the president of the Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) Students' Union, Kanhaiya Kumar, following the protests in the JNU campus against the hanging of the 2001 Parliament attack convict Afzal Guru. Kumar was slapped with sedition charges. Tagore made known the distinction between worship and loving one’s country: “I am” he once wrote, “willing to serve my country; but my worship I reserve for Right which is far greater than country. To worship my country as a god is to bring curse upon it,” He was against love for a country becoming a sacred obligation. 
 Under the present circumstances the apex court seems to have overturned this by ordering that the national anthem be played at cinema halls and Indians must rise and respect it.
 The apex court observed  "…love and respect for the motherland is reflected when one shows respect to the national anthem as well as to the national flag. That apart, it would instill the feeling within one a sense committed patriotism and nationalism."
It had said that when the anthem is played the national flag shall be shown on the screen.  
The bench had also said that prior to the anthem being played or sung in the cinema hall, the entry and exit doors shall remain closed so that no one can create any kind of disturbance which will amount to disrespect to the national anthem and the doors can be opened once it is over. 
“These days, people read things that have nothing to do with nationalism but don’t study material related to nationalism,” the bench observed.
“Universalism is alright but still Bharat is the epitome of culture, knowledge... Gyaan and Vigyaan... people should feel that they live in a nation and show respect to the national anthem and the national flag.”
  The Court it seems was driven by a sense of instilling respect to the anthem by Indians. It therefore observed: “Be it stated, a time has come, the citizens of the country must realise that they live in a nation and are duty bound to show respect to National Anthem which is the symbol of the Constitutional Patriotism and inherent national quality."
 Nationalism takes different hues in India. On issues of country’s borders and security, Indians come together as few can or ever have. But in day to day business, nationalism is not a sentiment that rules their psyche. Till the IT revolution came about and the world started taking Indians seriously, the concept of being a proud Indian was  simply non existent.       
If anything, Indians were their own critics and spared no opportunity to run down the country they were born, bred and belonged to. 
 Against this background any move to instill in Indians the spirit to show up their country and take pride in it is not only welcome but necessary. Therefore the Court’s observation on Indians obligation to their country is neither misplaced nor unwarranted. What is, whether this will work as a corrective to the skewed concept of nationalism that sweeps across the length and breadth of this vast nation. As of now the country is among the last on the priority list of an  average Indian. The concept of doing and dying for the country is, sadly,  limited to the armed forces. 
 The moot question however is whether a court directive will do anything to set right the missing nationalism? Whether putting an obligation on cinema halls to play the national anthem before screening a film will work as an irritant or be a first step in the direction of making Indians country proud, as it were? 
  There are contrary views to this. There is a sizeable section that feels that this would reignite a sense of nationalism and the national anthem, long forgotten since school, would become alive and part of daily life. It would, some argue, give an opportunity to remember the words and sing it regularly as also remind us that we need to respect everything associated with the country. Some see it as the idea of India coming alive on screen yet again. On this count the apex Court has many takers. 
 Ofcourse there are  questions being raised on whether courts or the government have a right to force nationalism on its people or allow them to exercise it at their will. There are issues about this infringing their basic right of freedom to love and respect their country the way they think fit. 
 Also, there  are genuine concerns about activists taking law in their hands as has happened in the past. 
 The national anthem is already played before movies in some states – such as Maharashtra – but the measure is often controversial, with instances of people beaten up for not standing up for the anthem. In October, a couple assaulted a man at a cinema in Goa for not rising during the national anthem only to discover he was paralytic and on a wheelchair.
 But there is another side: the darker one. And this represents Indians who scoff at, both, the nation and the symbolism that accompanies it.  It is this breed of Indians and brand of Indianism that is crying foul at the apex court order: ruing at putting a spoke in the wheel of entertainment of enjoying a film at a multiplex. Sadly their objections are neither ideological nor real. They are seeped in vanity that begins and ends with their comfort zones being invaded by court orders directing them to stand when they have bought tickets to sit in comfortable, leather cushioned chairs.  It is this generation of Indians who demand a basic answer following the court directive: “Where do I place my food tray and popcorn while I stand listening to the national anthem?”. 

The writer is a senior Indian journalist, political commentator and columnist of The Independent. She can be reached at: ([email protected]) 

Popcorn and Indian national anthem

On issues of countrys borders and security, Indians come together as few can or ever have. But in day to day business, nationalism is not a sentiment that rules their psyche

Had Nobel laureate Rabindranath Tagore been around, he would be among the first to criticize the Supreme Court order that makes it mandatory for movie halls to play the national anthem. The Supreme Court had recently ordered all cinema halls across India to play the National Anthem before the screening of a movie. The court also asked the theatre owners to flash the national flag on the screen while National Anthem is being played. It also stated that everyone present in the cinema halls must rise and pay respect to the National Anthem. However, it directed that National Anthem should neither be dramatized or commercially exploited. The court order would not be music to the poets ears. If his views on patriotism serve as an indicator, then Tagore pitched humanity above patriotism. In a letter written way back in 1908, Rabindranath Tagore wrote: Patriotism cant be our final spiritual shelter. I will not buy glass for the price of diamonds and I will never allow patriotism to triumph over humanity as long as I live. Whether Tagore had bargained for the Jana gana mana to be synonymous with Indian nationalism will always remain debatable given that he was clearly critical of overstating nationalism. it. His views, if read in the present day context, could easily be dubbed as anti national. If the current dispensation led by the BJP and its interpretations are anything to go by, then the probability of slapping a sedition case on Tagore could, indeed, be quite high. The BJP government, it may be recalled, has come down heavily on its critics including students and activists. In February this year, the Delhi Police arrested the president of the Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) Students Union, Kanhaiya Kumar, following the protests in the JNU campus against the hanging of the 2001 Parliament attack convict Afzal Guru. Kumar was slapped with sedition charges. Tagore made known the distinction between worship and loving ones country: I am he once wrote, willing to serve my country; but my worship I reserve for Right which is far greater than country. To worship my country as a god is to bring curse upon it, He was against love for a country becoming a sacred obligation. Under the present circumstances the apex court seems to have overturned this by ordering that the national anthem be played at cinema halls and Indians must rise and respect it. The apex court observed love and respect for the motherland is reflected when one shows respect to the national anthem as well as to the national flag. That apart, it would instill the feeling within one a sense committed patriotism and nationalism. It had said that when the anthem is played the national flag shall be shown on the screen. The bench had also said that prior to the anthem being played or sung in the cinema hall, the entry and exit doors shall remain closed so that no one can create any kind of disturbance which will amount to disrespect to the national anthem and the doors can be opened once it is over. These days, people read things that have nothing to do with nationalism but dont study material related to nationalism, the bench observed. Universalism is alright but still Bharat is the epitome of culture, knowledge... Gyaan and Vigyaan... people should feel that they live in a nation and show respect to the national anthem and the national flag. The Court it seems was driven by a sense of instilling respect to the anthem by Indians. It therefore observed: Be it stated, a time has come, the citizens of the country must realise that they live in a nation and are duty bound to show respect to National Anthem which is the symbol of the Constitutional Patriotism and inherent national quality. Nationalism takes different hues in India. On issues of countrys borders and security, Indians come together as few can or ever have. But in day to day business, nationalism is not a sentiment that rules their psyche. Till the IT revolution came about and the world started taking Indians seriously, the concept of being a proud Indian was simply non existent. If anything, Indians were their own critics and spared no opportunity to run down the country they were born, bred and belonged to. Against this background any move to instill in Indians the spirit to show up their country and take pride in it is not only welcome but necessary. Therefore the Courts observation on Indians obligation to their country is neither misplaced nor unwarranted. What is, whether this will work as a corrective to the skewed concept of nationalism that sweeps across the length and breadth of this vast nation. As of now the country is among the last on the priority list of an average Indian. The concept of doing and dying for the country is, sadly, limited to the armed forces. The moot question however is whether a court directive will do anything to set right the missing nationalism? Whether putting an obligation on cinema halls to play the national anthem before screening a film will work as an irritant or be a first step in the direction of making Indians country proud, as it were? There are contrary views to this. There is a sizeable section that feels that this would reignite a sense of nationalism and the national anthem, long forgotten since school, would become alive and part of daily life. It would, some argue, give an opportunity to remember the words and sing it regularly as also remind us that we need to respect everything associated with the country. Some see it as the idea of India coming alive on screen yet again. On this count the apex Court has many takers. Ofcourse there are questions being raised on whether courts or the government have a right to force nationalism on its people or allow them to exercise it at their will. There are issues about this infringing their basic right of freedom to love and respect their country the way they think fit. Also, there are genuine concerns about activists taking law in their hands as has happened in the past. The national anthem is already played before movies in some states such as Maharashtra but the measure is often controversial, with instances of people beaten up for not standing up for the anthem. In October, a couple assaulted a man at a cinema in Goa for not rising during the national anthem only to discover he was paralytic and on a wheelchair. But there is another side: the darker one. And this represents Indians who scoff at, both, the nation and the symbolism that accompanies it. It is this breed of Indians and brand of Indianism that is crying foul at the apex court order: ruing at putting a spoke in the wheel of entertainment of enjoying a film at a multiplex. Sadly their objections are neither ideological nor real. They are seeped in vanity that begins and ends with their comfort zones being invaded by court orders directing them to stand when they have bought tickets to sit in comfortable, leather cushioned chairs. It is this generation of Indians who demand a basic answer following the court directive: Where do I place my food tray and popcorn while I stand listening to the national anthem?. The writer is a senior Indianjournalist, political commentator and columnist of The Independent. She can be reached at: ([email protected])