top of page

By:

Quaid Najmi

4 January 2025 at 3:26:24 pm

Tibetan refugees protest in Mumbai

Supporters from the Tibetan Youth Congress react during a protest at Azad Maidan in Mumbai on Monday against China's new ethnic unity law. Pic: Bhushan Koyande Mumbai: Over 250 Tibetan refugees, activists and members of the Friends of Tibet took out a rally and demonstrated near the Chinese Consulate in Mumbai as part of an international action to protest against China’s new Ethnic Unity and Progress Promotion Law (EUPPL). The Tibetans living in Mumbai were joined by other protestors from...

Tibetan refugees protest in Mumbai

Supporters from the Tibetan Youth Congress react during a protest at Azad Maidan in Mumbai on Monday against China's new ethnic unity law. Pic: Bhushan Koyande Mumbai: Over 250 Tibetan refugees, activists and members of the Friends of Tibet took out a rally and demonstrated near the Chinese Consulate in Mumbai as part of an international action to protest against China’s new Ethnic Unity and Progress Promotion Law (EUPPL). The Tibetans living in Mumbai were joined by other protestors from Bhandara (Maharashtra) and Mundgod (Karnataka) and a relay hunger strike was also taken up the Tibetan Youth Congress (TYC) in Dharamshala, Himachal Pradesh, said Coordinator, Tenzin Tsundue. The day started with a silent rally from Rajgriha, the home of the late Dr. B. R. Ambedkar to his memorial, Chaityabhoomi, both in Dadar. Another rally-cum-demonstration was carried out near Nariman Point where the Chinese Consulate is located and at the Azad Maidan, said Tsundue. “We carried out a peaceful protest at Nariman Point and wanted to go and submit a memorandum to the Chinese Consul-General. However, the police prevented us, detained a few Tibetans and sent them back to Azad Maidan,” Tsundue told ‘The Perfect Voice’, from the venue. He said that Tibetans and others like Uyghurs are strongly opposed to the new law which came into effect last week, despite criticism from the United Nations Organisation (UNO), Taiwan, TYC and human rights groups worldwide. Their prime concerns are that the (EUPPL) could place further restrictions on the minorities’ rights, deepen assimilation policies targeting the ethnic groups and dilute the protection to their respective languages, cultures and traditions. China’s Denial One provision is said to allow individuals to be held accountable for alleged violations of the Chinese laws even outside the country, raising apprehensions it could target the government’s critics or campaigners abroad. However, China has rubbished all allegations of rights abuses against the ethnic minority group, and reiterated that its policies aim to promote social stability, security and economic development for all. Unconvinced, Tibetans and Uyghurs have urged the international community to build pressure on China to strike down the EUPPL as “it aims to erase the minority communities”. The Mainland Affairs Council of Taiwan has argued that Taiwanese are already facing high risks travelling to China and now the country has “yet another law to fabricate charges”, and it could deploy it “to further suppress and prosecute human rights activists”. TYC slams China The TYC said that the international action today was dedicated to the memory of the supreme sacrifice of Lobga Rangzen who self-immolated himself outside the UN Headquarters in New York on July 2 to draw the world’s attention to the cause of Tibet. Rejecting the new law, the TYC said: “This legislation is not a law of unity but a political instrument to force assimilation of nations living under Chinese occupation, like Tibet, East Turkestan, Southern Mongolia, and Manchuria. Behind the language of ‘ethnic unity’ lies an agenda of Unilateral control by institutionalising policies aimed at assimilating Tibetans through political domination.” It accused China of attempts “to erase national identities by suppressing distinct languages, undermining religious institutions, rewriting history, destroying cultural heritage, separating children from their communities through state run colonial boarding schools, and replacing distinct identities with loyalty to the Chinese Communist Party”.

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