The Joys of Living in "Secular India"
B Shantanu
Some of you must have already read the "news" 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 exactly not 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guess is that the suspension order (if it has been issued) will either be revoked or never implemented (or it might be superseded by orders from the Chief Secretary.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.
***
The Joys of Living in "Secular India"
RSS:
- Subscribe to RSS 2.0 feeds for:
- » Comments on this article
- » Culture
- » Culture: Religion
- » Culture: Social Issues
- » Culture: Society
- » Politics: Governance
- » Politics: India
- » Politics: Religion
- » Desicritics.org articles by B Shantanu
- » B Shantanu's personal weblog
- » All News articles
- » All Desicritics.org articles











Vivek
September 8, 2007
02:01 PM
In my new book. Lies,lies and More Lies:The Campaign to defame Hindu/Indian Nationalism .(ISBN 0595435491) Available on Amazon.com I have chapter titled India:The Need for anew Secularism that explains with quotes from Shri. Radhakrishnan, our first president how Indian secularism differs from Western concepts:It may appear somewhat strange that our Government should be a secular one while our culture is rooted in spiritual values. Secularism here does not mean irreligious[ness] or atheism or even stress on material comforts. It proclaims that it lays stress on the universalisation of spiritual values which may be attained by a variety of ways.
A. S. Mathew
September 8, 2007
04:04 PM
In India, followers of every religion must have total freedom to display their religious faith.
But any action that will cause physical hurt to
another person can't be tolerated. Mr. Lakshman
Mishra has all the fundamental rights to wear
tilak on his forehead. His superior had some
personal score to settle and simply the "tilak"
issue got into the middle.
Aditi Nadkarni
URL
September 8, 2007
04:19 PM
B.Shantanu:
Was this really necessary:
"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?
Kartikeya
URL
September 8, 2007
05:21 PM
Thankfully the Bihar Government has done well and rejected the suspension. All though, if any one lesson could be universally applied to matters related to the Civil Service and elected politicians, it is that there is invariably more at play than meets the eye. One solitary factor is never at play in these things... (i may be saying this because i've been watching a lot of Yes Minister lately :) )
B Shantanu
URL
September 9, 2007
05:12 AM
@ Vivek: Thanks for your comment on secularism. I will have a look at your book too.
@ A.S. Mathew & Kartikeya: As both of you have mentioned, there may well be something more to this than just the matter of "tilak".
@ Aditi: Point taken. On reflection, I should have taken that sentence out.
Add your comment