The Supreme Court’s ruling on the national anthem is yet another instance of the movies being a soft target for tokenistic measures.
Why is it always the movies? Take smoking. There are many ways to bring down cigarette and liquor consumption. You can stop the sale of singles, force people to buy a pack every time they feel like lighting up. You can raise the cost of packs. What we get, instead, is a disclaimer at the bottom of the screen every time the villain’s henchman is caught chomping on a bidi. There is an artistic argument against this imposition. Woody Allen refused to allow Blue Jasmine to be screened in India with this disclaimer, saying that “when the scroll comes, attention goes to it rather than the scene.” But brush aside artistry and just consider logic. If the reasoning is that films are widely seen and that this tiny print at the bottom is an educational measure against a harmful act, then why not a disclaimer every time a rape occurs on screen? Or every time a man stalks a woman, trying to get her to reciprocate his love? Or every time thieves hatch a plan to rob a bank?
And now, the Supreme Court has ruled that the national anthem must be played in cinema halls across the country before a film is screened, and everyone present must stand to pay respect. Forget, for a minute, the arguments about personal choice, about freedom in a democracy. The screenwriter Aaron Sorkin put it best in these lines he wrote for the scarily prescient The American President, when an Obama-like liberal finally rose to respond to the accusations of a scaremongering demagogue. “You want free speech? Let’s see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who’s standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours. You want to claim this land as the land of the free? Then the symbol of your country can’t just be a flag; the symbol also has to be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest.” That this Utopia is becoming (or has become) a pipe dream is no longer under contest.
But why movies? There are many situations and avenues that warrant the national anthem, if the purpose is indeed to teach people the words. (That is part of the Supreme Court ruling’s agenda.) It makes sense to play the anthem every day at school and college. (Catch them young.) It perhaps makes sense before television news — this is, after all, news about the nation. It may make sense when our cricket team beats England. It may even make sense before certain films – serious films like Swades or Border that deal with “nationalistic” subjects. But how can the compulsory presentation of the national anthem before a Sunny Leone starrer be considered a form of respect? To expect “pride” from a ticket buyer who wants nothing more than to forget his troubles with overpriced popcorn and soda, and a mindless movie, is even more of a pipe dream. One could make the case that we are, in fact, disrespecting the anthem by associating it with a medium that – nine times out of ten – makes no bones about being “commercial.” In other words, after standing up for the anthem, you’re going to be sitting down for a cleavage-popping item number.
A bhajan belongs in a temple, and even if sung or played outside, it retains its reason for being only when it’s a festival or at an event that’s holy and pure, untainted by commercial considerations. The national anthem is not unlike a bhajan. It’s an expression of one’s reverence for the country. It stirs the soul, makes us feel patriotic even when things around us make us angry about the state of the nation. But enforced patriotism is simply transforming a private emotion into tokenistic public spectacle. You stand up not necessarily because you want to, but because if you don’t, you’re likely to be labelled a traitor, or worse, screamed at or assaulted by self-styled nationalists, which is what happened with the 45-year old poet, disability activist and writer Salil Chaturvedi, who did not stand up for the national anthem because he could not stand up. He was in a wheelchair.
Chaturvedi was quoted as saying, “I just don’t understand why it seems impossible for so many people to express patriotism in a non-aggressive manner.” And there are many ways to prove your love for your country. You could contribute to flood relief or volunteer in a tsunami-stricken area or ensure the domestic help has enough cash till she gets used to plastic – all of this is a form of loving, caring for, respecting the nation. Because a nation is its people. Love Indians, and you love India. But that, apparently, isn’t enough. Now you have to prove it every time you watch Rajinikanth beat up a hundred bad guys. Somewhere, Manoj Kumar is smiling and readying his next script.
An edited version of this piece can be found here.
Copyright ©2016 The Hindu. This article may not be reproduced in its entirety without permission. A link to this URL, instead, would be appreciated.
Anu Warrier
December 1, 2016
I read that news with shock. It’s ridiculous that I have to be forced to prove my patriotism publicly again and again. And if it plays on TV before the news, BR, do we all stand up inside our homes in respect?
I love our national anthem. There’s something that calls to me when I hear it. But do I want to see it being mocked as some sort of a pop song? I agree with you that there’s a time and a place for everything.
the symbol also has to be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest.
Ha! Ironical that you should use this quote; we’re in the midst of a President-elect tweeting that anyone who burns the flag will be treated as a dissident and jailed. This, when flag-burning is enshrined in the constitution as a legitimate form of protest.
(Forgive typos if any; typing with a brace does that.)
LikeLiked by 1 person
blurb
December 1, 2016
It was frustrating to see this in the news. Patriotism is one thing. But this is a ripple effect of the rise of nationalistic feelings everywhere. They chose movies not because movies are soft targets. But because movies are the best contrivances to perpetuate the kind of nationalist demagogic bullshit (the kind that the west is going beserk with now).
Whatever this is — it is not patriotism.
LikeLiked by 1 person
P
December 1, 2016
Marzi se jeene ki bhi main,
kya tumko arzi duun…
matlab ki tum sab ka mujh pe
mujh se bhi zyada haq hai
LikeLiked by 2 people
Shvetal
December 1, 2016
This is such a silly decision that one wonders at the maturity of the Supreme Court. The one way to make people question something is to make it compulsory. Singing the national anthem is not going to dissolve the fissures that underlie national identity. Instead, it is precisely the demand for it that is going to bring them to the fore.
LikeLike
Shvetal
December 1, 2016
Hi. I have left a comment but it is not showing up. Do comments show up automatically or are they moderated? Submitting this just to see what happens.
LikeLike
AR
December 1, 2016
I usually am loathe to missing the opening of a film but I’ll be deliberately entering a cinema hall ten minutes late. This is draconian and infringes on my freedom. As someone who does not believe in the divisions along national boundaries, and believes my birth in India was a mere accident, this is clearly the limit. It’s mind boggling that the supreme court has come out with this order, which seems to stand at complete contradiction with our revered constitution.
LikeLike
sanjay2706
December 1, 2016
“It may make sense when our cricket team beats England.”
Is the Team India representative of the nation? As far as I know, and correct me if I am wrong,BCCI is a private organization that elects 15 men to represent the country? Shouldn’t we be able to elect those 15 people to truly make the team representative of the nation?
LikeLiked by 3 people
kj
December 1, 2016
@Anu
“And if it plays on TV before the news, BR, do we all stand up inside our homes in respect?”
It seems there are people who do this kind of thing! What a shame that our country has descended to this level where everyone has to or wants to one-up anothiner with their display of patriotism & condemn people who don’t want to take part in this competitive nationalism.
LikeLike
brangan
December 1, 2016
Via email…
Dr.Manisha Choudhary: Dear sir, Beautiful article.
Best Wishes & Regards.
LikeLike
brangan
December 1, 2016
Via email…
Vinupal: Good morning Mr.Baradwaj,
I’m a fan of your film reviews published in the Hindu. Even my son and daughter on that for making a decision to watch or not.
This mail is on your article on the subject above. I fully agree with your point. The situation is totally different when you compelling someone to stand in a move hall. There are are so many serious occasions where the purpose of national anthem is truly communicated. The current ruling is going to bring out issues of disrespect and further complications. It is good that you immediately brought out a serious issue for a debate.
Thanks
LikeLike
brangan
December 1, 2016
Via email…
Anbazhagan SV: Dear Baradwaj,
The list must include political meetings and processions and rasta rokos also! They must sing in the beginning and at the end, standing in attention,failing which arrested immediately!
LikeLiked by 2 people
brangan
December 1, 2016
Via email…
Kishore: I commend you on your article – I hope you are not hauled up for contempt.
But I wondered why your article was focused on movie theaters and this specific ruling and not on the larger legal issues – such as: what was the legal basis for this ruling – is it a constitutional question they are addressing or a legal dispute? Does the SC even have jurisdiction to adjudicate this? Given the far reaching effect of this ruling – why did they not appoint an amicus curiae to argue against the ruling?
This is a flagrant violation of SC’s powers that the debate has to be broader than the specific ruling about the anthem.
I hope to see more good stuff from you on this. I specifically recommend that you sidestep all comments about patriotism – a debate you cannot win – and focus on the legal questions.
Cheers
LikeLike
brangan
December 1, 2016
Via email…
M fathima: Hi,
Wonderful article. Appreciate ur true patriotism and ur Soul voice reflected. JAIHIND.
LikeLike
brangan
December 1, 2016
Via email…
Hariharan Venkatesan: Hi Baradwaj,
You have tried to be a liberal thinker when you chose to write this article but your words have only proven that you’re a bigot.
“But how can the compulsory presentation of the national anthem before a Sunny Leone or Salman Khan-starrer be considered a form of respect? ”
What are you trying to convey through these lines? Are sunny Leone and salman khan terrorists or pariah ? Why did you feel that their movies specifically don’t deserve the national anthem to be played prior to their screening when compared to the remaining ones?
You line of reasoning seems even more void than the judgement you’re trying to criticise.
Regards.
LikeLiked by 1 person
brangan
December 1, 2016
Via email…
Ilayaperumal: Dear baradwaj sir, ‘Reeling out patriotism’ is good prognosis of the judgment. There is doubt that perhaps a part of judiciary might have saffranised. Recent events across our nation ever since Modi headed is a worry some.People like you are persisting against this kind of forced duty patriotism. Now is the right time, you have to write with more potent. thanks.
LikeLike
Aravind Ramachandran
December 1, 2016
Spot on man, as always. Great piece and just what a lot of people are feeling right now.
Sadly, this shift to the right (or alt-right) is happening everywhere in the world. I fear for a future where this thought process is the norm and liberty and personal freedom is the new radical!
And as for Supreme Court, who prioritises cases for them? On the one hand we hear of a mountain of cases pending in our courts, on the other these guys take up this?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jyoti S Kumar
December 1, 2016
all of this is a form of loving, caring for, respecting the nation
Every year in school before the annual day celebrations they interview promising students to judge who can win the best student award… One of the questions asked during one such sessions was, if your friend faints and falls when the national anthem is song, what will you do? Help your friend or continue singing the national anthem. That was the time when the actorbArjun made a movie, where he does not help his friend but rather continues standing in attention. This kind of symbolism sometimes just forgets to look at the broader, all encompassing values of humanity and empathy. This is just another rule which narrows the mind and adds nothing of value
LikeLike
Anuja Chandramouli
December 1, 2016
Fantastic article BR! If you ever decide to become the PM, I solemnly swear to devote my life towards making it happen. God bless you and your blessed calm rationale!
“And there are many ways to prove your love for your country. You could contribute to flood relief or volunteer in a tsunami-stricken area or ensure the domestic help has enough cash till she gets used to plastic – all of this is a form of loving, caring for, respecting the nation. Because a nation is its people. Love Indians, and you love India. But that, apparently, isn’t enough. Now you have to prove it every time you watch Rajinikanth beat up a hundred bad guys.”
Could not agree with you more.
This is exactly the sort of thing we should be focusing on to make India a better place to live in. Not turning a blind eye and deaf ear to those in need, standing patiently in a queue instead of dry humping the person ahead, refraining from using public places as a trash can or personal spitoon, volunteering to feed orphans, cleaning up not just the house you live in but the area around it which the less privileged may use as a dumping ground for more than just trash.
While on the subject it would be lovely if the SC makes it a criminal offense to piss or shit anywhere outside the loo in this great nation of ours or have a hand in directing tax money towards building more loos and insisting that the citizens use them instead of every plot, sidewalk, riverside or bush that presents itself. And let us not forget the umpteen cases that are languishing in the courts, piling up one on top of the other hoping that a verdict is in the offing or is likely to be given in one’s lifetime. But nooo, heaven forbid we focus on anything remotely useful or productive, instead let us be force-fed moronic notions of nationalism while the nation itself goes straight to hell.
LikeLike
Srinivas R
December 1, 2016
“Because a nation is its people. Love Indians, and you love India.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Raj Balakrishnan
December 1, 2016
This is not unique to India. I saw the latest Bourne movie in a cinema hall in Phuket, Thailand. Before the start of the movie, an anthem was played in honour of their king, everyone stood up. None of the people in the hall looked like locals. I would think that there is nothing wrong in playing our anthem in a cinema hall. Liberals should not get worked up over every single thing happening in the country.
LikeLiked by 2 people
sree1824
December 1, 2016
Forcing people to be patriotic for 52 seconds? Someone in the Supreme Court is an Orwell fan! And not in a good way
LikeLike
shaviswa
December 1, 2016
This is not an entirely new practice. For almost a couple of decades after independence, cinema halls in India were playing the national anthem. That practice was stopped for whatever reasons. It is good to play the national anthem as often as possible in public. Cinema halls are just one of those options. People should learn to respect the national anthem whenever and wherever it is played.
Liberal folks are getting their undies in a knot over something quite trivial.
LikeLiked by 2 people
naveenkrwpress
December 1, 2016
The habit of playing national anthem and nationalist songs in films, I think, happened because filmmakers of the pre-independence era found it as a way to snub the Brits. many of AVM’s movies had bharathiyaar’s songs beautifully placed in films but layered enough to show diffidence to the foreign rulers does not make sure now
LikeLike
Srinivas R
December 1, 2016
Raj B – The question is not if it is unique to India. The question is ” what purpose does it solve?” I have no idea how singing the national anthem before watching the Fifty Shades of Grey going help the nation in any way. Would you sing Gayathri Manthra ( or any prayer of your choice) before watching a movie? Don’t the new age nationalists feel that it’s an insult to play the anthem before getting lost in some escapist movie? How far does it go? maybe next we should be made to sing national anthem every time we visit a restaurant, after all the food is made in India, so better respect the country no?
LikeLike
venkatesh
December 1, 2016
Well , what did you expect ?
We are a mere step away from Idiocracy.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Karthik
December 1, 2016
Its another joke on us and there are several more to come I suppose. But Sunny Leone referred here and hope they don’t start censoring newspapers because someone wrote something which isn’t “sanskari”.
LikeLike
Sifter
December 1, 2016
@BR- You wrote this piece. I am glad. I do not hold the same view on the following though:
…….But how can the compulsory presentation of the national anthem before a Sunny Leone starrer be considered a form of respect? To expect “pride” from a ticket buyer who wants nothing more than to forget his troubles with overpriced popcorn and soda, and a mindless movie, is even more of a pipe dream…..
Why not? If you think it should not be considered a form of respect, same goes for all our misogynistic, violent, vulgar monstrosities of movies that gets released under the disguise of commercial cinema and family entertainment.
Same on the expectation of pride (I am reminded of this dialogue from the upcoming movie Dangal ‘Hamari tri-ranga sabse ooper laheravega’ 🙂 )
You also buy a ticket to watch a Sunny Leone movie…albeit to write a review. You do that because its your choice, not because the newspaper you write your reviews for requires it.
LikeLike
brangan
December 1, 2016
shaviswa: People should learn to respect the national anthem whenever and wherever it is played.
Of course. This isn’t about whether or not one should respect the anthem. This is about whether a movie house is the place for it.
LikeLike
bart
December 1, 2016
“Our petition says the national anthem must be played at places where respect to the national anthem is possible.”
http://www.rediff.com/news/interview/his-crusade-made-the-national-anthem-a-must-at-movie-halls/20161201.htm
We can start a guessing game. Where else? To start with, Three times in offices, at 9 am, 4 pm and 12 am to accommodate employees across three shifts…
LikeLiked by 1 person
shaviswa
December 1, 2016
@brangan We can always question whether any place is apt for playing the national anthem. From school assemblies to anywhere.
My question is – why not? why not in a public place like cinema halls too? The anthem is a pretty short song – is that too long for people to stand up at the beginning of a film?
LikeLike
Anu Warrier
December 1, 2016
No one is arguing that our national anthem should not be respected. It is that someone is deciding for us what our idea of nationalism should be. What next? Play it in every office at the start of day, and have employes stand in assembly while it’s being played? Penalise the employee who came late and therefore didn’t (couldn’t) stand ‘in respect’ of the national anthem? Play it again for him/her and make her stand for its duration to show proper respect?
Be the anthem police and excoriate someone who doesn’t stand, for whatever reason? The couple who rebuked and even assaulted Salil Chaturvedi were more ‘nationalistic’ than he was? Even if he couldn’t stand?
For all those insisting that we ‘liberals’ are getting our panties in a twist, here’s what our Constitution has to say: Section 3 of The Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971, states: “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.”
What the Supreme Court has just proposed is just going to cause more ‘disturbances’ as ‘nationalists’ feel free to publicly berate someone else for not following their idea of nationalism. I suppose it doesn’t occur to them that they are the people who are in contempt of the Constitution, that they are disrespecting the anthem themselves?
India is fast becoming a nanny state, where everyone seems to feel free to tell everyone else what to do, what to wear, what to eat, when to go out, with whom – or else! (And so, unfortunately, is the US, now.) How about you show your love for your country the way you want to, and let me love my country in my own way? [General ‘you’.]
LikeLiked by 2 people
Anu Warrier
December 1, 2016
For those who think ‘liberals’ are behind the world’s ills: the following is taken from the Indian government’s website (India.gov.in) and pertains to the singing of the National Anthem. After decreeing when the full version will be played and when it will be sung, the final clause of the decree states: 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.
[Emphasis mine.]
LikeLiked by 1 person
Madan
December 1, 2016
While agreeing that cinema is a soft target, I would also say that it points to a larger and perverse desire of the Indian citizen to hand over his freedoms to the govt. While many of my colleagues criticised this latest SC decision, one actually thought it was a good idea. When asked how he thought it was a good idea to make foreigners stand for the anthem, he said foreigners should be expected to follow Indian rules when in India. He was given arguments as to why it wasn’t so simple but I have a feeling he wasn’t listening/convinced.
LikeLike
Raj Balakrishnan
December 1, 2016
Srinivas R – my point is that there is nothing wrong in playing our national anthem. Liberals should not see it as some form of fascism. I would love to hear it as often as possible. Why not in a movie hall or before a show.
LikeLike
Anamika
December 1, 2016
@shaviswa, the big deal is not about standing up. It is the fact that the emotions fueled by the National Anthem are trivialized by this act.
LikeLike
Madan
December 1, 2016
“Liberals should not see it as some form of fascism.” – Well, if you can get beaten up for not standing up for the national anthem, then it is fascism. Yes, I respect the national flag and I will always stand up for the anthem. But it is voluntary. Nobody should be forced to do this and that we have the highest court of law taking out time from a schedule that apparently makes T S Thakur shed copious tears to pass this sort of judgment is incredible. Incredible India, really!
LikeLiked by 2 people
TheWannabeWriter
December 1, 2016
Well said, Rangan sir. What more is this, than a daily monkey-training drill to master the art of nationalism. This incipient dictatorship only implies that we don’t know how to be “indians” on our own. Sorry, we don’t need anyone telling us how to love our country.
LikeLike
havingashotgreatness
December 2, 2016
I studied in Kendriya Vidyalaya, where morning assemblies were very bureaucratically followed and for 10 years (for atleast 200 working days) I sang the anthem with fervour and devotion (even when I skipped, slipping by teachers, stayed in class to hastly finish homework I stood up alone in the class even when no one was watching me for the pride and sanctity of it). In your words, sir, I was caught young. But now as some commenters have said I am going to skip the beginning of the movies. It is sad but that is how I am going feel proud now by being defiant of something I should be proud of. . . Oh! the paradox of it all
LikeLike
olemisstarana
December 2, 2016
I’ve decided not to be a liberal any more. I agree with all those here who call liberals whiny and entitled. I’ve decided to wear my patriotism on my chest. And like every other non-liberal, I’m going to say, “If I am comfortable with it, then everyone else should be too…” I love to hear it as often as possible too, but why JUST stand for the national anthem – that’s some weak sauce. I’m going to tattoo it on my left boob. And I’m going to stand outside every movie hall, grocery store, school, hospital and nightclub demanding to see everyone’s left boob. And if the goddamn liberals cry fascism, I’m going to shame them and send them to Pakistan. Who’s with me?
LikeLiked by 2 people
olemisstarana
December 2, 2016
LikeLiked by 1 person
praneshp
December 2, 2016
@shawiswa: “The anthem is a pretty short song – is that too long for people to stand up at the beginning of a film”.
Yes, it is, for me.
LikeLike
Shvetal
December 2, 2016
I would stand up any day for the national anthem. And I would still not want that forced on everyone else. It is as simple as that.
Just in case anyone is interested, sharing a piece that I wrote before the Supreme Court decision about precisely this issue:
http://www.huffingtonpost.in/shvetal-vyas-pare/performing-patriotism-should-be-a-choice-not-a-compulsion/
LikeLike
Anu Warrier
December 2, 2016
olemisstarana – 🙂 If I didn’t dislike needles so much, I would have joined you. Should I make my way to Pakistan because I won’t do that? (Why would the Pakistanis want me anyway?)
If someone starts a non-violent civil disobedience movement for our right to NOT stand up for the national anthem, I will join it. (There’s precedent for such a movement folks. Our Father of the Nation taught us that.) And this is such a shame, because as I said in my first post here, I love our national anthem. We were drilled in the correct way to sing it in school and I loved that as well. But I will not co-sign a jingoistic pop-patriotism that insists that there is only one right way to love my country.
LikeLiked by 2 people
brangan
December 2, 2016
There’s an entirely different debate to be had about one’s right to stand versus not stand. I am just talking about the appropriateness of a movie hall as a patriotism-dispensing venue. It’s a mockery. So you’re slurping Coke and munching butter popcorn. The anthem comes on. You hurriedly set your snacks aside and stand up, still munching the earlier handful of popcorn. And as soon as the anthem gets over, you return to Coke and butter popcorn.
This is IMO disrespect to the anthem. There is a time and a place for everything and this piece is about that, not whether one should stand up.
LikeLiked by 2 people
sravishanker1401gmailcom
December 2, 2016
Its interesting to know how the practice of playing the National Anthem in theatres came about. Was speaking to an old timer (I’m an old timer too but thats a different story) and it appears the anthem ‘God Save The king’ used to be played after the show.
After independence this practice continued (akin to having the Budget session in the evening to coincide with the timing of the Lower House in Britain) but with OUR national anthem being played in place of ‘God Save The King’.
I’ll go with BR – why a movie house of all places ? Wacht Ahm Rhine – Heil the Fatherland !
LikeLike
Honest Raj (formerly 'V'enkatesh)
December 2, 2016
But our soldiers are standing for days together at the frontier protecting our beloved motherland from the evil neighbouring country. 🙂
LikeLike
Honest Raj (formerly 'V'enkatesh)
December 2, 2016
Terrorists/Pariah, India/Thailand
Just vow!
How about reciting the anthem in front of the ATM queues at the start of the day? Also, the “Thamizh Thaai Vaazhththu” in TASMACs.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Madhu
December 2, 2016
The kind of sums it up.
The guy who has raised the petition says, we shouldn’t sing in weddings because people are enjoying by singing and dancing and we shouldn’t expect them to stay still and somber for 52 seconds for the National Anthem…uhmm, don’t we do the same thing at movies. So, why stand there? The problem I think comes because, entertainment in the form of movies ‘was’ patriotic or moral stories or religious ones in nature. He hasn’t seem to have outgrown that feeling. I am just curious about why Supreme Court thought the same way too.
I have this feeling that after some time, some one else would file a case saying that it is disrespectful to sing National Anthem before escapist movies and we should do so only for ‘Family entertainers’.
I used to sing National Anthem (part of ‘prayer’ group) in School everyday. I just plain loved it. Would I want to do sing that before a movie? No, because it doesn’t seem like the time or place to do it. I don’t mind standing that 52 seconds, if it is that kind of a movie in which end credits runs to the tune of National Anthem. Just that, it feels silly and unnecessary.
BTW, I thought every school in India sang National Anthem everyday, or atleast once in a week assembly!! No? Really?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Madan
December 2, 2016
“BTW, I thought every school in India sang National Anthem everyday, or atleast once in a week assembly!! ” – They do as far as I am aware. I play tennis inside a school compound (where our ‘academy’ rented space to build courts) and everyday the students sing the national anthem in their assembly hall and we stop play and stand still for the duration of the anthem. Such oppressive laws/verdicts are entirely unnecessary when the population is largely prepared to comply voluntarily.
LikeLiked by 1 person
shaviswa
December 2, 2016
@praneshp Then this ruling is for people like you. I do not need the ruling – I will stand up if the anthem is played even otherwise 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Rahul
December 3, 2016
This is what the supreme court said –
1. National anthem must be played before every movie.
2. Everyone is expected to stand.
3. There is no penalty or punishment for not standing.
The left liberal Supreme court , I am unhappy to report, want to infuse the notion of nationalism with a bit of levity. What is a better way to do that than have us go out for an evening – and partake in the national anthem followed by a good masala movie, accompanied with popcorn and soft drink. People who have associated the national anthem with clenched fists, moist eyes, solemn face and an upright posture will have other associations now – crying and urinating babies, hurriedly depositing the eatables in the armrest and eagerly waiting for the movie to begin, which for some couples can mean an intimacy that they won’t get otherwise in their crowded and busy lives.
With such emotions crowding our minds, and since we go to the movies more often than comes 15th aug or 26th Jan , this will be our defining association of national anthem and we will stop taking it seriously. The real intention of the supreme court becomes evident when we note that there is to be no penalty or punishment for not standing – thereby allowing people to get away with disrespecting the anthem so often that it would be banal and commonplace, not just something that happens in the confines of JNU. In fact the supreme court decision is like an inoculation of nationalism that will make us nationalism resistant and more anti national in the long run
We should see it for the left liberal conspiracy that it is and oppose it with all our hearts and soul. Please, they should not get away with this!
LikeLiked by 2 people
T_G
December 3, 2016
On flag, I agree. We don’t have a choice on Standing up while it’s playing as that’s arguably illegal. However, what is the legal reasoning for forcing theatre owners to play it. I haven’t seen any yet. Unfortunately, why would they care to fight against this ruling.
On smoking, I can’t believe you are ignorant of tobacco movie nexus..
http://smokefreemovies.ucsf.edu/history
http://tobaccocontrolbeta.bmj.com/content/11/suppl_1/i81.full
LikeLike
shaviswa
December 3, 2016
On smoking, I can’t believe you are ignorant of tobacco movie nexus..
http://smokefreemovies.ucsf.edu/history
http://tobaccocontrolbeta.bmj.com/content/11/suppl_1/i81.full
The argument applies to alcohol consumption too. Movies promoted this so much, that today alcohol is rampant and not even considered a social taboo.
Both tobacco and alcohol placed in films should be banned. Films should stop depicting fun = smoking and drinking.
LikeLike
brangan
December 3, 2016
So again, this isn’t about whether smoking/drinking should be allowed in films. It’s about a tokenistic disclaimer being run at the bottom, which no one reads and which affects no one. If you really want to put a stop to smoking/drinking, then BAN it — whether in films or wherever. This tokenism is just saying “look, I’m doing something about this without really doing anything about it.”
LikeLike
Honest Raj (formerly 'V'enkatesh)
December 3, 2016
Is ‘Social drinker’ an oxymoron?
LikeLike
brangan
December 3, 2016
Via email…
Moreshwar Pidadi: I went though your artical in the hindu. And I have a analysis of my own being and army personal.
1) smoke is indeed became costly early it was of ₹8 a single stick now it is of ₹15. Same is case with bidi.
2) There does not exists any popcorn patriotism.
3)If u live in India you should stand and you have to because people who say that democracy and freedom of choise same freedom of choise is with the solider as well so it’s all a crap of dump people.
4)Movie because most of the people in this country are unaware specially the youth what it takes to keep this country free of external threat.
5)And yes one who don’t respect his country can’t respect anything in this world. He is a worse than traitor. Because he was already a part of school where national anthem was played and he stood for it and whats wrong with the person to stand for 52 seconds.
7)I hope at least you don’t have the problem with the National Anthem playing for 52 sec and nither your legs will pain for it.
8)And Don’t use the disability of a person for an excuse read the supreme court order in detail. You will get the answer
9) And i anyone feels that he has to prove that he loves his or her country them he just do not understand that. solider is proving day and night that he is loving his country and money is just pice of paper and not the certificate to prove your love to our motherland .
10) so just stand 52sec and remember those who are fighting for there country.
Don’t take democracy for a ride
Thank You
LikeLike
brangan
December 3, 2016
Via email…
Saurabh: Hello Bharadwaj Rangan sir,
Just read your article on perspective page .
I agree that movies are soft target for tokenistic measures and also it’s the best medium to reach a large audience or majority of youth.
I see so many of my friends and colleagues who just want to leave this country for good, I have seen people who have gone to US and got everything they wanted but still they lack belongingness to any of the country.
I personally feel this order is good and should be followed. You mentioned aggressive patriotism which happens and many times it’s sad and it even goes to level of bullying.
Bullies will find their ways always and stating one example of that in this case does not make this ruling a bad one.
I see people who don’t belong to india, they prise US and european culture, nothing wrong in that, they don’t even know about their heritage and culture.
My point is that they should know this and that before deciding in what way they want to live their lives.
We owe it to our country, it’s just a token of our expression.
It’s like saying see; you belong to this country that’s why you are enjoying and having good time here in thertere with your loved ones, don’t feel shy to return the favor in whatever way you can.
I felt deeply to convey my perspective to you, it’s just strange.
Thank You
Regards,
LikeLike
brangan
December 3, 2016
Via email…
Ajay Shukla:I completely agree with your arguments in the article especially one that is next time in every rape or stalking seen disclaimer should be shown.
I think people will not show respect for national song next time when it is being played at Independence day or republic day.
Supreme Court must also ensure that every time Both the Houses of Parliament ( temple of democracy ) meet ..National Song is played.
LikeLike
brangan
December 3, 2016
Via email…
shivani lingala: Sir your article REELING OUT PATRIOTISM was a feel good one..
LikeLike
brangan
December 3, 2016
Via email…
Anagha: I’m a reader of the Hindu (Mumbai) and I just had to write to you saying that your article published today titled as above really had me in splits and gave an very interesting perspective to the SC ruling.
Hope to read more from you.
LikeLike
brangan
December 3, 2016
Via email…
Usha: Dear Sir,
I am in agreement with every bit of your captioned article in today’s edition of The Hindu.
I only wish that you had made one more point, i.e. before advocating that the cine goer should sing the national anthem before watching films in a theater, the SC should have ordained that our venerable MPs and MLAs should sing the anthem before and after each house session. It would at least have served to jerk them out of their stupor.
The SC should be asked why they chose to impose this new mandate only on people visiting cinema theaters. Do they think that only people viewing films lack patriotism?
Enjoyed reading your article and waiting eagerly to see the comments from other readers.
Regards,
LikeLike
brangan
December 3, 2016
Via email…
Shabbir: A very well written article ( national anthem in cinema hall)
Hope this kind of messages reach the masses and especially all sort of national vigilantes.
Best Wishes
LikeLike
brangan
December 3, 2016
Via email…
Gurharsh Singh: Dear Sir,
I really enjoyed reading your article (Reeling out Patriotism); inventions like “popcorn patriotism” to drive home the point, with the smiling portrait of the author (you) in the backdrop was even a cause of much light-hearted laughter.
I agree to the view that mere “tokenism” doesn’t serve the purpose of instilling national pride – as this decision seeks to do. In fact, as correctly pointed out, playing the national anthem before a “cleavage-popping” item number dances on the screen is like rendering a “bhajan” in an environment unsuited to it. But just as an aside, beware of some one who could accuse you of questioning Sunny Leone’s patriotism by drawing an ingenious indirect reference – something which happens all the time! 🙂
On a more serious note, I would like to ask and also understand what measures could be taken to serve the grander purpose that motivated Justice Mishra in spelling out this verdict? Symbols are important to the arousal of emotions (idol-worship is based on that principle) and there is so little in our day-to-day existence that serves to arouse the feeling of belongingness to the motherland. Yes, you did suggest playing of the National Anthem in schools and colleges – “catch them young”, but that doesn’t mean the buck stops there.
Yes, serving India is serving Indians, but this is applicable only to the more “mature” group who have found this calling within themselves. I do feel, despite your brilliantly put thoughts, that there is much scope of increasing use of National symbols to instill emotions of “national integration” in our society. Very few people watch the Doordarshan but a significantly more number do watch the cinemas. Perhaps, it is not all that bad to impinge upon their psyche, in some small way, that they also belong to a country – a fact which really struggles to surface in our minds in our day to day existence!
What do you say?
Thank You
LikeLike
brangan
December 3, 2016
Via email…
balajichav: Sir am student.I read your article Reeling out patriotism,after reading article I feel it bised. We want both views and let decided people what is right and wrong.
LikeLike
brangan
December 3, 2016
Via email…
Bhuwesh Kumari: Hi Baradwaj,
I read your article “Reeling out Patriotism” published on December 1, 2016 in The Hindu.
Firstly,this article has deeply stimulated my thoughts considering the fact that I am a lawyer. With due respect to the judiciary, I completely vouch for the underlying idea expressed in your article i.e. suppression of freedom of expression !
Highlights for me :
Why only movies are made soft target? They are many other measures to instill patriotism in an individual (enactment should be his/her personal choice)
The best medium is to play anthem is before television news (that perhaps may infuse at least some credibility to the bogus content been aired by the news channels)
‘Enforced Patriotism’ is equal to be labelled as a traitor.
Very well written !!
Thank you, looking forward to such thought provoking reads.
P.S. – Hugely influenced by the use of word ‘Tokenistic/sm’ !! Cheers !
LikeLike
brangan
December 3, 2016
Via email…
Rajesh Biswas: Sir,
Read the article ” Reeling out patriotism” in the Hindu and may be to your surprise, is almost against the view you have placed.
Yes, you are right that there may be hundreds of ways to show one’s patriotism and hundreds of means not to show. It is one’s own choice to be and not to be. It is probably the biggest advantage of democracy and at the same time worst curse of it too.
In our country, we have so many intellectuals who always get some reasons not to be, not to do. No matter it is a movie of Sunny Leone or Sabana Azmi, Salman Khan or Nana Patekar, what is the problem to stand up when our National Anthem is being played? As you told there are hundreds of occurrences where it could be played as directed by the hon’ble court but as it is not being played in those instances, it does not mean it could/should not be played in cinema halls.
As you argued, people may stand up not by choice but by compulsion ; but my question is why not by choice, why by compulsion? Why could we not be so active to show this minimum respect to the national insignia ?
This is the problem with us. We, Indians, always thinks ourselves so intelligent and democratic. We stood up in favour of China in 1962, we stood up for even Pakistan in 2016. We can chant praise for the terrorists, we can make a terrorist the hero of the nation. And it is only because of we, some so called educated intelligent, want to prove that we can think in another way, sometimes like political parties who go, in the maximum occasion, against the other political party just mere of choice, as they must go against. And by doing so we ultimately make harm to the nation and the coming generations also.
We learned to criticize but not to be creative. You are asking what is the good in standing at the cinema halls before the screening starts, my question is what is the wrong in doing so? Will they charge you more for using the chair one extra minute ? Hope will not.
We always want to find wrong in everything and especially when it is done or told by someone else. We can raise the question of the constitutional provision on the need of caste based reservation but that when showcasing brahmanical surname to be placed first, before the given name, to prove the very caste based domination in the society.
Thanks for reading till this end,
LikeLike
brangan
December 3, 2016
Via email…
Shuhbam Bhardwaj: Being a civil services aspirant one thing which i have to do on daiily basis is read THE HINDU
no offence but at times the articles are quite boring so i keep the newspaper part for the end of the day.
Tired and exhausted i opened the perspective page and saw REELING OUT PATRIOTISM
Your article made my day
i wish i could meet you in person
that was really a good one sir
LikeLike
brangan
December 3, 2016
Via email…
Jahnavi Reddy: Respected Sir,
I am a student pursuing my masters in Sociology from University of Hyderabad.Your article (published in The Hindu dated 01-12-2016) is one of the finest article I have read till date.Though I support the supreme court’s ruling on the compulsion of theaters to present national anthem,I very much support your criticism.Sir, it is beautifully written (especially the part where disclaimers were required every time a man tries to reciprocate his love from a women and why aggressiveness is required to show patriotism).
Thank you for the beautiful article.
LikeLiked by 1 person
brangan
December 3, 2016
Via email…
vamshi krishna: Hello Mr. Baradwaj Rangoon sorry Ranga again sorry RANGAN,
It is kind of funny when you irrelevently took chance to express your inventive ideas to curb smoking hope PM modi read that and put them in action and gives credit to you on every pack of cigarette and BD.
I got goose bumps when you asked at the very first sentence why is it always the movies, its very revolutionary, i thought of tearing all mutiplex screens you know.
And it is even incredible when you sub headed popcorn patriotism, wow how witty and humorous you are, i think you make people read all the idiotic crap with such non sense headings.
I dont understand when you asked seriously how can the compulsory.. sunny..salman thing, so in future we may expect that you may come and ask how can there be such filthy carvings on temple walls.
And you again shelled out your patented ideas where else can national athem be sung and where not..and those all made me laugh at.
Finally, Supreme court duly mentioned it is a “restriction” in it comments, a restriction is some thing which is forced, where else can you force people to stand and sing? other than movie theatres and schools? SC has brains and we believe in it.. so stop creating naunsence in public sphere.
My name Vamshi krishna
LikeLike
brangan
December 3, 2016
Via email…
Samarth Sidhpuria: Respected Sir,
With reference to you article “Reeling out patriotism” dated 1st December 2016, I want to thank you for providing a concise yet thoughtful article on this contentious issue. It was a good read, hope to read your writing more often!!
LikeLike
brangan
December 5, 2016
Via email…
Michael Dhanaraj: That was a good article. I enjoyed reading it. I request that this may not be misconstrued as a certificate by a layman to a seasoned journalist. I think that the readers have the right to express their opinions when they come across a good piece of writing. Thank You
LikeLiked by 1 person
hari ohm
December 5, 2016
From a lawyer’s perspective :- https://www.quora.com/What-are-your-views-on-the-supreme-courts-decision-to-make-playing-national-anthem-mandatory-in-cinema-halls/answer/Tejasvita-Apte
Legally speaking –
The order is an interim one. The facts as well as the context is not clear and since it is an interim one, that’s expected. We should be waiting for the hearing to proceed as the matter is posted to be heard in February.
For all we know, the SC is perhaps asking the Cinema halls to follow a dead notification issued by the Congress governments decades ago. In which case, the SC is doing its job.
The History –
The history of playing national anthems in cinema halls was started in the 1960’s after India lost the war to China to boost people’s morals and make them feel patriotic. It worked pretty well those days because in war times, these things sell.
The same was rekindled by the Rajeev Gandhi government.
In fact, in the famous National Anthem case, when the SC opined that children belonging to Jehova’s witness need not sing the national Anthem (as right to freedom of speech and expression also covered ‘right to remain silent’) as long as they were not being disrespectful towards it, the Rajeev Gandhi led congress government stated that the “government would suitably amend the Constitution to make singing of the national anthem compulsory if the Supreme Court did not correct its decision regarding the singing of the national anthem”
NCP Led Maharashtra government too had issued notification in the state to make national anthems compulsory in the state.
To me, political parties using the national anthem by carefully seeing which way the wind of public opinion is swaying is nothing new.
The hullabaloo –
Very few “liberals” protested these notifications when they were issued.
I admit there were some and they have my respect because I believe in respecting other people’s opinions. More so when I see that they are consistent, thoughtful and do not have double standards.
However, this is much hullabaloo over nothing.
The government hasn’t issued a notification. The SC, which is an independent body has passed an interim order.
Can we please wait to see the hearing complete and then go berserk over how India is worse than North Korea all the while forgetting that this is going on in the court of law where you have the option of appeal?
So, currently, I will refrain from giving my view on the order.
LikeLike
hari ohm
December 5, 2016
“With such emotions crowding our minds, and since we go to the movies more often than comes 15th aug or 26th Jan , this will be our defining association of national anthem and we will stop taking it seriously. ” I have been going to theaters in Maharashtra for the last few years, where National anthem is played, nothing of this sort has happened. People happily get up for the anthem even if they were eating, munching, canoodling etc etc.
Anyways I agree to the overall essence of BR’s post.
LikeLike
Rohit Sathish Nair
December 9, 2016
Too late (sorry) but felt that I had to share my experience
Today was for me the first time with the National Anthem on screen, and yes, had no issue at all while it was played; the soaring tune and the beauty of the words, as always, got to me. Went on with ‘Tobacco use leads to…’, ‘Who doesn’t want happiness?’ and ‘What has happened to this city?’ and sat through a film that was infuriatingly bad at worst, and unengaging at best. It was during the better, yet boring scenes that I even remembered that I sung the National Anthem earlier. With this experience I suppose, I could get to this judgement: unless it’s one of your first times, or if the movie you’re watching is not GOOD, not BAD, but just plain uninvolving, or if people you know are discussing the issue like here, would you even remember that something was done to remind you of your bond with your nation? – I hope I don’t look like a pseudo-nation-lover here. Sure it won’t be as laughable as the listed above PSAs, but do we really want it to look like an inoffensive, yet somewhat inconsequential chore, something you eventually tick off from a list?
Since watching a movie, escapist or not, is essentially about being transported in the filmmaker’s world, isn’t this order(not the Anthem) failing in its purpose? Even if it is a patriotic movie, or one about issues plaguing the nation, does not invoking or mentioning the anthem make it less patriotic? Them playing it voluntarily would never have made it an issue, but it is the order and what the petitioner claims to achieve with it that puzzles me.
If you really want to look at it from a reductionist point of view, isn’t the National Anthem (at its bare basics) one of many, many songs that praise our country, and song one of quite a lot of accessible-to-all forms of art? Then why do they emphasise only the National Anthem, and why, as Rangan sir and others said, they do as always start and stop with the movies? Why not say, a hospital, certainly a temple of the nation, or all private offices, which run the country too?
It is needed in school (and maybe even college), where nation-building is done, and at best, it strikes all chords;or for most,those minutes at least act as weak links of memory to the place(s) that prepared you to be a citizen of your nation. Yet it was not the only thing done for your bond with your nation. You learnt about your nation, about how the home could contribute to the community and in turn to the nation, and also as importantly, how your nation was one among many in the world, and how some things transcend the notion of nations. We talk about why Tagore’s song should be sung in as many places as possible, yet we remain silent about Tagore’s very relevant views on nationalism and patriotism.
Sorry for the long rant and for repeating points mentioned a lot of times in this blog (just done to voice myself completely)
LikeLike
Rohit Sathish Nair
December 9, 2016
Man, I basically stretched all of your points! Feel so stupid!
LikeLike
Rahul
December 11, 2016
http://thewire.in/86143/vigilantes-assault-movie-goers-not-standing-national-anthem/
LikeLike
brangan
December 13, 2016
Via email… from someone for whom the name “Baradwaj Rangan” wasn’t gender-specific enough 😂
Paras gautam:
Sir/madam ,
While going through the columns of the newspaper The Hindu I came across your article”reeling out patriotism” I was fascinated to see that how well you have remarked about the SC ruling that national anthem must be played before a film is screened.
whatever you mentioned was indeed truely to the point and supportive against such a ruling and brought a smile on my face , so I just thought to write to you and express my gratitude in how good a reader feels when he comes across such good price of articles
Thanks for writing and do share your thoughts on upcoming issues as well ! Will be happy to see your article again .!
Regards
LikeLike
brangan
December 15, 2016
Via email…
Vivek Narayanan: Hi.
I am regular reader of Hindu and a journalist working in a leading visual media in Trivandrum. I happened to read your opinion piece after the SC verdict on national anthem where the direction from the apex court mandated the audience to stand up before the national anthem.
I felt your opinion piece was one among the absurd articles that regularly appears in the newspaper that has been propagating pseudo liberal and pseudo secularism by mocking the very idea of nationalism by equating those respecting the national symbols such as the flag, the anthem and similar entities as communal. People take extreme pride while standing for national anthem, be it before the anthem at cinema halls or where ever it is. People in Tamil Nadu wake up taking extreme pride for the Tamil national song, and people like you who pose as the custodians of liberalism have no issues for that. Where ever the anthem is played, be it the theater, a soccer stadium or at a circus people will continue to stand up. If you feel ashamed while the anthem is played, that shows your intolerance and class and that not the narrow view of the Supreme Court.
It is a section of atheists and the pseudo secular fanatics in the Media (Hindu, Frontline, ..) who are completely written off by the people who are trying to inject the poison of left extremism and liberalism by naming and shaming
LikeLike
Rahini David
December 15, 2016
from someone for whom the name “Baradwaj Rangan” wasn’t gender-specific enough
LOL.
BTW, in “pseudo secular fanatic” does the pejoratives “pseudo” and “fanatic” cancel each other out? Confusion……
And I would have loved to ask Vivek Narayanan what atheists have to do with the whole thing.
LikeLike