Last September President Donald Trump in a speech at a rally in Huntsville said, “Any player that sits during a national anthem is a Son of a bitch.” The player was NBA champion Stephen Curry whose invitation to the White House was later rescinded by the angry President. The events kicked off a debate on whether the national anthem should be played before every sporting event. Many argued it was forced patriotism that diluted the power of the message of standing at attention before the flag during the national anthem.

The American national anthem was composed by Francis Scott-Key who was inspired by the American Star-Spangled Banner flying triumphantly above Fort McHenry bombarded by British Ships in Baltimore. La Marseillaise, the national anthem of France was written by Claude Joseph Rouget de Lisle after the declaration of war by France against Austria and it was a revolutionary song, an anthem to freedom, a patriotic call to mobilize all citizens and an exhortation to fight against tyranny.

Advertisement

The adoption of the song’ Jana Gana Mana’ composed by Nobel Laureate Rabindranath Tagore is significant as the first stanza of the song Bharata Bhagya Bidhata was adopted by the Constituent Assembly of India as the national anthem on 24 January 1950 although a shortened version consisting of the first and last lines was first publicly sung on 27 December 1911 at the Calcutta Session of the Indian National Congress. But all that is happening recently over the national anthem is confusing us about the difference between patriotism and nationalism.

Mark Twain once said: “Loyalty to country Always. Loyalty to government when it deserves it.” But recent happenings over forced patriotism and the enthusiasm of vigilante groups compelling audiences in the cinema hall stand for the anthem without sparing even the disabled seems to have provoked the Supreme Court to revise its decision regarding this compulsory display of patriotism. There is no doubt that the national anthem should be sung with respect, the Flag code cannot be violated and under the pretext of undiluted entertainment we cannot disrespect either the anthem or the flag.

The word ‘should’ is now going to be replaced by ‘may’ in the case of playing the national anthem in cinema halls as the Apex Court modified its earlier interim order. It is interesting that this time the Court relied on a Home Ministry order of 2015 which directs that “whenever the Anthem is sung or played the audience shall stand to attention.”

Now the ball is in the court of the Union Government which will take a final decision on the recommendations of a 12-member committee regarding the occasions, circumstances and events for the solemn rendering of the anthem. The panel will examine if any amendments are necessary to the Prevention of Insult to National Honour Act of 1971 to expand or specify the meaning of ‘respect’ to the national anthem. But all these lead to the basic question of the debate over patriotism and forced patriotism, nationalism versus humanity.

“I will never allow patriotism to triumph over humanity as long as I live”, wrote Tagore in 1918 in a letter to his friend A.M.Bose. Tagore went beyond patriotism and a parochial sense of nationalism. Throughout his life he remained critical of nationalism even at times differing from the nationalistic concept of Mahatma Gandhi. In his novel The Home and the World, Tagore asserted through his character Nikhil: “To worship the country as a god is to bring curse upon it.” Today we seemed to be bogged in the quagmire of pseudo-nationalism and pseudo-patriotism envisioned in the Bharat Mata concept and have become oblivious of what Tagore talked about – the importance to be given to humanity and freedom of mind as a world view.

The happenings of the last few years have shown a hyper-commitment to nationalistic chauvinism. Many confuse it with forced patriotism at the cost of ‘freedom of mind’ that Tagore focused on during his visit to Soviet Russia. He saw mechanical regularity there and, yet he was stunned by the lack of the ‘freedom of mind’. “We cannot live by taking air, but we need air to digest what we take as food.” This advocacy in favour of air symbolising the freedom of mind in Letters from Russia is imperative today as there is an attempt to impose forced patriotism, something that Tagore long ago disapproved of during his meeting with Mahatma Gandhi in Kolkata calling it the ‘bondage of nationalism’. This bondage of nationalism is being imposed on the diverse communities in what appears to be a tyranny of the majority and too much concern is being shown about playing the national anthem in cinema hall.

One of the judges on the Supreme Court bench has ironically said: “Next thing will be that people should not wear T-shirts and shorts to movies because it will amount to disrespect for the anthem; where do we stop this moral policing?” By policing the national anthem, we cannot nourish values of Unity in Diversity. Respect should be spontaneous, and it is not desirable that the debate on the anthem should assume an ugly proportion. Very correctly, the Supreme Court has realised that the forced display of patriotism would do more harm than good. So, the modification of its interim order is a relief and has been hailed by all truly patriotic Indians as an ‘expected’ and ‘timely’ step.

Theodore Roosevelt once remarked: “Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the president or any other public official, save exactly to the degree in which he himself stands by the country. It is patriotic to support him insofar as he efficiently serves the country. It is unpatriotic not to oppose him to the exact extent that by inefficiency or otherwise he fails in his duty to stand by the country.” In an age of populism, nationalism is being peddled like soap. In the name of showing respect we should not disrespect humanity about which Tagore warned us long ago.

Tagore wrote this anthem not for extolling a victory in war. It is a song that focuses on unity of Indian diversity. It sings the glory of the country in its ancient and modern times. It was composed in pre-Independence India when people needed a message of unity in their fight against the British and did provoke some controversy. A news report published in The Statesman (28 December 1911) said that Tagore ‘sang a song composed by him specially to welcome the Emperor.’ But the same news was reported differently in another newspaper. “The proceedings of the Congress party session started with a prayer in Bengali to praise God (Song of benediction). This was followed by a resolution expressing loyalty to King George V. Then another song was sung welcoming King George V”. So, it is clear Jana Gana Mana was sung as a ‘Song of Benediction’ and not as praise to the British Emperor. When the song was adopted as the national anthem it was selectively shortened and adapted with care for a secular republic.

India is a multicultural country and nearly 780 languages and dialects are spoken here. The national anthem is a unifier. Standing in the cinema halls for 52 seconds was a thrill for us in our childhood, but now we realise that there are other implications too. Senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan argued that the anthem has a ceremonial significance and the sacred element should not be trivialised by playing it four times a day in the cinema and theatre halls.

It is best to conclude with the words of Luke Bryan who focused on the essence of the national anthem: “Any time I sing the anthem, it is an honour and my heart beats out of my chest” For such sublime feelings, no policing is necessary.

The writer is Associate Professor and Head Post Graduate Dept of English Dum Dum Motijheel College, Kolkata.