Anything that moves

What a one-man Oxbridge protest reveals about the national anthem debate in India

Neither in Britain nor in the US are people bullied for sitting through renditions of the anthem.

In the single-screen era, we had to endure tacky Films Division documentaries before the start of feature films. Now, we wait outside the auditorium past screening time for janitors to finish hoovering up popcorn indiscriminately spilled on the carpet by previous occupants. We watch gruesome shorts about the dangers of tobacco. We listen for the nth time to the annoying Turkish Airlines jingle. We are subjected to occasional propaganda for Narendra Modi. We are informed that smoking kills each time someone lights up on screen. We have our view obscured by waiters delivering food mid-show to people in mid-row. In Maharashtra, we also have to bear with the national anthem being played before each screening, a rule instituted in a fit of patriotism a decade ago by the Nationalist Congress Party.

Since then, members of the public have periodically been evicted for not standing up when the anthem plays, although Indians have no legal obligation to do so, and foreigners have neither legal nor moral cause. A few days ago, a family was asked to leave a PVR auditorium for this reason, after other customers got belligerent. Instead of taking on the people threatening violence, PVR staff showed the door to those at whom the threats were directed.

The incident illustrates the point I made in last week’s column, that Indian culture respects religious customs but demonstrates little concern for individual rights. In that article, I spoke of England having a wider respect for rights than India. The anthem controversy reminded me of a small protest I initiated as a graduate student, which makes explicit what I meant.

Formal hall protest

The college I attended in England served unusually good food in hall, and offered students a free formal meal every Tuesday evening in term. A brief ritual accompanied the dinner. Once all scholars were in the room, the dons (a word that refers to professors rather than mafiosi) filed in and took their place at high table. We all stood, the principal said two Latin words, “Benedictus Benedicat”, and banged a gavel, after which everyone sat and dinner service commenced.

After my first experience of this rite, I expressed reservations about Christian grace being said in a community that included students and teachers of many faiths, as also atheists like myself. Few of my fellow graduates were interested in the issue. The ritual lasted about ten seconds, and it was no skin off their nose to stand in silence for that period of time. Among those who did join the debate, some stated we had a contract with the college that obliged us to accept certain conditions, and standing at formal hall could be construed as one of them. Others suggested it was unclear if we were being asked to stand for grace or as a mark of respect for our teachers. Yet others questioned whether those two Latin words, translated by the classicists among us as meaning, “May the Blessed bless”, could even be categorised as Christian, especially given that many Oxbridge colleges had far more elaborate renditions of grace. Finally, two or three colleagues agreed with my position, but felt (correctly no doubt) that there were weightier battles to fight.

My plan to petition the authorities quickly fell apart, but I decided I would do what I could personally to express my disagreement. And so, for eight weeks a term, three terms a year, for three years, I sat through the Benedictus Bendicat incantation. Occasionally I was joined by one or two sympathisers, but on most occasions I was the lone person seated in the high-ceilinged, wood-panelled hall. The action may have been quixotic, but proved instructive for the response it received. A few dirty looks was as bad as it ever got in those three years. No student, kitchen staff or lecturer ever berated me, or asked me to reconsider in a tone that was anything but polite.

Would anybody dare to protest in this fashion in India, given the ever-incipient wrath of the mob, and the protection throngs usually receive from authorities less interested in the law than in maintaining public order? Salman Mohammed tried in Thiruvananthapuram, refusing to stand for the anthem as a way of rejecting nationalism. He was arrested, charged with sedition, and denied bail for 35 days.

Revering national symbols

It might seem like an apples and oranges comparison to juxtapose Jana Gana Mana and Benedictus Benedicat, but the liberal attitude I described in relation to standing for grace extends to God Save the Queen. Have you heard of Brits threatening those who sit through the anthem at football matches? Do people write angry letters to newspapers about Lewis Hamilton resetting his helmet hair on the podium and waving to fans even as the anthem plays?

If you think the United Kingdom is the wrong country to compare ourselves with, consider a nation every bit as enthusiastic about national symbols as we are: the United States of America. The Star Spangled Banner plays at most major sporting events and everybody stands hand on heart facing the band. Well, not quite everybody. A small minority chooses to sit through renditions of the anthem, and faces no eviction from stadia. Whether one remains seated as a conscientious objector or through sheer laziness, it is a constitutionally protected form of free expression. Even mocking the national anthem, as the Englishman Sacha Baron Cohen did so marvellously in his film Borat receives far less public censure than Aamir Khan faced merely for expressing his discomfort with incidents of intolerance in India.

After I finished my studies and returned to India, I was often asked if I’d been a second class citizen in England. I took to replying that I hadn’t been a citizen at all, of any class, thus evading the issue. If I had to answer, I’d say I encountered plenty of ignorance, prejudice, and even straightforward racism. But my experience in formal hall is more typical of the attitude of the people I met than any of those unpleasant occurrences.

I’m also happy to have discovered, in Googling Benedictus Benedicat to make sure I had the spelling right, that Newnham College in Cambridge has eliminated Christian grace from its dining room protocol, replacing it with a clunky but secular alternative.

We welcome your comments at letters@scroll.in.
Sponsored Content BY 

Changing the conversation around mental health in rural India

Insights that emerged from discussions around mental health at a village this World Mental Health Day.

Questioning is the art of learning. For an illness as debilitating as depression, asking the right questions is an important step in social acceptance and understanding. How do I open-up about my depression to my parents? Can meditation be counted as a treatment for depression? Should heartbreak be considered as a trigger for deep depression? These were some of the questions addressed by a panel consisting of the trustees and the founder of The Live Love Lough Foundation (TLLLF), a platform that seeks to champion the cause of mental health. The panel discussion was a part of an event organised by TLLLF to commemorate World Mental Health Day.

According to a National Mental Health Survey of India 2015-16, conducted by the National Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences (NIMHANS), common mental disorders including depression, anxiety disorders and substance use disorders affect nearly 10% of the population, with 1 in 20 people in India suffering from depression. The survey reported a huge treatment gap, a problem that is spread far and wide across urban and rural parts of the country.

On 10th of October, trustees of the foundation, Anna Chandy, Dr. Shyam Bhat and Nina Nair, along with its founder, Deepika Padukone, made a visit to a community health project centre in Devangere, Karnataka. The project, started by The Association of People with Disability (APD) in 2010, got a much-needed boost after partnering with TLLLF 2 years ago, helping them reach 819 people suffering from mental illnesses and spreading its program to 6 Taluks, making a difference at a larger scale.

Play

During the visit, the TLLLF team met patients and their families to gain insights into the program’s effectiveness and impact. Basavaraja, a beneficiary of the program, spoke about the issues he faced because of his illness. He shared how people used to call him mad and would threaten to beat him up. Other patients expressed their difficulty in getting access to medical aid for which they had to travel to the next biggest city, Shivmoga which is about 2 hours away from Davangere. A marked difference from when TLLLF joined the project two years ago was the level of openness and awareness present amongst the villagers. Individuals and families were more expressive about their issues and challenges leading to a more evolved and helpful conversation.

The process of de-stigmatizing mental illnesses in a community and providing treatment to those who are suffering requires a strong nexus of partners to make progress in a holistic manner. Initially, getting different stakeholders together was difficult because of the lack of awareness and resources in the field of mental healthcare. But the project found its footing once it established a network of support from NIMHANS doctors who treated the patients at health camps, Primary Healthcare Centre doctors and the ASHA workers. On their visit, the TLLLF team along with APD and the project partners discussed the impact that was made by the program. Were beneficiaries able to access the free psychiatric drugs? Did the program help in reducing the distance patients had to travel to get treatment? During these discussions, the TLLLF team observed that even amongst the partners, there was an increased sense of support and responsiveness towards mental health aid.

The next leg of the visit took the TLLLF team to the village of Bilichodu where they met a support group that included 15 patients and caregivers. Ujjala Padukone, Deepika Padukone’s mother, being a caregiver herself, was also present in the discussion to share her experiences with the group and encouraged others to share their stories and concerns about their family members. While the discussion revolved around the importance of opening up and seeking help, the team brought about a forward-looking attitude within the group by discussing future possibilities in employment and livelihood options available for the patients.

As the TLLLF team honoured World Mental Health day, 2017 by visiting families, engaging with support groups and reviewing the successes and the challenges in rural mental healthcare, they noticed how the conversation, that was once difficult to start, now had characteristics of support, openness and a positive outlook towards the future. To continue this momentum, the organisation charted out the next steps that will further enrich the dialogue surrounding mental health, in both urban and rural areas. The steps include increasing research on mental health, enhancing the role of social media to drive awareness and decrease stigma and expanding their current programs. To know more, see here.

This article was produced by the Scroll marketing team on behalf of The Live Love Laugh Foundation and not by the Scroll editorial team.