Love of Humanity is not against patriotism
text_fields
Some of the observations made by the Bombay High Court the other day are startling. Our judiciary functions under a Constitution that considers democracy and freedom of expression as paramount. That is why some decided to approach the court when the police denied permission to the All India Peace and Solidarity Organisation to protest against the Gaza genocide last month. That is how the CPI(M) approached the High Court against the denial of permission for a peaceful rally, raising law and order issues. The court dismissed the petition on technical grounds; not only that, but also made a number of observations. It opined that it is not right to pay attention to things thousands of miles away when there are many problems within the country (sewers, garbage dumps, pollution, floods, etc), observed that protesting against the Gaza genocide is shortsighted, and advised those seeking permission to protest to focus on issues within the country and express their patriotism. The issue before the court was the fundamental freedom to utter and express views peacefully. However, the court, which dismissed the petition on the technical ground that it was not the organisation that had sought permission from the police, had approached the court against its denial, made irrelevant and unacceptable observations that went beyond the subject matter. This was unfortunate.
The police are controlled by the government. The political stances of the government can influence the decisions of the police. Then the court is the mechanism to find a solution in cases where civil rights are denied. The country expects fair decisions from the court, beyond party politics and narrow interests. Palestine, like India, is a country that has suffered the ravages of colonial rule for a long time. UN experts, international organisations, and human rights organisations testify that Israel is committing genocide there today. We see people being starved to death inch by inch. How can speaking out against it and demanding that it be stopped be shortsighted? How can it be against patriotism? How can the broadness of the human concept of ‘Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam’ be shortsighted? Uniting with fellow beings across borders in times of distress is not short-sightedness, but broad-heartedness; it is humanity. When that is not there, we become shortsighted and narrow-minded. We are the ones who have recognised Palestine as a nation; we are the ones who are bringing relief there. Is it patriotism to remain silent when genocide is taking place there? Is it patriotism to remain silent when Israel kills those people without allowing them to receive food, water, and medicine? If someone else says so, those who are responsible for reprimanding and correcting, say that patriotism is turning a blind eye to evil, that is a great misfortune. The court was also concerned about the consequences that siding with Palestine or Israel could have on our foreign affairs. Should we assume that we are not allowed to comment on or respond to the country's foreign relations?
There are protests within the country itself against the crimes committed by the Israeli government. Among those who are demanding that the US President and the UK Prime Minister be tried and punished for supporting Israeli policies are their own respective people. Not expressing opinions on foreign policy is the rule of totalitarianism, not democracy. Since the time of Gandhiji, India has been a country that has openly stood in solidarity with oppressed communities, including Palestine. Since the time of Gandhiji, we have spoken out valiantly against apartheid in South Africa and taken a stand on world forums. We had no concern at that time about whether white fanatics would be bothered. Our leaders did not say then that we should only pay attention to internal problems in order to prove our patriotism. India has become a country of dignity before the world by proving that patriotism and philanthropy are not opposites.
