In the middle of flag-waving mandates and bickering over who the “real” patriots are, I am reminded of America in the 1940s. To cultivate the “spirit of nationalism”, the Board of Education in West Virginia had brought in a resolution in schools, mandating students to salute the American flag. Two students refused to abide by the rule on religious grounds – they were both Jehovah’s Witnesses. The school expelled them and the students sued the school. What followed was the well-known West Virginia State Board of Education vs Barnette case of 1943.
Ruling in favour of the students, the justices wrote:
“The freedom to differ is not limited to things that do not matter much. That would be a mere shadow of freedom. The test of its substance is the right to differ as to things that touch the heart of the existing order… if there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein”.
Patriotism and the freedom to differ on what constitutes patriotism are not contradictory ideas. Let’s say I stand up for the national anthem each time it plays, but break traffic rules at the first chance; I take the national pledge that calls for devotion to “all my people”, but scorn at an inter-caste marriage; I salute the flag that fosters love for the country, but care little to keep her streets clean.
Abiding by the Constitution
To some, the choice is easy: I’d rather abide by my Constitution than display overt nationalistic symbols. To others, this is not a matter of choice: symbols of nationalism go hand in hand with Constitutional freedoms and responsibilities. The point is that there is scope to differ. And that needs to be respected.
Over centuries of intergroup conflict, multicultural societies across the world have come to understand that the freedom to differ cannot be suppressed. Indeed, for the average man on the street, freedoms are likely to be contextual – who said what and against whom becomes offensive or agreeable depending on their own political, religious, intellectual understandings.
The Constitution deems to overrule these predispositions and ensure that the principles it enshrines prevail by keeping certain subjects away from the reach of political interference and majoritarian preferences.
I believe we are ready to embrace our Constitutional rights and obligations. If only our governments let us.
Raheel Dhattiwala is an alumna of Oxford University.
