Manbir Singh Chowdhary

It is ironic that in the land of Voltaire and the “Revolution of 1789”, where the rights of the common man were once vehemently championed over the dictates of authoritarian rulers, there is now impending legislation that will infringe the religious freedoms of its citizens.

“What the law we are about to vote will be aiming at is to ban religious symbols from public schools at the primary and secondary levels,” said French Ambassador to India, Dominque Girard, in an interview during his February visit to the holiest shrine in Sikhism, the Golden Temple, in Amritsar. “It is not applied to the university. It is not applied to public places. It is not applied on the streets.”

The proposed legislation, adopted unanimously by the French government, designed to outlaw religious symbols in public schools, will not only adversely impact the country’s 5,000 strong Sikh community, but also deprive thousands of others the fundamental right to freely practice their faith.

The French government's argument is that the new law is progressive in nature and designed to promote secularism within France. Former minister Bernard Stasi, who chaired the government Commission that recommended the law, has stated, "There are without any doubt forces in France that are seeking to destabilize the Republic and it is time for the Republic to react."

And so the Republic reacts by impeding the education of innocent Muslim, Jewish and Sikh school children that attend French public schools, by prohibiting them because they wear religious articles associated with the practice of their faith.

The French law is medieval in nature and can hardly be described as "progressive". France's strength lies in embracing its diversity, not in discriminating against its different ethnicities by prohibiting them from practicing their religious faith. It was this very kind of interference with people's right to practice their faith that started the migration from Europe to the early colonies of America, in the 17th century. For example, communities such as the Pilgrims, Puritans, Calvinists, and Quakers all fled from religious persecution that was being administered by a similar discriminatory, control-seeking political agenda.

Furthermore, Stasi and members of the French Parliament have not clearly delineated what these “destabilizing forces” are. There’s a high likelihood that these “forces” relate to France’s 5 million strong Muslim population, and an understandable fear of Islamic fundamentalism creeping into French society.

If so, a more rational and logical approach to combating Islamic fundamentalism, rather than banning children from public schools, might lie in ensuring sufficient funding to French intelligence agencies, and implementing stricter immigration control.

The French government will not find a solution in curtailing Islamic fundamentalism by depriving its citizens of their civil liberties. How will this regressive piece of legislation serve to combat Islamic fundamentalism? How are Muslim schoolgirls, who adhere to the tenets of Islam by wearing the Hijab, a threat to the security of the French people?

“We don’t want an exhibition of religious symbols in public schools,” said Ambassador Girard, “The vast majority of children in France go to public schools, which have played all along in our history a very important role in bringing people together even if they come from very different backgrounds – social, religious, ethnic, or linguistic. And it is here they become united as French citizens. If we allow the destruction of this space which is neutral and free of religious interference, our model of integration will be at risk.”

Despite Ambassador Girard’s eloquent analysis of the French public school system, one still fails to see how Hijab wearing Muslim girls or Patka wearing Sikh boys, in French primary and secondary schools, could possibly constitute Mr. Stasi’s “destabilizing forces”, or “threaten the destruction” of French primary and secondary schools that are considered by the Ambassador as a “model of integration.”

It is essential to realize the ban on religious articles in public schools, affects all human beings, not just Muslim, Jewish or Sikh schoolchildren, because the days of a ruling power dictating who and what to believe in, are a scar on humanity, and the process of enacting these type of laws (especially in an industrialized western-European country such as France) should have ended in the Middle Ages.

The Muslim Ummah, throughout the world, has been slow to come to the aid of its daughters in France, and has not taken an aggressive enough stance against the French government’s policy making. According to news reports, politicians from a few Gulf countries who met with French ministers “expressed their concern” for the proposed ban.

In the wake of the French ban, many Islamic scholars, such as Egypt’s Ali Mufti Gomaa have stressed the Hijab is established as obligatory dress code in Islamic Law and not merely a symbol such as a Cross or Jewish Kippa.

The Hijab in Islam, for all observing women, has been ordained by God. The Qur’an says, “Say to the believing men that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that will make for greater purity for them; and Allah is well acquainted with all that they do. And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; and that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what must ordinarily appear thereof; that they should draw their veils over their chests and not display their beauty except to their husbands, their fathers…” (Al Qur’an 24:30-31).

Although the Hijab is obligatory in Islam, there are Muslims in France who are in favor of the government ban. The following is a quote by Lara Marlow, Paris based Middle East correspondent for the Irish Times newspaper, in a March 10, 2004 interview with Simon Crittenden on Australia’s “ABC - Radio National”:

“There was a march on Saturday in support of International Women's Day, and many of the women marching were Muslims, and they were insulting each other. The ones who reject the scarf, many of them have joined a group called “Ni Putes, Ni Soumises”, (neither whores, nor submissive women) which is fighting for women's rights in the Banlieue, in these immigrant suburbs, and they are totally against the headscarf, and they very much supported the ban on it in French schools. And then you had veiled women marching and taunting the women from this feminist movement, so it has very much divided Muslim communities.”

Groups such as “Ni Putes, Ni Soumises”, divide France’s Muslim community on the issue, and make it difficult for Muslims to fight the proposed legislation collectively. The group, comprised mainly of Muslim women who have suffered domestic abuse and rape at the hands of immigrant men, has protested throughout France to raise awareness about the “sexism and misery of the immigrant ghettos.”

A petition circulated by the activist group, states immigrant women in French ghettos are being, “Choked by the machiosm of the men of our districts which in the name of a "tradition" deny our most elementary rights.”

In a country in which the native-born whites, who call themselves “francais de souche” (root French), have often been at political and social loggerheads with the children of Arab immigrants, known as “beurs” and “beurettes”, there have been some recent developments.

In January 2004, Aissa Dermouche, became the first Muslim in 40 years to be appointed as a Prefect (a top national government official) by President Jacques Chirac. In the annual IFOP-Journal du Dimanche poll, the hero and captain of France’s 1998 World Cup winning team, Zinedine Zidane, was elected, “the most admired person in France” ahead of an array of entertainment, media and sports celebrities. Zidane, a Muslim, is the son of Algerian immigrants.

Even with these brief moments of France embracing its diversity, the impending legislation is an indication that difficult relations with its ethnic inhabitants are far from over.

Marlow supports the theory that the law was designed to curb Islamic militancy, “Well the hope was that by doing this, they could slow the rise of fundamentalism, and it doesn’t really work, because the young people in the Paris suburbs who cannot get jobs, who cannot rent flats or even get into nightclubs, because they have Arab names and faces, they’re not really interested in establishment Islam, and that’s what the government is learning.”

Despite public assurances from Prime Minister Raffarin to the contrary, the legislation will sever the relationship of the French government with Muslims in France. News reports indicate, “Muslim groups feel the ban is an attack on Islamic culture that alienates Muslims from French society rather than endears them to it.”

France is also home to one of the largest Jewish communities in Europe, at 600,000. With respect to the ban on the Yarmulke (Jewish skull-cap), the Jewish lobby has been less vociferous than its Muslim and Sikh counterparts. The reason for this might be a lesser reliance on the public school system in France due to the establishment of Jewish private schools. Another reason might involve the mutual hostility between the Jewish and Muslim communities. Furthermore, the Yarmulke is usually worn by males in a house of worship or at a religious ceremony; among the observant, it is also worn on the Sabbath. Without negating the significance of the Yarmulke in Jewish tradition, it does not seem to be a part and parcel of their daily religious identity as the veil is for Muslim women and the Turban is for Sikh men.

France’s miniscule Sikh population will inadvertently fall victim to the detrimental effects of this legislation. For example, a Sikh will be forced to remove his turban in order to attend primary or secondary school. For a Sikh, this is the equivalent of being stripped down naked, as the turban is an inherent and inseparable part of the Sikh identity. The hair and turban in Sikhism are sacred gifts from the Tenth spiritual Master, Guru Gobind Singh. They are an elemental part of the Sikh Rehat-Maryada (Code of Conduct). The Sikh Gurus and their followers endured innumerable sacrifice in order to maintain their distinct identity and philosophy.

“Mann Jaye, Tann Jaye, Mera Sikhi Sidaq Ne Jaye” – Shaheed Bhai Taru Singh Ji. Bhai Taru Singh is famous in Sikh history for choosing to part with his head instead of converting to the ruling faith and discarding his Sikh identity.

As a result, the turban and long hair in the Sikh faith are indispensable, and no socio-political factors should compromise that.

Ambassador Girard, during his visit to Darbar Sahib, assured Sikhs, “For the French, the Sikhs are a very special lot. In all variety of Indian people, the Sikhs are a very special category. The Sikhs in France are worried…it is a problem which will be handled with consideration, attention and sympathy.”

“We will do our best to make sure that they [the Sikhs] are not harmed or unjustly targeted in French crowds,” he added.

Responding to news reports of the Vatican’s support of Sikh community in France to wear their turbans, the Ambassador gave an interesting response, “What is clear is that we make our decisions at home. We don’t need the advice of anybody. We want a dialogue with people involved. That is why we have welcomed Sikh friends.”

“The government is committed by law to support the possibility for all citizens to practice their religion freely and it is a basic tenet of our democracy but the limit is that at school where we make the French citizens, we don’t want any religious interference,” said Ambassador Girard. “We are not refusing multi-culturalism. What we are refusing is to have people trying to destroy the system from inside…”

Ambassador Girard’s comments reflect the legitimate concerns of the French government, but still fail to point out exactly who is “trying to destroy the system from inside.” Is it the schoolchildren who wear Turbans, Hijabs, and Yarmulkes? Is it the parents of the schoolchildren? Is it their religious leaders?

An important social point comes to mind. Can’t children in French primary and secondary schools be encouraged to become proud French citizens, who love and respect their country, without having to disassociate themselves from their religious faith?

Sikh parents will be forced to compromise the unique spiritual identity of their child by discarding his turban in order for him to conform to the French government’s ideals of a good citizen. As a Sikh, this is something I have great difficulty in accepting, because turbaned Sikhs have made invaluable contributions to the numerous societies in which they live i.e. Britain, America, India, and Canada. They are proud, industrious, citizens of those respective countries and have never been forced, by law, to discard their spiritual identity.

“During the first world war, our Sikh ancestors died for France with their turbans on,” said Chain Singh, head of the Sikh Gurdwara in Bobigny, an eastern suburb of Paris.

La Chapelette Cemetery (Peronne, France) has graves of Sikh soldiers who died in World War I.

On March 23, 2004, in a letter to Shiromani Akali Dal (Amritsar) president, Simranjit Singh Mann, French Foreign Minister Dominque de Villepin hailed the contributions of Sikhs to French society:

“Officers of my country as well as all the French cannot forget the numerous Sikhs who died in the battlefields while defending France during the two world wars. They also understand that the Sikhs are enthusiastic about getting integrated in the French mainstream and they are conscious of the attachment of your community toward wearing the turban which is seen as a constitutive sign of your identity and dignity.”

The French Foreign Minister added, “The law project on the turban will not be in effect until the following school season in September and hence this time should be used in removing all kinds of misunderstanding.”

France implemented secularism in 1905 when Church and State officially separated. To understand the difference in France’s version of “secularism”, known as ‘La Laicite’, a contrast will be drawn with the application of “secularism” in the United States.

The separation of Church and State is an integral part of any secular society. With regard to the United States, the law enforces the separation of Church and State in all public schools and government institutions. Endorsements of any particular religion, by Federal or State governments or any of their agents, are prohibited in all Federal/State buildings and public schools. This law respects the secular nature upon which this nation was founded and prevents government propaganda endorsing one particular faith over others i.e. Presbyterians vs. Jews and Catholics etc.

The law exemplifies John F. Kennedy's interpretation and application of the separation of Church and State. For example, if I visit a Federal government building, there will be no conspicuous religious symbols on the walls, or publicly displayed; no imagery of Crosses, Stars of David, or Crescent Moons. But I will never be stopped from wearing my turban inside the federal building or inside a public school. The lady next to me will never be prevented from wearing her Cross. And why should we both be prevented from doing so?

This is the true beauty of secularism in the United States. Americans will never be prevented from wearing our Yarmulkes, Turbans and Crosses in the US, because the law in this country recognizes the fundamental right to Freedom of Religion, and will never ban Turbans, Crosses or Islamic head scarves because they are part of each individual's civil liberties and are protected by our Constitution.

From the American standpoint, it is evident that the French have grossly misinterpreted the application of "separation of Church and State" to the point where the legislation prohibits an individual from practicing his/her faith.

Although Ambassador Girard rightly points out, “It is very important to understand that France is not America, not Britain, not India. We have our own ways.”

The reason for the difference between French and US perspectives on “secularism” lies in the differing cultural understanding of how it should be applied.

Marlow states, “Laicite literally translated is, of course, secularism. But it really means the total absence of any kind of religious expression from the public sphere. For example the idea that in America the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag mentions God, that on the US dollar bill it says ‘In God We Trust’. This is inconceivable in France. Basically God is never mentioned.”

During the interview on ABC Radio National, Marlow also recalled an incident in which the Mayor of a Paris suburb said he would not allow people to wear anything that had a religious connotation to marriage ceremonies, "Those things are kept totally separate, so it’s not just the Church and the State that are separate, religion is considered a part of someone’s private life and is their business alone, it’s considered, for example, in very bad taste to say what a person’s religion is.”

The extremely stringent application of the separation of Church and State, that France calls “La Laicite”, is being implemented at the expense of the civil liberties and religious freedoms of its ethnic minorities.

My concern with legislation, such as the French ban, is specific to industrialized European nations versus countries in which governments rule by way of fear or religious law i.e. Iraq, Saudi Arabia or North Korea. Western European countries such as England and France have provided model legal systems for many developing nations i.e. India, Pakistan, etc. Even the United States legal system can trace its roots to English common law. Therefore, industrialized European nations, while upholding the "Rule of Law", have a special responsibility to ensure their legal systems vehemently protect and advocate an individual's human rights and civil liberties.

France is taking a dangerous direction. Its regressive and intolerant approach in dealing with the rise of its immigrant population will spread increased hate and misunderstanding, instead of fostering an era of economically and socially productive co-existence.

Photo of Sardar Hardit Singh just before World War I. Jagjit S. Bhullar (Canada) sent SikhSpectrum.com this picture of his grandfather.. Hardit Singh, Ressaidar, I D S M, 9th Hodson's Horse. Killed in action 5th December 1917. Age 25. Son of Capt. Ram Singh, Sirdar Bahadar.

The grave of Sardar Hardit Singh is in Block III (extreme left), first row (2nd). La Chapelette Cemetery (Peronne, France). Courtesy Bhupinder Singh Holland

Copyright ©2004 Manbir Singh Chowdhary. About the author