|
The
French Turban: Losing A Winnable Battle
Jasdev
Singh Rai
| |
The French
government has put the international Sikh community to task.
The issue has become a rallying point for Sikhs worldwide to
democratically challenge the French turban ban in public
schools. World Sikh News believes that a
healthy dialogue by scholars and thinkers will help evolve a
workable and implementable strategy and eventual solution.
It is in this spirit that we are presenting a range of opinion
on the subject by various scholars from across the globe. Last
week, we carried an article by Gurtej Singh. This article by Jasdev Singh
Rai presents a different perspective.
We all know that the solution is not easy. The French consider
it a non-issue. The French and European Courts have thrown out
arguments of the affected peoples. Whether the French government
will rescind the 1905 lacite law seems to be the moot point.
Whatever be
the case, it is comforting to see comprehensive and healthy
attempts by various Sikh individuals and groups. The
World Sikh News hopes that the time to consolidate
the opinions generated has come. We also present other points of view.
The debate must go on.
– Editor |
|
 The
French law that affected the Sikh turban bans ostentatious signs of
religion. There are three questions. Is the turban essential to
Sikhs? Yes. Can one community be exempted from a common law as
‘special’ by any Government? Almost never. That leaves one option.
Does the law really apply?
The
law banning religious items in French State institutions was first
established in 1905 separating the secular State from any
association with religion. All visible signs of religion were
stripped from the walls of State institutions including State
Schools. The clergy including Nuns in State School were required to
wear non-clerical clothes.
This
law was a development of the legendry French revolution and its
subsequent preference for secularism and human rights. Rigid
Secularism mostly evolved as a reaction against the bloody and
protracted conflicts between Catholic and Protestant in which
millions died. Moreover the Church often collaborated with
Monarchies. Robespierre’s infamous reign of terror did not spare
the Church, stripping it of power.
 Even
out of power, the Catholic and Protestant institutions continued to
compete insidiously in State institutions, often accusing the
Government of being partial to the other. A weary State
disassociated itself completely from any religion. Hence the 1905
law. A deep suspicion of institutional religion as a predatory,
oppressive and reactionary force is embedded in the French psyche.
Muslim
migrations in twentieth century brought new challenges as some
Muslim girls wore Hijab as a religious requirement. The French State
system allows Schools some local discretion. However the number of
Hijab wearing girls increased exponentially with increasingly
politicised Islamic movements after 2001 and wore down French
tolerance. Sarkozy, now the incumbent President, was the Interior
Minister who precipitated reaction. Citing 1905 Laicite he stressed
that standards had been allowed to fall. New provisions were
proposed.
Not to
be accused of targeting Muslims, the proposed law mentioned the
Hijab, the Jewish Yumlka and the large Christian Cross as
ostentatious signs. Neither the Jews nor the Christians were
practically affected as both had long established private schools.
For
some reason the turban was not mentioned. Nevertheless some Sikh
groups raised public alarm despite being advised to hold discreet
talks with the French government first. By going public they exposed
the issue to media hacks who challenged the French Government. The
government responded that it was an oversight and the law would
affect turbans! The first damage was done. I was contacted by
concerned Sikhs in
France.
Through my contact with the French Human Rights Ambassador to UN, I
was able to organise a number of meetings with high profile
officials in French Prime Minister’s office, the Ministry of
Interior, the External Affairs Ministry and the Education Ministry.
Finally there was a meeting with the French Education Minister. The
dialogues opened possibilities of resolving the issue.
With a
crash course on the French constitution, its political history and
philosophy I felt the best line was to suggest that the law does not
apply to the Sikhs. My argument was that the working definition of
the words ‘Ostentatious’ and ‘religion’ as implied in the law are
inconsistent with the Sikh practice of wearing turban.
The
French concept of religion was rooted in European Christian
doctrinal history, as a proscriptive and exclusivist institution
interfering with human freedoms, intolerant of non believers and
other beliefs and forever seeking to ‘save souls’ through
conversion. The French position was that an ostentatious sign of
religion is a form of propaganda to encourage others to engage in a
dialogue and subtly convert! The French State saw it as its human
rights obligation to protect the rights of its atheist pupils not to
be exposed to religious propaganda of any form.
Clearly this was diametrically opposite to Sikh beliefs and history
as well as the significance of the turban. It does not make legal or
administrative sense to argue that the word religion be understood
differentially for different religions. The best line was that the
turban was incommensurate with the words Ostentatious and religion
as comprehended by the French State.
 I
strengthened the argument with facts. Over 90% of Sikhs who wear
turbans are not ‘baptised’ in the formal sense. If they are not even
totally committed to their ‘religion’ as the French understand, why
they would start converting others? On the other hand a lady with a
Hijab, a Jew with a Yumlka or a Christian with a large cross is
consciously stating that he or she is fully committed to their
religion. Secondly one never sees any of these people voluntarily
present in places where deeply religious do not venture. But you can
see non-baptised turban wearing Sikhs in all venues of social life,
including pubs, dance halls etc. Further more there are famous
people like the agnostic Kushwant Singh and the atheist Harkishan
Singh Surjit who are Sikhs. If the French working definition of
turban as an ostentatious religious sign was used we would have to
ask these people to remove their turbans or change habits, in other
words the large majority of Sikhs. The inconsistency between French
understanding of a religious item and Sikh practice of wearing
turban was evident.
The
law also required people to ‘conceal’ their signs of religion. If
there is a religious requirement among the five K’s it is unshorn
hair, (Kesh) The turban conceals it. Surely we are getting into
paradoxes now.
Luc
Ferry, the then French Education Minister, a professor of
philosophy, appreciated the inconsistencies. He said that an
exception could not be made but the argument of imapplicability put
forward could be considered to find a way forward. He suggested that
a discreet form of turban, i.e. a Keski type, be worn for some time
until matters settled. The Ministry also agreed to send circulars
explaining the inconsistencies.
| |
The issue can still be resolved if mature
and diplomatic minds took charge of the matter. The French are a
reasonable people who will concede when an argument is rational,
argues the author |
|
Unfortunately many Sikh groups and individuals started their own
campaigns, sending letters stating that the turban was an essential
item of Sikh identity and religion and an ‘exception’ had to be
made! While details were being sorted with officials, the letters
and phone calls increased. French Government officials were in a
quandary and started to backtrack. They said to me that clearly
there are two interpretations of the turban and it is not the
responsibility of the French government to either arbitrate or chose
one. The word identity was problematic as there is no provision for
a separate cultural or ethnic identity in France. The formal
circular as an official position was dropped but they agreed to
verbally explain to concerned schools. A battle won was slipping.
 More
was to come. At the height of France-US tensions over Iraq, many
Sikhs lobbied United States Senators and Congressmen for support.
The Congressmen wrote gloating letters reminding the French of their
obligations to freedom of religion and human rights! This is akin to
an organisation asking the Pakistan government to write to the
Indian government on freedom of NGOs!
The
French are sensitive about two things. One is lessons from the Anglo
Saxon world. This is a long historic issue although they won’t admit
it officially. The second is that the French proudly claim that they
gave rise to modern concepts of human rights principles through
their famous 1789 document, Declaration of Rights of Man. The
American Bill of Rights was inspired by this and in some way so are
the International Bill of Human Rights and Human Rights articles in
the Indian Constitution. It takes a brave or a foolhardy person to
say to the French that they need lessons in human rights.
The
concealed anger and discomfort in the French officials was evident
to me as they continued to show these letters and press statements
to me. They could not understand the attitude of the Sikh community.
To compound matters, some organisations publicly threatened legal
action. Matters went downhill fast and French officials lost the
will to help the Sikh community. The French, when pushed to a ‘non’,
can be famously stubborn. A battle won was now being lost.
It is
a testament of the first generation of Sikh migrants from villages
to the west that they protected the turban through pragmatic
solutions. The right to wear the turban in UK was not won as a
religious right but as the right of an ethnic community in the
famous House of Lords Mandla decision in 1984. It is a sad
indictment of the current young leaders among Sikhs that not only
have they failed to improve on the diplomatic and political skills
of their parents, but they have in fact become more uninformed and
unrealistic. Some read international articles but it might have been
better to have read French history, constitution and philosophy to
deal with the French.
What
works in one country does not necessary work in another. Countries
and cultures grow over years. An understanding of religion in one
country is often different than in another culture. The Americans
see it as a useful aspect of life. The French see it as something
which should not be given any place in the public space. Sikhs need
to be wiser and understand how different jurisdictions, political
institutions and cultural mores evolved and then seek the most
appropriate way forward to preserve their practices without
compromising their principles. The word ‘religion’ is not a Gurmukhi
word. It is ludicrous to be fighting over a word which evokes
different memories and meanings in different western cultures.
 To
justify the turban in USA as religion is the most plausible and
legally justifiable option. Religion in USA has a certain meaning
that Sikhs can be comfortable with. However Europe is a different
continent. The Hijab is banned in 3 Muslim countries including
Turkey. A challenge was brought to the European court by a Muslim
Lady against Turkey. The case was lost. Before Sikhs start on this
path, it might be worth examining the risks that an adverse decision
could have for Sikhs throughout Europe including UK. It is highly
unlikely that
Europe will make varying levels of importance for different
religions. In other words, it will be almost impossible to get a
ruling which will; state that the turban is indispensable while the
Hijab is not. No court is going to make that judgement in
Europe. The risks of Muslim backlash are significant.
The
issue can still be resolved if mature and diplomatic minds took
charge of the matter. Whatever one may say about the French, they
are a reasonable people who will concede when an argument is
rational.
(The
author is Director, Sikh Human Rights Group, and can be reached at
P.O.Box 45 Southall Middlesex UB2 4SP United Kingdom or at email
jasdev@shrg.net)
6 February 2008
|
Read Also