So, why can't the lions be roaring?

As the Prime Minister unleashed the freshly minted national emblem yesterday, a vociferous debate clogged the social media expressways. It seems that, apart from every other protocol error, the lions are way more aggressive than the subservient originals, a contravention of Ashokan originality.

Now, I do get the ambition of the opposition, structured or otherwise, to take a dig at the ruling dispensation constantly, this being a persistent tradition of fine democracy. But for some ample moments, it is necessary to be sensible and wear the India colors with gaping pride, as opposed to being the designated spanner, on a daily retainer. There are a whole lot of valuable reasons why this evolutionary representation of a legendary symbol is so right on very many counts, aesthetics perhaps the only legitimate subjectivity. 

The galavanding India of today is vastly different from the partitioned child of 1947, and the illustrations are simplistically abundant. From the telling tables of literacy to the impressive coffers of hard currency, our celestially talented human capital has made the most of the structural progressions. It is a boring cliche to even refer to the IT revolution or perhaps, the  stupendous contribution to and impact of technology, on our teeming masses. The India story is no longer Lutyen's Delhi or 'lootera' Mumbai, but that humongous mass of talent, hitherto classified dismissively as 'tier two', is today a significant socio economic force in the universe.

So, in this larger context, the lions are indeed entitled to roar with no lesser intensity than their MGM peers, in spite of fuel price rises. The beauty of nations is the power to evolve, and India most certainly is an undisguised success, when compared to the Westminister colonial alumni of the 20th century. In a strangely logical vein, the aggression of the lions is deeply justified, a superlative of self expression that the country has earned with much toil and strife.

One of the fundamental tenets of democracy, classically, is to be divided internally while being united externally. As in, when opportunities or challenges emerge, which impact national prestige, we must let our differences pass, while not suspending the intensity of local agendas. Exactly why, countries unite in times of war or extreme success, like World Cup victories or celebrity accolades. The national emblem is one such specimen, of a resurgent India making a significant mark in a competitive world, and let's not treat it like a TRP moment, to create shortlived strife. 

The most ridiculous argument of all, is that the new age symbolism is strategic Hindutva, for since exactly when does the animal kingdom have such affiliations. Whether other parties should have been invited or not, is truly an adjunct subject, for inclusions and exclusions are indeed, accomplished elements of state craft, the ultimate format of stagecraft. What the educated Indians must learn is a unified sense of positive projection, what Americans do so well, in spite of crippling internal disagreements.

Many may disagree but there is a larger point I wish to make here, defensible by hard data. That we, the better-off in India, are actually way better off than most global peers, in terms of opportunities,  delights and rights. Yes, most certainly, we must be constantly vigilant, and routinely expressive, yet with the maturity to put up a unified universal facade, like in cricket matches, for instance. Else, we may well be playing to the interests of our detractors, and there are indeed many for a successful nation like ours. 

After seventy five years of independence, we deserve to craft our autonomous architectural identity, stripped of colonial impositions and Nehruvian complicity. The national symbol is a minute but meaningful representation of the Central Vista and a spellbinding symbol of our hard-earned global stature. At times it pays to be unconditionally Indian on a global stage, while continuing to defy doggedly in indigenous forums.