It is all about the game of SYMBOLISM.
The Tricolour brings up the word Bharat because it is a representative of Bharat. A National Flag represents the hopes and aspirations of the people of a country. And that is why it is also a symbol of national pride, thus bringing out that patriotic feeling when you look at it.
Now when I’m emphasising symbols, let's understand why we even need them.
Signs or symbols convey the same message without saying a word, they communicate the same thing more precisely and somehow much more effectively. And this kind of symbolism towards the nation isn’t just with the flag, things like the national anthem also convey the same message or the same feelings.
Now as mentioned earlier such symbols represent the country, so there can be many such things which somehow portray Bharat but a question came to my mind— Are all of them officially recognised?
I googled about our national symbols and got a Wikipedia page titled ‘National Symbols of India’. Here I found national symbols ranging from the Jana Gana Mana to even Mango. MANGO? Seriously? Obviously, I wouldn't just rely on that, so I checked out the government website india.gov.in which would be more reliable to find the answer to my question. It lists seven things as national symbols—
National Flag- Tricolour
National Anthem- Jana Gana Mana
Natthat Song- Vande Mataram
State Emblem- an adaptation of the Sarnath Lion Capital of Ashoka
National Bird- Indian Peacock
National Animal- Royal Bengal Tiger
National Flower- Lotus
Due to some doubt and curiosity, I tried to find out when, how, and, why these were officially adopted as national symbols. So here's what I found —
The Tricolour was adopted as the National Flag by the Constituent Assembly of India on 22 July 1947 by a resolution tabled by Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru. The previous flag which was used during the freedom movement had the same tricolour but with a Charkha in the centre, now that Charkha was replaced by the Ashoka Chakra. Why?
Normally speaking, the symbol on one side of the Flag should be the same as on the other side. Otherwise, there is a difficulty which goes against the rules. Now, the Charkha, as it appeared previously that this Flag, had the wheel on one side and the spindle on the other. If you see the other side of the Flag, the spindle comes the other way and the wheel comes this way; if it does not do so, it is not proportionate, because the wheel must be towards the pole, not towards the end of the Flag. There was this practical difficulty. Therefore, after considerable thought, we were of course convinced that this great symbol….should continue in a slightly different form, that the wheel should be there, not the rest of the Charkha….
— Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru on 22 July 1947 at the Constituent Assembly of India
Ashoka’s Lion Capital was also adopted, not by a separate resolution but as part of the National Flag Resolution itself. But the proper design of the State Emblem was only defined by an Act of 2005.
The decision of choosing the National Anthem and the National Song of the country was also neither made through any constitutional provision nor any formal resolution. Instead, it was adopted unanimously by the Constituent Assembly just through a declaration by Dr Rajendra Prasad.
There is one matter which has been pending for discussion, namely the question of the National Anthem. At one time it was thought that the matter might be brought up before the House and a decision taken by the House by way of a resolution. But it has been felt that, instead of taking a formal decision by means of a resolution, it is better if I make a statement with regard to the National Anthem. Accordingly I make this statement.
The composition consisting of the words and music known as Jana Gana Mana is the National Anthem of India, subject to such alterations in the words as the Government may authorise as occasion arises; and the song Vande Mataram, which has played a historic part in the struggle for Indian freedom, shall be honoured equally with Jana Gana Mana and shall have equal status with it. (Applause). I hope this will satisfy the Members.
— Dr Rajendra Prasad on 24 January 1950 at the Constituent Assembly of India
Now let's come to the National Bird and the National Animal. Regarding them, I found a 2011 notification from the Ministry of Environment and Forests (Wildlife Division) where they re-notified Tiger as the National Animal and Peacock as the National Bird of India. They were originally notified in 1973 and 1963 respectively but those original notifications were not available in the official records of the ministry for quite some time that's why they re-notified it.
One of the major reasons for choosing Tiger was its continuously declining population in the country and because of this, Project Tiger was also launched in 1973. Tiger has also been a symbol of magnificence and power for ages and has been associated with bravery and valour. It has a significant place in Hinduism too as the vahan of Maa Durga. Similarly, from Shri Krishna adorning the peacock feather in his crown to the jewelled Peacock Throne of Shah Jahan, that bird has always been an essential part of all art forms in the subcontinent and a symbol of beauty in Indian culture.
Before arriving at our last National Symbol I just want to debunk one common misconception among the people of our country which is that Field Hockey is our National Sport. In 2020, in the reply to an RTI query, the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports replied, "The government has not declared any sport/game as the national game of the country, as the objective of the government is to encourage/promote all popular sports disciplines." But why this misconception exists? You see the popularity that Cricket has today is the same as with Hockey in the early 1950s and even before independence. Indian Hockey team's victories made them stand out and encouraged more and more people to play the sport. This period was considered golden, as we won six consecutive gold medals at the Olympics. This is why Hockey was believed to be the National Sport of the country. The only thing is that with time somehow this conception of it being the National Sport didn't go away. Although this misconception has been debunked many times, the continuation of this being taught is creating new misconceptualists.
Now let's arrive at our last destination, the Lotus. Here I didn't find any official declaration supporting its position as the National Flower. Instead what I found was CONTROVERSY.
In December 2019, the Central Government in a move to enhance the security features of passports to identify fake ones started printing Lotus on its second page as an authentication mark. The opposition raised questions regarding it and alleged it was a “further saffronisation” of the government establishment with the Lotus being the election symbol of the BJP.
When asked about the issue, the then Ministry of External Affairs spokesperson Raveesh Kumar said, “This symbol is our national flower and is part of the enhanced security features to identify fake passports.” These security features have been introduced as part of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) guidelines, he said. “Apart from the Lotus, other national symbols will be used on rotation. Right now it is Lotus, then next month there will be something else. These are symbols connected with India such as the national flower or national animal.”
However, this was in contradiction to the Centre’s own stand taken just five months ago in Parliament. On 10 July 2019, in a written reply, the then Union Minister of State for Home Nityananda Rai informed the Rajya Sabha that the government has not issued any notification with regard to India having a national flower.
Similarly in 2017 in the response to an RTI, the Botanical Survey of India said, “The BSI has never declared any flower as the national flower of India”.
So we can clearly see that the government is itself confused regarding its stance on this. But a major question is how did we get this popular perception of Lotus being the National Flower of Bharat even though there isn't any official declaration regarding it? My friend Hritam would take over from here and would try to bring out the reason for this, and therefore conclude this article.
What if a person who lives in a slum becomes a civil servant? What would ensue?
MEDIA, MEDIA and MEDIA.
Now imagine that the person now a civil servant continues to live in the slum but not in the official residence, and he/she only leaves the slum while discharging his/her duties.
The consequence would be that person will become a national sensation perhaps in a lighter vein can become a national symbol that has arisen from darkness to light but has not stopped living in darkness although simultaneously working in the light.
The Lotus is that civil servant which grows from the muddy water and blooms during sunlight and goes back to that muddy water during the moonlight.
“There is hardly any symbolism in Indian poetry, sculpture and painting more extensive than that belonging to the Lotus flower and other parts of the plant,” writes Thomas Kintaert in On the Cultural Significance of the Leaf of the Indian Lotus. The Lotus is popularly considered the national flower because it enjoyed a significant presence in ancient traditions, scriptures and mythology. Several Hindu deities like Brahma, Vishnu, Saraswati and Lakshmi are often portrayed on a Pink Lotus. In Buddhism, Gautam Buddha and in Jainism, the Tirthankaras have often been portrayed as seated or standing on Lotus thrones. In numerous Indian art forms like paintings and architecture, Lotus always had a special place.
ब्रह्मण्याधाय कर्माणि सङ्गं त्यक्त्वा करोति य: |
लिप्यते न स पापेन पद्मपत्रमिवाम्भसा || 10||
[English Translation] One who performs his duty without attachment, surrendering the results unto the Supreme Lord, is unaffected by sinful action, as the lotus is untouched by water.
— Bhagavad Gita 5.10
I, therefore, argue that we shall not enter into the controversy of the nationality of Lotus but instead shall appreciate that despite India being a partitioned and impoverished country in 1947 and remaining a lesser impoverished country to date, has achieved heights from such poverty exactly the way a Lotus does.
In an unpalatable sense, the politicians are also like a Lotus because they reach the muddy water i.e. the poor at the time of the election, the period of half-moon light thereby darkness, but live in bungalows after the election results the sunlight of which continues for 5 years.
My partner Mr Sharma, and I must say here that no clarification is needed regarding the effect of the word ‘partner’ because Article 21 and the Supreme Court of this country are starting at the face of those who have just thought about the clarification. Anyways, my partner has sieved through the records and has filtered out the most relevant records from the more relevant records regarding the symbols of national pride and has presented before you why symbols are important and the origin of the symbols.
However, I am unsure of the fruits of the symbols to the extent the living creatures other than humans are concerned and thereby am inclined to doubt whether my partner has done a disserve to his time by indulging in such symbolic exercises about the symbols.
I can understand why a country needs a flag, am compelled to agree with the reasons why a democratic and diverse country needs an anthem, and am even coerced to agree with the reasons why a country needs an emblem.
However, I have tried to understand but have utterly failed that why a country needs birds, flowers, and animals as symbols.
The apparent reason may be to show to the world that look we have adopted the characteristics of a particular flower thereby we are preceded by the flower, therefore if you subscribe to the ethos of the flower then for you there is no escaping route following which you can unfollow us.
However, I argue that the very act of adopting a flower or bird, or animal to convey your ethos is an act of a copy master.
We must ask this question who is the owner of those living creatures that grow under the lap of nature without the direct intervention of humans? The birds, flowers, and animals owe their growth to nature, and therefore, they with nature are the owner of their body and the characteristics thereof. The birds, flowers, and animals fall under the column of naturae which means they are the living creatures of nature and when they are out of anyone’s custody, nature owns them. Therefore, the act of adoption is against the tenet ‘you shall adopt the things which you can own’.
The adoption of birds, animals, and flowers as symbols indicates that we are lacking in human representation, which we are not, as we are having many personalities who can act as symbols to represent us. For example, what we do with the brand of the Mahatma.
Therefore, the adoption of birds, flowers, and animals as our symbols shows that the very creatures who we say we control are the ones on whom we have to rely on to represent our ethos devoid of any creativity.
The world lacks human resources because we humans despite being unnatural to nature, invariably rely on nature not only for our food but also for our status which we express through the other creatures of nature.
Ahem….This is Siddhant again. I know I said that Hritam Maharaj would only conclude and he'll only do that but I just wanted to add something. So here it is—
We, humans, are social creatures who desire a sense of belonging and a national identity provides us exactly with that. And as explained earlier national symbols (official/unofficial or animal/flower doesn't matter) help keep this identity united and strong. Thus, we use anything ranging from a bird to a flag that portrays our identity and characteristics as a community or a larger society of diverse communities. And as Hritam asked this question why do we adopt animals as symbols, I believe it may be because we think of animals as reflections of ourselves and look for deep origins of our current behaviour, as we are animals too just much-evolved ones.
After consulting with the last paragraph authored by Sharmaji, the keys of my keyboard have started inviting me to type more and therefore I am here.
Sharmaji argues that national identity is the birth giver, in whatever capacity and way, of the sense of belonging.
Sense of belonging to whom? To this country. If it is so, then according to Sharmaji, every citizen of this country thinks that he/she/it belongs to this country and thereby everyone thinks that he/she/it is the son/daughter/person of this country.
Does every citizen irrespective of status think that he/she/it is someone of Bharat/India? The answer is a resounding NO because every style is not owned by this country, and therefore, unity in diversity is a myth exactly the way your privacy becomes a myth when you are having access to the internet or when your washroom’s window says uninvited Hi to the window of another house.
Therefore, in no way does national identity give a sense of belonging to all.
Sharmaji further argues that we humans search for animals who to some extent replicate the characteristics of humans and on finding the best replicating candidate, we make it our symbol. Sharmaji argues we humans are evolved animals therefore we cannot avoid finding ourselves in animals, therefore, in other words, let us argue that Sharmaji wants to forget his Dharamji at the cost of his Sharmji to justify in the form of sarcasm that in some cases human acts like animals because of their past lineage continuing at present.
If we accept the argument of Sharmaji, then the executive of this country shall declare Monkey the national symbol of this country as it replicates a lot of human characteristics, however, I am afraid that the people will want to get resembled a Bandar or Bandariya.
Choosing animals as symbols nourishes the myth of unity in diversity where by adding all or at least most we show unity to become acceptable to the world. We need both the Tiger and the Lotus to show that while we are courageous and can resort to violence without only reporting to the west, we are compassionate and thereby are nonviolent.
However, if we choose Subhas Babu as our symbol we do not have to choose the Mahatma to show compassion as our Bapu had practised calculative violence and henceforth had also practised non-violence if his calculation has advised him to do so.
Therefore choosing the human as our symbol will avoid choosing several animals thereby reducing the number of symbols to convey substantially all our traits if not completely because to show the combination of compassion and courage you need only one human but to show the same with animals you need more than one.
Unity in diversity is an anathema to unity until the diverse beings find a common ground of association amongst them.
Fabulous 😍
ReplyDelete😊
Delete