Talibanizing secularism
Secularism is indeed a foreign concept for India. Many Indians have difficulty understanding it and therefore are confused on how to apply it in their personal and professional lives. Latest example is Supreme Court’s Justice Markandey Katju. While denying a request by a Muslim student to keep a beard while going to a convent school, Justice Katju termed it as “overstretching” of secularism.
Denying the plea of Mohammed Saleem, a 16 year old student of a Christian missionary school because school had a right to make rules that it seems fit would have ended this matter. But Justice Katju overstretched himself and said “We don’t want to have Talibans in the country. Tomorrow a girl student may come and say that she wants to wear a burqa. Can we allow it?”
First thing objectionable in his statement is that he is associating beard and burqa with the Talibans. Taliban was a puritanical group that emerged in Afghanistan few years after Russian occupation ended and provided stability to the region. Their use of force was not only limited to stabilization but also used force to enforce their understanding of Islam on the population. Men were asked to grow beard and women were told to wear burqa. So Talibanization is nothing but forcing of ideas and practices that you think is right without acknowledging that there are other opinions out there.
Justice Katju, if he comes out of his ivory towers will see that beard and burqa has been part of Islam in India for thousands of years and continue to be so. Muslims, in all walks of life continue to function with or without beard and with or without burqa. It is not a strange sight to see women in burqa in markets, tourist places, and schools & colleges.
Just because some Sikhs shave their hair and beard doesn’t mean that the requirement of five Ks is not there anymore. Similarly, a majority of Muslim men may not have beard these days but this does not take away the well-established fact that Islam requires men to have beard. Even if some one argues that it is not mention in the Quran and not a “farz.” We have to understand there is not one official version of Islam. Besides the differences between Shia and Sunni, there are at least four accepted schools of jurisprudence among the Sunnis. So, to say that there is one official version of Islam is to fall into the argument of Wahabbis or Talibans who don’t want to see any other practices of Islam that they don’t agree with. So the argument that even Mohammed Saleem’s Muslim lawyer doesn’t have a beard, is not valid.
Mohammed Saleem should be able to keep his beard if he thinks it is a religious duty for him and if his beard is not a factor in teaching and learning at his school. And I don’t see any reason why it should hinder the process of learning. If he insists that he will wear kurta and paijama to school then I can see a problem with that. It seems that the court thought beard to be something external like a uniform. It is not, for those who choose to have beard, for them it is a part of their body, just like color of their skin or hair on their head. Will the court let a school get away with a rule that bars people of certain skin color?
Other arguments given by Muslims and others that we need to set up our own schools where we can teach and do things that we think is best for our children. That may be right but if we all live and learn separately we all be in isolation and our understanding of others will be seen through the glasses of ‘stereotypes.’ So let the guards go down, allow some flexibility and compromise to improve understanding between people and we should all learn to accept people as they are not as we want them to appear.
Your honor, demand for religious rights is not Talibanization but denying is.
Published: 3 April 2009
http://www.twocircles.net/2009apr03/talibanizing_secularism.html
Denying the plea of Mohammed Saleem, a 16 year old student of a Christian missionary school because school had a right to make rules that it seems fit would have ended this matter. But Justice Katju overstretched himself and said “We don’t want to have Talibans in the country. Tomorrow a girl student may come and say that she wants to wear a burqa. Can we allow it?”
First thing objectionable in his statement is that he is associating beard and burqa with the Talibans. Taliban was a puritanical group that emerged in Afghanistan few years after Russian occupation ended and provided stability to the region. Their use of force was not only limited to stabilization but also used force to enforce their understanding of Islam on the population. Men were asked to grow beard and women were told to wear burqa. So Talibanization is nothing but forcing of ideas and practices that you think is right without acknowledging that there are other opinions out there.
Justice Katju, if he comes out of his ivory towers will see that beard and burqa has been part of Islam in India for thousands of years and continue to be so. Muslims, in all walks of life continue to function with or without beard and with or without burqa. It is not a strange sight to see women in burqa in markets, tourist places, and schools & colleges.
Just because some Sikhs shave their hair and beard doesn’t mean that the requirement of five Ks is not there anymore. Similarly, a majority of Muslim men may not have beard these days but this does not take away the well-established fact that Islam requires men to have beard. Even if some one argues that it is not mention in the Quran and not a “farz.” We have to understand there is not one official version of Islam. Besides the differences between Shia and Sunni, there are at least four accepted schools of jurisprudence among the Sunnis. So, to say that there is one official version of Islam is to fall into the argument of Wahabbis or Talibans who don’t want to see any other practices of Islam that they don’t agree with. So the argument that even Mohammed Saleem’s Muslim lawyer doesn’t have a beard, is not valid.
Mohammed Saleem should be able to keep his beard if he thinks it is a religious duty for him and if his beard is not a factor in teaching and learning at his school. And I don’t see any reason why it should hinder the process of learning. If he insists that he will wear kurta and paijama to school then I can see a problem with that. It seems that the court thought beard to be something external like a uniform. It is not, for those who choose to have beard, for them it is a part of their body, just like color of their skin or hair on their head. Will the court let a school get away with a rule that bars people of certain skin color?
Other arguments given by Muslims and others that we need to set up our own schools where we can teach and do things that we think is best for our children. That may be right but if we all live and learn separately we all be in isolation and our understanding of others will be seen through the glasses of ‘stereotypes.’ So let the guards go down, allow some flexibility and compromise to improve understanding between people and we should all learn to accept people as they are not as we want them to appear.
Your honor, demand for religious rights is not Talibanization but denying is.
Published: 3 April 2009
http://www.twocircles.net/2009apr03/talibanizing_secularism.html
Comments
while i agree with you that the remark made by the Justice was very demeaning, i must say that i personally see no harm in NOT allowing the kid to sport a beard in the school.
if the school is a private institution that is run by a particular religious group, it has the freedom to choose the kind of 'look' it wants for its students. It is, after all, not denying the student's right to study in the school. It would have been different if Saleem was not allowed into the school for being a Muslim, but, here it deals with the appearance. And again, an appearance that is modifiable. . . The deal is clear. If the boy really wants to keep the beard, he should go for a govt. school rather. Or to a Muslim school.
i dont think it would be ok to force a private institution to accept your personal beliefs. . . And if your beliefs are important, and rightly so, you rather change the institution.
the point that remains to be cleared is whether the convent also bans Sikh turbans in tin school? Of course, since it is a Christian institution, the Christians will be allowed to wear the cross. But, wat bout the Hindu tilak and chandan? The Sikh turban (that is even more specific to Sikhism than the beard is to Islam)?. If these are allowed in the school but its only the beard that is not. . . Well then, THAT is most definitely wrong. . But, then again, nothin much can be done. . Coz im sure you have heard of how many builders dont allow Muslims to buy their apartments. . . None of the Jain Housings want Muslims in their building compounds. . . This, i think, is worse than the beard issue, coz here, there is no excuse of an 'order' as required in school, and the sole criterion for accommodation is RELIGION.
likewise, in Amrita Institute of Medical Sciences, foundde by Mata Amrita, (the woman who claims to be an avtar of God) all workers are supposed to great each other with 'Om' . . . And i have heard that long back (around 20-30 years back) the Birla Hospital in Calcutta didnt give jobs to Muslims, though i dont know how true this is.
another thing i would say is that Islam is most definitely One Code. . . The divisions are all man-made, and these divisions have resulted in different interpretations of the One Islam. But that doesnt change the fact that Islam is One. the different groups may differ in their opinion bout the beard, but that wouldn mean that Huzur SAW DIDNT TELL to have the beard as well as DID TELL to have the beard. . . It can only be one of the two. Now, with a clean intention, whatev we choose to do, God shall accept it. but newaz, Islam remains ONE.