Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Kurt

Jehovah’s Witnesses in India to sue for right to not stand for national anthem

2 posts in this topic

Audience members stand for the Indian national anthem before a movie starts at a cinema in New Delhi on December 4, 2016.

Jehovah’s Witnesses in India are looking to overturn a recent Supreme Court ruling requiring movie theatres to play the country’s national anthem before every film, and audience members to stand for the anthem, according to the Indian Express.

The sect’s members believe the singing of national anthems constitutes an act of unfaithfulness towards god, according to the official Jehovah’s Witnesses website.

The Indian Express reports that a U.S.-based lawyer is working to help file an application seeking to overturn the apex court’s ruling.

On Nov. 30, 2016, the Supreme Court of India ruled that audience members in movie theatres must stand for a rendition of the national anthem accompanied by images of the Indian flag, “to show respect for the national anthem and the national flag.”

The ruling was made after a petition by a 78-year-old citizen who said he was rebuked by moviegoers sitting behind him in a theatre 16 years ago, after he decided to stand when the national anthem was played as part of a scene in a Bollywoodmovie.

It comes just over three months after a disabled man was allegedly harassed in a movie theatre in the Indian state of Goa because he didn’t stand up while the national anthem was being played, as reported by the Indian Express.

The order appears to overturn a 1986 decision in which the Supreme Court ruled in favour of Jehovah’s Witnesses’ freedom to not partake in anthem singing.

“Jehovah’s Witnesses are happy to have had a part in contributing to the constitutional freedoms of all citizens in India,” reads an article on the evangelical group’s website detailing the 1986 ruling.

Global News

 

 

Share this post


Link to post

National Anthem: A Spiritual-Cultural Hymn For Holding Nation Together? – Analysis

india

FEBRUARY 13, 2017

The objection by a section of Indian intelligentsia against the November 30, 2016 Supreme Court Order on national anthem that all cinema halls in the country shall play it before the start of the film suggests that even after seven decades of country’s independence they continue to be under the siege of colonial and enslaved mindset. They seem to have no emotional attachment to the glorious nationhood of Bharatvarsh which has been holding it together for millenia.

Although, a cross section of political leaders welcomed the order of the supreme judiciary, some wise people like the former Attorney General and eminent jurist Soli Sorabjee “questioned the order terming it as an example of judicial over reach”.(Indian Express dated December 2, 2016).

Similarly, the members of Jehovah’s Witnesses, a Christian sect in India believe the singing of national anthem an act of unfaithfulness towards God. They are even planning to approach the Supreme Court to reconsider the order. http://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/28718-jehovah%E2%80%99s-witnesses…)

These and similar statements from a section of the intelligentsia have encouraged a section of people to disbelieve that Bharat has been a nation since Vedic days. Hence this paper to disabuse such people that India has been a united cultural entity from times immemorial.

In fact eulogising this nation our scripture Vishnu Puran says:

“Gayanti devah kil Geetkaani, Dhanyaastu te Bharat bhumi bhaage,

Swargapavarga aspad margabhutei Bhavanti bhooyah purushah suratvaat”

(Bharat is the way of all of the heavenly pleasures and even salvation. It’s a very welcome piece of fortune to be born as a human being on this soil of Bharat in spite of being a deity).

While referring to the geographical boundary of Bharatvarsh Vishnu Puran says: “उत्तरं यत्समुद्रस्य हिमाद्रेश्चैव दक्षिणम् । वर्षं तद् भारतं नाम भारती यत्र संततिः ”

(The country that lies north of the ocean and south of the snowy mountains is called Bhāratam; where dwell the descendants of Bharata known as Bharati.)

The name Bharat is a result of joining of two words- ‘Bha’ and ‘rat’. The term Bha is etymologically derived from the Sanskrit verb ‘Bha’ that means light and the term ‘Rat’ means immersing or devoted. The term ‘varsh’ which means country was added with Bharat and therefore the complete meaning of Bharatvarsh is a country where people are deeply immersed to (Divine) Light. Since the natives of this region were noble beings, anyone addressing elders used to call them Aarya and this land of nobles was also known as Aaryavart.

Thus, the name Bharatvarsh became the spiritual-cultural heritage of this land which forms the basis of a nation and its people are found proud of it from generation to generation. Unfortunately, the conquest of this land by outsiders who were unaware of the country’s glorious past tried to destroy its nationhood by changing its name from Bharatvarsh to Hindustan by Muslim invaders and later India by the British. Both the alien rulers played the politics of re-naming it with a view to re-shape its socio-cultural and political conditions according to their respective native traditions.

According to Wikipedia “A national anthem (also state anthem, national hymn, national song etc.) is generally a patriotic musical composition that evokes and eulogizes the history, traditions and struggles of its people, recognized either by a nation’s government as the official national song, or by convention through use by the people”.

Although there is a reference of the word ‘rashtra’ (nation) in our Veda, the people of anglicised and ‘secularised’ mind set call it a myth. They believe that prior to the advent of British rule there was no concept of nationhood for Bharatvarsh. They were perhaps not aware that Bharatvarsh was a ‘Rashtra’ from times immemorial. In Yajurveda there is a hymn praying the Supreme Power for the spiritual, economic, defence, education and agricultural growth of the nation. The hymn is as under:

आ ब्रह्मन् ब्राह्मणो ब्रह्मवर्चसी जायतामा राष्ट्रे राजन्यः
शूर इषवयोऽअतिव्याधी महारथो जायतां दोग्ध्री धेनुर्वाढानड्वानाशुः
सप्तिः पुरन्धिर्योषा जिष्णू रथेष्ठाः सभेयो युवास्य यजमानस्य वीरो जायतां निकामे निकामे नः
पर्जन्यो वर्षतु फलवत्यो न आषधयः पच्यन्तां योगक्षेमो नः कल्पताम् O Supreme Lord! May there

–Yajur Veda, 22.22

“O Brahman! Let there be born in the kingdom ‘brahmanas’ with ‘brahmatejas’ (divine lustre) who are well versed in the Vedas; let there be born the ‘rajanyah'(kings), heroic, skilled kings, archers and mighty warriors; cows giving abundant milk; load carrying oxen; the swift coursers; industrious, cultural women. Let the person who holds the yajna have brave and triumphant charioteer youth capable for addressing meeting. May ‘Parjanya’ (clouds) send seasonal rains; may our fruit-bearing plants and trees ripen; may the ‘yogakshemam’ (spiritual and prosperous well-being) of our people increase steadily.”

In fact this hymn was the national anthem of ancient Bharatvarsh. Even today this hymn is chanted by the people at the end of any religious function in many parts of the country.

After Independence, our Constituent Assembly instead of reviving the name of ancient Bharatvash registered it under a dual and bilingual identity – ‘India,that is Bharat’. In fact Bharatvarsh was a geo-cultural boundary bound by common history and heritage as well as also a juridico-political conception. There were many kings who ruled in different territories of this boundary but the entire region was under one spiritual-cultural umbrella of a nation called Bharatvarsh and those kings who conquered the whole Bharatvarsh were known as ‘Samrat’ like Ashoka and Chandragupta.( http://newglobalindian.com/tag/bharatvarsha:).

Irrespective of their varied caste, sect, region, local customs, food habits, costumes, professions and languages, the people of Bharatvarsh believed in polytheistic Sanatana Dharma that originated from the liberal Vedic texts – EKAM SADVIPRAH BAHUDHA VADANTI (He is one, wise men call Him differently) and the spiritual voices of their ascetic ancestors that permitted complete freedom to worship the deities of one’s choice without any ill-will against any other faith. With such spiritual strength and freedom they maintained the cultural unity of their motherland and gradually contributed to the internationally acclaimed civilisation, as its people were deeply immersed to the root of the name Bharatvarsh.

Despite this historical fact it is surprising that during freedom movement Jawaharlal Nehru preferred the term ‘Jai Hind’ (Victory of Hind) as the battle-cry in preference to ‘Bharat Mata Ki Jai’ (Victory to Mother Bharat). Unfortunately, no Indian leader has so far raised the issue to replace the prevailing salutary term Jai Hind in our army and police with the term Jai Bharat.

After Independence, our constitution makers incorporated ‘JANA GANA MANA …… ’ a poem composed by Rabindranath Tagore as national anthem in the constitution to revive our cultural and spiritual legacy for instilling a sense of patriotism and nationalism for which people should be proud of.

The key words of the SC directive were to instil “committed patriotism and nationalism”. This is apparently a message that the people should revive the sense of their glorious national pride which was enslaved and colonised by the alien rulers. To pay respect to the national anthem is paying respect to the nationhood of the motherland. The highest judiciary has perhaps sensed the indifference of Indian people over national pride which has pushed them towards the ideology imposed on them by the West sowing the seed of destruction and disunity and therefore SC directive is only to empower the people with national self and pride.

Even our former president APJ Kalam had written a beautiful poem to express his patriotism and nationalism. In the last stanza of the poem he expressed:

“Oh Almighty, bless all my people to work and transform
Our country from a developing into a developed nation.
Let this second vision be born out of sweat of my people,
And bless our youth to live in Developed India. APJ”.

(KALAMhttp://www.abdulkalam.nic.in/my_national_prayer.html)

Any effort however small it may be to remind ourselves of our glorious past and to sustain the unity of the country should be welcomed and not objected to for narrow sectarian reasons.

source (Eurasia Review)

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0



  • Recently Browsing

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Content

    • By Nicole

      Camels in the western Indian state of Gujarat. These animals are part of a herd owned by the nomadic Maldhari herders.
      Shaina Shealy for NPR
      It's nighttime in a forest in the western Indian state of Gujarat. By the light of his cell phone, camel herder Jat Saleh Amir, 18, pumps milk from the teats of groaning camels. The milk smells strong, like gamey butter.­­­
      Later, I join his family around a fire by grass reed huts. Everyone watches as I take my first sip of frothy camel milk from a steel bowl. I gag a little and smile apologetically – the milk is fatty, sour and salty. It's nothing like any milk I've had before. "Tell them I like it!" I elbow my local interpreter Liyakat Ali Notiyar. When nobody is looking, I slide Notiyar the warm bowl. Having grown up on camel milk, he slurps it clean in an instant.

      Jat Saleh Amir, 18, a Maldhari herder with fresh camel milk in front of his herd in Kutch, Gujarat.
      Shaina Shealy for NPR
      Few Indians outside this district of Kutch and its community of camel herders drink camel milk. But that's about to change as one of India's largest dairy brands is set to mass market it. The milk will be sourced from this community of nomadic camel herders called Maldharis who roam the district of Kutch.
      Maldharis have herded camels and consumed the animal's milk for centuries. They drink camel milk tea and serve it plain with breakfast, lunch and dinner. And they consider the milk a cure-all – they tell stories about camel milk curing everything from acid reflux to fever and pregnancy ailments. They also believe it can help manage diabetes. Elisha Harissa, 45, who has diabetes and lives in a nearby village regularly drinks camel milk. He claims it regulates his blood sugar. A few studies suggest there may be some scientific merit to these claims – camel milk seems to help regulate insulin secretion and blood sugar levels in patients with Type1 diabetes – suggesting it could potentially be used alongside other medical treatments to manage diabetes. However, scientists are still investigating the therapeutic potential of camel milk.
      Meanwhile, Amul plans to market camel milk primarily to people with Type1 diabetes. And the company's managing director, R.S. Sodhi, is confident the product will succeed, especially given the growing number of diabetics in the country. But he acknowledges there will be challenges. The main reason: the taste. Indians may not take to the unusual taste of camel milk. Even Kutch natives used to camel milk, like Asmok Ghor, whose grandparents transported goods back and forth to Pakistan on camels, can only stomach the sour milk if it's boiled with sugar or concealed as ice cream. "I'm sorry," Ghor says. "It's not about the camels, I don't like the milk."

      A Maldhari woman prepares a baby bottle of warm camel milk for her one year-old. Children in this community grow up drinking camel milk from a very young age.
      Shaine Shealy for NPR
      Sahjeevan is working with the local Kutch Camel Breeder's Association to market creative camel products, including camel milk soap and camel milk chocolate. A few years ago, they even brought a European expert to teach herders how to make camel milk cheese. Amed Taju says the chocolate was a hit among the herders, but the cheese didn't take off.
      The success of Amul's efforts with camel milk may help determine the future of Maldharis. Government-imposed restrictions on grazing land in recent years, a decline in the camel-for-transport market and the mining industries' encroachment on grazing land have led to a decline in the number of camels owned by these communities. Amed Taju, a community elder, has had to sell many of his camels to get by. Now, his herd is half the size it was five years ago. Life is hard these days, says Taju. His children aren't in school and he can't afford health care. "We are poor people," he says. "We are earning and eating, not saving."

      Camel milk is often used in tea in the district of Kutch in Gujarat. It is easy to find camel milk chai in villages like Desalper.
      Shaina Shealy for NPR
      This is where Amul can help, says Sodhi. Amul will purchase the milk for at least twice its current value, encouraging Maldharis to increase their herds. It won't be huge business for Amul, Sodhi says. "But for camel herders it will be big."
      If he's able to sell camel milk routinely to Amul, Taju says he will build solid homes and send his grandchildren to boarding schools. "I see a future not for my sons and daughters," he says. "But for my grandson and granddaughters."
      http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2017/02/15/514544612/once-restricted-to-herders-camel-milk-is-about-to-hit-the-shelves-across-india
    • By Nicole
      Udupi, Dec 12: Two women were caught by pro-Hindu outfits at Herga in Parkala here on Monday December 12 for allegedly trying to convert people to a Christian denomination.
      The women have been identified as Seneta of Perampalli and Soumya from Mission Compound, Udupi.
      It is said that the women had been going door-to-door handing out religious pamphlets to people in the area for the past one week. The women were also collecting addresses, mobile numbers and other personal details from the people, it is alleged.
      On receiving information, pro-Hindu outfits along with some locals confronted the women on Monday and handed them over to Manipal police.
      The women reportedly belong to a committee propogating beliefs of 'Jehovah's Witnesses'.
      The women were arrested and a case was registered in Manipal police station.
      http://www.daijiworld.com/news/news_disp.asp?n_id=427273
    • By Nicole
      Intolerance has a chilling effect on freedom of thought and discussion. It places democracy under siege.

      An unmistakable feature of any nation which professes to be democratic is the prevalence of tolerance therein. Tolerance is not merely a goody-goody virtue. It is vital because it promotes the receiving or acknowledging of new ideas and this helps to break the status quo mentality. Tolerance is particularly needed in large and complex societies comprising people with varied beliefs, as in India. This is because readiness to tolerate views other than one’s own facilitates harmonious coexistence.
      A liberal democracy accepts the fact that in a free country, one can have different opinions and should have equal rights in voicing them. This is pluralism, and tolerance is its ultimate rationale.
      Tolerance accords high respect for human rights, especially freedom of conscience and freedom of thought. Disagreement with the belief and ideology of others is no reason for their suppression, because there can be more than one path for the attainment of truth and salvation. Even if there is only one truth, it may have a hundred facets.
      Intolerance stems from an invincible assumption of the infallibility and truth of one’s beliefs, the dogmatic conviction about the rightness of one’s tenets and their superiority over others, and with the passage of time, this leads to forcible imposition of one’s ideology on others, often resulting in violence. At present, the virus of intolerance has acquired global dimensions. Religious and political persecution has become rampant and curiously that too sometimes in the name of God Almighty or some Divine Power.
      An intolerant society does not brook dissent. Suppression of dissent by censorship is an indispensable instrument for an intolerant authoritarian regime. Censorship, indeed, is its natural ally.
      The necessity for tolerance has been internationally recognised. It is noteworthy that the Preamble to the Charter of the United Nations proclaims that to achieve the goals of the Charter we need to “practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours”. Another significant UN instrument is the Declaration of November 25, 1981 on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief which emphasises that it is essential to promote tolerance and requires states to adopt all necessary measures for the speedy elimination of intolerance in all its forms and manifestations. It is evident that there is an essential linkage between tolerance, human rights, democracy and peace.
      Intolerance does not always emanate from official or state action but also from certain groups or sections in society. A not too recent instance was the determined effort to ban the exhibition of the film Ore Oru Gramathiley by a group of persons who regarded its theme and presentation as hostile to the policy of reservation of jobs in public employment and seats in educational institutions in favour of Scheduled Castes and backward classes. There were threats of attacking cinema houses where the film would be shown.
      The Madras High Court in an incredible judgment revoked the certificate granted by the Board of Censors to the film and restrained its exhibition. The Supreme Court promptly reversed the judgment in a landmark decision, S. Rangarajan vs P. Jagjivan Ram, where Justice K. Jagannatha Shetty, speaking for the court, laid down an extremely important principle: “Freedom of expression protects not merely ideas that are accepted but those that offend, shock or disturb the state or any sector of the
      population. Such are the demands of the pluralism, tolerance and broadmindedness without which there is no democratic society”.
      Intolerance has a chilling, inhibiting effect on freedom of thought and discussion. Remember how Galileo suffered for his theory that the sun was the centre of the solar system and not the earth. Darwin was a victim of intolerance and was lampooned and considered an enemy of religion for his seminal work, The Origin of Species. Nearer home we have the example of Raja Ram Mohan Roy, whose efforts for reform, especially for the abolition of Sati, evoked fierce opposition because of intolerance. We must not revert to those dark days because when that happens democracy is under siege.
      We must combat intolerance and its manifestations resulting in human rights violations by appropriate legal remedies. However, the crucial point is that tolerance cannot be legislated. No law can compel a person to be tolerant. Therefore, we must develop the capacity for tolerance by fostering an environment of tolerance, a culture of tolerance. Stereotypes and prejudices about certain classes and communities must be eschewed. Educational institutions have a vital role to play in this connection. The immense value of tolerance must be ingrained in the hearts and minds of the students.
      Our Supreme Court’s judgment in Bijoe Emmanuel vs. State of Kerala is significant. Students belonging to the faith, Jehovah’s Witnesses, stood up when the national anthem was sung to show their respect but declined to sing along. The students were expelled by the school authorities. Their expulsion was upheld by the high court.
      The Supreme Court reversed the high court judgment. Justice Chinnappa Reddy, who headed the bench, in the course of the judgment, observed that the students did not hold their beliefs idly or out of any unpatriotic sentiment but because they truly and conscientiously believed that their religion forbade singing the national anthem of any country. After a careful consideration of the issues, the Supreme Court concluded: “Our tradition teaches tolerance; our philosophy preaches tolerance; our Constitution practices tolerance. Let none dilute it”.
      This is a classic judicial affirmation of tolerance. Let us resolve to promote tolerance in our multi-religious, multi-cultural nation and thereby strengthen and enrich our pluralist democracy which is the pride of our nation.
      Certain fundamental duties have been prescribed by Article 51 A of the Constitution. To my mind, the practice of tolerance is the most fundamental duty of every citizen to curb the growing menace of intolerance.
      http://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/intolerance-censorship-democracy-india-freedom-of-speech-expression-needed-discrimination-religion-4364832/
       
  • Topics

  • Posts

    • DJSQUEEZE: You have real talent there!  Your comment: " LOL 😎 😎 😎 You couldn't be further from the truth, pun intended. IF you're offended, I  apologize. but note:  I made no definitive statement(s). " .... may be grammatically technically true but it projects your OPINION that you have already judged Eoin to be and apostate, which is why you wre issuing the warning, albeit the warning having NO BASIS IN ACTUAL FACT. Such things are how witch-hunts begin ... casting suspicions without a CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER. .... and then trying to weasel-word out of your self made trap .... sigh...... .  
    • you can ask if someone can download it, and add it on a dvd for you, so you have it, !!
    • "Melinda has her letters that she doesn't send. I have my books. We're all encouraged to have our say in our heart to Jehovah and leave it at that, wherever possible. Reveal stuff in the context of where it may help, and there are such times, but don't put it on the clothesline in the front yard where the whole world sees......"  ---TrueTom   Never wrote any letters; never sent any.   Think Anna said she did that as a coping mechanism. Read again.
    •     Αποφοίτηση της 141ης Τάξης της Γαλαάδ: Μέρος 1—Εισαγωγή και Ομιλίες
      https://tv.jw.org/#el/video/VODProgramsEvents/pub-jwbgg_201609_1_VIDEO   DOWNLOAD https://download-a.akamaihd.net/files/media_broadcasting/ae/jwbgg_G_201609_01_r360P.mp4        
    • Although, of course, reality is a bit of a subjective term. I suppose we could ask who's reality? Anyway, I suspect you (and @JWInsider) mean that "the real world" that "some prominent brothers" are divorced from has reference to the set of circumstances experienced by non-SPOOFT Jehovah's Witnesses in their day to day interface with: JWs, (congregational, social, and family life). non-JWs (relatives, interested ones, neighbors, peers in education and the workplace, the non-JW community at large). others (marked, inactive, disfellowshipped). If that is the "reality" to which you are referring, then I would say that, in some cases, rather than a possibility, divorce from this "reality" is a certainty. And is likely a condition experienced by more than "some prominent brothers". I would suggest that other such "la-la Land" inhabitants might include some brought up as Jehovah's Witnesses by Jehovah's Witnesses.