Debate: Of Beards, Burquas and Bias

So is it a case of whiter secularism? Hardnews opens a balanced and rational debate on this issue and invites readers to participate
Shamnad Basheer Kolkata

A few weeks ago, Justice Markandey Katju, a judge of the Supreme Court of India, opined in open court that any Muslim that sported a beard must, by necessary implication, belong to the Taliban!

The fact that these comments come at a time when a number of Muslims are openly distancing themselves from the Taliban and other religious extremists is rather unfortunate. Given his erudition and extensive scholarship, the hon'ble judge is surely wise enough to appreciate that a beard is no more an indication of Talibanic sympathies than a 'tikka' is to Hindu extremist tendencies.

The irony is that while making these unfortunate remarks, Justice Katju defends them under the guise of 'secularism', holding that "I am a secularist. We should strike a balance between rights and personal beliefs."

But first, let's explore the genesis of Justice Katju's remarks to place his offensive comments in perspective.

Mohammed Salim was denied the right to keep his beard in a Christian convent school where he studies. While Salim argues that sporting a beard is an intrinsic component of his Islamic faith, the convent argues that their status as a minority institution gives them broad powers under Article 30 to apply norms that could potentially conflict with the religious values of any student. Agreeing with the minority institution, the Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissed Salim's case. Salim then moved a special leave petition, calling upon the Supreme Courts' discretionary powers to admit his case. In a one-line order, Justice Raveendran and Justice Katju dismissed the special leave petition.

The case pits Article 30 of the Constitution of India which grants broad rights of administration to minority institutions against Article 25 which guarantees to every person the right to freely practice and profess any religion of his or her choice. Given that the Christian school in question received no State funds at all, one might argue that under the broad rubric of Article 30, it could evolve any internal norms, even if such norms conflicted with the religious beliefs of any particular student. And to this extent, the Supreme Court judges may have been right in refusing to admit Salim's appeal. Others may argue that disallowing beards has no real substantive nexus with the purpose of a school education or a minority institution and therefore the right to religion under Article 25 ought to hold sway.

The point is not to resolve substantive legal issues, but to throw into sharp focus the unfortunate remarks of Justice Katju, who, when confronted with Salim's argument that the Constitution guaranteed him the right to practice his faith by keeping his beard is stated to have opined thus "We don't want to have Taliban's in the country. Tomorrow a girl student may come and say that she wants to wear a burqa. Can we allow it?"

If beards were any indication of a predilection for the Taliban, then surely our very own prime minister would qualify!

A friend of mine who litigates at the Supreme Court chose to label Justice Katju's remark as an "off the cuff" remark, stating that the petition was anyway dismissed and therefore his remarks did not impact the merits of the case. Firstly, the fact that this was a flippant remark that was not necessary to resolve the merits of the case does not in any way exonerate the honourable judge. After all, a statement made in open court equating all beaded Muslims with the Taliban demonstrates a certain degree of religious insensitivity and callousness; an attitude that in turn poses a grave threat to the secular fabric of our Constitution, which requires that, at the very least, state functionaries be religion neutral.