In a recent case in the Madhya Pradesh High Court, a bail was granted to a person who was found chanting the anti-India slogan in public on the condition that he must salute the Indian flag twice in a month at a police station in Bhopal. In addition, while saluting the flag to pay respect, he was ordered to chant “Bharat Mata Ki Jai” 21 times each session.
A case was registered against Faizal at the Bisrod police station in Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh, for allegedly raising slogans against India: “Pakistan Zindabad." He was arrested and taken into jail under Section 153 B of the IPC (Indian Penal Code) for promoting enmity and disrupting public harmony. However, Justice Dinesh Kumar Palliwal granted him bail on the strict condition that he must salute the Indian flag twice in a month on every first and fourth Tuesday of the month between 10 AM and noon until the trial concludes.
According to Judge, “such kinds of exercises may enthuse in him a sense of responsibility and a pride for the country in which he is born and living.” Conditioning bail on a requirement to chant a patriotic slogan raises concerns about individual rights when its usage has also been contentious. Critics argue that forcing an individual to perform a specific act as a condition for bail could be seen as an infringement on this right. The Supreme Court of India has historically emphasized that the right to life encompasses a person's dignity and freedom of choice.
The judiciary plays a crucial role in upholding constitutional rights while also ensuring that justice is served. In this case, the court's rationale for such a condition could be argued as a means to instill a sense of nationalism or societal responsibility. However, the question arises: should expressions of patriotism be mandated, or should they be voluntary?
The voluntary option of nationalism will perhaps not be ideal for a diverse country like India. India was divided into two nations (India and Pakistan) in 1947, when nationalism was at its peak. In addition to it, the murmur of Khalistan (separate land for Sikhs) is also in the air with the courtesy of Canada.
The public's reaction to this ruling has been uneven. Many regard it as an essential declaration of patriotism, but others see it as a worrying precedent that would legitimize the coercion of such statement. This argument draws attention to India's wider cultural sensitivities, since nationalism frequently collides with individual identities and ideas. While fostering nationalism being a mature democracy like us, we need to draw a balance between individual rights and societal expectations. The judiciary should ensure that the spirit of the law aligns with the rights of the individual.
This story challenges us to consider what it means to be a patriot and how we show our loyalty to the nation. what does it mean to be patriotic in a diverse country like India? How can we respect individual rights while fostering a collective national identity? Share your thoughts in the comments below!