It was interesting to see this debate on TV the other day about how a young 16 year old Muslim kid was not allowed to sport a beard as per his tradition. So this case kid’s case was taken up to the Supreme Court which upheld the earlier judgement to disallow him to sport a beard. It was ok until this point when the presiding judge made a remark that there needs to be a limit to secularism and that we do not need ‘talibanisation’ in this country.
In the course of the debate there were many interesting and thought provoking points that came up until my father who was watching this debate with me remarked that this was nothing but timepass by the channel. This remark really got me thinking and made me angry at him at the same time and a debate ensued between the both of us.
The underlying sentiment here is that why do we individuals avoid raising issues that are morally provoking? Why do we choose to avoid them just because it isn’t our concern? I asked my father, “Dad, what if you were in his shoes? Would you still carry the same line of thought? Wouldn’t it affect you?” Similarly if you were a Sikh, whose turban and beard are his sects fundamentals, wouldn’t you protest against the French govt that disallows any display of religion in its schools? So why do we avoid these issues that have answers that are difficult to hear?
So i started thinking about it, about the Supreme Court’s decision. The Constitution of India, gives us the freedom to practise the religion we choose to believe in, the way we want and that’s what makes this great country proudly secular. But, we no longer live in a peaceful but an extremely polarised world that tests our very principles of secularism to the last straw. I am a moderate person who wants a peaceful co-existence and a mutual respect for each other.
So my question to the esteemed judge, a person much more learned and experienced than I am, is a very innocent one in asking is that if a Sikh is allowed to keep his turban and beard as a part of his faith, why can’t a Muslim whose interpretation of his faith makes him want to keep a beard allowed to do so? Is it because he is a school kid that’s why? But there are many Sikh boys who sprout beards while in school. So what about them? Will you disallow them as well?
A corollary to this is that do I, an individual practising a particular form of faith have to display the signs of my religion? If I don’t does it make me a non – believer or any less a religious man? My father is a very pious man, who regularly prays to god and does puja at home. I don’t. So I asked my dad if it made me a non – believer or any less a Hindu? As long as I remembered and thanked God for my life once a day and didn’t display any religious insignia, had god in my heart wasn’t I still a Hindu? So is a person who cuts his hair and doesn’t sport a beard not a Sikh although he religiously stands by the edicts of Sri Guru Gobindji?
This brings me to another judgement that based on the corollary above the French govt was right in its stand in banning religious symbolism in its schools. The principle in this is that if you were a houseguest, you would follow the rules followed by your guests and not those of your own. Its that simple. If you can’t do that what do you do? You leave.
My friends know me very well and know that I respect every religion immensely and mean no disrespect to any religion, all of whom i consider to promote the same principles. I agree that we live an immensely polarised world, the cause of which is us in more ways than one but the question is do we draw a line? If yes, then where? And until when do we continue to avoid these morally questioning issues or pass them off as none of our concern?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Hi Kartik,
This is a very subjective issue.
For a person like me who believes that God is one & that there is no segregation on basis of religion, sporting something which would prove your faith in God makes no sense. I firmly believe in the "Eternal life" and that one should be eternally pure to be close to God.
Regards,
Abhinav Agarwal
Dear Kartik,
I appreciate your concern for preserving the secularism & also the will to spare a thought, as well as time, to write a blog on the issue.
I would just like to highlight certain facts here.
Firstly, though the Constitution provides for the right to freedom of religion (freedom of conscience & free profession, practice & propagation of religion), it imposes certain restrictions on it subject to:
a. public order
b. morality
c. health
d. other provisions of the Fundamental Rights.
Secondly, the constitutional guarantee regarding 'practice' of religion is for practices which are as such a part of religion as religious faith or doctrines.
Though the person involved here may not be violating any of the restrictions, he cannot claim to sport a beard as a part of his faith since it hasn't been explicitly laid down in tenets/doctrine of the religion. Speaking about the Sikhs, maintaining a beard or rather not cutting a beard is one of the 5 essential practices explicitly laid down in their religious doctrine. And if we do check the same for Islam, the 5 essential practices of Islam nowhere talk about sporting a beard (even wearing a burqa for that matter doesn't feature in it) as a part of religious belief.
And lastly about the point of Talibanisation, I guess the statement is very well thought of though prima facie it seems to be frivolous. Taliban is known to be a religious fanatic group which construes the religion in it's own way to justify it's actions. The boy under consideration here is also trying to portray an action of his to be a part of his religious practice which may not be true if one is to be speaking strictly in constitutional terms.
Well, you could consider highlighting the recent statement by Sharad Pawar to give MHADA settlements to Muslims. That's a slap on the face of our nation & its constitution, but the news channels (who have interests in only sensationalising the news) will never highlight it. It is all due to a false sense of protecting the rights of the minorities whereas it is actually minority appeasement. Reservations based on religion are not provided for by our constitution, in fact it cries foul against any such moves because a separate communal electorate (1909) for the Muslims was seen by many as a step that rent the social fabric and eventually lead to partition.
Just to give you an idea of the bias of the media... are you even aware that during the recent communal riots that broke out in Hyderabad there were such communal riots going on in 2 other places in our contry? No news channel highlighted it... and the only possible reason is that these had been instigated by the 'so-called' minorities & hence little scope to sensationalize it. Imagine a situation where the things would have been the other way round and the amount of media attention it would have drawn.
It is about time that we see beyond what the news channels want us to see.
I really like your concern though buddy. Keep it up!
Post a Comment