-
Valson Thampu
Fashions come and go; not only in markets of consumerism but also on the boulevards of political elitism. Fashions are transitory; they come and go. Political fashions, likewise. This is evident vis-à-vis patriotism.
The patriotic fervour of a people wax and wane as manipulated. This also means that patriotism is of two kinds. One of it is inspired by love for the country. The other, by the love of money. Or, if in the former mode, people are above profit, in the latter it is profit above people. And patriotism can be a hugely profitable undertaking.
Patriotism, being a subjective state, needs to be projected for it to become a felt, collective force. For that, symbols are needed. The flag is one such symbol. The national anthem is another. Here, our focus is on the latter.
“It is, therefore, a contradiction in terms for those who thrust cultural, political and religious homogeneity on India to sing the national anthem; for homogeneity is antithetical to the very spirit of music and mocks the beauty of our national anthem.”
An anthem is a song. Why a song? And why not a statement of national fervour, couched in powerful words? Why not make do with a national averment, instead of a national anthem?
The answer lies in the deep, emotional power of music. Music is emotion framed in harmony. Harmony involves diversity, dynamism and progression. Mere repetition of a single note does not amount to music; for it is devoid of diversity and progression. Harmony is necessarily dynamic and progressive.
Our national anthem celebrates unity-in-diversity. Positivity to diversity is a necessary condition for harmony. Negativity to diversity breeds disharmony. Every ideology predicated on homogeneity ripples with intolerance towards diversity. Its spirit militates against the essence of music. Also, against the logic of life. Life is kindled, sustained and enriched by diversity. A new birth does not arise out of the coming together of two men or two women, no matter how ardently they wish to have a progeny. Diversity is also basic to beauty. A garden of homogeneity, where only one kind of plant is allowed to grow is hardly a garden.
“In such a situation, the anthem becomes a catalyst of alienation and disharmony; not of harmony and unity. A worse abuse of the national anthem cannot be perpetrated.”
It is, therefore, a contradiction in terms for those who thrust cultural, political and religious homogeneity on India to sing the national anthem; for homogeneity is antithetical to the very spirit of music and mocks the beauty of our national anthem. It is only natural, therefore, that in the hands of the proponents of monochrome patriotism, the national anthem becomes a weapon of majoritarian self-assertion, which imperils national harmony. They may be on the prowl to coerce others into respecting the anthem, but they are far, far away from its meaning, spirit or beauty.
We need to understand this more deeply and clearly. Fervour for the national anthem expresses itself crudely as aggression towards those who seem different to oneself, and resented as such. The fact that this contradicts the soul and purpose of the anthem goes altogether unrecognized.
At this point we need to consider something about music that may seem far-fetched but is, all the same, profoundly true. Music has deep affinity to philosophy; especially in its power to persuade in a genial, rational, and non-threatening way. Why do we sing to God when we crave to express our pious fervour? Why does a young man sing his love, when he wants his lady-love to feel the depth of his love for her? (Such love, in Malayalam, is anuraagam; or harmonious interpersonal soul-music.) When we try to persuade others via prose, we tend to become offensive, which makes others defensive. Music excludes offence and defence. Music is the gentlest means of persuasion; the power of it goes deep into the soul. Those who repose faith in violence excludes themselves from the music of life.
“The real issue here concerns the integrity of our public life and the inviolability of our humanity.”
Now consider, for an example, the humiliation of Salil Chathurvedi, a wheel-chair-bound activist who was assaulted in a cinema hall in Panajim, Goa in October of 2016. He incensed patriotic hotheads by not standing up when the national anthem was played. It did not matter to them that he could not have stood up, even if he wanted to. Similarly, in January 2017, a 59-year-old man was assaulted in a cinema hall in suburban Goregaon, Mumbai, for not standing up during a scene in the film Dangal that depicted the National Anthem.
Of this you can be absolutely sure: it will not occur to such desh-bhakt vigilantes to persuade the individuals concerned, or find out why they could not display their patriotism as prescribed. It is all right if there is no desh-bhakti in your heart. There must be desh-bhakti in your legs!
The issue here is not whether or not the national anthem should be respected. That’s hardly a debate. The real issue here concerns the integrity of our public life and the inviolability of our humanity. Unthinking reliance on the efficacy of violence -violence as the sole problem-solving and goal-attaining means- is spreading all over the country. It doesn’t occur to most people that this augurs ill for the health and future of our democracy. Either democracy must bridle violence, or violence will bomb democracy.
Let us consider just one of the several aspects of his many-headed issue. Faith in violence cankers the patience to persuade. Humankind’s progress from barbarity to democracy is marked by a shift from violence to persuasion. The barbarian does not persuade. He has no such idea. He knows only to threaten, to harm and to overpower; or, to flee if he is in danger of being overpowered.
Democracy is incompatible with barbarity. Barbarity is savagery; no matter how hypocritically it is camouflaged with the veneer of civilization. Are you impatient with the civilized, democratic process of persuading others about what you believe and value? Do you believe you have a right, even a duty, to bludgeon those different to you to conform to your agenda? If you do, you are not a democrat but a barbarian to whom might is right. Violence pays; and violence alone pays.
Now consider the glaring contradiction in desh-bhakti being inflicted on citizens; especially by way of coercing them to respect the national anthem in stereotypical ways. It is not my argument that the national anthem should not be respected. My argument is only that respect cannot be coerced or extracted. Respect must spring forth spontaneously from within.
By abusing symbols of patriotism as means for spreading alienation in the country, the self-appointed policemen of patriotism poison the seed of patriotism in the victims of their boorishness. They are at the farthest possible distance from the spirit of the anthem. So, in the very act of extracting coerced respect for the national anthem, they weaponize and corrupt the anthem. In such a situation, the anthem becomes a catalyst of alienation and disharmony; not of harmony and unity. A worse abuse of the national anthem cannot be perpetrated.
