India claims to be a secular country where Constitution guarantees protection minorities’ religious rights. Article 25 of the Indian Constitution which guarantees protection of minorities’ religious rights is not being extended to Muslim minority in India. In this multi-ethnic country minorities are hesitant to openly pursue their religion, culture and traditions. In a recent incident, Mohammad Salim, a Class 10 Muslim student of the Nirmala Convent Higher Secondary School in Madhya Pradesh was ordered by the principal of the school to either shave his beard or leave the school. Mohammad Salim filed his appeal in Madhya Pradesh High Court against his schools principal’s decision stating that keeping a beard is accorded high importance in Islam and every Indian is entitled to abide by his religious faith and doctrine and that no one should be prevented from doing so in a secular country. However, the court dismissed his plea against his school's norms. Mohammad Salim then moved an appeal in Supreme Court against the decision of Madhya Pradesh High Court, questioning his Christian school's rules against keeping beards, saying it impinges on his religious faith. He prayed the court for scrapping of the rules against keeping beards in his government-recognized minority institution.
A bench of Justice R.V. Raveendran asked the student's counsel to first find out if the school was government-aided. The bench sought this information from the petitioner as the apex court in an important ruling earlier on the rights of unaided minority institutions, known as P.A. Inamdar case, has limited the states right in interfering with the school policy on various matters, including on enforcing quota for admission. The Supreme Court in its decision observed that secularism cannot be overstretched and that "Talibanisation" of the country cannot be permitted. Justice Markandeya Katju speaking for a bench headed by Justice Raveendran while dismissing the petition of Mohammad Salim who sought quashing of the school regulation requiring students to be clean-shaven observed, "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." The Court said that a minority institution has its own set of rules and rights provided by Article 30 of the Constitution and the same cannot be breached by any person. The court further said if the student was not interested in following the rules then he has the option of joining some other institution.
Muslims in India are even not free to give statement of their conscience as they fear of victimization and harassment at the hands of Hindu majority and the government on the same pretext. In a diplomatic statement Rajya Sabha MP and Jamiatul Ulema-e-Hind leader Maulana Mehmood Madni expressed displeasure over Supreme Court judge Markandeya Katju’s observation that growing a beard was akin to promoting `Talibanisation' in the country. He said "Muslims who don't wear a beard accept that they are wrong because growing a beard is part of the Sunnah and the verdict may affect our efforts to quell misconceptions about Islam.'' All-India Muslim Majlis-e-Mushawarat President Zafarul Islam Khan called Justice Katju's remarks unfortunate and said growing a beard is not mandatory, but part of the Muslim faith and that his organization will approach the court against the verdict. It is ironical to note that in the same chain of institutions, Sikh community members were allowed to keep a beard and wear a turban but there was a clear discrimination on part of the school to force Muslims to be clean-shaven. For Muslims shaving of beard is against their religious conscience, belief and customs but they have no place in the Christian and Hindu schools. By forcing the Muslim students to leave the school for keeping a beard, the Christian missionary schools have proved that they are biased against Muslims and do no honour their fundamental rights. In case the decision of Indian Supreme Court is not taken back, the Court’s verdict may be used to harass Indian Muslims in the future.
A bench of Justice R.V. Raveendran asked the student's counsel to first find out if the school was government-aided. The bench sought this information from the petitioner as the apex court in an important ruling earlier on the rights of unaided minority institutions, known as P.A. Inamdar case, has limited the states right in interfering with the school policy on various matters, including on enforcing quota for admission. The Supreme Court in its decision observed that secularism cannot be overstretched and that "Talibanisation" of the country cannot be permitted. Justice Markandeya Katju speaking for a bench headed by Justice Raveendran while dismissing the petition of Mohammad Salim who sought quashing of the school regulation requiring students to be clean-shaven observed, "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." The Court said that a minority institution has its own set of rules and rights provided by Article 30 of the Constitution and the same cannot be breached by any person. The court further said if the student was not interested in following the rules then he has the option of joining some other institution.
Muslims in India are even not free to give statement of their conscience as they fear of victimization and harassment at the hands of Hindu majority and the government on the same pretext. In a diplomatic statement Rajya Sabha MP and Jamiatul Ulema-e-Hind leader Maulana Mehmood Madni expressed displeasure over Supreme Court judge Markandeya Katju’s observation that growing a beard was akin to promoting `Talibanisation' in the country. He said "Muslims who don't wear a beard accept that they are wrong because growing a beard is part of the Sunnah and the verdict may affect our efforts to quell misconceptions about Islam.'' All-India Muslim Majlis-e-Mushawarat President Zafarul Islam Khan called Justice Katju's remarks unfortunate and said growing a beard is not mandatory, but part of the Muslim faith and that his organization will approach the court against the verdict. It is ironical to note that in the same chain of institutions, Sikh community members were allowed to keep a beard and wear a turban but there was a clear discrimination on part of the school to force Muslims to be clean-shaven. For Muslims shaving of beard is against their religious conscience, belief and customs but they have no place in the Christian and Hindu schools. By forcing the Muslim students to leave the school for keeping a beard, the Christian missionary schools have proved that they are biased against Muslims and do no honour their fundamental rights. In case the decision of Indian Supreme Court is not taken back, the Court’s verdict may be used to harass Indian Muslims in the future.
Comments
Post a Comment