National anthem: Why do we even play it before a movie begins and then bully people to stand?

Editor's Note: This article was originally published on 17 January, 2016. It is being updated to reflect Wednesday's ruling by the Supreme Court of India that the National Anthem must be played in public theaters across the country before a movie, minus any dramatisation. It also ordered that the National Flag be shown on screen when the anthem is played.
On Tuesday, 26-year-old Neeraj Pandey, a resident of Mumbai's suburb of Kandivali, went to watch the matinee show of Wazir. Like in all of the city's theatres and cineplexes, the National Anthem was played before the screening of the film. While the entire audience stood up, Pandey decided otherwise. What do you think happened next?
We all know the answer.
Pandey was first heckled by a group of people because he was sitting while the Anthem was playing and then he - along with his group of friends - was peacefully escorted from the premises by the manager. A good friend of his later posted this on Facebook:


This has nothing to do with national pride or our system or the government or the law or the police. It is a social problem and in everyday language we call it gundagardi.
The group of people who heckled Pandey probably returned home happy, thinking they made noise and some sort of impact when someone did not 'respect' the National Anthem. This is not patriotism, this is hooliganism and bullying.
This is similar to incidents when girls are blamed for venturing into gullies where they know boys will harass them. "Why did you go there when you know boys will tease you." People who chose to sit during National Anthem don't do so because they want to provoke a bunch of 'patriots'.
Unfortunately, the sense of patriotism does not kick in where it should for most of these people. The fact that Indians are famous for littering does not bother these so called desh-bhakts. But by jeering or heckling someone inside a theatre for a reason purely personal, and by making them leave out of sheer exasperation, it gives them a sense of dominance. It gives them this false sense of achievement where they think they stood up for their nation and its pride.
Well, they did nothing of the sort. They are just a nuisance and this is not about any notion of national pride. It's about them and the various issues from which they suffer.
Legally, you are not bound to stand up when it plays. In fact, the Ministry of Home Affairs's (MHA) Orders relating to the National Anthem of India says, "Whenever the Anthem is sung or played, the audience shall stand to attention." The orders make no mention of any penalty for failure to comply. As senior advocate Iqbal Chagla told The Times of India, "Guidelines from the home ministry are not legislation. They serve an advisory role."
Incidentally, Section 3 of the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971, says, "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."
By this accord, those who force others to stand or leave if they don't 'respect' the National Anthem, in turn are creating a ruckus and are in fact those who do not respect the National Anthem. And this argument can be substantiated by the MHA order, which grants one exception. "In the course of a newsreel or documentary, if the Anthem is played as part of the film, the audience is not expected to stand up as it would create disorder and confusion."
Established Indian case law is of limited use in examining the issue. Given the lack of legislative and jurisprudential instances in India , it might be better if we considered a case from another country.
The Supreme Court of the United States in 1989 case of Texas versus Johnson, had shot down a law which prohibited the desecration of certain venerated objects, such as state and national flags, and proscribed the state from criminalising or penalising any action that did not satisfy the more tearing concept of either allegiance to the state or respecting national honour. According to the court, these acts were shielded by the First Amendment, which guarantees citizens the freedom of speech. The American law, unlike the Indian law, does not cite a 'reasonable restrictions' clause on these freedoms.
Another US case, dating back to 1919(Abrams versus United States)supported a stronger argument against the suppression of ideas by those in power and offered the permission of dissent. The case was about distribution of pamphlets which criticised the US troop deployment in Russia during the Russian Civil War of 1918. Justice Holmes, in his opinion, said:
If you have no doubt of your premises or your power, and want a certain result with all your heart, you naturally express your wishes in law, and sweep away all opposition. … But when men have realised that time has upset many fighting faiths, they may come to believe even more than they believe the very foundations of their own conduct that the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas-that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried out.
It would perhaps be too optimistic to expect such a dissenting opinion from an Indian court but this brings us to this third question related to similar cases.
Why do play the national anthem before screening of movies in theatres? In 2003, the then Congress-NCP government had accepted a demand from the Nationalist Youth Congress to restart and enforce the practice of playing the national anthem before each film, which had faded in the 1980s. The Home department was then headed by NCP's Chhagan Bhujbal.
Exhibition of films is a state subject whereas the 'sanctioning of cinematographic films for exhibition is governed by Article 60 of the Union List of the Constitution of India (seventh schedule), the (exhibition of) cinemas is governed by Article 33 of the State List. Most states have their own Cinematograph Act and Rules, which supplement the Cinematograph Act, 1952, administered by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting.
Till the 1980s, news reels screening important national or international events had the national anthem as a part of it. An executive order was issued in 2003 by the Maharashtra government, asking exhibitors to play the national anthem before the screening of a film. Exhibitors have produced their own versions of the national anthem which they are currently playing before a film screening.
Such a film, playing the full National Anthem (approximately 52 seconds), would fall within the category of short films, as per the Cinematograph Act, 1952, and is duly certified by the Central Board of Film Certification for exhibition.
But according to The Orders Relating To The National Anthem Of India,cinema halls are not listed as one of the places to showcase the National Anthem. The simpler argument, however, is that you have a captive audience which is there to watch a film and if you play the National Anthem just before the film starts, the audience has literally nowhere to go but be a part of it. It is a way in which the government is force-feeding you national pride.
But don't you dilute the importance of the National Anthem when you play it in theatres before every film? Make it cheaper by forcing people to listen to it, and then add to this the hooligans who take it upon themselves to serve 'justice' when someone does not want to get up.
Usually, the National Anthem is played at the beginning of public gatherings and official functions as determined by the government and its respective ministry of internal affairs. This is to help promote a spirit of allegiance and patriotism.
This, however, is promoting a spirit that has nothing to do with patriotism of any sort.

on Tuesday, 29 November 2016 | A comment?

Narendra Modi's ideas are grand break from the past, but when will we see results?

It was said about the French leader Valéry Giscard d'Estaing that the idea of a European Union thrilled him but the details bored him. I have often suspected that this attitude is to be found in many of the things that are taken up by this government. Over two weeks have gone by since Narendra Modi's grand strike against black money and it is fair to say that two things need to be acknowledged. First, that the wide popular support for Modi is holding despite the inconvenience. Second, that the evidence of an economic problem caused by the shortage of cash is piling up through reports. The reports are similar, whether from Surat or Ludhiana or Moradabad, all manufacturing centres. They speak of units either running under-capacity or shutting down because of lack of demand, and of raw materials being unavailable because of cash shortage. Another common factor is the reluctance of the units to keep labour and migrant workers being laid off or told to return home for now. We will have to wait for proper data to come in but if the anecdotal reports are indicators of something larger going on there is trouble ahead in December and the new year. What explains the support for Modi which, and this cannot be denied, is wide and popular despite the uncertainty deliberately produced? Let us look at it since this period has also brought the Modi government to mid point. The unique thing about Modi's time in office so far is his launching of magnificent schemes and major announcements. These launches and announcements capture the imagination of the country, certainly, they capture the attention of the media. Make in India, bullet train, Smart Cities, Swachch Bharat, surgical strike, demonetisation. All of these and other initiatives of Modi share a pattern. They represent a grand break from the past. They promise to rip away the old and decayed and replace it with something new and better. Do they achieve this to any extent? What are the real consequences? These we will know only in time. Let us look at one example. The surgical strike after the attack on Uri was meant to be a response to violence being sent from across the Line of Control. It has been reported that since the surgical strike, the Indian army has lost 20 soldiers. This happened mainly because the LoC, which was previously relatively peaceful under a ceasefire, has been aflame after the surgical strike. The defence minister now says that the ceasefire is holding again but meanwhile 20 Indians are dead. So was the surgical strike a good decision? It is anti-national to answer that question in any way but one so we will leave it there. I should say however that the Indian soldier is worshipped and expected to martyr himself. There is only a sort of reverence for his contribution and no real respect for his life. This theme of grand announcement leading up to something whose benefits and damage we are not certain of can be said about many announcements. The surgical strike against black money will, of course, take a little longer to show its real effect. But what about the bullet train, on which we are spending about Rs 1 lakh crore? What about expending diplomatic energy and the prime minister's personal goodwill on the pursuit of a position in the nuclear suppliers group? Have the consequences been analysed with the rigour that is expected? I am not questioning the intention here, and I have no doubt that the government means well. I am merely curious to know whether my suspicions of it being enthusiastic about shooting first and aiming later are unfounded. Modi is our most credible politician. No other leader could have led the nation into such turbulence with confidence that he would carry the day. He will remain popular for the rest of his remaining two and a half years and will be very difficult to beat in 2019. Many of the consequences of his actions will be stand revealed before that and I hope for his sake and for ours that he has been as interested in the details as he was thrilled by the grand idea

| A comment?

महागठबंधन में दिखने लगे दरार के संकेत, नीतीश के बजाय मोदी का बचाव कर रहें लालू

नई दिल्ली  : विरोधियों के बदल रहे हैं सुर। हमेशा मंहगाई को ले कर केंद्र की मोदी सरकार को आड़े हाथों लेने वाले लालू प्रसाद यादव ने पेट्रोल और डीजल की बढ़ी कीमतों पर मोदी सरकार का बचाव किया हैं।

लालू यादव ने कहा की पेट्रोलियम की कीमत अंतर्राष्ट्रीय बाज़ार से तय होता हैं। सरकार नहीं तय करती। जब अंतर्राष्ट्रीय बाजार में कीमत कम होगी तो यहाँ भी खुद-ब-खुद कम हो जायेगी। जितनी खपत दुनिया में पेट्रोल की है उतना उत्पादन नही होता। इसके अलावा पेट्रोल-डीजल पर कई तरह के एक्साइज़ ड्यूटी और टैक्स लगाने होते। केंद्र सरकार भला कितनी सब्सिडी दे।
पेट्रोलियम पदार्थों को ले कर लालू प्रसाद यादव के द्वारा मोदी सरकार का समर्थन करना चौकाने वाली बात हैं। इसी मंहगाई को मुद्दा बना कर लालू प्रसाद ने बिहार विधान सभा चुनाव में केंद्र की भाजपा सरकार को घेरा था। वे अक्सर मंहगाई को ले कर मोदी सरकार पे वार करते रहे हैं।

on Tuesday, 22 November 2016 | A comment?

सुभाष चंद्रा ने देशद्रोही केजरीवाल के खिलाफ आपराधिक मानहानि का केस किया।हो सकता है जेल

नयी दिल्ली : राज्यसभा सदस्य सुभाष चंद्रा ने आज शहर की एक अदालत में बडे पुराने नोटों का चलन बंद होने के बीच झूठा आरोप लगाकर उनकी कथित रुप से मानहानि करने के लिए दिल्ली के मुख्यमंत्री अरविंद केजरीवाल के अभियोजन की मांग की.



एस्सेल समूह के चेयरमैन चंद्रा ने अपनी याचिका में आरोप लगाया कि केजरीवाल ने 11 नवंबर को संवाददाता सम्मेलन को संबोधित करते हुए उनके खिलाफ ‘‘झूठे, मनगढंत और मानहानिपूर्ण आरोप' लगाए. कल सुनवाई के लिए रखी जा सकने वाली इस शिकायत में मुख्यमंत्री के खिलाफ भारतीय दंड संहिता की धारा 500 के तहत अभियोजन की मांग की गई.


अधिवक्ता विजय अग्रवाल के जरिये दायर शिकायत में दावा किया गया कि केजरीवाल ने मानहानिपूर्ण बयान देकर शिकायतकर्ता (चंद्रा) की मानहानि की और अवैध क्रियाकलापों में शामिल होने का संकेत देकर तथा अनुचित व्यवहार संबंधी लांछन लगाकर उनकी प्रतिष्ठा को गंभीर नुकसान पहुंचाया. शिकायत में कहा गया कि केजरीवाल ने 11 नवंबर को राष्ट्रीय मीडिया के सामने संवाददाता सम्मेलन को संबोधित करते हुए शिकायतकर्ता के खिलाफ झूठे, मनगढंत और मानहानिपूर्ण आरोप लगाए.

| A comment?
Newer entries
Older entries