The answers are not easy. So lets start an open debate to address the issue in civil society apart from order in the court.
An Indian Air Force NCO had challenged the IAF order of 2003 not allowing Muslims serving in the IAF to keep beards. Prior to that, Muslims serving in the IAF could do it with the sanction of a senior authority. This is what the Indian government has told the Supreme Court now.
"All Air Force personnel, while on duty, are required to wear similar uniform and do not display any sign or object which marks him distinct from others. In an armed force, it is always intended that to the extent possible, all personnel should look identifiably similar so that they may work in a cohesive, co-operative and co-ordinate manner" The Indian Express 18 Jan'2009.
The reasoning sounds pretty cogent and the principle of a distinct religious identity in uniform should be followed across the board, without any exceptions. The problem in executing that order in the IAF lies with practitioners of Sikhism.
According to Cplash ( A Citizen Journalism Site)
"In this connection, it may be mentioned that when IAF is allowing its Sikh personnel to grow long hair and beard as it is in keeping with the injunctions of the Sikh religion, it must not disallow its Muslim personnel from keeping beard as it is enjoined upon the Muslims by Sunnah and Hadith to keep beard. The IAF can in no case be discriminatory against the Muslims. It has either to ask its Sikh personnel also to shave off their long hair and beard or else it must allow Muslims to grow a beard. That would meet the ends of the justice. Moreover, I think that IAF is allowing its Muslim personnel to have upto four living wives. So, it is not totally free of religion as it claims.
The Additional Solicitor General had earlier provided the argument that would make it difficult for the IAF to keep the Sikhs out of the scope of this new order.
The government is bound to respect religious freedom. But there is an overdriving concept of public interest when one is working in the Armed Forces. Can one sport a beard as an act of distinctiveness when the person is expected to work in an environment of cohesiveness ? The pursuit of faith is not abrogated, but standing out is what concerns the forces.
Should a personnel deserve his identity as a matter of duty or his faith? The State is free of any religion. Those who have already entered service and are keeping a beard, we are not stopping them. But for fresh recruits, we are applying a uniform rule. TOI says.
France had earlier faced much turmoil when banned all conspicuous religious symbols from state schools– Islamic headscarves, Jewish skullcaps, Sikh turbans and large Christian crosses — in 2004. The separation of state from religion has been a debatable issue in all pluralist, democratic societies and India is no exception.
I admit limited knowledge of various religions and their symbols, but one principle clearly seems right for the Indian Armed Forces — No visible symbols of distinctiveness should be allowed in uniform. But that brings into debate the tricky issue of the Sikh community, which has been a mainstay of the Indian Armed Forces for centuries now. It has worn its own distinctive symbols, which have not hampered their outstanding performance as military personnel. And if Islam is under the spotlight today because of its association with terror, then Sikhism has had its own brush with terror. It even led to mutiny by some serving Sikh soldiers after Operation Blue Star in 1984.
There are no simple solutions to this vexed question. History, tradition, freedom of pursuing religion (as deemed fit by an individual) versus public service norms, secularism (separation of religion from the state) and efficiency of the Armed Fforces. This needs to be vigorously debated.
Perhaps, a note similar to the note issued by Council of Europe on wearing of religious symbols in public areas needs to be brought out in the Indian context as a starting point for the debate. It is not only Europe, even the United States is struggling with restriction on displaying religious symbols in military cemeteries.
We hope that the Indian society and polity is mature enough to debate such fundamental issues in a healthy and frank manner. Or is the nation better keeping a controversy at bay by letting the court make its pronouncements on the subject.
Your thought provoking suggestions are the need of the hour so as not to let this issue be the another in the queues of controversies we have a record of.
An Indian Air Force NCO had challenged the IAF order of 2003 not allowing Muslims serving in the IAF to keep beards. Prior to that, Muslims serving in the IAF could do it with the sanction of a senior authority. This is what the Indian government has told the Supreme Court now.
"All Air Force personnel, while on duty, are required to wear similar uniform and do not display any sign or object which marks him distinct from others. In an armed force, it is always intended that to the extent possible, all personnel should look identifiably similar so that they may work in a cohesive, co-operative and co-ordinate manner" The Indian Express 18 Jan'2009.
The reasoning sounds pretty cogent and the principle of a distinct religious identity in uniform should be followed across the board, without any exceptions. The problem in executing that order in the IAF lies with practitioners of Sikhism.
According to Cplash ( A Citizen Journalism Site)
"In this connection, it may be mentioned that when IAF is allowing its Sikh personnel to grow long hair and beard as it is in keeping with the injunctions of the Sikh religion, it must not disallow its Muslim personnel from keeping beard as it is enjoined upon the Muslims by Sunnah and Hadith to keep beard. The IAF can in no case be discriminatory against the Muslims. It has either to ask its Sikh personnel also to shave off their long hair and beard or else it must allow Muslims to grow a beard. That would meet the ends of the justice. Moreover, I think that IAF is allowing its Muslim personnel to have upto four living wives. So, it is not totally free of religion as it claims.
The Additional Solicitor General had earlier provided the argument that would make it difficult for the IAF to keep the Sikhs out of the scope of this new order.
The government is bound to respect religious freedom. But there is an overdriving concept of public interest when one is working in the Armed Forces. Can one sport a beard as an act of distinctiveness when the person is expected to work in an environment of cohesiveness ? The pursuit of faith is not abrogated, but standing out is what concerns the forces.
Should a personnel deserve his identity as a matter of duty or his faith? The State is free of any religion. Those who have already entered service and are keeping a beard, we are not stopping them. But for fresh recruits, we are applying a uniform rule. TOI says.
France had earlier faced much turmoil when banned all conspicuous religious symbols from state schools– Islamic headscarves, Jewish skullcaps, Sikh turbans and large Christian crosses — in 2004. The separation of state from religion has been a debatable issue in all pluralist, democratic societies and India is no exception.
I admit limited knowledge of various religions and their symbols, but one principle clearly seems right for the Indian Armed Forces — No visible symbols of distinctiveness should be allowed in uniform. But that brings into debate the tricky issue of the Sikh community, which has been a mainstay of the Indian Armed Forces for centuries now. It has worn its own distinctive symbols, which have not hampered their outstanding performance as military personnel. And if Islam is under the spotlight today because of its association with terror, then Sikhism has had its own brush with terror. It even led to mutiny by some serving Sikh soldiers after Operation Blue Star in 1984.
There are no simple solutions to this vexed question. History, tradition, freedom of pursuing religion (as deemed fit by an individual) versus public service norms, secularism (separation of religion from the state) and efficiency of the Armed Fforces. This needs to be vigorously debated.
Perhaps, a note similar to the note issued by Council of Europe on wearing of religious symbols in public areas needs to be brought out in the Indian context as a starting point for the debate. It is not only Europe, even the United States is struggling with restriction on displaying religious symbols in military cemeteries.
We hope that the Indian society and polity is mature enough to debate such fundamental issues in a healthy and frank manner. Or is the nation better keeping a controversy at bay by letting the court make its pronouncements on the subject.
Your thought provoking suggestions are the need of the hour so as not to let this issue be the another in the queues of controversies we have a record of.
No comments:
Post a Comment