|
After elusive justice for 25
years, a minor judicial relief
High Court says unshorn hair integral to Sikh, but much
larger threat looms now
Sach Kanwal Singh
 CHANDIGARH:
At a most poignant juncture of history when the Sikh quom is
observing 25th year of the most dastardly attack on Sri Darbar
Sahib, Sri Akal Takht and many other centres of Sikhism, and has
watched the Indian machinations to save those guilty of leading
killer mobs in 1984 that tracked, hunted, killed, maimed, looted
and burnt alive hundreds of Sikhs, a superior court has now
given a judgement that ostensibly will go far in furthering the
struggle for Sikh identity.
But there is
much more to the issue than meets the eye, as is always the case
when it comes to Indian machinations.
In a major
victory of sorts for the Sikh community, a three judge bench of
the the Punjab and Haryana High Court ruled last Saturday that
retaining unshorn hair is one of the most important and
fundamental tenets of the Sikh religion, and the SGPC was fully
justified in denying admission to a Sikh girl who plucked her
eyebrows.
In its 154
page voluminous judgment, Justices J.S.Khehar, Jasbir Singh and
Ajay Kumar Mittal upheld the Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak
Committee precondition for maintaining ‘Sikh Swarup’ by students
seeking admission under the Sikh minority community quota in
institutions run by the religious body.
|
WSN's Interventionist
Role
At one stage, the World Sikh News had to make a direct
intervention to blow a cover from a deeply entrenched
conspiracy under which the SGPC was misguided to take a
pertinently wrong stance over unshorn hair. From behind the
scenes, Punjab Advocate General HS Mattewal and his son
Pavit Mattewal, in collaboration with certain elements from
within the Sikh community, were able to prevail upon the
SGPC to submit a highly controversial affidavit on December
5 in the Punjab and Haryana High Court when the court had
asked the SGPC to define whether someone can cut his hair
and still be considered a Sehaddhari Sikh.
Pavit, himself a clean shaven patit Sikh and a Legal Advisor
to CM Parkash Singh Badal, had become a party in the case
and had advocated that a Sehajdhari can keep
trimming/cutting his hair. His father, a close chum of the
ruling Badals, had earlier written articles in leading
dailies advocating the right of vote for Sehajdharis,
something opposed tooth and nail by the SGPC and the Sikh
community as a whole.
The impugned affidavit virtually allowed those
trimming/cutting their hair to be counted as Sehajdharis
till they declared themselves to be Keshadharis. Later,
after a coverted campaign by the WSN and a some public
spirited Sikhs, the SGPC admitted massive bungling in the
process leading to submission of that affidavit, sacked Sikh
History Research Board Director Anurag Singh, and set up an
inquiry committee to probe how the impugned affidavit came
to be submitted in the High Court. Later, the SGPC submitted
a new affidavit that was taken on record by the Full Bench.
But the report of the probe committee never saw the light of
the day. |
|
Students
whom the Guru Ram Das Institute of Medical Sciences and
Research, Amritsar, had denied admission in MBBS on account of
their trimming the beard and plucking eyebrows had tried to hide
behind a facade that unshorn hair were not integral to being a
Sikh.
The case saw
SGPC being asked to define the term Sehajdhari, a task it messed
up at one stage when the WSN was forced to expose a malicious
affidavit as also the role of some prominent people, including
that of Pavit Mattewal, CM Parkash Singh Badal's legal advisor
and son of Advocate General H S Mattewal.
The Bench
fully justified the requirement of retaining hair unshorn as a
precondition for eligibility under the Sikh minority community
quota.
“If the said
religious community wishes to enforce the aforesaid norm as a
precondition for admission, there is nothing wrong about it.”
Speaking for the Bench, Justice Khehar said in this case, the
sole consideration before the Bench was whether or not keeping
hair unshorn was an important fundamental tenet of the Sikh
religion.
“…Thus
viewed,on the basis of the undisputed factual position, that all
the petitioners indulg in trimming their hair or plucking hair
of their eyebrows, they can legitimately be denied of a benefit
otherwise available to Sikhs,” the Bench said.
 “…We have
repeatedly concluded…that retaining bodily hair unshorn is one
of the most essential tenets of the Sikh religion. And as such,
if a Sikh organisation or body decides not to extend any
benefit,which is otherwise available to a Sikh,to a person who
does not maintain his hair unshorn, its determination would be
perfectly legitimate.”
“For the
present controversy, we…hold that retaining hair unshorn is one
of the most important and fundamental tenets of the Sikh
religion. In fact, it is undoubtedly a part of the religious
consciousness of the Sikh faith.”
The
historical background of the Sikh religion, legislative
enactments involving the Sikh religion, the Sikh ‘rehat
maryada’, the Sikh ‘ardas’and views expressed by scholars of
Sikhism, the Bench ruled, led to “one unambiguous answer, that
maintaining hair unshorn is an essential component of the Sikh
religion.” The Bench stated that under the Sikh ‘rehat maryada’,
a Sikh is not permitted to dishonour hair, or even to harbour
any antipathy to hair of the head with which a child is born.
Dyeing one’s hair is considered to be an act of dishonouring
hair.
The Judges
pointed out that “it may be a matter of surprise,” that in their
conclusion on the controversy, the Bench did not refer to the
Guru Granth Sahib as the “basis of our determination.” The code
of conduct is strictly contained in the Sikh ‘rehat maryada.
In this
case, which saw marathon hearings, several advocates, like Rajiv
Atma Ram, K.T.S. Tulsi, R.T.P.S.Tulsi, H.S. Phoolka,
D.S.Patwalia, Anupam Gupta, Chetan Mittal, Gurminder Singh, Dr
M.S. Rahi, Deepak Sibal and Navkiran Singh pleaded the case.
3 June 2009
|
Read Also