Standing up for National Anthem

I believe Nationalism is one of the worst forms of tribalism which is used by one to induce Violence on another for no reason except that one wasn’t listened. This is another type of bullying, plain and simple and nothing more.

Let’s look at the Supreme Court order and see whether it makes sense.

There shall be no commercial exploitation to give financial advantage or any kind of benefit. To elaborate, the National Anthem should not be utilized by which the person involved with it either directly or indirectly shall have any commercial benefit or any other benefit.

Looking at the first directive, does this mean I cannot sell a Book which chronicles the history of the National Anthem and prints the National Anthem and provides explanation for the anthem in regional language? I am from Tamil Nadu and I don’t really understand the words in the Anthem. So If such a book that explains the Anthem is published, does this order give me the right to not pay for the book? I don’t know. What about musicians providing a new tune for the National Anthem? Let’s go to the next one.

There shall not be dramatization of the National Anthem and it should not be included as a part of any variety show. It is because when the National Anthem is sung or played it is imperative on the part of every one present to show due respect and honour. To think of a dramatized exhibition of the National Anthem is absolutely inconceivable.

What constitutes as a variety show, pray tell because I don’t know. I am going to assume variety show means movies and tv shows. I remember watching a tamil movie Kovil where the National Anthem is used by a character to stop a violent fight. Does this order prevent National Anthem from being used in such situations? What constitutes as dramatized exhibition in a variety show? I have no clue. So in future, directors planning to include the National Anthem should submit a petition to the Court to clarify whether their use of the National Anthem constitutes as dramatized exhibition.

National Anthem or a part of it shall not be printed on any object and also never be displayed in such a manner at such places which may be disgraceful to its status and tantamount to disrespect. It is because when the National Anthem is sung, the concept of protocol associated with it has its inherent roots in National identity, National integrity and Constitutional Patriotism.

So you cannot publish National Anthem in any way which makes me wonder how will future generation read about National Anthem? and the highlighted section is complete bonkers. Having read it multiple times, it still makes no sense to me. I have to say though, every time some one evokes nationality, it is only to bully others and cover their own wrongs.

All the cinema halls in India shall play the National Anthem before the feature film starts and all present in the hall are obliged to stand up to show respect to the National Anthem.

Yes, of course, I mean why not? The ruling has made no logical sense till now and why does it have to now? Why a movie hall, why not in a court?

Prior to the National Anthem is played or sung in the cinema hall on the screen, the entry and exit doors shall remain closed so that no one can create any kind of disturbance which will amount to disrespect to the National Anthem. After the National Anthem is played or sung, the doors can be opened.

Fuck you if there is a fire. Though shall burn till the anthem completes.

When the National Anthem shall be played in the Cinema Halls, it shall be with the National Flag on the screen.

Yes, that makes sense. But there is no clear direction on what should be in background? Is it okay to have a wind so that the Flag waves in air? Can the background be a static image of Himalayas? or a dynamic image of millions of people who are yet to get their Justice? Can we assume things and not be in contempt of Court?

The directions are issued, for love and respect for the motherland is reflected when one shows respect to the National Anthem as well as to the National Flag. That apart, it would instill the feeling within one, a sense committed patriotism and nationalism.

The entire rule has no statutory backing, written down at the whim of a Judge and accepted by the Central Government with no objection. This is a classic example of Judicial overreach that should be taught in a law class. Who are you to decide what I do in a private space? Don’t expect such silly questions to stop the Court. This is a mockery of the judicial process and this whole circus does nothing except to undermine the respect for the Judiciary.

So Modi says minimum governance and then implements the mother of all government overreach and now the Court has played its part.

This rule is not unexpected though. This has been a recurrent theme for the past 2 years(since I started noticing the world). Judges making unnecessary comments on cases, overreach of Judicial power, passing down orders with no basis on law, unimplementable orders and so on.