ALL decisions are made in the given set of circumstances and keeping in view the prevalent sensibilities and desires. Almost six decades ago, the people of India, speaking through the Constituent Assembly, decided to make free India a secular state.
Secularity can, however, have many connotations. A secular state may be one which does not promote or endorse a particular religion; or one which treats and tolerates all religions in the same way; or even one which does not tolerate any religion and actively suppresses all religious activities.
Back then, we chose that while the Indian state would not subscribe to any religion, all people would be free to pick whichever denomination they choose. We even gave religious bodies special constitutional rights so that they could preach and practice their beliefs without hindrance or obstruction. It is quite amazing, therefore, to come across the vociferous recent attempts to arouse the anger of people against the French.
Almost four years ago, the French government passed a law prohibiting the carrying or display of religious grab or symbols in public primary and secondary schools. The Khalsa leadership today seems to have taken it as a direct challenge to the tenth Sikh Guru and has been misguidedly seeking to polarise public sentiment ever since.
It would also be quite interesting to observe the reaction of the SGPC to a Muslim pupil in one of its schools or colleges who insisted on breaking lessons for performing Salah or Namaz. Till recently, the SGPC had been reserving half of all seats in its educational institutions, including medical colleges, for baptized Sikhs.
If you were not baptized in the way of the tenth Guru, you were denied admission to the college, even if you were meritorious. The Punjab and Haryana High Court’s judgement, correctly striking down this unhealthy practice, has only been more fodder for the malcontent’s cannon.
The SGPC can’t possibly defend its own actions in “defending” their right to practise their beliefs while at the same time denying the French public its right to have a secular state policy. It had already prohibited Muslim Rababis from performing kirtan in the Darbar Sahib in 1925 and recently denied permission to Ghulam Mohammad Chaand, a descendant of Guru Nanak’s companion, Bhai Mardana, as well.
All this can easily be defended on the strength of claims of religious independence and freedom. We are rarely this charitable when the shoe is on the other foot. But first let us get some facts straight. The French schools, much like the Indian schools, fall in three categories: purely government-run schools, purely private schools and private school which receive government funding.
The law banning the wearing of religious attire or carrying religious symbols does not apply to private or aided schools but only to the government schools.
The law is not aimed specially at the Sikhs or Jews or Muslims or Buddhists or any of the thousands of religions actively practised in the world today.
A pupil wearing a turban is as likely to fall foul of the law as one wearing a Catholic cross on a necklace or a Jewish yarmulke.
There have been barely a handful of cases where students have been expelled form schools for violation of the law. Out of the handful of Sikh children expelled, at least three were studying in Catholic schools.
A student who does not wish to give up religious symbolism is under no compulsion to continue to study in a government school. There are plenty of private or aided schools where such restrictions are not in force.
The average fee for a student studying even in a private or aided school can be as little as £20 – £30 per month, depending also upon the financial capacity of the family. Given that even an old age a person drawing social security in France is entitled to at least £6,700 a year from the government, this is a miniscule and eminently affordable amount.
The law does not ban the wearing of headscarves or any other conspicuous symbol in public places, universities or in private schools.
Sikhs made up 0.01 per cent of the French population in 2006. This is the same as the number of Zoroastrains in India!
In a nutshell, the French legislature has merely said that if you wish your child to study in a purely government funded school at the primary or secondary level, then you must ensure that the child dresses in a neutral manner and is not wearing or carrying any religious symbols. If you can’t accept this restriction, then please send your child to a private school which does not enforce this condition.
Given the huge number of reservations on religious, caste, economic and other criteria that we have in India, one would have thought that we would have no qualms about this as being a completely reasonable restriction.
The vocal minority is, however, painting an entirely different and sinister picture for the common masses. It is being sought to be portrayed that no Khalsa child is going to be able to attend school in France; that unless the Khalsa pitches in with money to start a new school in France, the children are going to grow up unlettered. Or worse, the only alternative that a child wanting to be educated is to convert to another religion. This is simply untrue and highly scurrilous.
Even otherwise, what objection can ever be raised to children growing up in an atmosphere that is free of religious connotations? A healthy percentage of children, even including those of many of the rabble-rousers, study in convent schools and say their daily Christian prayers with children of all other denominations. There are plenty of opportunities to share your religion and culture with the children at home or on weekends, without having to make the poor little ones stand out differently in schools.
Some time ago, a delegation of some enlightened ones went to present a petition to the International Court of Justice against the French law. It’s a different mater, of course, that any of the “affected” school students would be able to tell you that only nations have the right to go to the ICJ.
Private individuals or religious organisations, even if confronted with such grave matters, have no standing in the court. Marches have been planned and conducted against anything remotely French sounding, whether or not it has any influence with the law-makers in that country.
It’s also small wonder that of all the methods suggested by the vocal minority fall short of the recourses allowed by the law in France or in Europe. The only suggestions that stem are those of mass agitations, ridiculous decisions to approach human rights organisations etc.
The Sikhs are a well-respected, highly industrious and integrated part of most European nations. They have traditionally been regarded as non-controversial and productive members of society and have won laurels and admiration from all over.
It would be wrong to use them or their sentiments for populist or opportunistic ends or for finding fresh money-raising causes. Let us not make things so warm for them that they find themselves unwelcome in those countries anymore.
ALL decisions are made in the given set of circumstances and keeping in view the prevalent sensibilities and desires. Almost six decades ago, the people of India, speaking through the Constituent Assembly, decided to make free India a secular state.
Secularity can, however, have many connotations. A secular state may be one which does not promote or endorse a particular religion; or one which treats and tolerates all religions in the same way; or even one which does not tolerate any religion and actively suppresses all religious activities.
Back then, we chose that while the Indian state would not subscribe to any religion, all people would be free to pick whichever denomination they choose. We even gave religious bodies special constitutional rights so that they could preach and practice their beliefs without hindrance or obstruction. It is quite amazing, therefore, to come across the vociferous recent attempts to arouse the anger of people against the French.
Almost four years ago, the French government passed a law prohibiting the carrying or display of religious grab or symbols in public primary and secondary schools. The Khalsa leadership today seems to have taken it as a direct challenge to the tenth Sikh Guru and has been misguidedly seeking to polarise public sentiment ever since.
It would also be quite interesting to observe the reaction of the SGPC to a Muslim pupil in one of its schools or colleges who insisted on breaking lessons for performing Salah or Namaz. Till recently, the SGPC had been reserving half of all seats in its educational institutions, including medical colleges, for baptized Sikhs.
If you were not baptized in the way of the tenth Guru, you were denied admission to the college, even if you were meritorious. The Punjab and Haryana High Court’s judgement, correctly striking down this unhealthy practice, has only been more fodder for the malcontent’s cannon.
The SGPC can’t possibly defend its own actions in “defending” their right to practise their beliefs while at the same time denying the French public its right to have a secular state policy. It had already prohibited Muslim Rababis from performing kirtan in the Darbar Sahib in 1925 and recently denied permission to Ghulam Mohammad Chaand, a descendant of Guru Nanak’s companion, Bhai Mardana, as well.
All this can easily be defended on the strength of claims of religious independence and freedom. We are rarely this charitable when the shoe is on the other foot. But first let us get some facts straight. The French schools, much like the Indian schools, fall in three categories: purely government-run schools, purely private schools and private school which receive government funding.
The law banning the wearing of religious attire or carrying religious symbols does not apply to private or aided schools but only to the government schools.
The law is not aimed specially at the Sikhs or Jews or Muslims or Buddhists or any of the thousands of religions actively practised in the world today.
A pupil wearing a turban is as likely to fall foul of the law as one wearing a Catholic cross on a necklace or a Jewish yarmulke.
There have been barely a handful of cases where students have been expelled form schools for violation of the law. Out of the handful of Sikh children expelled, at least three were studying in Catholic schools.
A student who does not wish to give up religious symbolism is under no compulsion to continue to study in a government school. There are plenty of private or aided schools where such restrictions are not in force.
The average fee for a student studying even in a private or aided school can be as little as £20 – £30 per month, depending also upon the financial capacity of the family. Given that even an old age a person drawing social security in France is entitled to at least £6,700 a year from the government, this is a miniscule and eminently affordable amount.
The law does not ban the wearing of headscarves or any other conspicuous symbol in public places, universities or in private schools.
Sikhs made up 0.01 per cent of the French population in 2006. This is the same as the number of Zoroastrains in India!
In a nutshell, the French legislature has merely said that if you wish your child to study in a purely government funded school at the primary or secondary level, then you must ensure that the child dresses in a neutral manner and is not wearing or carrying any religious symbols. If you can’t accept this restriction, then please send your child to a private school which does not enforce this condition.
Given the huge number of reservations on religious, caste, economic and other criteria that we have in India, one would have thought that we would have no qualms about this as being a completely reasonable restriction.
The vocal minority is, however, painting an entirely different and sinister picture for the common masses. It is being sought to be portrayed that no Khalsa child is going to be able to attend school in France; that unless the Khalsa pitches in with money to start a new school in France, the children are going to grow up unlettered. Or worse, the only alternative that a child wanting to be educated is to convert to another religion. This is simply untrue and highly scurrilous.
Even otherwise, what objection can ever be raised to children growing up in an atmosphere that is free of religious connotations? A healthy percentage of children, even including those of many of the rabble-rousers, study in convent schools and say their daily Christian prayers with children of all other denominations. There are plenty of opportunities to share your religion and culture with the children at home or on weekends, without having to make the poor little ones stand out differently in schools.
Some time ago, a delegation of some enlightened ones went to present a petition to the International Court of Justice against the French law. It’s a different mater, of course, that any of the “affected” school students would be able to tell you that only nations have the right to go to the ICJ.
Private individuals or religious organisations, even if confronted with such grave matters, have no standing in the court. Marches have been planned and conducted against anything remotely French sounding, whether or not it has any influence with the law-makers in that country.
It’s also small wonder that of all the methods suggested by the vocal minority fall short of the recourses allowed by the law in France or in Europe. The only suggestions that stem are those of mass agitations, ridiculous decisions to approach human rights organisations etc.
The Sikhs are a well-respected, highly industrious and integrated part of most European nations. They have traditionally been regarded as non-controversial and productive members of society and have won laurels and admiration from all over.
It would be wrong to use them or their sentiments for populist or opportunistic ends or for finding fresh money-raising causes. Let us not make things so warm for them that they find themselves unwelcome in those countries anymore.
Published in The Tribune, 24.2.2008
