8 October 2014

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

2 October 2014

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.