A hand reaches out from a French onlooker with a flower, as triumphant Sikh troops march into town [France, 1914]. All photos are of Sikh soldiers serving in France during the World Wars.
History
No More Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite?
by HARVIND KAUR
Until recently, I have held an admiration for the French. I had learned about the wonderfully exciting and daring artists, thinkers and writers who came together in the salons of France to share ideas and change the world.
But, today, I suspect that the likes of Rousseau, Voltaire and Montesquieu are turning - nay, spinning - in their graves.
And I fear that all that exciting art at the Louvre, and a walk along the grand and magnificent Champs-Elysees, will not become a reality for my family or me.
You see, I am a Sikh. I am not welcome in France. Why, you might ask. It is the same question I have been pondering. The more I think about it, the more appalled and angry I become.
It's 2007: we are in a new millennium. But France seems to be sliding backwards. The reasons, I'm sure, are plenty, but a nation that has dominated various areas in Western humanities has actually turned into a raging bigot.
France is so concerned about the minorities in its midst that it has passed a law, that they openly claim is targeted towards its Muslim population, banning all religious clothing in schools. The law now goes beyond schools and even includes entering any public space or, for example, getting a driver's license. This law is meant to discourage Muslim women from wearing the hijaab.
It also means that any Sikh who wears a turban is also no longer allowed in public schools or public institutions.
I understand that we are living in a post 9/11 world. However, hasn't this pivotal point in our historic moment taught us what happens when we marginalize or ignore the very issues that affect those we conveniently think of as the "other"?
Just this week, France's highest civil authority once again upheld their law requiring Sikh men to remove their turbans for their driver's license photographs. The Sikh community in France is very small. But they are present. They are working to fit into French society. They speak French and are solid, law-abiding citizens.
But how can you be a citizen in a country that is blatantly, regardless of history, denying you the basic right to your identity?
Let me explain. To ask a Sikh to take off his/her turban is like telling a Sikh to strip and stand naked. It is a sign of utter humiliation and shame to be forced to go bareheaded without the glorious turban on a Sikh's head.
However, I doubt the French are unaware of the importance of the turban to Sikhs.
Have they already forgotten the tens of thousands of Sikhs - all turbaned! - who spilled their blood on French soil ... to protect the fundamental right of the French to be free!
What the French are doing today, a mere six decades after Sikh soldiers from distant lands helped liberate them from the Nazis, isn't it exactly what the Nazis had done?
Today, the French state is dehumanizing the minorities amongst them; marking them so that they can't be who they really are. They are forcing them to live as the oppressed, with the constant fear of not being considered French.
Can you imagine this type of situation in today's world? Can you imagine how horrifying this situation must also be for Muslim women?
My conclusion from this whole affair is quite simple: the French are a hate-mongering and an arrogant people.
They have so conveniently forgotten all the sacrifices the Sikhs made to liberate them, first during the First World War, and then again, in the Second?
If you go to http://www.unitedsikhs.org/, there are many wonderful pictures and lists of the Sikh regiments and the battles that were fought by them. All the Sikhs in those photographs are in full military regalia, including their turbans. Was it okay to wear a turban if you were willing to take a bullet to save French lives?
If the French are averse to remembering their history, then let's go to Hollywood and literature. Maybe they should read The English Patient, or watch the film.
I would like to believe that all those who promote a more tolerant and equitable society/world will send a message to the French Government and the French people.
These latest "laws" are encouraging religious bigotry and hatred. As we all know so well, this is what breeds hate-crimes and violence. Are they prepared for the seeds they are sowing?
Have they not even learned from meeting with India's Prime Minister (a turban-wearing Sikh)? Did they make an exception in their law when he visited? Is this exception only good for visiting heads of state? Maybe Prime Minister Manmohan Singh should have sent a message to the French, kindly refusing any invitation to visit France until this issue is resolved.
My outrage is so intense, I can only hope that those who feel the same will boycott all and everything that is French. I am also frustrated with myself. I took French over Spanish as my foreign language in college. It was a waste, since France is a country I cannot even consider visiting, let alone live in.
I will not allow any nation to deny me my identity. I will not remove my turban to visit French society. There are too many other places and countries that deserve my patronage and yours.
It is a shame that a nation that boasts of its high and mighty civilization and its achievements in philosophy, art, literature, etc. is actually no more than a racist giant. Where are France's intellectuals now? Where is the outrage? For that matter, where is the outrage everywhere else?
[For more information regarding the contributions of Sikhs to the defence of France, please go to: http://www.unitedsikhs.org/ , http://www.sikhcoaliton.org/ , http://www.sikhs.org/ ]
Conversation about this article
1: Chintan Singh (San Jose, U.S.A.), December 18, 2007, 3:24 PM.
Has United Sikhs taken this matter to the U.N.? The Sikh community in the diapora and India need to get united on this front and bring the contributions of Sikhs to the French lawmakers. If this case is beyond pursuit, then the French Sikh community will have to consider moving elsewhere. Whatever may be the final outcome, the Sikh community needs to stand up and fight this battle as one.
2: Gurpal Singh (Wolverhampton, U.K.), December 18, 2007, 5:03 PM.
You have brought the plight of the Sikhs of France to my attention again. This time I am gripped. We must do something collectively to support our people. I will be raising this issue amongst the 1700 students and 120 staff at the college where I teach. Does anyone know if this matter has been brought to the attention of Britain's MPs? French Sikhs can move to the UK if they wish, the European Community allows migration within itself, not that this is the answer. French secularism is adharma; Dharma always prevails over adharma.
3: Mejindarpal Kaur (U.K.), December 18, 2007, 5:36 PM.
UNITED SIKHS filed the first case on behalf of Shingara Singh of France at the European Court of Human Rights in June this year and are preparing to file another case on behalf of Shingara Singh, Ranjit Singh and the expelled French Sikh schoolboys at the UN Human Rights Committee by early next year. To read more about the Right To Turban campaign, please visit www.unitedsikhs.org/rtt .
4: Sylvie de Béthune (Paris, France), December 18, 2007, 7:29 PM.
It's unfortunate that because of the consequences of this policy, you should demonize and characterize an entire nation of 60 million people as nothing more than 'a racist giant'. That in itself appears to be reductionism and bigoted. To understand the nature of French secularism, you have to understand the nature of the French Republic, in which civil society struggled for hundreds of years to keep religion out of the public sphere. French secularism requires that the state be neutral because of the history of clerical oppression, inquisition, corruption, brainwashing, intolerance and bigotry, as well as the people killed in sectarian conflict and the suppression of free speech, free intellectual inquiry and freedom of conscience that clerical interference in state matters entails. We also believe that schools should be a space in which children can study free of the influence of clericalism and religion. It is because of this historical experience, founded in opposition to the institutionalized oppression of the church, the blasphemy laws, the persecution of dissenters and non-Christians, the persecution of heretics, the opposition of organized religion to the open society, and most importantly, in the belief of the primacy of the rights of the individual, that France has policed the neutrality of public institutions so rigorously when it comes to religious expression. Now, this is essentially a deep rooted belief in the need to separate religion from the state and public sphere that is a legacy of the hundreds of years of struggle that gave rise to some of the highest cultural achievements of Western civilization. To characterize it as "racist" is to misunderstand completely the entire history of France, French culture, and the very healthy skeptical tradition that French society has towards organized religion. Furthermore, it means you are unable to create true strategies for challenging some of these restrictions, strategies that can be pursued through the institutional channels available to you in this supposedly 'racist giant' of a nation, strategies that might be effective precisely because of the French belief in the primacy of the rights of the individual, because out of many strands of intellectual and cultural history, and an entirely legitimate and consistent intellectual and moral belief, you only create before you a grotesque caricature of an entire culture and society of 60 million people. It's a kind of caricature that people with shallow understanding or context apply to almost every group of people on Earth at one time or another, the kind of caricature some have even made of Sikhs; and it is unhelpful, simplistic and unwieldy for a true understanding of people, individuals, and the issues that we face in today's cosmopolitan world.
5: Parm (Canada), December 18, 2007, 11:35 PM.
Interesting response to the article. however the question remains ... was it okay for Sikhs with the same turbans to die fighting to save the same French culture, people, and populace? Because, if it was okay back then, there is a fundamental flaw in the system.
6: Satinder Gill (Khanna, India), December 19, 2007, 1:44 AM.
I completely understand the intense outrage you feel, Harvind, but please just think for a moment. Did we boycott all things Indian when the riots of 1984 claimed thousands of lives? Did we all abandon India? Did we leave America when Sikhs were mistaken for Arabs and suffered backlash as a result? At the same time, I cannot even fathom the hate directed towards Arabs. Do we stop living because people do not understand the meaning of the turban and all that comprises the Sikh "maryada" and cannot revere it the way we do? The answer does not lie in running away from stark reality. Today, we are not getting our due in France, tommorow it could be another country. We need to mark our places under the sun and stand our ground while being in harmony with God, nature and human beings who share the same canvas but are forever locked in strife over issues that will seem a wee bit trivial once we see the bigger picture and a fresher perspective.
7: Sylvie de Béthune (Paris, France), December 19, 2007, 8:41 AM.
Parm The main point in my response was to counter the vilification of an entire nation, culture and people, and the general hysterical tone of the article. An incredible example of essentialising given that as a Sikh, the author must be opposed to demonization and caricature of others. It's amazing that in all the responses so far nobody challenged it. The question regarding whether the system is flawed begs the question, do you think that principles should reside in their own worth, or on the basis of a debit and credit account of historical determinism? Is there a way in which you can understand the differing principles and reasons for various forms of European secularism, and make your case on the basis of individual rights? Because in European society, there are no such things as group rights, only individual ones. This is very important, as a concept, and as a principle. You have to understand the difference between individual and group rights. Groups do not have rights. But individuals do. Ultimately, Sikh activists have to make their case on more than just the historic sacrifice of Sikh soldiers, as to why they should be given special priveliges in any society which is founded on the neutrality of the public space vis a vis religious expression. After all, amongst the foundational principles of the French Republic, the principle of equalite is violated by giving special priveliges to Sikhs. Allowing one group of people in society to carry ceremonial daggers, or to be exempt from wearing crash helmets on motor cycles as is the case in the UK, means that Sikhs are not equal, but that an inequality is instituted in society where Sikhs actually have unequal (and more) rights than everyone else in society. As yet, I am not convinced Sikh activists have grasped these principles fully, and are thus weakened in their arguments when faced with these issues. All they can do is create fatuous caricatures of a "racist giant" and perpetuate stereotypes. It would be good for Sikh activists to have a more sophisticated understanding of European and other democratic secular societies. In the first instance, and most importantly, for the sake of practicing Sikhs living in those countries.
8: Amandeep Singh Madra (London, U.K.), December 19, 2007, 9:58 AM.
Sylvie, Because of a historical failure of the French state to control the power of the Christian Church, modern France is denying turbanned Sikhs from being full members of French society. This surely is reductionism at its very worst and denies Sikhs the "primacy of the rights of the individual" that you seem to hold so dear. The reality, of course, is that France is petrified of the growing number of Muslim migrants in its country and is once again afraid of tackling this issue (just as it failed historically to deal with the churches). It's far easier to ban six-year old Muslim girls from wearing hijabs in public schools than to actually do something constructive about France's failure to interact with a multicultural & multi-faith world. If the values that Sylvie mentioned are so important, then France would have dealt with this issue decades ago, not in the few years since 9/11.
9: Harpreet Singh (Corona, California, U.S.A.), December 19, 2007, 11:42 AM.
The journey of the Europeans is not very different from the Sikhs in terms of the choices made by people. The major difference is the guiding force for the choice, be it intellectual for the Europeans and spiritual for the Sikhs. Both societies were denied freedom of choices and both are exploring the journey with their own guiding principles. Guru Nanak, the founder of the Sikh faith, entered this world when India was at a very low ebb because of the barbarity of the Persian, Mughal and Afghan invaders. To make things worse, the people from the Hindu faith and practice had lost their sense of duty and honor. They could not in any shape and form resist the foreign onslaught because they had lost their ability to rise to the occasion. Two large faiths and practices intersected with both losing their essence of spirituality at that juncture. The advent of a new faith and practice - Sikhi - addressed the issues of loss of spirituality in society, but in the context of all faiths.
10: Manjit Kaur (North Potomac, Maryland. U.S.A.), December 19, 2007, 2:03 PM.
The response from Sylvie de Bethune was indeed very interesting. I still don't know what her position is, but it was nice of her to educate us on the history of her country. However, her statement is loaded with inaccuracies. She states that to characterize France as "racist" is to misunderstand completely the entire history of France, French culture, and the very healthy skeptical tradition that French society has towards organized religion. If this is true, I would like to know when the French authorities first took note of a Sikh boy/man in a turban or a woman with a hijab. As Parm has pointed out, the French thought it was okat for Sikh men wearing turbans to defend them and their land, but now, suddenly, it causes conflict in their society. Sylvie further states that the French also believe that schools should be a space in which children can study free of the influence of clericalism and religion. I wonder what these children are being taught. Are the French really this dense?
11: Roshan Kaur (Oakville, Ontario, Canada), December 19, 2007, 5:53 PM.
May I answer the questions posed by Satinder? I have boycotted all things Indian ever since 1984, continue to so, and will continue to do so until justice has been meted out. Basic human decency demands it. Many others, like me, have stayed away from India since 1984. The Indian state, its government, its agencies, its politicians, its leaders, its intellectuals ... all have let us down by betraying humanity at large. Many more would've boycotted the sad country if it wasn't for the fact that they have an umbilical cord that pulls them back from time to time to their loved ones. No, I haven't boycotted the U.S., and it's for a simple reason: Sardar Balbir Singh Sodhi was murdered by an individual. The state stepped in immediately and meted out justice. The government agencies in the U.S., unlike India's, have acted responsibly and honourably each time an "incident" has occurred. And yes, I and many, many others are boycotting all things French, and will do everything in our power to spread the word, until the government and politicians and leaders of France begin to behave like truly civilized people!
12: Harbinder Singh (U.K.), December 19, 2007, 6:07 PM.
The polarity of the comments following this article is as predictable as it is interesting. No matter how much one recognises and tries to comprehend the "idealistic" principles of equality which Sylvie de Bethune espouses, the startling reality is that the discrimination against the Sikhs in France on the turban issue is inexcusable. I applaud her logical and dispassionate approach but the fact remains that it is not always possible to reconcile liberalism and fairness. If we were to apply the famous principle of the philosopher John Stuart Mills, then "The only purpose for which power can rightfully be exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others". What harm is the Sikh turban other than what the post 9/11 syndrome has decreed it to be? The right to keep the symbols of our faith regardless should be seen as a "positive liberty" and not encroached because the opportunistic politics of the present and the misguided historical reactionary resentment towards the role of religion in a modern state dictate differently. Even if the issue of Sikh sacrifices in the World Wars were to be dispassionately overlooked,the French state would need to concede that it can not embrace and rejoice diversity on one hand and yet so insensitively suppress it on the other.
13: Parm (Canada), December 19, 2007, 11:13 PM.
Sylvie, it's really NOT amazing that no one has challenged your main point as you state re: the vilification of an entire nation, because they probably agree with the fact the entire French population is not racist. I would have thought that was an obvious conclusion to draw. I am surprised as to why you are so surprised? The answer to your debit /credit question is that there is a direct correlation in understanding the background of an issue, the context of the issue and how it affects the community (minority and majority) before a decision is made. Not only on the principle's own worth or historical context but both and more. Group vs. Individual: I think when you really break down the issue it really doesn't make a difference in this case. The reason, it is the same issue whether it is Gurbinder, Manjinder or Tejinder filing 2000 separate cases or fighting for a group does not make a difference. To say that groups have no rights and only individuals do is rather short-sighted as groups are really made up by a bunch of individuals. The issue remains that the forefathers of these children and adults laid down their lives to save the same French society that is now turning their heads. I can guarantee you this, if a time was to come where history repeated itself, those same lawmakers would not ban the turban then, but rather welcome it, welcome it with open arms.
14: J.P. Singh (Marseille, France), December 20, 2007, 12:00 AM.
French arguments under the rubric of "secularism" are hypocritical, to say the least. The Louvre is a prime public institution. Have the authorities removed all items in it that depict Christian and Jewish images, or are those thousands of items considered exceptions under some convoluted reasoning? And, pray, when the Sikhs - turbaned, all - marched through the streets and countryside of France, protecting them from the enemies of France by sacrificing their own turbanned lives, while the French crowds looked on helplessly and gratefully, I don't recall any French voices raising the clarion call of secularism and asking the Sikhs to remove their turbans or go home. It's mind-boggling to see what the human mind can come up with to justify obscenities.
15: Amrik Singh (New Delhi, India), December 20, 2007, 12:00 AM.
I am surprised that Mme de Bethune takes offence with France being called racist. Has she not read the history of post-French-Revolution French colonialism, or has she read it through rose-coloured glasses? The French could easily compete with the English (not to mention the Belgians, the Dutch, the Portuguese, and many others ... and, of course, current day Americans) for the top prize in racist attitudes towards other ethnicities and faiths. Have we already forgotten what the whole of Europe did to the Jews for centuries - and not just the Germans. The French and the English, and everyone else, were in it up to their necks. Then, there was the persecution of the "Moors", as they referred to the Muslims. And so on ... But, in today's world! to have the type of ban they've instituted against the turban and the hijaab will have to be the cherry (on the crown!) as the most blatant of racist acts. Having read de Bethune's comments, I agree: the ostrich metaphor, as used in an earlier comment, explains it all.
16: Bhupinder Singh Ghai (New Delhi, India), December 20, 2007, 1:52 AM.
I would just like to invite Sylvie to visit The Golden Temple and see what secularism, equality and human rights really mean. She, like the majority of law makers of France, do not know what Sikhi is all about. The French have been acting like the proverbial ostrich which buries its head in sand, and makes itself oblivious of the world around. If they are scared of the turbans and hijabs, they can make a law and avoid giving immigration status or even visas to people sporting these articles of faith but they cannot wake up one fine day and pass a law banning these from the French citizenry. As rightly said by many commentators, they should have woken up a century ago and should not have begged Sikhs with turbans to come and defend their country. We are living in a multicultural society and the sooner we have a policy which is assimilative rather than segregational, we would be living in a better and a safer world. Look what happened when the western world ignored a failed state like Afghanistan. It became a breeding ground for ignorance and fundamentalism. May I also ask, do they have any evidence that Sikhs have used religious fundamentalism against the French society? Let us compare apples with apples.
17: Paul Harman (Birmingham, England), December 20, 2007, 10:52 AM.
Bhupinder Singh, Sikh fundamentalism has a history in the West. The only reason why it hasn't featured in France is because there are not a lot of Sikhs living in France. In the UK, we have had the rioting and death threats by Sikh fundamentalists against the Birmingham Rep theatre and the playwright Gurpreet Bhatti, a situation that was described as the Sikh version of the Rushdie affair, as well as support for various extremist secessionist groups, and violence between Sikhs themselves. There is also a sub-culture of extremism amongst some Sikhs in Canada, the USA and Germany. A recent book called 'Shame' published by Jasvinder Sanghera, a human rights activist from Derby, told the story of her struggle against forced marriage and dealt with the hidden world of Sikh girls born in England being forced to marry men from India. Violent crimes related to 'honour' also occur with some regularity amongst Sikh families living in the West, although thankfully, not very often. Although the majority of Sikhs adjust well to life in secular Western societies, significant incidents occur in which the primacy of the rights of the individual, especially females, conflict with the demands of the religion and the social dysfunction related to honour and marriage. This does relate to a clash of cultures that should be addressed by Sikhs living in Britain and elsewhere. Having studied these issues for a long time, living in a city with a large Sikh population, the silence on these concerns by Sikh activists and organisations is absolutely dissapointing. It points towards a denial and silence on issues of real concern to the lives of British citizens who happen to be Sikh and have no voice or escape from what can often be asphyxiating and oppressive realities. And all of these things are related to the differing value systems between a culture that values the freedom of the individual, including the freedom to choose your own marriage partner, equality between men and women and boys and girls, and one that is too often silent when it comes to confronting the violation of these tenets. So I do think that there is a disparity between secular liberal values and the lives of a small but significant minority of Sikhs living in the West. It is the responsibility of the majority of Sikhs to concentrate on eradicating this. But I have yet to see real evidence of Sikh organizations and human rights activists addressing these things in a concerted way.
18: J.P. Singh (France), December 20, 2007, 12:22 PM.
Hmm-mm-n. Just read Paul Harman's remarks. I have three questions: 1) What does this have to do with the issue at hand - the mindless racism on the part of the French government? 2) If the actions of a few idiots in England and elsewhere - you youself refer to them as a small number - is to shape the rights of all Sikhs, then pray tell me, what're we going to about the crimes committed by Germany's Nazis - all self-professed Christians, each one of them - in murdering six million Jews within living memory? Or, more importantly, what has been done to date to deal with this pattern of behaviour? If this question sounds a bit ridiculous to you, then think how your comments sound. 3) Haven't you countered Sylvie's whole argument then, because I haven't heard the majority of the French population come out to decry the stupidities of its government. Have you seen them marching in the streets of Paris? Why not? So, according to you, Paul, all of the French are therefore accountable because of their silence, and need to be penalized. [Eh, Sylvie?]
19: Paul Harman (Birmingham, England), December 20, 2007, 1:21 PM.
J.P Singh, my comments were in answer to Bhupinder Singh from Delhi regarding fundamentalism amongst Sikhs in the West generally. It wasn't suggesting collective culpability for anything, and the comparison with Nazi Germany is bizarre and irrelevant. It was to highlight how Sikhs need to take ownership of human rights violations and offences against principles of free speech and individual choice and womens rights within the Sikh diaspora as much as they have to campaign against what they perceive to be unfair legislation against them in places like France. It was making the point that integration into societies is a two-way process, and that both sides have to work to eradicate backward practises that inhibit integration. My experience comes from living amongst, studying and working with Sikhs in one of the largest centres of the Sikh diaspora, which is Birmingham in England. I believe that British society has largely played its role in facilitating Sikhs to integrate, through parliamentary legislation designed to prevent Sikhs being discriminated against in schools (the Mandla v Lee House of Lords case), to make allowances for the kirpan to worn at workplaces, to prosecuting racist speech and violence and discrimination through the Race Relations Act. Sadly, I don't see Sikh groups and activists making a reciprocal effort to the extent that they should be doing to tackle certain social practises that offend against British society that do occur amongst a minority of Sikhs, but are still persistent in happening. I also have seen little condemnation or reflection on the Birmingham Rep affair, and how freedom of speech was traduced by mob rule, by any major Sikh activist outfit in the UK, even though it is the very principle of freedom of speech, which is sacred in itself, that affords Sikhs the rights to worship freely and advocate for causes like Sikh human rights in India, the French turban issue, as well as ultimately being the basis for Sikh religious identity being recognised in British law and the anti-discrimination acts of parliament through the assertion of the principle of freedom of expression. All these rights are interdependent, and I truly believe that Sikhs are established and confident enough in Britain and elsewhere to turn their attention to these issues and campaign as rigourously against them as they do any other issue. In a multicultural society, it is vital that all parties play their part in maintaining certain principles, like free speech, equal rights for women, freedom to dissent from religion, the freedom to choose your own marriage partner without the threat of ostracism or violence. All of these principles are ones we hold dear as the fundamentals of the secular liberal democratic tradition, they are principles upon which a multicultural society flourishes, and these are the principles we all have to take seriously in our defence of.
20: Sylvie de Béthune (Paris, France), December 20, 2007, 2:30 PM.
Thanks for the replies. Some of them have been filled with what I expected, a lot of prejudice and chauvinism and caricature. But there have been some very valuable responses too, and I will reply to individuals and their arguments here. It will be helpful if I begin with Bhupinder Singh Ghai from New Delhi, who suggests that I should visit the Golden Temple in Amritsar. I am very happy to say that I have visited the Golden Temple in Amritsar in the summer of 2004, which was my third visit to India. As a scholar of Buddhism and Hinduism, I have of course spent a lot of time in India and read very widely on Sikhism, which is one of the major religions of India. Visiting the Golden Temple was an extremely beautiful moment in my spiritual life and personal search for meaning. It was one of the highlights of my traveling life, and is a place of true sanctity and emotional peace. But I will make a comparison to you. Recently on sikhchic there was an article about how certain practises in the Golden Temple violate the essential principles of gender equality of the Sikh faith. Bhupinder Singh says that visiting the Golden Temple will give an individual a sense of what secularism, equality and human rights really mean. But even here in the very heart of the Sikh religion, the principle of equality is violated every day. Would you consider it a fair judgment to decry the entire multiplicity of Sikhism as a misogynistic hypocrisy? Or would you view it as a project in progress to enhance and perfect the flaws in the practice of it? If not, why is the default mode of many in response to this issue to caricature France as a "racist giant", and compare it to Afghanistan under the Taliban, or all places, and other such ridiculous and absurd ignorances that echo the caricature and racism that they seek to decry? Harbinder Singh from the UK - I agree with you and your quotation from John Stewart Mills. I thank you for making your argument without recourse to hostile bile towards France and French culture. Indeed, ultimately, it will be the mechanisms of the democratic institutions of France and the EU that will settle this issue. Those institutions and principles are in part derived from the work and achievments of men like Mills. Manjit Kaur from Maryland, USA. I decide that if you are to make belligerent and deliberately offensive rhetorical comments about French children, I will only register my opinion that such comments do nothing to promote fruitful dialogue. Roshan Kaur from Canada. Is your belief in and practice of collective guilt and culpability only extendable to nations, or to other social groupings too? I only ask, because what if someone decided to boycott all Sikh people, their business, culture and works, because they disliked what a minority of Sikh extremists did? And furthermore, what will you do if the Canadian state gives you cause to boycott them? Where will you go to live then? And the murder of the Sikh man in America, you are going to hold all of America guilty for that? Even though the murderer was convicted and condemned? Your mentality is profoundly disturbing to me. Amandeep Singh Madra from London. Well, the issue of the post 9-11 world, where extremism affects us all, and British and French citizens born and raised in England and France can blow up innocent people in the name of a religious cause does of course impact on all societies, especially those that want to prevent societal atomization and the creep of Islamist doctrine into the school system. The point I want to make is that just as a more nuanced approach to this needs to be adopted in the French context, so do Sikh activists have to make recourse to the institutions of French democracy that so far, almost by default, they have derided as manifestations of unholy racism and bigotry. If you cannot see what is before you because of the red mist and anger you cannot control, you create monsters through demonization and do not get to the heart of issues and what you can do to solve them. Parm from Canada. The sacrifice of Sikh soldiers in the wars is of course to be respected and remembered. But you'll have to do more to persuade people of the righteousness of any cause you profess than to use emotional blackmail. There is a whole palette of liberal principle to choose from to advance your cause. Coralling Sikh soldiers from the past does not win the argument. Not least of all because the France that they fought in back then still maintained the separation of the public state from clerical and religious influence, and that was the France that they were fighting for. Regarding the difference between group and individual rights. There is a massive difference between the two, and that you don't understand the difference, and why there is a difference between them, is instructive. J.P Singh from Marseille. The Louvre is an art gallery. It is not an arm of the state, nor is it comparable to the education system. I'm sure you understand this distinction. Amrik Singh from Delhi. The ostrich metaphor is actually ridiculous. But, no matter, I shall not dwell on it. I am interested in the presumption though, that a society is defined only by the negative parts of its history. Would that apply to India or more generally, to Sikh history too? I like to live in a society that learns from its past, that is able to correct its present, and that does not caricature others when dealing with problems.
21: Mohkam Singh (France), December 21, 2007, 12:00 AM.
There is a wonderful word for these convolutions: "chaturta". The closest that comes to it in literal English is "cleverness". It involves intense navel gazing and a general ignoring of the issue. The fact of the matter is that the French ban is a racist one. If the Sikhs win it ultimately or not, the fact remains that the act and the attiude and mindset that support it is primitive and against every norm of civilized behaviour. Sylvie and Paul make it sound like British and French societies are the founts of law and order principles. The problem is that you've been reading history written by the British and the French! You need to get under the surface, under the layers of perfume and powder, and then you'll encounter the stink! No, I'm not angry. And I'm not getting emotional. I'm merely being truthful. I fear that, in France today, "verite" too has gone down the drain, alongwith Liberte, Egalite and Fraternite.
22: Bhupinder Singh Ghai (New Delhi, India), December 21, 2007, 2:07 AM.
Thank you, Sylvie, for your responses. Firstly, I would like to tell you that the practice od allowing women to do sewa in Golden temple will come sooner rather than later. But I am not aware of any female head of a Christian Church(Pope, e.g.). You could not acheive this in 2000 years of the Christian faith and you expect the Sikhs to do this in 300 yrs. At least, our theology is clear on the issue. God willing, it will happen very soon. Also, in response to Paul: I think you have misunderstood my comments. Every society has some problems. Do not tell me British society is a utopian one. My question was: has Sikh religious fundamentalism been directed against the French or British society? And, regarding freedom of religion: If you read the UN Declaration of Human Rights, everyone has full right to practice any religion and the French ban is directly in conflict with this. The French are signatories to the UN. When we talk about freedom and rights, one thing we should note is that in enjoying them, one is not infringing/encroaching on any individual's/group's/society's basic rights. By wearing a turban/hijab, we are in no way encroaching on anybody's freedom or, for that matter, rights. Also, what does Sylvie have to say about whether Sikhs in turbans are welcome to visit France or not, as tourists? Please give a straight answer instead of lingoistic jingoisms.
23: David Jones (Ipswich, England.), December 21, 2007, 6:42 AM.
There is little doubt in my mind that the Sikhs ( and Muslims) in France are experiencing a form of cultural oppression. Religious tolerance and freedom should allow individuals to be free to express their own religious identity through the way that they dress, connected as this is to deeply held views on important moral tenets of the faith. Sylvie de Bethune, from her writings, strikes me as genuine but extremely naive. And, as such, no doubt representative of many French people. She is correct in pointing out the origin of French attitudes to religion in state schools and the public sector. She is correct in explaining the historical struggle between the republic and the Catholic church in the nineteenth century, the time of Dreyfus, the time of Zola. The establishment of a genuine liberal and non-denominational education system in France was a real victory and one which the French will not relinquish. Sikhs in dialogue with the French need to give the same respect to French values as they expect for their own. However, this is not the whole story. Around the world, we see unscruplous politicians decieving the naive into believing that their deepest values are under attack. We can tell when this is the case when the reaction is out of all proportion to the initial incident. A teddy bear does not really threaten Islam. A few students wishing to wear the turban or the veil does not really threaten French society. Please consider the ninetenth century threat was due to an attempt by a powerful insitutuion to try and continue to dominate French politics, education and culture by using its huge educational structures to challenge the elected Republican government. In what way does this resemble the modern situation in France? Obviously it doesn't and in pretending to see a threat where no threat is present, someone is playing political games. To spell it out, French cultural values are real and important, but the threat to them is unreal and fabricated. I am sorry also to have to say this, Sylvie, but if you look deeply and honstly at French history, you will see that while France is certainly not racist, racism and xenophobia certainly exists within France traditionally in the form of organised anti-semitism and more recently in organised campaigns against immigrants. The milice, the LVF and the Waffen SS Grenadier Brigade Charlemagne, all French, did exist however painful it may be to mention them. In this, the history of France is no different from that of all socieities, including those of the Indian subcontinent or indeed the UK. All have their unpleasant side. However, while these elements are relatively unimportant in modern France, they, and not the Sikhs, not the Muslims, represent the real threat to French values . The French educational establishment needs to evolve and not blindly respond to the challenges and realities of the 21 century with ideas and approaches of the nineteenth. The French people need to unmask the real motives of those who seek to scare them with imaginary threats.
24: Gurpal Singh (Wolverhampton, U.K.), December 21, 2007, 4:17 PM.
It is wonderful that both Paul Harman and I can live and work in the same area, both contribute to sikhchic.com, yet differ with each other. Paul: as a British historian recently told me, Sikh fundamentalism is not fundamentalism in the real religious sense, but is more of a political fundamentalism that has evolved as a reaction to Hindu fundamentalism in India. I am yet to see Sikhs actively convert others or aggressively promote their faith in any way. Paul is misinformed about the death threats and rioting over the Bezhti issue. The death threats were made by anonymous people, not the Sikh community. As I understand it, a peaceful protest was planned and executed by Guru Nanak Nishkam Sewak Jatha, one of the most spiritual Sikh oganisations, headed by Baba Mohinder Singh and dedicated to Interfaith Work (and continous langar at the Barcelona World Parliament of Religions), serving the less fortunate and providing renovation of historical Gurdwaras, including the re-goldplating of the Golden Temple. A small group of young men not connected with the larger peaceful and praying protest had thrown stones - three arrests were made for public order offences and the men were released without charges. The wider Sikh community condemned the incident of violence while it was blown out of all proportion by the media. Indarjit Singh (BBC Radio 4's Thought for the Day) offered a Sikh response to the media - not a single newspaper took any interest in finding out what happened or why the Sikhs may have been agitated. I contacted all major National and local papers. The Guardian simply said that they didn't want to carry a Sikh viewpoint of the issue and it was not necessary for them to do so in order to provide a balance. White English friends in leftist organisations with contacts in the media told me that the media wanted a Sikh version of the Rushdie affair and racism had a part to play; an ethnic minority simply had to be put down for daring to ask for a fair hearing. The Express & Star and Birmingham Evening Mail offered me space to write a short article - I was half way through when I received the phone call that my father had died of a massive heart attack, plunging the family into crisis. Support for 'extremist secessionist' groups has been on the wane over a number of years as Sikhs play a greater part in India's democratic institutions. The book 'Shame' that dealt with forced marriages covers an issue of concern for all Asians and not just Sikhs in particular. However Jasvinder's tragedy first and foremost is a product of poor parenting and culture, rather than any deficiency in the Sikh community. You must know, Paul, that the issue of forced marriages is universally condemned by Sikhs from all ages and backgrounds, but is still a marginal issue involving people of a Punjabi rural background and mentality, as Jasvinder herself has highlighted. British Sikh children have their own views on marriage with love marriages and inter-caste marriages now the norm. My generation is unwilling to accept parents' views and this is something I see with considerable regularity. In fact, amongst our hundreds of relatives, I was the last to have an assisted marriage back in the year 2000. You continually state that Sikh activists do not address these issues - I beg to differ. At the age of 20, I was a member of the Management Committee of the Sikh Gurdwara, Cardiff for two years, possibly the youngest member in the country. Now, at the age of 34, I have been for the last three years: General Secretary of our local Gurdwara near Birmingham, Registrar of Marriages, General Secretary Guru Nanak Education Council and member of the apex Council of Sikh Gurdwaras of Wolverhampton, and I am not even a visible, practising Sikh! I also run the Punjabi School where we teach to GCSE level and as Head of Science Faculty (and other significant roles) at a large school / 6th form in affluent Sutton Coldfield, I also teach GCSE Punjabi to young Sikhs and we teach GCSE Sikhism to a huge number of exclusively white English students. I am dedicated to improving the lives of young Sikhs and I see that significant numbers of young Sikhs are coming into leadership positions in Gurdwaras and are now to be found in all Sikh organisations - we are trying to challenge outdated notions and bring about real change for the young and for women - just give us a chance.
25: Sukhtinde (U.S.A.), January 01, 2008, 5:20 PM.
Why is anyone surprised that the French would ban turbans? Why would anyone here believe that France is thankful to others for helping them? The French have been notorious in shunning away the people that have sacrificed for them throughout history. The United States has tried to clean up France's messes on at least three occassions in history - World War I, II, and Vietnam. What thanks does America get from France? Absolutely none, other than snide remarks and snooty attitudes that Americans receive when visiting Paris. Out of their paranoia, they've banned "The Big Mac", and the "Quarter Pounder with Cheese" (replacing them with French names), because the American names did not sound "French" enough. If the French are afraid of something as small as a hamburger, why would anyone here believe they are brave enough to allow a Sikh to wear a turban? I have visited France; you're not missing much if you boycott it.