Lost in Definitions

                                                                

Good Morning Sir, how’s your day been? I see you’re getting comfortable in your seat. Though it’s hardly a movie worth getting comfortable for, I hope you enjoy the advertisements at least. Oh I’m sorry; it’s time to forget the inclination of your seat, for the next 52 seconds at least. Sir I must say, you look spectacularly glorious with your hand on your heart and your voice in full swing. I hate to disturb you in the middle of this, but could you spare a second to discuss why you are standing right now? You and I reside in a country where the courts feel the need to weigh in on the patriotic feelings and actions of its residents. According to the Supreme Court, citizens "are duty-bound to show respect to the national anthem which is the symbol of the constitutional patriotism. Any different notion or the perception of individual rights is constitutionally impermissible."

My first question- Who lays down the rules as to what constitutes as patriotism and what doesn’t? And how do my antics in a cinema theatre come under this narrow perspective of patriotism?

The morbidly hilarious factor is that all exits are closed at that particular moment. So in the case of a fire or emergency, you would find it difficult to escape. Gives a new definition to “dying for your country”, doesn’t it? Would you be willing to die to prove your patriotism?

Sir I noticed you’re watching the movie alone. Now of course, I’m no one to judge one’s lifestyle and I’m sure a young man like you has a flourishing personal life. The days of Shakespeare gave us the glorious Romeo, today we have the infamous Anti-Romeo. As you might already know, couples are being rounded up in a state of India under the veil of harassment. This very often entails violence towards the male and sometimes even the female counterpart. Remember those sunshine days and the seas of green, when all you needed was someone else’s company? Do you realise that in some parts of your country that remains only as a distant memory? Where young boys and girls are afraid to experience love under the threat of arrest and humiliation?

Understand their objective: Harassment can be curbed easily this way. A farmer has 300 cows out of which 20 are sick. He believes that the best way to do away with the illness is killing all his cows in totality. Nobody reminds him to concentrate on just isolating the 20 sick ones. Both methods are equally effective, I’ll ask you to weigh in on which one you think is right. 

My second question- How can any government of any country conduct moral policing on such a large unfiltered scale? How can they justify plucking weeds by burning down the garden? And where is my Constitution, to protect me in such cases?

If my judgements and predictions seemed sketchy to you before, I concur from the smile on your face that you are indeed coming around. My prediction about the movie stands justified, doesn’t it? No worries, I can recommend a pretty good restaurant around the corner. Oh no, it seems to have shut down.

You seem suspicious Sir. It’s such a delight to find a curious audience, very unlike the audience we just left in the theatre. Yes, I had a hidden agenda behind bringing you here. You see Sir, I believe in Fate and Destiny, but like all things human, even they needed a small push.

This restaurant experienced booming business for a majority of 60 years. That was until their main dish was very unnaturally banned. People of all ages flocked to this shop for their famous Beef Kebabs, but didn’t seem as enthusiastic about their Chicken ones. Slowly and painfully, the shop lost every ounce of profit in continuing a legacy and was forced to give up and wither.

Sir, the current governing political party has a very controversial ideology. “Eating beef is against the idea of India”. Now, it is a well known fact that a certain religion in India condemns the slaughter of cows. It is also a well-known fact that religion concerned commands a majority in India. But while we proclaim ourselves to be a secular state and pride ourselves on it, the underlying condition remains that we cannot impose a religion or its ideologies on the people of the country. In doing so, we lose our identity as a secular country and get reduced to countries like Iraq and Afghanistan. If we are proud of anything today, it is our hard-earned secularity and the ensuring of fundamental rights. But Sir, you would agree that the objects of our pride are now the causes of our embarrassment.

Sir, your question has stumped me. Yes, I am aware of the fact that the Constitution does have a clause regarding the issue of cow slaughter. But the misinterpretation of this clause is the epicentre of our worries.

The Directive to State Policy 48 states- ‘The State shall endeavour to organise agriculture and animal husbandry on modern and scientific lines and shall, in particular, take steps for preserving and improving the breeds, and prohibiting the slaughter of cows and calves and other milch and draught cattle.’

A certain state in India (famous for prohibiting the consumption of another item, albeit liquid) has used this clause as means to impose a life sentence on those who slaughter cows. In another place in India, you must have heard, a man was murdered for the slaughter of a cow. It’s depressing to the point that it’s hilarious- Human beings officially hold the life of a cow at par with that of a fellow human being.

Prof Shibban Lal Saksena, while speaking on the new Constitution of India in 1949, mentioned: “I wish the ban on the slaughter of cow, which is the Kama Dhenu – the mother of plenty, had been made absolute, and given a place in the Fundamental Rights.”
Darwin is stirring in his grave somewhere, as we have taken a step back on Evolution by giving animals Fundamental Rights while surprisingly, taking a few away from the citizens.

My third question: With all the laws in place, how can you take away the Fundamental Rights of an Indian Citizen in the protection of one particular animal? How can you take away an Indian’s occupation and/or his lifestyle, all of which are protected by the Constitution?

All this stems from our misinterpretation of the Constitution. While Policy 48 asks States to prohibit the slaughter of milch and draught cattle, it ensures the safety of those breeds which provide milk. This in no way ensures a blanket ban on beef, which often stems from bullocks and buffaloes. Neither does it ensure the safety of cattle and cattle incapable of giving milk. It would be truly uneconomical for a country like India to provide for the nutrition and welfare of so many cows, which will only be partially offset by those capable of providing milk. Feed the poor, not the cows.

You see Sir, under this guise of patriotism and nationalism; we have lost our concept of humanity. We have forgotten our erstwhile brothers, we have forgotten our compatriots and we have forgotten our sense of community. In proving our love for our country, we have forgotten how to criticise it or question its leaders. And we look away when multiple individuals commit atrocities under the pretence of false nationalism and patriotism.

It’s time to get a little personal Sir, and I know this will touch a nerve. I had the good fortune of finding myself in a heated debate over dinner, regarding the hidden aspects of patriotism. And while they agreed with me on all the points I’ve put across so far, they vehemently opposed the following one. Sir, there are a lot of things that make us Indians, but there seems to be one unknown criteria we are expected to fill. It’s a mutual hatred instilled in our hearts since we were born. It’s the unforgotten incidents which have plagued our hearts since 1947. I see you’ve stumbled upon my topic of discussion.

My point was simple. My war is not a personal one. The atrocities committed by the Pakistani government are not the responsibility of the Pakistani citizens, actors, cricket players or even their soldiers. Yes, they might have voted the government to power, but you are well aware Sir that elections are a mystifying concept. All citizens don’t know every policy of the candidate and the candidate never reveals all his plans.

Patriotism faces its true acid test when it comes to this situation. In an international sports match, in a controversial movie ban, in the face of unjust sedition charges- who will you support? My opponents kept it simple- You don’t have to support India everywhere, but when it’s your country versus another, you better not support the opposing party. To go one step further, you can never support Pakistan in any deal, situation or match. Eternal condemnation is the goal, forgetting the fact that human beings and erstwhile brothers and sisters exist just beyond the red line.

Sir, I know this topic is very uncomfortable, but here is my final question to you.

Isn’t patriotism defined by the love I have for my country and not by the hatred I share for others? Why do my personal actions and thoughts always have to be in favour of my country, when true love encourages us to criticise? And most of all, Countries and borders are imaginary human constructs to prevent chaos and maintain a sense of law and order. How is it that in the pursuit of patriotism, we forget the fact that we’re all human beings at the end of the day?

There is a very famous saying- ‘First country, then family, then me.’ I ardently believe that this mentality needs to be changed. We are held by our own invisible chains.
First humanity.

 Sir, you obviously understand what a precarious position I find myself in. I can’t love my country without criticising, but if I do criticise, people assume that I don’t love my country. Let me narrate a small but famous story.

This is Vidyasagar’s story about an orphaned boy named Bhubon. Without his parents around, he was left in the hands of his aunt. She loved him to an extent that she believed he could never do any wrong, and treated him the same. So when he once stole mangoes from their neighbours, she disregarded it as an act of childishness. The aunt told herself, “Well, I love him. That means he has the freedom to do whatever he chooses”.

Bhubon grew more and more brazen in his crimes, which only led him into unfortunate situations as a young adult. In a theft gone wrong, he ended up killing a man. Awarded the death penalty, the judge asked him for any last wishes. He wished to meet his aunt one last time.

In tears, the aunt approached Bhubon when suddenly, the court heard a scream. Bhubon had bit his aunt’s ear.

He was heard saying as they took him away, “Had you criticized my actions earlier, and admonished me for my actions, I could have led a life and wouldn’t be going to the noose. This is for not bringing me back to the right path.”

He had to be given enough love so that at no point could the aunt be called negligent or criticising.

The assumption was that love should be undivided, uncritical and total. And this is the current concept of love in this country-cannot question, cannot discipline, cannot criticize, cannot fight, cannot have a space for difference vantage points-because those could prove to be injurious for both persons involved.

Sir, our conversation has been delightful. But I’m well aware that you won’t be taking any action.

There is an everlasting fear in this country of opposing another person’s ideals, however illogical it may be. In our country, Change is a concept, not an action. My aim today Sir is to instil that concept. An idea, as you might know, spreads like a virus. I want you to read the news, watch the atrocities and condemn the perpetrators. All in all, I want you to make your vote and your ideals count. Question your government and don’t let them off the hook so easy, with one lingering question in your mind- Where is My Constitution?

-          Rahul Ghosh
Second Year B.Tech