The good old Supreme Court in India is at it again. The Right Hon. (is that used in India?) Markandeya Katju ruled that 'growing a beard was akin to promoting Talibanisation in the country.' The case before him was that of a student Mohammad Salim petitioning to keep his beard while his school, Nirmala Convent Higher Secondary School in Madhya Pradesh, essentially said, "Shave or Death!" (or maybe "... Bugger Off!"). Of course along with these statements, the court also said that if you're at the school, follow the rules or leave, which is really what this matter is about to begin with.
The defence argued that 'sporting a beard was an indispensable part of Islam'. Justice Katju had this classic comeback, "But you [Justice Khan] don't sport a beard". I wonder if he was complimenting his practice of Islam or insulting his ability to grow the fuzz on the cheeks. No doubt he was twirling his own moustache (if he has one), drinking some wine and unveiling his Gallic villain laugh, "Haunh, haunh, haunh". Pulling the age old French positive liberty arguement of no-one displaying any religious liberty whatsoever in public schools, Katju argued for 'balanced secularism'. All-India Muslim Majlis-e-Mushawarat President Zafarul Islam Khan called Justice Katju’s remarks "unfortunate".
I'm surprised he didn't say, "Who are you? Telling an entire religious community whether they can shave or not. You daft git."
Justice Katju may also have missed meeting a Sikh to date. The most obvious example of a community that displays its religion openly, I'm certain no Indian school has asked them to shave lest it lead to the Khalisatnisation of India. If Katju truly wants to achieve 'balanced secularism', let him make sure everyone is on an even platform. No beards for Muslims or Sikhs. No prayers for Hindus or Muslims. Of course, he may claim he's not trying to target Islam but just taking issue with an aspect that he associates with fundamentalist terrorist groups from Afghanistan and Pakistan. So is he then tasked with interpreting the religion and what makes a good Muslim? Is that why he told the counsel that he didn't sport a beard and did fine as a Muslim? Is that the argument for allowing Sikhs to sport beards, because it makes them better practitioners of the religion? If he feels Muslims growing beards to follow their Prophet's tradition is foolhardy then he should take another look at Sikhs growing beards to differentiate themselves as saint soldiers for Aurangzeb to target directly.
It is a difficult decision to make, to say the least. It obviously goes beyond following school rules as Sikhs have always been allowed to flout it. How does he then favour one minority over another on such a ridiculous basis? It is not possible in India to stifle religious traditions and beliefs. Attempting to do so can only lead to trouble. Justice Katju may continue to sip his French wine and guffaw his Gallic "haunh, haunh, haunh" but his ruling may alienate a major community and accelerate any Talibanisation that worries him so.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
I think the judgement's fair. He is free to sport the beard however, he also needs to respect the rules of a private institute. If he finds them in dis-consonance with his personal beliefs he's free to switch schools. I know of many schools that would allow him to keep a beard.
ReplyDeleteOn a separate note, just like we want religion to remain a private affair and remain separated from the state (church-state separation), as a modern society we should in the same way expect religion and professional institutions to remain separated. Religion should not govern how rules and regulations in professional institutes are framed. Personally, if it's just about the beard I do think it's a bit harsh - not the judgement - but the institute's regulations. A little Gandhigiri could get that fixed. However, there still is the question of where you draw the line - is a burqa acceptable?
Look if it was a simple matter of abiding by the rules then obviously the kid has to do so. It is a public school so it becomes a government matter and one for the country to decide what sort of secularism we want. He can change schools but there might be all sorts of constraints in terms of private schools being cheap enough or within easy reach.
ReplyDeleteTo me the line has been drawn at beards for Muslims not being considered mandatory to practice the religion. If Sikhism is exempt from this ruling that is a concern to me. Either you hold everyone to the same law on non-overt display of their religion or let everyone be free. As of now it stinks of targeting a particular religion and community.