Of Kirpan, British Airways & matters of faith

Carrying of kirpan could be a basic tenet of Sikhism, but you just can’t carry it any where. That’s what 31-year-old Ripudaman Singh found out when he was arrested while visiting the US embassy in Copenhagen in 2004. A court now has upheld his conviction for violating Danish arms laws.

Religious affiliation should be confined home and places of workship. If it spills over to the streets, classrooms and workplaces there is a huge possibility of clashes. And those clashes wouldn’t be just of civilizations, it would be of cultures as well as perceptions. A knife may be a religious symbol, but it is definitely offending for many.

So symbols of offence in the tag of religion breeds animosity in a public place rather than the avowed theme of love and brotherhood which almost all religions claim to propagate and rarely do.

How many Sikhs would you see sporting kirpans in a busy Chandigarh avenue?
So why do you want to flaunt your religious affiliations? The only reason could be that you are unsure of it.

A British Muslim teacher was shown the door for wearing the niqab. The decision was challenged, but a tribunal upheld it.

Similarly, British Airways packed off its employee for wearing a necklace with a cross. Not enough. Rather unfair. Because the airline allows employees to wear bangles, turban and headscarves. Will BA allow a kirpan onboard?

Since anything and everything related to Hindus are symbols, most of them offending for faithless souls, nothing need to be told about that.
Flaunting your religion may not be the ideal thing to do, except some in medieval societies etched in modern history. Like oil rich Saudi. And the lawless, porous Waziristan on the Pak-Afghan border.

Redemption is a long way off.

Crocodile tears for Azhar

Who decides the fate of sportspersons found guilty of misconduct on and off the field? Sports bodies, governments or the law of the land. Ideally it should be a combination of all, since the framework of laws did not clearly envisage situations like match fixing.
So a cricketer like Mohammad Azharuddin, who is a class act to watch while on a flow, was slapped a life ban in 2001 on match fixing charges, along with Ajay Sharma. Ajay Jadeja and Nikhil Chopra got a five year ban.
The probe was conducted by the country’s top investigator K Madhavan. Obviously, there’s little scope for an error.
Now given the intriguing politics that stalks the Board of Control for Cricket in India and its uneasy love-hate relationship with ICC, the BCCI has decided to honour the tainted captain.
The reasons are innocuous: BCCI says other cricket boards do not come down so heavily on its erring stars. If that is the case, the way out is not to award a honor for an erring cricketer but to take up the matter at appropriate levels so that there are no double standards.
What if the court exonerates the fallen Indian idol in future? Well then give him a hero’s welcome.

But statements of various BCCI functionaries on the issue goes off track to mention contracts awarded to South African and London based firms. So clearly the matter is not coming to the rescue of a fallen icon, but the lure of money. Not done.

The Generation X hyperbole

Gandhigiri is sweeping the country. For starters, it is the Gandhian equivalent of Dadagiri. For the discerning, its just a hyperbole revolving around popular Bollywood flick Lage Raho Munnabhai.
Munnabhai is the local loafer who thinks the significance of October 2 is that it is a dry day.
But then you just don’t expect small-time connoisseurs of Santhara (Country liquor) to give a lecture on Gandhian economy.
The new generation has finally connected with Mahatma Gandhi through Munnabhai’s latest incarnation, according to a section of the media.
It is not the case.
Generation X has no urge to connect with a social icon of the past. And no compelling reason too.
They are just celebrating the Sanjay Dutt flick and the unwarranted media attention that comes with it.
Gandhi would have no reason to complain, though. It doesn’t hurt anyone.