Flagging the problem

Rahul Pandey, who has been described in article after article as a “local lawyer” (local to where is not entirely clear) filed a partition before the before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate of Kanpur, objecting to the way the Indian cricket team handled the Indian flag after their victory in the 20-20 world cup tournament. The insult has been described with the following statement - "Dhoni and several other players not only wrapped themselves in the tricolour, but also rolled on the ground. This was followed by spraying of champagne that fell on the flag."

The act was covered in a series of minor news articles and was given short shrift by most readers. Reactions on the internet were mostly that of bewilderment and disgust. Since the victory was considered a moment of national pride, most of those who reacted appeared to think that the members of the Indian cricket team were icons of this pride and were not wrong in their draping the flag around themselves. The issue raised interesting questions about how the Indian flag is treated both by law and in practice and about flags in general. What is it about rectangular (mostly) pieces of cloth which raise such passion and spirit amongst those represented by it?

Flags very clearly are symbols. They are a clear and present symbol of unity and sovereignty of those represented by the flag. One of the simplest methods of insulting a country or institution is to damage or burn the flag of the institution. Burning the flag is considered legitimate albeit controversial protest in some countries like the United States but not so in many others. It is considered a direct affront or negation of the powers of the institution if burnt or damaged especially within the territory of the country. Demonstrators and separatists around the world regularly destroy flags as a sign of a range of emotions from displeasure to independence. Just as body language, posturing and language may be interpreted differently in different parts of the world so can the treatment of a national symbol.

As human beings we live our lives surrounding ourselves by symbols. We use and read into symbols of Gods, religions, body-brands, tattoos, words, commercial brands and emotional markers of the past, present and even the future. Swastikas are symbols which have been used historically for hundreds if not thousands of years by atleast three religions – Hinduism, Jainism and Buddhism. They can be traced to some symbols amongst some of the tribes of north America, to the Hindus of Bali, Indonesia, to books in China and even to Eastern European and Persian cultures. Yet it’s reinterpretation within Nazi administration and culture made the swastika in the minds of many, representative of the evil and cruelty of the Nazi regime. The popularity of this reinterpretation is exemplified by the aerial image of a housing complex in Florida in 2007 seen on Google earth. The panoptical model (sic) of a central core and housing wings moving out is considered efficient for services and sunlight in housing and for monitoring inmates in prisons. Yet some people believed, as exemplified through news articles and news programs, that the housing complex was a secret Nazi symbol showing solidarity with the fascist Germans. Nobody, to the knowledge of this writer, considered the plan a secret Balinese Hindu symbol, even though the Balinese Hindus have used the swastika much longer than the Nazis ever did. Thus the treatment and interpretation of the symbol varied from place to place and from time to time and the popularity of interpretations and meaning matter.

The most important personal symbols are often the inheritance or photographs of loved ones. As an example, photographs (unless one believes in black magic) do not harm the people in the photograph. Yet upon entering anyone’s house, it would be considered misbehavior and disrespectful if one attempted to damage or even tamper with photographs of loved ones. Most people do not appropriate all photographs or items with that symbolic value. They chose the ones which mean something to them and make them symbolic. These personal symbols hold such value to individuals that the right to carry them or having them confiscated during incarceration of prisoners are considered amongst the standards of human rights. If individuals are clearly granted that right to chose their symbols and how they wish those symbols treated as a fundamental human right, so can collectives of individuals like nations.

Countries thus have the right to appropriate dignity to their flag. National pride is often vested in those symbolic flags. The question is thus not whether an individual citizen has the right to demand respect of the national flag. He or she obviously does. Contrary to the beliefs of some, Rahul Pandey may well be within his rights to demand that the flag be given the respect it deserves and he has the right to his day in court by the standards accorded to democratic rule. This, despite the fact that he has chosen a moment of national pride and joy to bring up the issue, to the chagrin of many. The question is whether the case has merit within both the spirit and letter of the Indian standards of respect their national symbol – their flag.

The Indian flag has a strange and checkered past in this regard. While the flag is clearly a symbol of national pride and solidarity, citizens of India were legally not allowed to fly their own national flag for a long time. The reasoning behind this quirk in Indian law is unclear. Various flags were used as banners during India’s struggle for Independence. A natural assumption would have been that the flag chosen for the country belonged to all and every Indian citizen had earned the right to fly it with pride and dignity. Unfortunately, possibly due to egalitarian and centralist interests, this was not so. Naveen Jindal, an Indian industrialist questioned this quirk and flew the Indian flag in top of the office building in Delhi in 2001. He was then told that he could not do so; the flag was confiscated and he was told that he could prosecuted for the strange crime of publicly displaying pride and respect for his own country. Jindal, a man of resources, filed a public interest litigation which lead to the case being moved to the Supreme Court. A special Governmental committee was set up to consider the matter and in 2002, the Indian National Flag code was amended to allow flags to be flown by all citizens as long as the accord it the dignity it deserves.

It is a matter of some thought that Pandey, apparently felt that not being allowed to fly the flag as a citizen was a non issue, since he (with his tremendous desire to see the flag and country accorded respect) did not file that public interest litigation.

If Pandey had done his homework, he would have found that the Flag Code of India had been modified thereafter. The Code allowed citizens to wear the flag within certain restrictions. Those restrictions can be found within the modified code but the general idea is that citizens of India, cheeky cricketers included, are allowed to wear the flag above their waist without having it trail or touch the ground. The spirit of the law would have to hold this to reason and common sense. After all, it would be foolhardy to prosecute someone who while wearing the flag, tripped and thus inadvertently had the flag touch the ground. The cricketers who draped themselves in the tricolor cloth, certainly did not dash to the floor to rub the flag into the dirt. In a sport where Indian players have often been accused of not playing for their country, the members of the squad clearly displayed national pride at the ceremony. Whether the draped flags touching or trailing on the ground inadvertently is a national insult is a matter of discretion of a judge. In the opinion of this writer, this part of the issue can be summarily dismissed.

That leaves the issue of champagne which appears to be the lynchpin of the complaint and is probably the most serious issue to address. The Flag Code of India does not specifically mention whether Champaign or any other alcohol can touch the flag or not. It mentions nothing about liquids at all touching the flag. By the letter of the law, Champaign touching the flag is simply a non issue.

If liquids alone were in question here, perhaps we should wonder about water, detergent, cleaning fluids, dyes, rubbing alcohol and dry cleaning in general. If none of these liquids were allowed to touch the Indian flag, one may have terrible visions of filthy, dry and discolored flags all over India. That would perhaps be a greater insult to the dignity of the symbol in question than any other issue. No… all liquids are not in question here… merely alcohol popularly meant for consumption.

In simple terms, it appears that Rahul Pandey, litigant extraordinaire, has accorded moral value to liquor, since he believes, despite their being no clear laws in this regard, that liquor touching the flag is an insult. Pandey’s moral policing makes this the most serious issue in his petition. As a citizen in a democracy, he is welcome to believe anything he wants to believe and lead his life in any way that he so chooses, as long as it does not impinge on the lives of others. If one were to side with Pandey’s conservative ideas on liquor consumption and flag touching, one would have to think of liquor as evil. This would discount historical evidence and anecdotes of liquor being consumed for long periods in history both in celebration and sadness in India and many other parts of the world. Even today liquor is consumed in most parts of India. Drinking is a historically acceptable human activity. One may argue about the scientific evidence that liquor does damage to people who drink or social evidence of drunken driving and wife beating by drunkards. The arguments would be illogical since most people who drink do not drive drunk or beat their wives (assuming gender bias in drinking which is also false) In other words, banning liquor because some people who drink misbehave, would be similar to banning sports because some people who watch them misbehave and damage property (English Football crowds) if their teams win or lose. (While the attempt to ban sports and sports broadcasts for these reasons has indeed been brought up in modern times, the idea has been more or less laughed at in places where it has)

As for the medical issues including liver damage, alcohol poisoning and addiction, one must be reminded that human beings chose to do many things, besides drinking, which may do damage to them. It is a fundamental human right to do so.

The greatest issue to be considered is that in between and despite the arguments, the hiccups and projectile vomiting, people enjoy their drinks. The truth is just that simple.

Pandey is welcome to his private moral umbrage over this issue but by taking it to court he is trying to legalize his personal morality in the overwhelming face of patterns of human activity. By starting this litigation, he is attempting to bring the law into the privacy of my living room and my liquor cabinet. He is simply not welcome there.

This issue is brought up here to warn and discourage us all from moral policing, especially in a country where marauding moral vigilantes try to ban Valentine’s Day, frown on holding hands and kissing in public, dictate what meats one may or may not eat and frown upon alcohol consumption, all in the name of moral purity and upholding women’s rights while completely forgetting that exponentially more sexually based offences are committed in parts of the country which have not heard of Valentine’s Day.

Rahul Pandey deserves his day in court as per the tenets of a democracy. Most of his claims should and probably will be dismissed, as they do not violate the Flag Code in spirit and only nominally violate them by the letter. If he truly believes in taking offence based on whether liquor touched the flag or not, he is setting up a dangerous precedent for attempts to legalize private morality. If so he should be punished for attempting to morally police people. If he does not believe in this apparent liquor based atrocity and is using this litigation as a means to garner publicity, then he deserves to be punished for wasting the court’s time and resources. I suspect the latter is more likely but also hope in vain for the former.