Course UH 101 : Assignment Textual Analysis Kishalay De 1st Semester. Batch 2012-2016 S.R. No.

: 11-01-00-10-91-12-1-09930

Contradictions of a Democracy
Intellectual life is at its best when it is able to criticize, especially when the going is tough. Dipankar Gupta 1 Dipankar Gupta, a former professor of sociology and social anthropology at the Jawaharlal Nehru University, is currently one of the foremost intellectuals in the country, who has raised quite a few eyebrows in the recent past with his controversial articles regarding the present social and political structure of the country2. The article under consideration tries to criticize the rules against satirizing the national flag, as being excessively austere, with the author attempting to provide rigorous evidence for his stand by contrasting with the present rules in other major democracies. Given the recent tension over the political stability of the country, the article is more of a culmination of these conflicts, and how these rules just serve as an example to disclose the governments diffidence over these issues. The article begins by asserting that the rules against ridiculing the national flag have ripped the country apart from its supposedly democratic character. Placing the country in the company of the most authoritarian regimes, the author suggests that the countrys present laws make it analogous to the most severe dictatorial governments. The use of the word largest when describing democracy can be observed throughout the article, which tries to reinforce the idea that the countrys present disposition is a long way from what it is supposed to be. As the article moves on, it is rather astonishing that the author openly accuses India to pick a negative trait from America regularly, and eventually enshrine it in law. This statement has profound implications, and throws considerable light on the authors perspective of Indo-American relations. The tone of the sentence suggests that it is a

rebuke, and the author does seem to be frustrated over Indias unconstructive collaborations with America. The author then focuses his attention on the restraints with caricature of the national flag, which is a major offence, and can be united, with charges of sedition just to lock people up. One cant help but notice the authors annoyance, and considering the recent political past in the country, locking people up has been an overused method of suppressing rebellion. Hence, even with the flag in mind, the author draws attention to this threatening practice in the country. As he takes up the issue of Aseem Trivedi, who was recently in news, he seems to puts forward a daring suggestion the Indian law is arrogant, and anyone trying to take issue with it might well end up in a cell. Amidst the accusations being put forward, there is a silent question being raised: Are we just pretending to be a democracy? The answer is left for the readers to decide. Going back to the United States, he asserts that even there, freedom of expression is given importance, despite of their conservative attitude about the flag. Contrast this with India, and one will find that this implies that India does not give importance to the freedom of expression on the face of democracy, and it is still the largest democracy in the world. He puts forward the particular example of Mike Keefe, who used China to taunt America in a cartoon, and rubbed salt into the wound of the American administration. Comparing this with the style he has used in the article, and there is this striking similarity -- this is precisely what the author has done to convince us of his stand. By giving examples of liberal democracies and their liberal practices, and then showing the methods used in India to suppress these liberties, he has effectively exposed the weak foundations of the Indian democracy. Another striking feature identifiable in the article is that even though he began Americas stand on the flag by using the phrase like India, eventually he almost contradicts

himself by putting forward Americas liberties with the flag, which are certainly far from like India. As he finally asks the most significant question, as to whether insecurity makes us see sedition everywhere, the example that he puts forward is noteworthy. Using particularly the mid eighteenth century Anglo-French tension, he gives an insight into his present view of the country as being in a similar state of hostility, where even cartoons can create revolts in the state. The title of the article certainly puts forward more t han its literal meaning. Flagging is used more as a pun to simultaneously indicate Indias limitations with the national flag, as well as to a general notion of depicting aloud the non-democratic ideals in the country (missing freedom) by waving a flag. The thorough analysis carried out in the essay reveals that even though the author starts with only the flag, by the end of the article, he condemns a large range of practices carried out by our democratic government. The solution, as he finally states, is to create a more caring democracy, for the people. As Andy Warhol had once said, In the future, everyone will be world famous for fifteen minutes3, the author ends on the same lines, asserting that comic makers will continue making the news until we change our ideals.

Bibliography:
1. Neither King nor Philosopher, published in Times of India, 28 th August 2011, by Dipankar Gupta. 2. Dipankar Gupta Profile URL: http://www.dnaindia.com/authors/dipankar-gupta Last accessed on : 5/10/2012 3. Andy Warhol American Artist, who was a leading figure in the pop art movement, Quote is the extract from an interview, URL:
http://news.oneindia.in/feature/2012/15-minutes-of-fame-aseem-trivedi-the-new-mascot1081197.html Last accessed on : 5/10/2012 4. Mistaken Modernity India between worlds, by Dipankar Gupta, Published:

2000, Internet.