National Anthem and Cinema Halls

Read about recent incidents regarding the disrespect of the national anthem by movie goers. Following are quick thoughts on the relevant issues :

• Should the national anthem be played in a cinema hall before the start of a movie?

My personal opinion is in the negative - I do not find any link between a movie and/or the space of a cinema hall and the national anthem. Nor do I see a need for the national anthem to play. The cinema hall is a place of entertainment and thus does not require the rekindling of the national/patriotic spirit.

However, the movie owner cannot be stopped from playing the national anthem before a movie. If the owner of a private enterprise deems it fit (and not indiscriminate), then he can in his right as a citizen play/sing the national anthem. Legally, the Home Ministry's directions are as follows :

"As in the case of the flying of the National Flag, it has been left to the good sense of the people not to indulge in indiscriminate singing or playing of the Anthem."

• As movie goers, are we supposed to sing the national anthem when it plays?

I do not think that it should be necessary for you to sing the national anthem.  However, that does not imply that you don't stand in attention. When the national anthem plays, you should stand in attention - not as a sign of allegiance or patriotic fervour, but as a courtesy that is extended to national anthems across the world. Take for example, sporting events or international conferences. Audiences/Participants in those forums are expected to stand in attention irrespective of nationality. That is the decorum.

This position is made amply clear in Bijoe Emmanuel vs State of Kerala.  Here the Supreme Court of India held as follows :

"There is no  provision of law which obliges anyone to sing the National  Anthem nor is it disrespectful to the National Anthem if a person who stands up respectfully when the National  Anthem is sung does  not join  the  singing. Proper respect is shown  to the National Anthem by standing up when the National Anthem is sung. It will not be right to say that disrespect is shown by not joining in the singing. Standing up  respectfully when the National Anthem is sung but not singing oneself clearly does not either prevent the singing of  the National Anthem or  cause disturbance to an assembly engaged  in such  singing so as to constitute the offence mentioned  in s.  3 of the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act."

However, even standing up is now exempt. In 2002, two political leaders sat through the national anthem during the Republic Day parade. A case was brought against them and the lower court held that being seated during a national anthem, however seemingly repugnant, is not a crime against the law. (I do not have access to this judgement). Thus, it seems like sitting peacefully is also okay.

• Is there any peculiarity when it comes to the national anthem in a video or as a part of movie?

Indeed there is. Take a look :

"Whenever the Anthem is sung or played, the audience shall stand to attention. However, when in the course of a newsreel or documentary the Anthem is played as a part of the film, it is not expected of the audience to stand as standing is bound to interrupt the exhibition of the film and would create disorder and confusion rather than add to the dignity of the Anthem. "

However I am not sure if this refers to situations where the national anthem is the  whole visual/video (like the ones played at the beginning of the movie) or if it's talking about situations where the national anthem is a part of set of visuals (like a documentary). 

In times of ambiguity, err on the side of caution. Or file a PIL and figure out.

• If one refuses to sing or stand or peacefully sit, can a fellow movie goer throw him/her out of the cinema hall?

Batman is my favourite superhero, but vigilante justice is not for everyone; especially for those who are looking for a fight. Hence, from a boarder law and order point of view, I do not think that fellow movie goers should take justice in their hands.

The erring movie goer cannot be thrown out because the fellow movie goer lacks the authority to take appropriate action. It is not because there is an implicit right or freedom to not sing/stand up during the national anthem.

• So what are the consequences if one does not sing or stand or sit peacefully during the national anthem?

I believe these are relatively trivial matters. I am certain that nations across the world, especially our own, are faced with greater and more important issues. Thus, I would ideally never bring this to the courts; but we do have some extra enthusiastic vigilantes who would pursue this.

The Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, says the following regarding the national anthem :

"Whoever intentionally prevents the singing of the Indian National Anthem or causes disturbances to any assembly engaged in such singing shall be punished with imprisonment for a term, which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both."

Common sense dictates that if you peacefully laze around when the national anthem plays, you have done no wrong within the meaning of the above clause. You have neither prevented the singing nor have you disturbed the assembly. Consequently, you are safe. But remember, that the standing up is a courtesy (it does not imply allegiance or respect).

Next time you face the dilemma, just stand. You are not required by law, but it's just good decorum. Probably the same way you offer your seat to an elderly person or you give pedestrians right of way or that you don't use cartridges laced with beef and pig fat when your soldiers are Hindus and Muslims. It's good decorum.

References :

Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act : http://mha.nic.in/sites/upload_files/mha/files/pdf/Prevention_Insults_National_Honour_Act1971.pdf

Rules with respect to National Anthem : http://mha.nic.in/sites/upload_files/mha/files/pdf/NationalAnthem(E).pdf

Other resources from MHA website : http://mha.nic.in/national

Kerala incident (2014) : http://globalvoicesonline.org/2014/09/07/student-in-kerala-india-arrested-for-insulting-national-anthem/

Preity Zinta playing Batman (2014) : http://indianexpress.com/article/entertainment/bollywood/preity-zinta-throws-boy-out-of-theatre/

Bijoe Emmanuel vs State of Kerala (1986) : http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/1508089/

Sitting down during Republic Day (2002) : http://www.rediff.com/news/2005/feb/05anthem.htm

Image : https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi_fmHEpaYbmMKDSWS5x5YJkKrjxQqsBwnytfL05L2EG2GINQJ29kddhP2EmeY37_7nczlrBqed6b9ReBm4bLvwiEWTsxENOdV3Cc24fvTKqSTo0oDCI86uXR2ChkoyrOtYbN5d0fdlXs4/s1600/003.JPG

Patriotism, Modi and Clean India

I have never been a fan of patriotism. I think it restricts our love (there are my people and then there are other people), doubts our actions (how can I leave my country for better economic prospects) and questions our judgement (supporting your country's decisions simply because it is your country and not because its right/rational).

I also believe that Indians have a strange sense of patriotism. We take pride in everything and everyone that is Indian - the Mars mission, jugaad, Bollywood, Gandhi, Nobel laureates of Indian origin and basically everything that has a connection to India. But I suppose, that's where our patriotism stops.

Loyalists to a country would be expected to service the country when the call of duty comes. While this is true for India in times of natural calamities and days of war; the same is kind of patchy in everyday life. Without hesitation, we pollute our community, bribe our government officials, discriminate on the basis of caste and maintain our apathy to governance in general. The question regarding what we owe to the country and what the country owes us, is rarely answered.

One would argue that this matrix of rights and duties is a question of morality and law and there is little that patriotism can do over here. However, my belief is that some morality can also stem from the State. Take for example civic sense (don't pee in public, don't through garbage in the open, give pedestrians a right of way etc.). Why do some communities have high civic sense vs others? While the natural answer is education, there are instances (especially in India) where educated people also pollute. Also, I don't believe that civic sense is a function of education. These things are so obvious, that you really have to be super-apathetic to falter on civic sense (try asking someone why they throw garbage on the road or why they pee on the pavement - there cannot be a rational explanation to this; alternatively ask if they are aware of the benefits of civic sense).

Hence, when the benefits are so elementary and even then you fail to perform the act, the natural conclusion is that you are apathetic. Failure of civic sense is because of gross apathy - that you really don't care about your community (and by extension your country). Therefore, for morals like civic sense, you do need a sense of patriotism or love for your country/fellow mates/community. It is not the only source of morality, but one of the sources.

Devil's advocate might argue that while Indians pollute in India, they don't pollute when they travel abroad and that is not because they change the locus of their patriotism; but because good civic sense is the norm/law outside. I completely agree. The reason why Indians pollute in India is also because it is the norm. But the question we were trying to answer was why is this the norm in India?

Having said this, I will spend a few words on the cause of this apathy (previous posts describe this in detail). The first cause is the British Raj. The birth of Indian nationalism was during the independence movement, but I believe it was restricted to only that. The nationalism represented freedom from the British and not a nationalism of an ideal State with ideal citizens. Post independence, we got a robust constitution with great many rights, but not necessarily rights that people understood or reflected with/demanded. Hence, Indian nationalism in the beginning did not indulge in the rights-duty matrix.

The second cause (which maybe an effect of the first), are regular failed governments in India; none of which have inspired the people. Most were seen through the lens of doubt, corruption and inefficiency. Hence, there is a general feeling of apathy towards governance and law and order. This has further skewed the rights-duty matrix.

Now finally coming to Modi. What can be undoubtedly agreed upon is that since his tenure he has created an atmosphere of enthusiasm and patriotic spirit. Whether through the independence day address, the grand spectacle at Madison Square Garden or the huge hypes around his foreign visits. He has tried to invoke the "duty" spirit in Indians (resident or otherwise).

This is especially true with his "Clean India" campaign. Calling on the nation on a national holiday to come out and clean is a great way to instill duty and care for the nation (while there are problems with that as well, the larger call to duty is important).  If Modi is able to instil patriotism and this duty to care among Indians, then my belief is that the going will be a lot easier.

Finally, my scepticism of patriotism has not reduced in anyway. I had once remarked to a friend that nationalism is a weapon of mass destruction, and I still hold that view. I just hope that the current use of patriotism is for the good.

The one about the country

Earlier this month, I had a fantastic conversation with a dear friend on how messed up India is. Here are 3 tiny bits from that conversation which might have some relevance around Independence Day :

• The Partition - One People, Two Nations

Many parliamentary debates and history lectures have argued over the pros/cons of partitioning British India. My personal belief is that undivided India would have been a logistical/administrative nightmare. Current day India is exhausting to manage and I can't imagine how more territories would in anyway be of help.

Yet, that does not mean that the partition on the grounds of religion was the most effective one. I think that created issues for both nations - on one side we had a theocracy aiming to become a democracy and on the other a democracy which had bouts of the idea of Hindustan.

Perhaps, a divide on the lines of language would have worked better. From the little they teach us about the history of our neighbors, I believe the idea of a particular nation was around language. However, a division on the lines of language doesn't imply fair distribution of resources. Nor does it guarantee administrative efficiency; which is the original aim of the division.

What is done is done. Perhaps, it is the destiny of these two (later three) nations, to be divided. But as many Google and Coca-Cola initiatives have shown, we have a common history and a somewhat similar culture.  The common Indian and Pakistani does not hate the other; they just both want Kashmir. The misfortune is that we can never resolve Kashmir and hence this mystery and love/hate of the other will always remain.

A strange thought enters the mind. What if we were not partitioned? What would that mean for South Asia? What would that mean for Afghanistan/Taliban? Or this global war on terror - would Osama still be in Abbottabad? Or would the Hindus and Muslims of undivided India have killed each other off? I don't know what to imagine, but I know that the world would have been a different place.

• All rights and no duties, makes Indians Indians

My long standing belief is that British rule really messed up the development of political thought in the country. My hypothesis is that the masses during the freedom struggle desired only independence and nothing else. But what they got in return was independence and a lot of other goodies.

And that's where I think the Founding Parents of this nation went wrong. They did too good a job at framing the constitution. They picked the best from the world and gave it to us on a golden platter. They made sure we had rights, that the judiciary was independent, that minorities were taken good care of, a quasi-federal structure et al.

But the masses did not want that. I mean, if you would ask them of course they would say yes! However, it wasn't like they demanded it, fought for it or understood its real value (or the lack thereof).

Not to say that people know the value now or that elsewhere in the world, development of political thought was better. I feel that the freedom struggle was a fight for independence and not a fight for political rights/duties. So, the significance of these rights was undervalued over most of our history; almost taken for granted.

I think the latter fight is happening now (about 70 years later) with the India Against Corruption movement translating into something bigger; all from the support of the people (fingers crossed)!

Again, a strange thought comes to mind. Would India have been better if we had followed the China model? I think I like the Indian inefficiency. I like the dissent, even though it comes at the cost of delay and the loss of life/property. But maybe that's just sour grapes. Or that I am blessed with economic resources and hence for me political rights are more valuable.

• But beta, why spend so much?

(Does not apply to all Indians, focused on a specific section)

My gut says that Indians are the biggest kanjoos (miserly) people in the whole damn universe. They don't spend. And when they decide to, they will think ten times. And when they finally do, there is a good chance they will regret it.

The fountainhead of this behaviour is unknown. But as always, I have a theory. It might not be true, but it might convince you. I think it all started with the Hindu idea of desires are bad. Or more like, materialism is bad and you should lead a simple life of minimal needs. Or that the value of a person is measured in his spiritual wealth and not material wealth. None of us actually think like that, but that's how all psychology works - you just blame the subconscious.

Irrespective, I think Indians are poor spenders. Or at least, they are not like the Western consumer who would borrow to buy. We like to earn the money first and then spend it on alcohol (and maybe beat up the spouse alongside). Perhaps, the only time Indians borrow to spend (not including house, car and education loans - those are investments) is on their child's marriage. Because that is the only time we allow ourselves to be judged for our material possessions.

It could also be that the consumerist generation has not arrived (or maybe I am the anomaly). I spend in a more liberal way compared to my mother and perhaps the next generation will go a step further (not my kids!). The previous generations focused on setting up the economy after the British robbed us and hence were miser spenders. The newer generation has greater access to goods and has no pressure to save (other than the wise words of their parents); consequently will spend more.

Either way, an attitude to spending is crucial for India's economic growth. We talk of more industries, more jobs and more goods and services. But the crucial thing here is demand.  If you don't desire things, supply will go waste, businesses will lose money and people will lose jobs. The workers will have no money to buy goods and hence will starve. But theoretically, there will be no goods because there will be no businesses. It's a complex cycle, but you get the drift. If you don't spend, GDP does not increase. Hence, our economic growth depends not only on the efficiency of the government and the enthusiasm of the entrepreneurs but also on our desire to spend.

The tragedy of the whole equation is that Indians are not good savers either. The money they so diligently save, they invest in the least profitable areas. A large pie they will spend on the wedding. The other part they will invest in gold, fixed deposits and real estate (in that  order). It is rare that they will invest in good business (via the stock market) - neither directly nor through a mutual fund. And when they do invest in the stock market, they will do it with the mind of a gambler, the skills of Yudhisthir and with the dream of doubling money in a month. And while they lose heavily in this pursuit, they wreck the game for the others; because now the stock market is this dangerous place that breeds greed and not an avenue to invest in good business.

Would I trade greater saving for greater spending? I don't think greater material possessions guarantee greater happiness; the rich and poor are both unhappy. But then nor does greater saving. The more you save, the more you deny yourself the world's pleasures and the harder it is to guard your wealth. We are in a strange middle ground, but I hope we pick sides soon. Travelling in two boats cannot be good for anyone.

With that, I conclude my rant and customary post for Independence Day. I am a sporadic patriot, with pangs of hating and loving this country. But unchanged is my view of our quirks. I always find them strange and unique. Perhaps, that's true for every nationality.

And maybe on their national holiday they remember their quirks too.

You might like to listen to this.

Image Source : http://www.journeymart.com/gifs/holidays-ideas/festivals/independence-day-india.jpg