Asked about the disrespect shown to the anthem by National Conference, Congress and Communist party of India-Marxist, the NC MLA and Provincial President Devender Singh Rana said, “Please ask BJP people who became champions of nationalism. They created an environment of anarchy in the state. Ask PDP who created such an environment. They created such a situation”.
Disrespect of the National Anthem is a wrong in itself and condemnation of that wrong cannot be met by attacking a perceived disreputability of others, an approach which replaces logic with invective and eliminates any possibility of argument with sheer abuse. The disgrace with which Rana and the others covered themselves will not be any less merely because BJP and PDP “created the environment”. There was no compulsion to be part of that environment created by BJP & PDP!
But there is something far more sinister in this comment. The suggestion is “if you are nationalistic there will be anarchy”! I am not dealing in this blog with the informal fallacy of False Dilemma which ignores not only that there can be position between two extremes (nationalism and anarchy) or even that the alternatives themselves (that is nationalism and anarchy) can be completely different. I am more horrified by the fact that in linking nationalism with anarchy the comment mischievously attacks the very existence of a shared identity and proceeds to assail the very continuation of national identity by suggesting that it will only lead to confusion, chaos and disorder!
This utterly disreputable comment is made worse because it was made to defend sloganeering when the National Anthem was being played and the Governor’s address to the legislature had to be cut short. The National Anthem is symbolic of the values of a pluralistic constitutional polity and provides self-identification of citizenry with norms having nothing to do with ethnicity or culture creating a civic bond, building civic empowerment and creating what Muller said was “a plausible and appealing style of political allegiance.” And the anthem was being rendered in the legislature which is a legal construct implicit in whose establishment is limitation of authority which is but an instance of the norm of checking abuse of power the disruption of which negates the very concept lawfulness which pits an organised orderly polity against anarchy. Nationalism did not cause anarchy. The anti-nations caused it.
The comment in fact goes beyond Kashmir and attempts to hollow India out. There is a pattern in the behaviour. First ethnic basis of nationalism is denied. Then cultural unity is made an outcaste. Liberal values are next assaulted. Multicultural tendencies are thereafter derided. And now nationalism is reduced to an epithet and made to share space with anarchy.
The utterly appalling nature of the comment is made worse by the complete shamelessness with which it is expressed. Nationalism does not lead to anarchy. Shamelessness does!
“Status quo ante as on 15.12.2015” was the order passed by the Supreme Court in the Arunachal Pradesh case.
Tuki should have been the Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh.
But Tuki resigned.
Pema Khandu instead shall be the Chief Minister.
Pema Khandu however was sought to be disqualified by the Speaker who was acting in tandem with the Chief Minister Tuki and this was the reason for the Governor to pass his Order of 9.12.2015 which was set aside by the Supreme Court to order status quo. But Khandu not Tuki will take oath as the Chief Minister.
The Supreme Court said the Governor was wrong. But the Supreme Court also said that the Speaker was wrong. So Pema Khandu could not be disqualified. But if Pema Khandu could not be disqualified how could the Governor’s Order against the disqualifying be wrong? And if the Governor’s Order was wrong and the Speaker was right Khandu could not become the Chief Minister!
The Supreme Court felt Governor could not have exercised discretionary powers outside constitutional sanction. However Tuki admittedly (as Khandu’s becoming Chief Minister itself shows) did not enjoy support of the support majority in the Legislative Assembly. It was for this reason that the Speaker locked up the Legislative Assembly itself and did not earlier respond to any communication from the Governor aside from combining with Tuki to threaten the Governor at his residence. How is the foisting of Tuki who lost confidence of the Assembly which could not be demonstrated in the Assembly because the Assembly itself was locked aside from resorting to extraconstitutional means against a high constitutional functionary constitutionally sanctioned?
Did the Governor act at his whim (which is not constitutionally sanctioned) or “under the Constitution” which is? If those (the Chief Minister and Speaker) who have to comply (by responding to messages of the Governor and holding the Assembly Session as mandated aside from taking law into their own hands) choose to defy is the Constitution is the Governor supposed to acquiesce in the illegality and gross impropriety and not enjoined to act correct a wrong which would otherwise be un-redressed?
Kalikho Phul was the Chief Minister replaced by the Supreme Court and Tuki placed in the saddle. Phul supports Khandu not Tuki and with is support Khandu not Tuki is the Chief Minster and Khandu himself had supported Phul when the latter was Chief Minister. Phul too was sought to be disqualified by the Speaker which was the reason why the Governor passed the Order and sent the Message both of which were set aside by the Supreme Court.
Now both Khandu and Phul are part of the ruling dispensation and Tuki is out abandoning new allies and invoking the old ones.
Is this the case of politics stumping both law and values and has the “whim” of the Governor been vindicated not the “reasoned order” of the Supreme Court?