"It is poignant but fundamental that the flag protects those who hold it in contempt" — so said Justice Anthony Kennedy, concurring with a majority judgment of the US Supreme Court in 1989 that burning the American national flag, deeply offensive though it is, cannot be proscribed as it enjoys protection under the First Amendment that protects free speech.This assessment contains two essential principles of democracy, both of which are violated by the Supreme Court of india’s deplorable order today to make everyone stand up and listen to the national anthem before watching a movie at the cinema One is recognition of free speech as a very important constituent of the democratic political order that holds the nation together. The freedom of expression granted by the political system can extend to vehement rejection of the political order, so long as it does not actively incite proximate violence. Refusing to sing along or stand to attention while the national anthem plays would count as exercise of free speech, even if of the undesirable kind.The other principle the Court order mutilates holds that what harms the state and corrodes its integrity is its failure to live up to its own principles, rather than any base word or deed from individual, putatively misguided citizens.Mandatorily listening to the national anthem on one’s feet, says the Supreme Court, will "instil a sense of committed patriotism and nationalism" in citizens. More likely, it would give people some extra time to either make their way to the theatre or to choose the right flavour of popcorn at the food counter outside the movie hall.Locating patriotism and nationalism in playing the national anthem at the cinema is ridiculous for a variety of reasons. What is the logical connection between the national anthem and movies ? If hearing the national anthem while standing up would make people patriotic, why not play it inside the Metro, suburban trains or building lifts? Why restrict patriotic fervour to movie watching? Why not before breakfast? Or after dinner?The Court errs in conflating symbol with substance. It fails to appreciate that a simple definition of dirt is anything that is out of place . Sambar is fine food on your plate or in your mouth, but dirt when on your shirt. Manure is life-source inside the flower pot, but smelly dirt on your balcony floor. Forcing the national anthem to go to the movies is to spill curry on to the table mat.The Court also errs in determining the direction of causation between patriotism and its articulation via symbols. If you have an infection in your body, you will run a temperature. But does this mean that if you have a hot shower, you would develop an infection?Commitment to, affection for and pride in the nation come from your experience of citizenship, not stand-alone tokens. The greater the individual achievements of people, institutions and enterprises refract through social life to enrich a citizen’s life, the greater his sense of identification with the nation. The point should be to work on those achievements and the myriad ways in which they filter through society to impact the life and consciousness of the rest, in order to raise the nation’s glory. Issuing edicts to this end is more than a little ridiculous.