Difference in Freedom of Speech between US and India

The Indian Supreme Court recently ruled that "nobody can tinker with the national anthem". In question is a song from the new Ram Gopal Verma movie Rann called "Jana Gana Mana Rann" based on the Indian National Anthem "Jana Gana Mana".



The Supreme Court was not the sole dissenter. The song has incensed many others to go on rampage and destroy public property and near-riot situations have been witnessed in a few cities. If there was one acid test that I could administer to these dissenters that would determine their futility or rationality of burning vehicles on roads, it would be this.

Make each one of them enter a soundproof booth and then ask them to sing the National Anthem. I wouldn't be surprised if more than half of these "protectors of Indian honor, culture and lets say everything under the sky" would fail to get beyond a few lines.

To me the issue is larger than dishonoring a national institution. I don't think changing the lyrics of a national song to reflect a story's plot qualifies as dishonoring or tampering. It is rather an artistic expression. And the expression be in favor of the country or against it, protecting that freedom of expressing that thought is more important than the expression itself.

Here is another version of the song sung by children and in compliance with the original tune as composed by Laureate Rabindranath Tagore.



This is not the only instance where Freedom of Speech is seen so radically different in the two countries, US and India. In US, you can burn the American flag as a sign of protest and as a right of showing dissent against the government or the country.. I'm sure if somebody tried that in India, their clothes would be next in line to go with the flag-bonfire.

When the Supreme Court says you cannot tinker with the National Anthem, how far can you draw the line? Should we include common masses and some bad musicians who can't sing or play the anthem to perfection? Should we time each performance of the anthem so that it fits the stipulated 52 second rule ?

And should we not then castigate AR Rahman, BharatBala and almost every top vocalist in the country for their inspiring production of the national anthem, titled "Jan Gan Man" because they "tinkered" with it by changing the tempo, adding more instrumentation and sound to it?



If we can fall in love with this BharatBala production because it inspires us and fills us with pride and joy for being Indian, shouldn't we then as reasonable people respect dissent and opposing opinion as well?

As an Indian, I rather have an imperfect country where people can speak their minds out even if it is acutely criticizing the country and what it stands for ... than a perfect country where we don't have the right to express ourselves fully lest it anger or hurt somebody's emotion.

Here is the article on NDTV.com which made me write my post.