National Anthem And Patriotism

India was born in difficult circumstances. Hundreds and thousands left everything, and many sacrificed their lives for one common goal – freedom of India from foreign rule.

Even today soldiers sacrifice a lot to protect us. A soldier doesn’t just sacrifice his life for his country. He sacrifices his whole existence, his world.

On 30th november 2016, the Supreme court of India issued an interim order laying out seven directives to be followed marking respect for national anthem of India. This included requirement for all to stand whenever national anthem is played as well as the compulsory playing of national anthem at the cinema halls before screening. The directives were issued to instill a sense of committed patriotism and nationalism.

This judgement faced many criticism. Many people called it forced nationalism.

Now the esteemed court says “you don’t need to stand up at cinema hall to be a patriotic”.

As SC goes back and forth with its order, we wonder if such mandated display of patriotism compromise our freedom of expression.

We can give hundreds of reasons, that it is not the only way to portray patriotism or it violates right to privacy or right to speech and expression… Blah…blah…

Let’s forget the SC’s judgement on right to privacy. Isn’t it our moral as well as fundamental duty to respect our national anthem? Why ? why ?we always want to enjoy our rights to the fullest but are indifferent towards our duties ? Aren’t we attaching too much importance to our individual freedom than to our nation’s respect ? Can’t we stand for 52 seconds to show our love for the country?

How our nation has been fared over the last so many years is something we can not change but the future is in our hands.



Why the press freedom is on decline in INDIA?

Freedom is the core of human society, is so crucial for dignified social life and should only be constrained in special circumstances.

In the pre-independent period, Indian Nationalists faced several harsh experiences, when it came to free speech. The colonialist feared free speech as it would  unite the masses in protesting against their arbitrary rule in India. To avoid similar experiences in independent India the makers of our Constitution gave primacy to the right of freedom of speech and expression, while drafting it. In fact, this is one of the striking features of the world’s largest democracy and one of the requirements for it to succeed. But the latest press freedom index published by reporters without borders is not a good sign for a democratic country like India, at all. India was ranked 136 in the list of 180 countries. Indian media is often criticised for its deteriorating reporting standards, jaundice coverage of politics and regurgitation of  online trends as prime time news.


The press council of India functions under  the press council act,1978 is a statutory, quasi judicial body which acts as a watchdog of the press.

The freedom of press in nowhere mentioned in the Indian Constitution. The right to freedom of speech and expression is provided in Article 19 of the Indian Constitution. It is believed that it includes freedom of press.

Every Indian, including press reporters can express Ideas and views freely through press and public platform. The status of press is same as that of an ordinary citizen.

But freedom of the press must be subject to those  limitations which apply to freedom of speech and expression. These restrictions are mentioned in Article 19(2) which empowers the state to put reasonable restrictions on the following grounds eg:- security of state, friendly relations with foreign state, public order decency and morality, contempt of court, defamation, incitement to offence and integrity and sovereignty of India.

44th amendment has given parliament substantial power to regulate press freedom.A new article 361A (protection of publication of proceedings of legislatures) has been added to the Constitution with this object in view.

The censorship of press is very crucial and sensitive issue. In general, press censorship is regarded as very unhealthy check on the freedom of free expression of views. In India, the constitution does not specifically forbid press censorship. Hence, only check on the state in resorting to censorship is that it should be reasonable.Present position is censorship is valid in times of emergency if it is reasonable and if it in the interest of public order.


*Flawed regulatory architecture

According to the report, 54 journalists have come under attack.

In large part the threat to the Indian media’s ability to preserve plurality of views is due to a flawed regulatory architecture that does little to protect press freedom and more to silence it.

* Fear of sedition charges.
Prosecution are also lured to gag journalists who are over critical of government with some prosecutors invoking section 124 A of the penal code, under which sedition is punishable by life imprisonment. This encourages self censorship.

*The watch dog was also critical of social media and internet gag in Kashmir and said that in the absence of any “protective mechanism”, coverage of sensitive regions continued to be ” very difficult”.

* Journalists and bloggers are attacked and anathematized by various religious groups that are quick to take offense
* Self censorship
Here is what RSF said about press freedom in India.

Threat from Modi’s Nationalism with Hindu nationalists trying to purge all manifestations of anti- national thoughts.Self censorship is growing  in mainstream media. Journalists are increasingly the target of online smears by the most radical nationalists, who vilify them and even threaten physical reprisals.

* No law for protection of sources.
In India, there are no statutory rights accorded to journalists to protect their sources. This make uncovering the truth tenuous. Though section 15(2) of the press council act does provide protection to the journalists from revealing his sources but it is only applicable to proceedings in front of press council. No protection is available to the journalists before the court.

It’s true that social media has both pros and cons. Nowadays it is common to abuse/ troll anyone who has an opposite view. Journalists are the worst hit, in such abusive campaign.

The trend of decline in free speech is worrying. Press or media is considered the ” fourth pillar” of democracy. Therefore its independence must be preserved for sustaining democracy. The government, political parties and media can do several things to ensure independence of press.

No more triple talaq

Before you read the post I want to clarify that I am not against any religion. I am just in favour of gender equality.

It is harsh reality that women have been ill-treated in every society for ages and India is no exception. The irony lies in the fact that in our country where women are worshipped as Shakti atrocities are committed against her in all sections of life. She is being looked down as commodity or as a slave. She is not robbed of her dignity and pride outside her house but she also faces ill-treatment and other atrocities within four walls of her house. They are considered as an object of male sexual enjoyment and reproduction of chidren. They are real dalits of the society.

what is talaq?
Talaq in its original sense means repudiation or rejection but under Muslim law it means a release from the marriage tie immediately or eventually. It is generic name for all kinds of divorce; but it is particularly applied to the repudiation by or on behalf of husband. It was said that under Muslim law talaq is mere arbitrary act of Muslim husband who may repudiate his wife at his own pleasure with or without cause.

talaq -ul- biddat/ triple talaq

It is a sinful form of divorce. It is a irregular mode of talaq introduced by omeyyads in order to escape the strictness of law. This form of talaq is improper from a moral point of view. This form of talaq becomes irrevocable immediately when it is pronounced irrespective of iddat.

Triple talaq bill

On Dec 28, 2017 historical bill was passed in lok Sabha making triple talaq illegal, with upto three years in jail. The bill which makes triple talaq a punishable offence, follows the supreme court judgement on Aug22,2017 in case of Shayra Bano Vs Union of India. Since the time S.C made triple talaq unconstitutional this topic has become a subject of controversy and most ongoing debates in India.

The All India Muslim personal law Board, defends triple talaq as an integral part of Islamic law and therefore beyond the realm of judiciary. On the other side Number of petitioners argued that triple talaq violates their fundamental right to equality before the law, to non discrimination on the ground of sex and to life and liberty.

In Fazlur Rahman V Aisha, the validity of this divorce was questioned. It was argued that this type of divorce is against Quranic Law and the court is bound not to give effect to the rule and it also opposed to a tradition of a prophet. It was held that Quran verses have been differently interpreted by different schools.

Can what is sinful in eyes of God be lawful? If God considers it a sin, it can’t be legal. Can it be?

So personal laws must be subordinate to fundamental rights and subject to the test of constitutional validity.

It is now high time that people should understand the significance of triple talaq bill. It is said that laws without public opinion is nothing but a bundle of papers. This problem can not be solved by just enacting laws without any public support and opinion as social engineering laws are different from penal laws which are just related to injuries and Punishment and are deterrent in nature but social engineering laws are enacted to uplift the norms of the society and are progressive in nature and therefore it should be backed by the will of the people for whom it is enacted. In India most of the laws are ineffective as they were ahead of public opinion and willingness of the people to change the society.