Following from people's sovereignty

The Supreme Court of India has declared that it will not be mandatory for people to stand to the Indian Union's national anthem if the song is part of a film. However, the obligatory playing of the song before film shows in cinema hall stands and so does the mandatory standing up, an act that is assumed to be the outward expression of inner respect. What also stands is the shameful notification of the Union Home Ministry that had issued guidelines about how the disabled should behave when the anthem is played before a film starts. What the advisory betrays is the deep anxiety that the deep state has about what thoughts the public might harbour about the totems of the Indian Union.

The Union Home Ministry's job is to ensure internal security of the Indian Union. The Union Ministry must think that if it does not control the attitude and posture of persons with locomotor disabilities during the playing of Jonogonomono (that's how Rabindranath, the author of the song pronounced it, not 'Janaganamana'), the internal security or some grave aspect of the Indian Union is threatened. Thus, it has issued the notification that when the song is played, "the persons with locomotor disabilities and other wheelchair users, shall position themselves to the extent of maximum attentiveness and alertness, with or without the help of appropriate aids and appliances". Just reread that advisory for a moment and imagine the sickness of mind and ideology from where such notifications spring forth. This is plain inhuman. As if the idea of forcing people to do ritual displays of respect for symbols of the Indian Union wasn't bad enough, the paranoia now has extended to persons with locomotor disabilities.

The attitude of the present government towards persons with disability can be termed as obscenely patronising. Take for example the new 'word' it has come up with to refer to such people: "Divyangjan" which vaguely translates as "divine part holder". It is again one of those neologisms that probably make some sense in Hindi but is an alien word for non-Hindi-speaking people. And of course, even for something like the naming of people with specific disabilities, the Union government doesn't desist from its Hindi imposition agenda. I go past the erstwhile National Institute of Orthopaedically Handicapped (NIOH) at Bonhooghly, Kolkata that has now been renamed as the National Institute for Locomotor Disabilities Divyangjan. This "Divyangjan" name, a term that no Bengali is familiar with, has also been forcefully inserted into the Bengali name of the institute. And the term is patronising to the core. Disability is a reality and alleviating the limitations and pains caused by it should be the aim, not the crooked and patronising formulation where the disability is packaged as some sort of a divine blessing. What is divine about disability? By divinity, is anything positive being meant here? Persons with a disability are not infants. This infantilising of a whole group of our fellow citizens, marking them out as divinely special in the most insensitive way and then coming out with guidelines about how they should behave during Indian Union's national anthem playing tells what happens when insensitivity and anxiety team up. This Divyangjan term is not very different from the other patronising Hindi term "Harijan" (people of God) which Gandhi almost imposed on Dalits. That patronising name generally stands rejected by Dalits themselves.

The original order of the Supreme Court that mandates all this standing up business states that "time has come when citizens must realise they live in a nation and are duty-bound to show respect to National Anthem, which is a symbol of Constitutional patriotism and inherent national quality." There are multiple levels at which the assumptions inherent in this statement can be questioned. First of all, the nation is not a home. People or citizens don't "live in a nation". Individuals with commonalities form a nation. It is a laterally imagined group. So, yes, people constitute a nation and this nation based on commonalities that are 'inherent'. This 'inherent' means that this is almost a characteristic one that is an automatic part of one's particular kind of human-ness. If people are part of a group (let's say 'nation') by dint of inherent qualities, then it does not need any realisation. It is a definitional truth. If I am a Tamil because of my Tamil mother tongue, it does not require realisation. It is part of the definition of being Tamil. So, who exactly are people duty-bound to? If my inherent qualities make me part of a group, who am I duty bound to display or prove it to? Who is this higher scrutinizer of my inherent quality? If some quality is inherent, who gets to decide the grade of it or what constitutes the scale of this grading, especially given that the people constitute a nation, nations do not constitute people. How does one person with inherent quality get to ask for proving qualities from other people, especially those which are of inherent nature? What does it mean, when the term inherent is evoked with respect to a nation? What it does is that it makes this 'inherentness' a natural category, almost as if it were a fact of life. This projection of naturalness is important because it sets up a make believe the test of what this 'inherent national quality' is and as a result, classifies as "unnatural" all differences. How come when no one but the people are sovereign and each person equally sovereign as the other, that some sovereign members get to define random tests of some inherent quality? Are the sovereign powers of some members of a nation more than others? Is it then not a nation of equal members? Since a nation is defined by commonality which are equally shared characters, how come then this inequality exists? If this inequality originates from other characteristics like class, access to power and so on, how come they affect the hierarchy scale of a community that is technically made up of equal members? How is this any different from might is right? Why does it matter that people who are by definition members of a nation not show certain randomly determined non-divine characteristic for such unquestioning display of loyalty can only be expected of divinely ordained things and things like 'nation' aren't divine. They are very human. What is the fear? Is it that if people don't show signs of this 'inherent national quality', then that calls into question the inherent-ness or worse still the nation-ness of this 'inherent national quality'? How can someone be forced to display what are inherent qualities? What if one doesn't have certain inherent quality? Is it a crime? Is it a crime if one's reality of birth and social upbringing does not result in the development of such qualities but some other qualities? Isn't the basis of such differences also in society itself and such different qualities are also as inherent as any other? Is it a question of numbers or who has more guns to enforce ideas of national quality? Doesn't this straight-jacketing hit at basic human dignity for it disallows humans to have no quality that is not midwived and vetted by the dominant state apparatus? What kind of state apparatus lives in such dread of pluralism in inherent qualities, a pluralism that is a basic human characteristic? What kind of a state apparatus is fearful of human diversity? Would be wrong to term it sociopathic and paranoid? What does it fear it will lose by acknowledging the reality of human diversity? If only constitutional patriotism was invoked, one would have understood for it is not an inherent human quality to it, but to give invoke a legal-political treaty and inherent quality in the same breadth puts them on an equal footing. They are not. Inherent qualities are varied. And if citizens of the Indian Union looked beyond themselves, they would see that largely ethnolinguistic groups form the basis of nationality, worldwide. This does not have to necessarily be the only basis of coming together as equal citizens, but as far as inherent national qualities go, inter-related social relationships overlayed on linguistic identity is by far the commonest basis for nationality. While the idea of India lacks this and due to the 'inherentness' of such things, they can't simply be 'made up' without various sorts of imposed discriminations and hierarchies between identities, can fellow citizens not simply get on with their daily lives without being told by those backed by the full force of the state apparatus what they ought to be like?

But let's try to bring our focus back on what makes a Union Home Ministry issue directives of this nature for people with locomotor disabilities and what does that tell us about the wider concerns from where such notifications arise. What the Union Home Ministry seeks is completeness. For lack of completeness assumes that there is an outside. How pathetic and pitiful must be the state of anxiety of an entity be that lives fearing the fact that there may be an outside? The apex court, in its earlier judgement, had said that "love and respect for the motherland is reflected when one shows respect to the National Anthem as well as to the National Flag". Does it expect this 'love and respect' to be present in the members of the Jarawa tribe of Andaman? Do they have a stake in Siachen and Sir Creek, given what happens there is done in their name too? Do they believe in 'unity in diversity – given that their numbers have sharply dwindled ever since they were 'claimed' as 'Indians'? Are their inherent humanness and their sense of who they are not enough? Do they have to respect Gandhi whose name means nothing to them, stand up during a certain song that they may not understand to be a song? Are Jarawa people weird if things like 'constitutional patriotism' does not exist in many of their members? Are they lesser Indians for that reason? Are they anti-nationals? Are they seditious?

Jarawas represent an outside which is not really outside. It is one stark end of a multi-axis continuum we are all part of. The crucial part of such schemes is that they are all-pervasive. The intense focus of resources and energy by modern nation-states on maintaining and defining territorial limits is not accidental. Within that zone, it is supreme, which is precisely why territories, where such monarchic supremacy is not established, are sources of unending paranoia for the powers-to-be. The smokescreen of people's welfare is used to unleash the non-pretentious forces of a nation-state – money and military. In places where people don't live, powers dangle the notion of 'strategic importance'. When we are born, we are as human anyone else. This is before there is consciousness of the state, Constitution, Gandhi, Nehru, the Tricolour, New Delhi, etc. Is it a pre-condition of being human that these notions have to be built up within our heads for an individual to be considered fully human? Clearly not. Our bloodlines and human consciousness predate all flags and constitutions and gods willing, will outlive them too. So does one has a right to be fully human and not be impinged upon, counted, exercised power upon, demanded loyalty from external institutions as long as they don't harm other human beings? One has the right to exist in the land one was born in, to mingle in its society, live a glorious life among one's kins, and so on. Institutions that place themselves as mediators of these rights, without being called to mediate, are inhuman and anti-social in a very fundamental sense. They may well be legal, depending on how many guns back up the self-imposed mediator. Legality is different from justness – only the people can create the latter.

It is from the perspective of the Jarawa people of the Andamans that the all-pervasive state starts looking not so pervasive – a hint that there is an outside, even when high-resolution maps and detailed anthropological surveys have been done. There is an outside, and there will always be an outside. It comes with every child who is born. Hence, there is a persistent and dangerous glimmer. To live without certain indoctrinations makes a dynamite of a people, even if they don't 'know' it. The distance from birth-rights to full citizenship is a journey that requires a surrender of rights, without consent or with indoctrination that there is no outside. People with disability, thus, need to be forced into postures and alert states to project this sense of all pervasiveness. It is plain old power projection. At the level of ideology, it is not different from Kim Jong Il's mass synchronised performances in North Korea.

We must never forget that only the people are sovereign. By definition, they created the Constitution – a clear reflection of relative power negotiations with a bias towards structural power relations of the pre-1950 period. The Constitution didn't create people. No judge, no anthem, no song, no flag is. Only the people are sovereign. Everything else follows.