Lawmakers sometimes turn law-breakers by using nationalism as a garb to camouflage their intentions. This came to the fore yet again when both houses of the Karnataka legislature had to be adjourned indefinitely last week with demands for the sacking of rural development and panchayat raj minister K.S. Eshwarappa from the cabinet for his alleged controversial remarks about the saffron flag.
From what the media has reported, it all began when Eshwarappa, who is also the Shivamogga MLA, in response to a query by reporters on a student scaling the flag post of a government college in Shivamogga to hoist the Bhagwa Dhwaj, replied that “after 100 or 200 or 500 years,” the saffron flag may well replace the tricolor at the Red Fort. He added that the tricolor is the national flag for now and anyone disrespecting it is an anti-national.
The minister’s remarks on the tricolor caused an uproar in Karnataka coming on the heels of the ongoing controversy over Muslim girls insisting on wearing the hijab to educational institutions which has temporarily been banned by the Karnataka high court which is seized of the matter. What was significant is that the student who climbed the flag pole to hoist the saffron flag was part of a group who wore the saffron shawl who stoutly oppose the Muslim girls demanding they be allowed to wear the hijab to classrooms.
Whether we like it or not, the word “secular” is part of the amended preamble to the Constitution. It is true that Indira Gandhi indeed introduced the two words “secular” and “socialist” in the preamble during the Emergency in 1975 which was not liked by those espousing a certain ideology who feel that India is a Hindu country. There is no doubt that the majority religion is Hinduism which is more encompassing and eclectic than Hindutva. While the religion of our forefathers preached tolerance to all with an unrivalled cornucopia of sacred Sanskrit literature revered down the ages, Hindutva is seen as a politicization of a religion that needs no eulogizing as to its greatness.
This is why if the exact words of this Karnataka minister are dissected, it may be construed as attracting the provisions of the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971. Interpretation of law is neither mathematical nor precise and depends upon the ideology and perspective of the judge who is doing the interpretation. This is why a former Chief Justice of India, Jagdish Sharan Verma had declared in 1995 as part of a three-judge bench in the Supreme Court that Hindutva could also be construed as including Indian culture and ethos and not linked only to religion.
This judgment later led to controversies which provoked the late CJI Verma to lament that his judgement had been misconstrued and needed clarification. What is beyond dispute is that Hinduism predates the concept of Hindutva which emerged more than 1900 years later. There is absolutely nothing wrong with religious chauvinism provided it does not curtail the rights of other disparate groups which form a nation. Homogeneity is the antithesis of nationalism which implies love for India and not only towards a certain religion or ethnicity.
But to revert to the issue at hand, as a consequence of Eshwarappa stating that within 100 years or 200 years of 500 years, the saffron flag may well replace the tricolor at the Red Fort, caused turmoil in Karnataka. The Congress, which professes secularism, demanded that the minister be dropped from the Cabinet for making “anti-national” remarks and that he also be charged with sedition.
The law on sedition is very clear. Simply put, it states that any person who by word or deed incites violence against the government by inciting violence against it can be charged with sedition which carries life imprisonment. It is true that this law is often misused to settle scores against political opponents so that reputed journalists have had to face this draconian law and seek redressal from the Supreme Court. Eshwarappa will definitely not face sedition charges because he is part of the Karnataka government. But what he declared may be the prevailing view of those in power.
These opposition legislators staged a day-and-night dharna at the legislature but the Karnataka chief minister S.R. Bommai said the senior leader who belonged to his political party had said nothing wrong “legally” and that he was only talking hypothetically. Politicians who enact the law, know how it can be bent to suit the will of those who wield power. This may be why the chief minister said it was the opposition Congress that was disrespecting the national flag by bringing it to the well of the house during the dharna while Eshwarappa was a “nationalist” beyond reproach.
However, the national president of the political party to which Eshwarappa belongs, J.P. Nadda said in an interview to a television channel that he had pulled up Easwarappa for his remarks and that this national political party would not tolerate such “wrong, irresponsible statements.” Media reports alleged that Eshwarappa did acknowledge the call from his party president but remained unrepentant.
That may be a debatable issue but what is not in debate is whether one’s allegiance to one’s religion or ethnic identity overrides one’s allegiance to the country epitomized by the national flag and the national anthem. For the tricolor is symptomatic of all religious identities which comprise the nation and not any single identity.
Significantly, some days after the incident when a student climbed a flag pole of a government college to hoist the bhagwa dhwaj, a 28-year-old activist was murdered in Shivamogga which is the hometown of Eshwarappa, culminating in further violence. Even before the start of an investigation, the minister blamed goondas of a certain community for the murder. Supporters of the murdered youth took his body in a procession while defying prohibitory orders resulting in sporadic violence breaking out.
What we learn from these episodes is that nationalism is used as the last refuge for those who may not love their nation as much as a certain ideology. Being a nationalist is to love a nation comprised of heterogeneity which is the antithesis of homogeneity.
(Olav Albuquerque holds a Ph.D. in law and is a senior journalist-cum-advocate of the Bombay High Court)
