top of page

By:

Correspondent

23 August 2024 at 4:29:04 pm

Crossing Lines

A protest for a genuine cause or problem earns public sympathy by appealing to the nation’s conscience. It begins to lose it the moment its members indiscriminately start abusing the nation’s institutions. That is where the CJP agitation now stands. It has outlived its purpose. The movement began with a legitimate grievance against the NEET paper leak and demanded some systemic education reforms. Millions of students deserve an examination system that is transparent, secure and immune to...

Crossing Lines

A protest for a genuine cause or problem earns public sympathy by appealing to the nation’s conscience. It begins to lose it the moment its members indiscriminately start abusing the nation’s institutions. That is where the CJP agitation now stands. It has outlived its purpose. The movement began with a legitimate grievance against the NEET paper leak and demanded some systemic education reforms. Millions of students deserve an examination system that is transparent, secure and immune to manipulation. The government has acknowledged that imperative. Activists Sonam Wangchuk has ended his fast after receiving assurances that the Centre is prepared to engage. The issue has dominated headlines for weeks. But success in a democracy is not merely forcing the government to listen, it is also knowing when to stop shouting. The CJP agitation has disturbingly drifted into something altogether different. What started as a student movement has resembled a full-blown political mobilisation with students as its public face. For nearly three weeks the protests remained largely peaceful. The escalation coincided with Parliament’s session and the arrival of political parties eager to turn a campus issue into a national confrontation. Equally disturbing was the descent in public discourse. Protesters were heard using obscene and deeply offensive abuse against Prime Minister Narendra Modi. In any democracy, citizens are free to criticise their elected leaders in the strongest political terms. But vulgar personal abuse is not dissent. The inevitable question now is whether this remains a movement of students or one increasingly directed by professional agitators and political interests. How many of those leading confrontations are candidates anxious about competitive examinations? How many are seasoned protesters who migrate from one agitation to another, regardless of the issue? Those are legitimate questions that deserve answers. The law must distinguish carefully between peaceful dissent and criminal violence. Students marching peacefully deserve protection. Those who assaulted police personnel, vandalised public property or incited violence deserve prosecution. Organisers who encouraged lawlessness should face accountability irrespective of their political affiliations. Governments, too, have obligations. They must deliver credible examination reforms, prosecute those responsible for paper leaks and restore confidence in institutions that determine the futures of millions of young Indians. But the protesters have an obligation as well. A movement that has secured national attention, compelled governmental engagement and placed its concerns firmly on the public agenda has achieved its strategic objective. Persisting with confrontation serves diminishing public interest and growing political opportunism. Every successful protest reaches a moment when continuing becomes counterproductive. The CJP agitation has reached that moment. It should end before history remembers it not for the students who began it, but for the disorder that consumed it.

Sacred Attire

Updated: Jan 30, 2025

The Siddhivinayak Temple Trust’s recent decision to implement a dress code prohibiting short skirts, torn jeans and other revealing attire is a necessary move to uphold the sanctity of religious spaces. Temples are spiritual spaces where devotees seek solace, offer prayers, and connect with the divine. Temples are not mere tourist attractions but sacred sanctuaries. The least that visitors can do is dress accordingly.


The Jagannath temple in Puri, Odisha, and the Banke Bihari temple in Vrindavan have already implemented similar rules, reflecting a growing recognition that religious spaces require a modicum of decorum. In the case of Siddhivinayak, the temple attracts thousands of devotees daily, many of whom have expressed discomfort over attire that they feel clashes with the temple’s spiritual ambience.


Few would question the need for decorum in a courtroom, a government office, or even an upscale restaurant. Yet, when religious institutions enforce dress codes to preserve their sanctity, a chorus of indignation often rises in the name of personal freedom, with such ‘critics’ arguing that such rules reflect moral policing or an imposition of traditionalist values.

But this argument confuses religious sanctity with public space liberalism. No one is being compelled to enter the temple, and those who do should respect the customs that govern it. Even in non-Hindu religious spaces, dress codes are the norm. One does not enter a gurdwara without covering their head, nor a mosque or church dressed in attire deemed unsuitable for prayer. The sanctity of a religious institution should not be sacrificed at the altar of modern whims.


To dismiss this as an encroachment on personal liberties is to misunderstand the nature of such spaces. Religious sites operate under different expectations than public thoroughfares or commercial hubs. They are designed for reflection, devotion, and ritual. While Indian society has rightly evolved towards greater personal freedom in many spheres, faith-based institutions must be allowed to maintain traditions that are integral to their identity. The temple trust has made it clear that its goal is not to impose regressive restrictions but to ensure that all visitors feel comfortable and that the sanctity of the temple is upheld.


Moreover, the argument that religious sites must remain entirely open-ended in their dress codes simply does not hold water. Many of the people who object to these restrictions would scarcely question the need for appropriate attire at a formal event or while meeting a dignitary. The principle is the same -respect for the setting dictates the mode of dress. Those who seek to frame this as a battle between liberalism and conservatism fail to grasp that such measures are about propriety, not repression.


In an era where the lines between cultural expression and decorum are increasingly blurred, it is worth remembering that not every rule is an infringement on liberty. If people can abide by dress codes in secular spaces, they should extend the same courtesy to places of worship.

Comments

bottom of page