Ruling without logic

At a time when such amorphous terms as “patriotism” and “anti-nationalism” are being fiercely and violently contested, the Supreme Court (SC)’s seven-point ruling specifying the conduct of an Indian citizen whenever the national anthem is played or sung can hardly be described as constructive. Even before assessing the merits of the November 30 ruling, there are several pertinent questions citizens, being instructed so specifically to display “love and respect of the motherland”, may want to ask. First, does forcing people to do something increase their respect for the anthem; or does it merely make them compliant, or non-compliant? Showing respect involves choice, and is an act of volition. The real question is the logic of the ruling: Why make it mandatory before a film, and not at the start of court proceedings? The related issue: Should this public interest litigation have been accorded such priority when so many critical appeals are awaiting attention?

 
The apex court is, after all, no exception to the staggering backlog of 33 million cases that clog the judicial system, with almost 60,000 cases pending with it. Even as Chief Justice TS Thakur is locked in a feisty battle with the government over the method for appointing judges, the SC alone is yet to fill the seven vacancies on its benches pending for a year. Should it really be spending judicial time and energy considering public interest litigation on such an issue? Given the apex court’s predilection for pronouncing on all manner of subjects in recent years, this judgment comes as no surprise.

 
The irony is that, as several legal experts have noted, the apex court’s advisory creates the possibility of even more litigation. For instance, the clause on “no commercial exploitation” opens a wide scope for interpretation: Should musicians like Shankar Mahadevan, whose academy produced a much-shared version of the national anthem, cease and desist from creating riffs on this most recognisable of tunes? It raises absurd questions, too, of whether professional singers or groups who are hired to play the national anthem can be paid for their services. In this context, revelations of an earlier ruling by one of the judges on this Bench allowing the national anthem to feature in a Bollywood film are not without irony. The stipulation that the national anthem be played in cinema halls before the movie begins and the requirement that all present are obliged to stand must surely be considered excessive and unnecessary. It is also unclear why a private activity such as a movie screening should be singled out for attention — watch for more “guidelines” at other similar events from other freelance defenders of patriotism.

 

The biggest concern from this judgment, perhaps, is whether it will encourage those who indulge in the toxic public discourse that, increasingly, invests with destructive intent actions and comments criticising the state. Whether it is questioning a death sentence or silly unruly students raising pro-Pakistan slogans, the ambit of issues at which umbrage is taken is steadily widening. The Indian establishment and polity have not yet reached that stage of maturity to eschew thin-skinned reactions to criticism or even the mildest irreverence. A 1989 US Supreme Court ruling that decreed burning the national flag as a form of protest was protected under the First Amendment (freedom of speech) would be unthinkable in India.

 
The reassertion of a robust variety of majoritarian nationalism and its ownership by a politically empowered and highly radicalised segment of the population have already gone some way towards creating a dangerously polarised society. In the current climate of frenzied political discourses, the SC could have done better to have ignored the petition altogether. At any rate, that would have sent the right messages: one, that displays of national respect should best be left to the discretion of the people and, two, that the apex court has better things to do.