Don’t wear a “tilak” to work !
aka The joys of living in “Secular India”.
Some of you must have already read the “news” from yesterday about the government officer in Bihar who faces suspension for coming to work with a “tilak” on his forehead.
According to one report, Special Secretary (Agriculure), Shri CK Anil “asked deputy director Lakshman Mishra not to wear ’tilak’ on his forehead during office hours and threatened to suspend him.”
Other reports are here and here.
Now, by most accounts, Shri Anil appears to be a fine officer… who has a reputation for firmness and no-nonsense behaviour . A report from The Tribune mentions how he has taken on powerful leaders before:
“The news of the abrupt transfers of the Collectors of Siwan and Gopalganj in Bihar, even when the conference was examining the problem, came as a bolt from the blue. Mr C.K. Anil (Siwan) and Mr K.K. Pathak (Gopalganj) are known for their high integrity and character. As they were taking on powerful leaders like Syed Shahabuddin and Sadhu Yadav, Governor Buta Singh clipped their wings, apparently under pressure from Railway Minister Lalu Prasad Yadav.”
This time however he chose a mid-ranking government employee – it is not exactly clear why.
I find it hard to believe that the suspension order was purely because of the “tilak”.
But if it was, Shri Anil has a LOT of explaining to do…hiding from the media is unlikely to make that go away.
While there are instances of “secular countries” prohibiting wearing of religious symbols (see e.g. the controversy around British Airways “ban” on wearing a cross and the French law that bans head scarfs in schools), a “tilak” is not exactly a headscarf and is less conspicuous than many other symbols of religious identity. It also** has rich symbolism as most Hindus would know.
And India is neither Britain nor France.
This is the first time in recent years that I recall something like this has happened in India – as most of you no doubt know, “Turban wearing Sikhs are exempted from using a helmet” and India’s “secularism” is of a different nature.
So is this an example of what Mark Tully memorably called “Secular Fundamentalism”?
It will be interesting to see how the drama unfolds. My guess is that the suspension order (if it has been issued) will either be revoked or never implemented (or it might be superseded by orders from the Chief Secretary*.
I wonder what comes next. No Sikhs allowed in government offices with turbans?
Watch this space…and long live secularism!
P.S. Some of you might find this TIME debate interesting: “Should France Ban Head Scarves?”
.
* UPDATE: The recommendation for suspension has just been rejected by the Bihar Government.
** As Aditi Nadkarni pointed out on DesiCritics, quoting “a “tilak” is not exactly a headscarf and is less conspicuous than many other symbols of religious identity”:
If the point of your article is about secularity and about a person’s right to their individual religious identity then this sentence shouldn’t have made its way into the article. It shouldn’t have mattered if it is conspicuous or not. Religious identity is religious identity even if it means wearing a basket of garish flowers on your head.
Right?
Point taken, Aditi. On reflection, I should have taken that sentence out.
Nice roundup of an interesting incident! Glad it has been resolved. 🙂
I do agree that whether a person wears a turban or a tilak to work should be of no concern to others. However, there are other cases where arguments of religious freedom may sound stupid.
There is this old news regarding a muslim woman demanding that her photo on the license cannot show her face without the veil. You may have already seen this. Just quoting it for context. The court duly rejected her petition.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2003-06-06-license-veil_x.htm
The line has to be drawn somewhere. I would think humans would just use their commonsense to determine where to draw it.
I have always felt that religious beliefs and practices should remain in the private domain and not be thrust into the public domain. Your religon should be between you and your god, why be a public exhibitionist about it?
And, I wonder if I can get away at work by saying that my religious beliefs demand that I only wear bermuda shorts?
Cheers
Thanks Arun.
Prakash: Good point. I agree that the line needs to be drawn somewhere…In this case, it seems common sense was given a pass.
Thanks for the link
***
Patriot: I belive people should be free to practise their religion in a way they wish to. If they wish to be public about it, who is to say that it is wrong? as long as it is not impeding their work or efficiency of damaging their organisation?
Of course you will occasionally have extreme examples such as the one cited by Prakash – in which case a line will need to be drawn.
*** COMMENT EDITED ***
Well, in a truly secular society if one is to avoid constant haggling about drawing lines, the sensible way is a sort of “uniform civil code” which says everyone should avoid displaying their religion overtly through clothes, accessories, marks, or practices in public. Either you keep religion at home or temples/churches/mosques, or keep arguing endlessly – there is no middle way.
Hey Shantanu,
I remember we had this discussion a long while back and finally after a lot of thought and courage. I started applying a tilak on my forehead. The first day, I myself was very consicious on whether someone was looking or observing me, but to my amazement, I found no one really looked. It was more my discomfort and ghosts scaring me.
Since then ( past 5 months), I have been regularly applying Tilak. A few American collegues do enquire about it and ” just a saying – Its religious” stops anymore questions.
So for any readers out there, if you have ever thought of applying a “tilak” to work, please try, because it has to come from within, no-one will do it for you.
Vijay: That is truly amazing and hats off to you.
I hope more people gather the confidence and courage to stand up for what they believe in (and not be embarrassed about it).
Thanks for sharing this with us.
There should be no ban on the tilak. We can allow sikhs with turbans and even kirpans sometimes.
Somebody said “if my faith demands me to wear shorts, can I do that.”
The answer is no.
This is India, Some things can be allowed, such as the standard practices of Sanatan dharma like putting on tilak.
Secularism must not mean staying away from faith , but respecting the faith especially the true and only one, Sanatan dharma.
The concept “secularism” is a European innovation to seperate state from the church, as church was all -powerful and cruel. Did they managed to seperate state from the chruch? Absolute Not.
All European and western countries are either officially or unofficially christian. All their national symbols and actions are to sustain christian domination and promote christianity. Even a country like Switzerland, whose flag (red flag with white cross) bears the blood of Jesus and cross the symbol of his crucification.
All national holidays in the western countries are associated with christianity and their culture. France have a nearly 10% muslims, but they don’t celebrate national holiday for muslim festivals. France don’t recognise Hinduism as a religion, but a sect. Is France a less secular country? Spanish law does not allow HIndus to carry out funeral as per Hindu rites.
But a perverted secualrism imposed on Bharat by the Nehru the mulla to Islamise-christianise the nation (he said: he is a muslim by heart, a christian by taste and a hindu merely by accident.). He introduced Haj subsidy in 1959 to start celebration of secualrism. Ever since, this word has become a Hindu intimidation tactics by the anti-hindu pseudo-secular brigades (Congress, commies, christian missioanries, etc).
Indira Khan (fake) Gandhi inserted this perverted word in the Preamble of the Constitution in 1976, when she imposed Emergency in the country. Only puprpose of insertion of this word was to bring Hindus under her knees, as anybody oppose it automatically get a stamp of hindu communal. And this law (unofficially) only applicable for hindus, muslims and christians don’t come under this.
Hindu mandirs come under govt control under this perverted secularism, but not Muslims and christian places of worship and their institutions. Hindus can have only one wife under the perverted secular law, but muslims can have infinite numbers of wives and can breed like insects.
Stalwart freedom fighters, including MK Gandhi, never thought of such align word as it have no relevance to our nation. They knew, respect for all dharmas is inherent in Sanatan dharma and its followers. They were honest and true patriots, and not power-looters like Nehru and his clan.
The western word Secularism has no relevance to our nation and culture. This word must be removed from the Constitution. What we need is nationalism and patriotism, and not perverted western secualrism. Secularism boggy has done enough harm to the nation and if it continues will ruin the nation. It is the main instrument of social divisions and communal disharmony.
If Sikhs can wear turban, muslim can wear tupi, why Hindus can’t put tilaks? This is the result ot perverted secularism. A Common Civil Code must be implemented, but it has become a communal term for the perverted secularists.
Malaysia with 60% muslims is a offcially Islamic country (Source CIA factbook: Muslim 60.4%, Buddhist 19.2%, Christian 9.1%, Hindu 6.3%, Confucianism, Taoism, other traditional Chinese religions 2.6%, other or unknown 1.5%, none 0.8% (2000 census) ).
Why Bharat with 85% Hindus (followers of Sanatan dharma -Hindu, buddhists, jains, sikhs) can’t declare it offcially Hindu nation? What prevents it? Only perverted secularism. This perverted secualrism word has striped the only HIndu Rastra Nepal, the official Hindu nation status (where about 95% people are Hindus). It is the name-sake Hindu perverted secularists, who work as enemies of Hindus and the nation. They are the fifth columns, snakes inside our house. This fifth column need to be defeated, isolated and exposed before the whole nation. Only then, we can have a offically Hindu Rastra (like offcially christian UK) with one Uniform law for all.
In the US, observant Jews wear their small skull cap on religious days, many christians wear the crucifix, and some muslims keep a long beard. The Amish dress in black and white clothes and wear a hat all the time. Sikhs wear the turban. Hindu women sometimes wear a bindi, most dont out of choice, not force. I have seen a hindu guy here with a tilak. Works in a bank. Many hindus have the mooli tied around their wrists.
Just to put things in perspective…