Tagore would not have stood for this national anthem debate

The arrest of a college student in Trivandrum for refusing to stand when the national anthem was played in a movie theatre raises important questions of how we imagine our political obligation especially when it comes to the symbols of nationalism. Does someone who refuses to stand when the national anthem is played automatically become an anti-nationalist? Is there space for expressing one's dissent against symbols of national authority without the sanction of criminal law being used against her?

In 1987 three students who belonged to the religious group "Jehovah's witnesses" were suspended from their school in Kerala for refusing to sing the national anthem in school. The Supreme Court in a significant decision overturned their suspension on the grounds that the right to freedom of speech and expression included the right to remain silent. They held that while the students did not join in the singing of the anthem, had not showed any disrespect since they stood up along with the other students. Does this mean that the refusal to stand up would automatically qualify the act as being a disrespectful one and one which falls outside of the scope of protectable speech and expression under Art 19(1)(a) of the Constitution?

To my mind the crucial question is based on how we understand the phrase "expression". Often debates on free speech focus on the speech element ignoring the expression element. If the right to free speech includes the right to remain silent then would not free expression include a non action? Section 3 of the Prevention of Insults to National Honours Act 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." It is clear that the law requires an active act of disturbance to constitute an offense, but does it include a quiet refusal to stand for the national anthem? The reasons motivating an expression may be varied. A person may have a general discomfort with nationalism and in this regard they would not be alone, and would find ironic support in the form of the author of the national anthem itself.

Rabindranath Tagore despite being the "national" poet and the author of the anthem was himself highly critical of nationalism especially in its overt forms, and retained in his writings and his significant lectures on nationalism the sovereignty of an individual's political and ethical views. Historian Ramachandra Guha describes Tagore as a patriot who was not quite a nationalist and as someone who was dismayed by the "xenophobic tendencies of the nationalist movement". Tagore's universalism came out of a civilisational confidence and seems to be in sharp contrast with the knee jerk responses of indignation whenever anyone expresses their dissent. It might be worth recalling the words of our national poet as a way of thinking about the philosophical consequences of what a truly free expressive ideal may be."I have heard it said again and again that we are guided altogether by history, and I have energetically nodded, so to say, in my mind whenever I heard it. I have settled this debate in my own heart where I am nothing but a poet. I am there in the role of a creator all alone and free. There's little to enmesh me there in the net of external events. I find it difficult to put up with the pedantic historian when he tries to force me out of the centre of my creativity as a poet".