After the Supreme Court on Tuesday made it optional for cinema halls to play the national anthem, theatre owners and cinemagoers were left divided — some lauding the modification of the November 2016 interim order, while others stating that following the previous order did not “harm” anyone.
“It is a very good judgment as you cannot force respect out of an individual, rather it becomes useless if you really don’t mean it. We at the theatres did not really have an authority or force with us by which we could compel people to stand during the national anthem. Often, we would come across hostile situations when some people would get agitated seeing someone not standing during the anthem,” said Joginder Mahajan, general secretary, Motion Pictures Association.
‘Yet to get circular’
However, others like R.K. Mehrotra, general manager, Delite Cinema, said, “We have not yet received any circular regarding the modification of the previous Supreme Court order, so we cannot really take a decision right now. In case the new circular tells us of the optional provision, we will continue playing the anthem as it really has not caused inconvenience or anyone.”
Rameshwar, manager of Payal Cinema in Gurugram, said, “We would continue to play the national anthem. We all have sung the anthem during our school days, so there is no harm in playing it before the movie. It fills one with the feeling of nationalism.”
‘Liberal’ outlook
cinemagoers also seemed divided on the modified order. “I think the national anthem should be played in theatres. When we were in school, we sang it each day, but later in life there was no scope of listening to it and singing it except on national festivals. Praising your country and feeling patriotic is good,” said Pooja Arora, a graduate from the Faculty of Law, Delhi University.
Some others were of the opinion that the apex court move indicated a ‘liberal’ outlook.
“The compulsion to play national anthem in movie theatres is forced patriotism. In light of the streamlined view of nationalism that favours a saffron identity, the change in the Supreme Court’s initial order can be lauded as a liberal move,” said 22-year-old Simran Khanna, who is pursuing her Masters from Delhi University.
