This article is written by Asif Iqbal from the Centre for Juridical Studies, Dibrugarh University, Assam. The article tries to deliver about the spirit of Nationalism which is influenced because of Rationalism and the necessity to change the social contract to survive as the world is into capitalism. 

Introduction 

The spirit of Nationalism is approaching the peripheral surface; it is visible with the banning of various applications under the orders of the Government. The prime-time telecast brings a topic of discussion every day remote from the actual question concerning the interest time of common people. It is happening intentionally to make general people aloof from the reality like the contraction of Country’s economy to negative 23 per cent to the intrusion of Chinese soldiers inside the territory of India. At present, the percentage of Coronavirus positivity rate is higher than compared with other countries; the media have revolved the discussion around the murder of a rising actor in Bollywood to making personal comments upon opponents which have affected the reasoning level of viewers because of which the TRP of channels expanded along with Noam Chomsky tries to sketch the propaganda constructed by Media and they present intending to mobilize the support of dominate class in the state. In the early 1920s, Walter Lippmann wrote that propaganda has become an integral part of popular government. 

The world is at the standstill because of the outbreak of novel coronavirus or COVID-19 which forced developed along with third world countries to restrict the manufacturing of products which caused an impact upon the economy of the United States of America (USA) and others. Every country has invested to bring a vaccine which will support the reopening of people gathering and others, the World Health Organisation (WHO) has warned about the nationalistic approach rather suggested the distribution of vaccine globally. The scientist noted the term of Vaccine Nationalism; where the Government will think about its population first over others. The beginning of Romanticism didn’t intervene in the subject of politics or the state; it influenced the German Nationalism after 1800. It opposed the rationalism of the eighteenth century which led the mobilization of the fascination of the past to fight against the principles of 1789. The sensibility of romanticism contained the feminist approach indebted with poetic imagination.

Romanticism 

The revolution of Romanticism is an aesthetic which interpreted life, nature and history; they easily distinguish the ubiquity of romanticism from land to another which caused the movement of intellectuals. According to some Rousseauistic interpretation, the failed organisation could not be replaced through surface medians; that should preferably turn external from man’s refined urge also when constantly developing. These romantics transpired strongly assured that meanwhile this principle concerning specific people that consciousness concerning the state of ancient completion yet slumbered. The fundamental motive had been gagged and also begotten preeminent to stay unlocked repeatedly ere these quiet presentiment could already be added and converted readily into these thoughts of humans. Others scrutinised concerning some buried origins including wasted themselves eternally more profound under one mysterious gloom from a foregoing period whose unfamiliar astrology became inebriated their thoughts.

That German feudal duration including its picturesque change furthermore its boundless vigour concerning production obtained toward them gave a distinct foreshadowing. Perhaps, they deemed themselves to have gained beyond this integration concerning experience which was lost by humanity. Promptly particular ancient townships including unique Barbarous basilicas addressed exceptional writing moreover affirmed before one “verlorene Heimat” at which this yearning regarding romanticism consumed itself. Each Rhine beside its legend-rich buildings, its sanctuaries plus peaks, grew Germany’s pious rivulet; everything from the history recorded approaching a distinct personality and extolled purpose.

The emergence of Byronic Provincialism

The consideration that an uncommon assortment concerning personalities controls specific claims to the sovereign state and its continuation stayed rooted in brace classes from organisation sentience. The totality formed characters found within the ancestral, frequently secularized monarchical republics that comprised transformed through significant rationalistic postulates like science, the enlightenment, and liberalism. This implied the country was civic-oriented; showed significant militaristic help to concern every state’s cooperative citizenry, including that sacredness concerning each nation’s provincial self-determination. The late-century of 18th and 19th Century of the Romantic Movement repudiated administration of Western European entities of reasoning which stood rooted within the attitudes of Renaissance, Scientific and Enlightenment. The Western design regarding national association naming that attained primary recognition amidst the population of Balkans held this Romantic.

Nationalism in India

The Nationalism of India is not political rather it is social which is prevalent not only in India but in other countries. India is trying to imitate western countries as politics dominated in the West; the racial unity in European countries is there from the beginning. If we look at the history of India, we can understand the problem is race and the problem of the United States of America is similar. There was a moment Nobel Laureate Rabindranath Tagore shared in Nationalism that people in America ask him a question about the issues moulding in India concerning caste distinctions and it was asked to him with a superior air. This question used to make him tempted to ask a similar back to them; “What have you done with Red Indian & the Negro”? The violent methods adopted by different institutions to keep them aloof from the society; if the problem isn’t solved, then they don’t have the moral authority to ask about India. 

India tried to adopt different people belonging to several communities and cultures which can adopt the machinery of the World as the thing India offers which will contribute to humanity. An individual knows how to oneself; it is the instinct which is penetrated inside human coerces him to fight with others with a sole aim to reach towards their self-interest. Whereas they contain sympathy and mutual help to support other people but others lack this important moral power which makes a hindrance to survive with others which makes them survive in a state of degradation. There was geographical hindrance which didn’t allow brotherhood for moral culture in the evolution of Nations which was real but the present situation has changed which brought everyone together making that hindrance imaginary.

Perhaps, the country tried to look for a common identity which can provide amalgamation to all races but this solution will not be enough for those nations which are seeking political or commercial unity. The Country of India doesn’t have Nationalism as shared by Rabindra Nath Tagore in Nationalism and shared an anecdote from his childhood, he was about the idolatry of the Nation is better than reverence for God and Humanity. He had a conviction towards his countrymen that they will fight against the education that the country is greater than the ideals of humanity. The people who have attained education are trying to understand through history over learning from their ancestors. A person doesn’t have to borrow the practices of others which will not live otherwise it will crash. 

The judgment of Judiciary on the national anthem

The Supreme Court of India with time has come into the eyes of the public because of the judgments postulated by them. The judgments of this Court of Justice cited in various places from Tuvalu to the House of Lords but the guardian of the Constitution of India became the protector-in-chief for National Anthem; four years before where there was no need of them. A retired Government official filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in Jabalpur High Court against the disregard given to the National Anthem in the movie directed by Karan Johar in 2002; Kabhi Khushi Kabhi Gam and the objectionable scene for him was the portion where a kid tries to sing the National Anthem but forgets the words in the middle, which was a plot of the movie. The case heard by Justice Dipak Misra and delivered a judgment to ban the whole movie in 2003; he adds that :

“National Anthem is to sing with magna cum laude and nobody can ostracise the concept of summa cum laude. […] The national anthem is pivotal and centripetal to the basic conception of sovereignty and integrity of India. It is the marrow of nationalism, hypostasis of patriotism, the nucleus of national heritage, the substratum of culture and epitome of national honour.”

Later, he exclaims that :

“The producer and the director have allowed the National Anthem of Bharat, the alpha and omega of the country to the backseat. On a first flush, it may look like a magnum opus of patriotism but on a deeper probe and greater scrutiny, it is a simulacrum having the semblance but sans actual substance. There cannot be like Caesar’s thrasonical brags of “Veni, Vidi, Vici.” We cannot allow the boy to make his innocence a parents rodomontade, at the cost of national honour. It is contrary to national ethos and an anathema to the sanguinity of the national feeling. It is an exposition of ad libitum.”

The Supreme Court of India overturned the judgment which was delivered by the High Court of Jabalpur. Justice Mira heard in the year 2016, unfettered with this defeat the former Government Official appeals to the Supreme Court of India in banning the National Anthem in movies to restrict the confusion endured in movies. After a month, they delivered fresh orders to ban the National Anthem. Whereas, the Supreme Court of India consisting Justices O. Chinnappa and Reddy delivered the Judgment in case of Bijoe Emmanuel & Ors. vs. The State of Kerala, “There is no provision of law which obliges anyone to sing the National Anthem nor is it disrespectful to the National Anthem if a person who stands up respectfully when the National Anthem is sung does not join the singing. We show proper respect to the National Anthem by standing up when the National Anthem is sung. It will not be right to say that disrespect is shown by not joining in the singing”.

The Supreme Court of the United States of America delivered a Judgment under the first amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America in Texas vs. Gregory case. The decision divided deeply by the judges favouring the burning of the National Flag was five compared to four against it. Justice William Brennan wrote the majority decision and joining the decision were Justice Anthony Kennedy, Thurgood Marshall, Harry Blackmun and Antonin Scalia. He wrote “Johnson convicted for engaging in expressive conduct. The State’s interest in preventing breaches of the peace does not support his conviction because Johnson’s conduct did not threaten to disturb the peace,” said Brennan. “Nor does the State’s interest in preserving the flag as a symbol of nationhood and national unity justify his criminal conviction for engaging in political expression.”

Further, Justice Anthony Kennedy adds with the writing that sometimes we have to make a decision which we don’t like but they are made because they seem correct. It is the law and constitution which compels to decide. 

Conclusion

Whatever we are looking at in the present may lead to catastrophic impact upon society. The attacks on the blacks to organise protests against the brutality of the police in the United States of America to the delivery of Judgment in America shows that we are engulfed inside problematic institutions which aren’t the same which they used to be in the past. We will have to change the condition of living as people are moving from Joint-family to Nuclear family because of change in necessity along with interest in consumption. It has started from the changing of viewing interest on television to the subscription of Netflix & Amazon Prime. Maybe, the institution of religion hasn’t healed in the manner they thought it in the beginning and people will have to amend their social contract with people to survive. The Government needs to ensure to provide Freedom to its people and don’t bring legislation to restrain it as the amendment of UAPA is unconstitutional and doesn’t stand over the standards of the Constitution of India. People will have to look for their opportunity and demand essential goods from the people as they cannot run away by saying the Act of God to conditions prevailing at present. 

References 

• https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/review-of-politics/article/romanticism-and-the-rise-of-german-nationalism/98DADE5E3D92ECE90D391D5C46472673 

• https://thewire.in/law/national-anthem-films-supreme-court

• https://libcom.org/library/13-romanticism-nationalism

• https://658046236438008177.weebly.com/romantic-nationalism.html
• http://blogs.bu.edu/guidedhistory/moderneurope/sarah-harrison/

LawSikho has created a telegram group for exchanging legal knowledge, referrals and various opportunities. You can click on this link and join: