Well, color me furious after perusing ye olde News tab. Well, the new News tab, but still. Via the Beeb (Thanks, chicagodesidiva):
A 14-year-old girl has been excluded from a school in south Wales for wearing a Sikh bangle, or Kara.
Sarika Singh refused to take off the religious symbol because it is “a constant reminder to do good”.
As you can see from the photograph, Sarika’s kara is hardly ostentatious or luxe– I mention that because that was the rational which my private school had for outlawing jewelry…so girls couldn’t flaunt wealth by dripping in gold, diamonds, filthy lucre.
Aberdare Girls School said it has a clear code of conduct and it had temporarily excluded a pupil for refusing to accept a governors’ ruling.
The school also stated that a “code of conduct” had been distributed to every student before they commenced attending Aberdare AND that it was reissued before every semester. Said code only allows a watch and “plain metal stud earrings”. I guess that means crosses, pentagrams, and super-cute star-of-David pendants aren’t permitted. Then again, none of those necklaces are part of anything like the 5 Ks:
The Sikh Federation UK said that the bangle was an “article of faith” and Sikhs had no choice but to wear it.
Sarika’s parent, Sinita Singh, is not being unreasonable:
She said the teenager would remove the bangle for gym classes, or wood and metalwork, for safety reasons.
Mrs Singh said: “It’s not jewellery, it’s part of our faith and symbol of our belief.”
She said they had a meeting with the school and argued the case with the board of governors, but they refused to allow her to wear it.
“We feel very strongly that Sarika has a right to manifest her religion – she’s not asking for anything big and flashy, she’s not making a big fuss, she just wants a reminder of her religion.”
Apparently, Sarika has been suspended (hey, UK types…is that what “excluded” means?) for wanting to wear her kara.
Sarika said of wearing the bangle: “It’s very important to me, it constantly reminds me to do good and not to do bad, especially with my hands.”
Her mother said the Sikh Federation had supported them and she would do “whatever it takes”.
Maybe the law is on Sarika’s side?
Jagtar Singh, secretary of Sikh Federation UK claimed the school was breaching the 1976 Race Relations Act in its treatment of Sarika.
“The department for education and schools in England have said that if a headteacher or governing body were to deny a Sikh child one of their articles of faith such as the bangle then they would be breaking the law,” he said.
“If you are a practising Sikh, you have no choice, you have to have the kara. It is the one symbol that virtually every single Sikh wears.”
The law on this is quite interesting. There have been two related cases where the plaintiff lost, so if Sarika Watkins-Singh wins her case, it’ll buck a trend:
Can one of the Sikhs here please explain the significance of the kara and the history behind it? When I was a kid, my parents used to make me and my brother wear kara, as they said it would make us fearless. 🙂 Somehow, the practice fell off by middle/high school. I think wearing kara is one of the common customs among Sikhs and Punjabis, though it clearly originated with the Sikhs.
Havent private schools learned by now that they are just asking for a headache by not using common sense?
If the girl wanted to wear a 70 pound sword that was 5ft long, then go ahead and express a little concern, but leave the virtually invisible bangle alone.
The hijab is cultural and not religous from what I know, which by the way is very little so maybe I am wrong about that and a purity ring is also cultural and not purely religous. The ring is a statment that I am not going to be like the typical American and bang my brains out before I am married.
The Kara on the other hand is apart of Sikhism and is not cultural. If your a white, black or whatever color Sikh, you would be wearing one.
The hijab is cultural and not religous from what I know
these sort of statements aren’t like 1 + 1 = 2. they’re arrived through consensus, and you’ll get muslims disagreeing (you can generalize this statement about any religion and a common practice associated with any religion). as a matter of practice governments/authorities tend to privilege some interpretations over others and so make some understandings normative and others heterodox or deviant.
as for this specific case obviously a bangle is a trivial point. accommodation is a common sense response. additionally, as a point of civilized life as citizens in a practically multicultural environment these sorts of compromises with religious precepts need to be accepted. that being said, i’m going to go on the record and express my irritation and weariness with religious people constantly making a big fuss over practices and symbols entailed by their superstitions. myself, i find many religious people ostentatious in their adherence to these sorts of markers (running around wearing black outfits which cover everything but eyes, dressing like 17th century polish nobles in brooklyn, etc.). i’m totally fine with people of religion X thinking that they’re all-that because they have access to a particular truth (or so they think), it’s none of my business. i think i’m really cool too, but if i wanted public accommodation because i have particular beliefs which i reasoned to or attribute to personal experience of course the government would tell me to take a hike. without the god-seal of approval acceptance and accommodation of deviation has a much higher bar to jump.
and the fact is that if i made up a religion and said god told me to do this and that, it wouldn’t really carry that much weight. you need to be attached to an established and well known religion with other followers who validate your weird belief so that everyone can nod and understand that of course you need accommodation. in the end it is a matter of numbers and pragmatism, not principled respect for beliefs. the reality is that out of the sample space of beliefs only a tiny number will ever get special treatment because only a tiny number span huge numbers of people with will, sentiment and demographic muscle.
anyway, i tend to not say anything on these sikh related threads because i don’t want to be an ahole; and this will be the only thread that i’m going to be an ahole because there’s really no point in repeating myself over and over. but i’m not outraged on behalf of sikhs when people freak out that they want to do all the K’s. frankly i’m a little weirded out by the fact that sikhs dress the way they do (yes, i know the reasons, but there are many religions with “reasons” and i find most of them pretty weird because i don’t share their premises to begin with). i don’t even get angry that there are double standards sometimes, because there are always prejudices and biases and accommodation of sikhism is usually conditional upon the influence of sikhs within a particular locale, not the principle of universal religious toleration. but, i do want to remind people that there are thousands of religions, many of them with their own particular orthopraxies. as a matter of reality we’re only going to accommodate a small number of these, partly because of finite resources, but partly because of conflicts between these orthopraxies (consider a religion which mandates sex segregation and another which mandates mixed-sex socialization). strong forms of multiculturalism are going to lead to the accommodation of a lot of practices which non-believers will find strange. from the perspective of a secular pragmatist sometimes religious uniformity is the best case scenario because it means you only have to accommodate one set of orthopraxies justified by religious precepts.
Not that it matters greatly, but some of the right-wing press or talk-radio in the UK may try to paint this case as an example of political correctness gone mad or outsiders trying to impose their way of life on the British. Sarika’s father is white and her mother is British-Indian, her full name is Sarika Watkins-Singh, and she was born and raised in this part of Wales.
Phew! Thanks for going on the record and letting us know how you feel on that. Frankly, I wouldn’t have been able to sleep otherwise.
Razib – very well put. Religion like sex and defecating is a private matter. It is in all of us – there is no need for it to be public. It is not a big deal either way. Others may disagree.
I’m more disturbed by your equating of sex and defecation melbourne desi, that’s beyond kinky into another realm.
But that presumes certain norms. For example, when somebody asks me why I don’t cut my hair, the implication is that cutting your hair is normal and not cutting your hair is ostentatious display of religiousity. I guess I don’t respect the premise. I’m not defining myself against your “normal” practice, I’m not choosing this behavior to be deviant.
[Razib doesn’t do that, he’s just talking about practices that are more and less common]
Furthermore, the idea that religion need not be public actually makes all sorts of cultural assumptions about the “proper” way to worship. You could just as well claim that people don’t need to worship together because that’s making the private public as well.
By the way, when male Muslims and Jews get naked or make love in the open air is that an ostentatious display of religion in public, sans foreskin, especially when, in Europe or India, it is against the norm? Razib, do you do ostentatious diplays? My secular sensibility may be offended the next swingers party I attend or if a lady is strict in observing these secular / ostentatious parameters. What’s the gene theory on that?
melbourne desi’s thoughts also welcome — but try not to bring defecation into it.
some folks need to brush up on their pop culture. Just when you thought we’d hit rock bottom – people surprise us in the most ghastly way.
Religion like sex and defecating is a private matter. It is in all of us – there is no need for it to be public.
as a matter of empirical reality that’s not true though. religion tends to be communal and social, and it often reflects and shapes public norms. for example, i’ve used the issue of school lunches as an exemple. if you were a public school administrator and 99% of your students were from a christian background you would order different food than if 30% were christian, 40% hindu and 30% muslim. private beliefs have public ramifications. if you had a thousand different religious groups with a thousand different dietary requirements it could basically be impossible to fulfill them all. that’s the extreme case i’m alluding to.
For example, when somebody asks me why I don’t cut my hair, the implication is that cutting your hair is normal and not cutting your hair is ostentatious display of religiousity. I guess I don’t respect the premise.
the norms are just norms because that’s what the majority accepts. wearing long-haired wigs was the norm in the 18th century in the west. beards were common in the 19th century. and so on. these are often fits of fashion. not bowing to fashion as a matter of principle and adhering to a particular style of dress in the face of fashion as a practical matter makes you stand out and shows that you don’t want to conform. this is one reason that haredi jews have “fixed” their style of dress to that of early modern eastern europe (that’s my reference to 17th century polish nobles, jews in the employ of nobles understandably emulated the fashions of their patrons). jai offered that one reason sikhs are distinctive in appearance is so that someone in need of aid can identify a sikh, who is enjoined to aid those who are being wronged, etc. that implies that out of a sample space of random people sikhs will be particularly moral or righteous. perhaps sikhs are different from other religious people, but my own personal experience and study of the ethnography is that most religous groups consider themselves as chosen and special with particular access to the truth (more or less), and quite often their dress marks them off so that they can identify the fellow chosen (e.g., “pious” muslims growing great beards and dressing in a particular manner). dress is just a particular manifestation of the general trend. and the tendency isn’t restricted to just religious people, many “progressives” are pretty self-satisfied in their raised consciousness, while many atheists flash their darwin signs to show that they’re one of the elect with their eyes open to how the world really is. but in these latter cases there usually aren’t court cases that emerge because they won’t conform to some arbitrary rule, religious rationales though are particularly potent and given due respect as a form of identity in our society. and that due respect is justified, people kill over religion after all in the extremist cases.
By the way, when male Muslims and Jews get naked or make love in the open air is that an ostentatious display of religion in public, sans foreskin, especially when, in Europe or India, it is against the norm? Razib, do you do ostentatious diplays? My secular sensibility may be offended the next swingers party I attend or if a lady is strict in observing these secular / ostentatious parameters. What’s the gene theory on that?
? do the circumcised regular flash their glans in your face?
and just to be clear: my point is to defend the rationality of particular norms or customs. norms and customs are often not grounded in anything but dumb fashion or conformity on the individual level. but think of the extreme case: speaking a common language isn’t rational on an individual level, english isn’t superior to french in terms of communication, but the key is that society have the same currency so that we can understand each other. so consider the gray flannel suit, it shows that you want to be taken seriously and you’re not in a casual context. but it’s nothing but a debased form of puritan dress, which was a rebuke to cavalier lusciousness. many people who dress in a peculiar manner are lauded as individualists and eccentrics who “go their own way,” but their style is also a social signal and isn’t really intelligible outside of the communal context. julian the apostate grew a beard during a time when elite practice among roman males was to clean-shaved. the reason was that he aspired to be a greek philosopher, and the beard was a sign of their wisdom (and for what it’s worth, he was mocked as old-fashioned by contemporaries).
my point is to defend the rationality of particular norms or customs.
insert not. big boo-boo.
I was wondering when that video was going to be referenced on SM. I guess the prize goes to you.
oh, and re: male circumcision, just to be on the record about that, there are good reasons to discourage circumcisions in first world contexts, or at least not encourage the practice (both utilitarian and moral). but again, as a sop to pragmatism that’s not feasible with jews and muslims who will slap you with the charge of cultural genocide. we draw lines based on both principle and utilitarian context though, obviously first world nations don’t accept the argument of the minority of muslims who believe that female circumcision is demanded by their religion.
razib, are you making up for your absence? 🙂
i take a blitzkrieg tack on commenting on weblogs. and i have strong opinions on this topic.
For Amit:
I know Razib is disturbed by us all wanting to wear these odd markers and look alike, but I’m more worried about people looking down upon others for wanting to wear simple reminders of an honorable commitment. When we’re afraid to do so, isn’t that when we all really start looking alike?
ghuriya*, I thought the karas original purpose was to fend off a sword or knife blow and it was worn on the non sword-wielding wrist. I am not sure if i made it up to explain its rationale or if I read it somewhere. Would you know?
*i have a cousin called that 🙂 who sends me rakhis every year. thanks for the pleasant reminder.
I know Razib is disturbed by us all wanting to wear these odd markers and look alike, but I’m more worried about people looking down upon others for wanting to wear simple reminders of an honorable commitment. When we’re afraid to do so, isn’t that when we all really start looking alike?
obviously you can dress however you want in your home or in a public place. i do think it’s a little weird, just like i think those kids who have pink mohawks are weird (if had a friend who was sikh or with a pink mohawk i would of course get used to it because it would become a background condition). the key is when your dress code conflicts with rules and regulations, public or private. there are reasons that some places ban the carrying of weapons on your person. additionally, if a kid with a pink mohawk wanted to work a fine dining establishment and they rejected his application because he refused to change his “look” i doubt most people would think that the restaurant would be out of line. but if it’s a sikh turban that’s probably a different issue because it becomes a religious and ethnic issue, and they might be accused of discrimination. as a practical matter there’s really nothing we can ever do about these sorts of different treatments, be an individual noncoformist and there’s no one to get your back, but if you noncomform to conform with a particular group, and you do so because god said-so, well, you’re in luck! that’s how it will be, and for practical reasons that’s how it should be for pragmatic reasons (around 1850 a young irish american boy was beaten because he refused to read a king james version bible in his classroom. now, it seems pretty irrational to take a beating to not read a book, but if beatings the consequences of these sorts of requests, best to take the bible out of the classroom).
It is difficult to assign exact and unique rationales for religio-cultural traditions conceived partly within a martial context but also designed to provide meaning outside it. This is the case for the 5Ks of Sikhism. All the panj kakaars can be seen as making sense for a soldier-warrior (the comb to keep the unshorn hair clean and in place, the knee-length drawers to be worn all the time so as to be ready to move at a moment’s notice, the kirpan carried at all times in case it is needed, and the kara, which can be used as a weapon in close combat. I don’t see how it could be effective in fending off a sword attack though – unless it were extremely thick – but that would make it too heavy and in any case it can’t cover your whole hand, or even your forearm.
Each of the 5Ks also has an ‘explanation’ in the everyday, religio-spiritual domain removed from the martial context. Actually, each of them has many ‘explanations’. Since you brought up the rakhi, there is also an explanation which links the kara to a ‘metal rakhi’ suitable for warriors.
Virtually everyone I know who wears karas wears it on the right hand.
people’s interpretations of religion are different. i have heard the argument that these are but appurtenances, crutches to the faith. others have echoed you in that this is a symbol of strength. i would lean towards the latter interpretation, but come to an ethical logjam when layering the need to differentiate oneself against the central belief that all are equal in the eyes of God. What do you think?
Indeed. I have had a slope-headed brute grind my face with a kara sometime in my wonder years. i agree with your other comment. I need to dredge my head. too much sludge clogging the synapses.
i can appreciate this belief, but have lately seen more and more ‘gold’ karas in circulation, which seems to run counter to the warrior principle. Anyway, to each his own.
Just an aside on the need many people feel to ‘make sense’ of religio-cultural traditions, to rationalize and find ‘teleological explanations’ that appeal to them – the fundamental difficulty here is that most traditions are there because they are there, and religion and rationality in any case are in somewhat disjoint universes, so the effort is doomed to hit a logjam sooner or later.
Although, having said that, the 5Ks are a bit of an exception in that they were traditions that were quite explicitly instituted – although they drew from the existing spiritual and cultural mileu – a ‘rationale’ was also provided right alongside. Many more explanations removed from the original context, however were also provided later, making the teleological quest nevertheless difficult.
and religion and rationality in any case are in somewhat disjoint universes, so the effort is doomed to hit a logjam sooner or later.
i think the key are presuppositions. i’ve had catholic acquaintances who just can’t comprehend why i don’t believe that thomism is an airtight philosophical system. but the credibility of a teleological explanation is contingent upon your background assumptions and intuitions. in other words, within a group which shares particular presuppositions there maybe some fruit in engaging in debate about the teleology of particular practices, after all there are common shared beliefs and axioms around which the argument can hinge. the problem occurs when you expand the audience outside to those who do not share axioms in the first place. this is an issue when the government laws and religious groups interact in some way, and those who are outside of religion have to make sense of the consensus of opinions within a religion. sometimes the government simply legitimizes the numerical majority interpretation. and sometimes the government legitimizes a minority interpretation which is more in line with the values of the greater society.
Any visible sign of a religion is bound to create divisions. Kara-wearers will stick together, excluding others, or cross-wearers might consider others not worthy of association, and so on.
I’m with the school here: uniforms and dress codes are the correct way for kids to see each other at school, so that economic, cultural, religious differences don’t become a reason for division. After high school, people can wear what they like, after they’ve imbibed that everyone else is exactly like them: people.
i’ve heard and read many interpretaions of the kara. the first being practical for wartime…there was a time when kara’s were thick enough to be used for armor…not full body or even full arm, but a defense nonetheless. It is the same reason they are to be made of stainless steel and not of a maleable metal like gold…which has become more of a status symbol. a silly one, but a status symbol nonetheless. anyway, stainless steel, not maleable, good for wartime.
i think once the practicality went away, we started to wax poetic, and found other meanings for it. such as a visual reminder to be ethical…and i’ve also heard the roundness of it is a reminder for us that it’s always (or never – depending on whether you’re a glass half fuller or emptier)beginning and ending…timeless. and then there is also this resource… and…#24…unless you’re a gora (white) sikh, where the women wear it one the left and men on the right…not sure of the reasoning behind this…something yogi bhajan explained i’m sure.
Judging by the one photo of a kara bangle in this blogpost, it’s hardly a “big” or flashy display of identity/faith. Common sense would probably let it pass.
For that matter, the Christian cross is a far more controversial display: it is literally a scale model of an instrument for executing people. Imagine if Jesus had been hanged: Christians would carry a tiny gallows (with our without noose??) around their necks. (Or worse: electrocuted…)
Once again, Bill Hicks says it better than anyone else can:
if you were referencing social respect fo a particular religion, then i agree with this statement. however, when it comes to freedom of religion under US law, it actually doesn’t matter how established your religion is – all that matters is that you have actual faith in your religion, whatever it may be. in that sense, it’s surprisingly liberal…
THis Sikh girl and her family need to grow up. The school doesn’t let others wear their religious objects, why should there be an exception for this Sikh girl? Your indignation rings hollow Anna, are you trying to win browine points from the Sikh community?
Not regularly, but in the right context I wouldn’t be soiling myself or affronted as you are, so pompously, at the sight of a Hassid or turban doing his thing (ostentatiously or not!)
I think she probably wanted to discombobulate and cause heartburn to the people of your community! I observe Sikh related threads at this place with a mixture of amusement and amazement, at the number of pompous chauvinists that they smoke out of the area.
She’s a 14 year old girl with a very simple, plain silver bracelet that, you put it best, is a reminder of an honorable commitment. If people can wear yarmulkes (sp?) to school (well maybe not this school) why can’t she wear her kara? This is a Christian school, yes? Doesn’t Christianity – and all religions for that matter – preach tolerance, respect, kindness? I think it is ridiculous that she was ‘excluded’ over this. Like another commenter said, it’s not like she is carrying around a 5 ft sword.
To the commenters siding with the school that may be Hindu: My mom, as well as a lot of south indian and also maharastran women (maybe others as well), wear necklaces/pendants as a sign of marriage. She feels she has to wear it. When hers was stolen once, she went and bought another one the next day. This is not a simple, silver piece–they are usually gold and stand out amongst ‘western’ jewelry. Now it isn’t exactly the same situation, some could argue that is purely cultural and not religious, but for us it is a sign of commitment, a sign of faith to your marriage under Hindu customs. What if someone told your mom, sister, wife, etc that she could not wear this necklace to work because it wasn’t ‘appropriate?’ Wouldn’t you fight it? Wouldnt you be offended?
I agree, though sometimes it may not seem that way, it really is much much more liberal than most countries’ laws.
my understanding after reading the school’s policy is that the school forbids the wearing of ANY accessories that would announce one’s religion – headscarves and crucifixes alike? in that case i wonder if any sort of discrimination claim even exists.
This is a Christian school, yes? Doesn’t Christianity – and all religions for that matter – preach tolerance, respect, kindness?
Deuteronomy 13:2-5
….whereof he spake unto thee, saying, Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them;
Thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams….
…
Again, this makes an assumption concerning what neutral is. i.e. if I showed up one day without my turban and with my hair cut, that wouldn’t be uninformative (excuse the double negative) or neutral – it would be saying that I am no longer a Sikh [At least in my case].
Not wearing jewelry is seen as neutral because Christianity does not mandate the wearing of jewelry. However, they would see the obligation to work 7 days a week as discriminatory. You see how “neutral” is actually defined in reference to the religions of the place? I’m a member of a non-Sabbath religion. If I create a 7 day a week school and tell people that they can’t take one day a week off because that’s a religious display, I could also claim that my rule is evenhanded, but it wouldn’t really be neutral.
If the school forbids all sorts of jewellery, religious or not, then I don’t see why it’s discriminatory…?
Razib wrote:
anyway, i tend to not say anything on these sikh related threads because i don’t want to be an a**hole
I miss the days Razib still wanted to be an a**hole. It made me feel more normal.
I’m surprised that it’s the Kara that raised a fuss in the UK. In English Canada 15 years ago it was a Sikh mountie wanting to wear a turban.
Again, this makes an assumption concerning what neutral is. i.e. if I showed up one day without my turban and with my hair cut, that wouldn’t be uninformative (excuse the double negative) or neutral – it would be saying that I am no longer a Sikh [At least in my case].
Not wearing jewelry is seen as neutral because Christianity does not mandate the wearing of jewelry. However, they would see the obligation to work 7 days a week as discriminatory. You see how “neutral” is actually defined in reference to the religions of the place? I’m a member of a non-Sabbath religion. If I create a 7 day a week school and tell people that they can’t take one day a week off because that’s a religious display, I could also claim that my rule is evenhanded, but it wouldn’t really be neutral.
Very well put. I faced similar problems with clients who wore hijabs. Even though the above makes perfect sense to people like us, try explaining the above to a white middle aged college drop out HR manager in Peoria 🙂
Shit, I messed up the italics in #43.
The kara had a specific purpose. Guru Gobind Singh wanted to the Sikhs to be a fearless lot-so he made them ‘stick out’ in public where the ruling mughal class could identify them and go after them easily-hence making physical confrontation inevitable-you couldnt really ‘blend’ in to the crowd dressed as a Khalsa. Once the fear of confrontation was lost, the mughals were history. Currently, the kara is a reminder of that commitment to stand up to tyranny, no matter what kind. Somebody cuts you off-go after them. The fatter gold kara you wear, the more Sikh you are so on and so on. I am a Sikh by birth and I have worn a kara for as long as i can remember.
Now that’s an eloquent rebuttal.
The school prohibits wearing jewelry, possibly for the same reason my school did, to prevent showing off. In my opinion, a kara is not jewelry. AFAIK, there is no code in Christianity which mandates wearing a cross daily, so comparing karas to such religious objects seems pointless. I think the 5 Ks are unique, like this case. I understand that you don’t agree.
Are you me? Do you know what I feel or how deeply I feel it? There’s a way to disagree with someone without invalidating them.
Wow, it’s like you can(‘t) read my mind. That’s exactly what I was attempting to do!
I know what it’s like to be singled out at a private school for religious reasons. I feel more compassion, interest and empathy for Sarika because of it. But hey, let’s go with your “brownie points” theory. Way funnier.
Not wearing jewelry is seen as neutral because Christianity does not mandate the wearing of jewelry. However, they would see the obligation to work 7 days a week as discriminatory. You see how “neutral” is actually defined in reference to the religions of the place? I’m a member of a non-Sabbath religion. If I create a 7 day a week school and tell people that they can’t take one day a week off because that’s a religious display, I could also claim that my rule is evenhanded, but it wouldn’t really be neutral.
I see and agree with this point, however, it is a bit tricky when you’re dealing with religous mandates of an outwardly physical, visible nature. So it should be looked at in a case by case basis, although I think a little bracelet is nothing to get all worked up about.
The thing is, I think old Christianity did have more outwardly visible religious demarcations historicaly speaking, (maybe someone can verify) but those have gradually been cast off.
Hush, of course you didn’t. 😉
are you trying to win browine points from the Sikh community?
Even if you were, how exactly is a post on SM going to do that? If that was your goal, just attend and support every Bhangra event known to man.
Shit what happened to the response:
If that was ANNA’s goal, I’d imagine she’d not waste time posting stories here rather attending and financially supporting every Bhangra event known to man.