Helmet hatred 8212; Jehangir started it all

It is an agitation replete with theatrics and Punjabi gusto, fortified by religious fervour and an underlying sense of insecurity. Sikh w...

It is an agitation replete with theatrics and Punjabi gusto, fortified by religious fervour and an underlying sense of insecurity. Sikh women in Chandigarh have been holding demonstrations to protest against a July 9, 1998 order by the Punjab and Haryana High Court making the use of helmets compulsory for both men and women on two-wheelers. Last year too, the order had triggered off a spate of agitations, compelling the Chandigarh administration to file a miscellaneous civil petition in the Supreme Court. It was vacated in July this year, leading to a fresh spate of revolutionary activity.

Members of various Sikh organisations like the Shiromani Akali Dal SAD, the Sikh Nari Manch and the Sikh Missionary College joined forces to protest creatively 8212; from blocking traffic seated, proudly unhelmeted, on two wheelers, a chain hunger strike, a two-day jail bharo andolan whereby five women went to jail every day, to a theatrical display of gatka Punjabi martial arts. The last was a virtual crowd-stopper asgatka experts broke coconuts on the heads of a couple of women agitators. Says Harjinder Kaur, SAD councillor and president of the Sikh Nari Manch, who has been spearheading the agitation, quot;The idea was to show that once Sikh women take a decision, no amount of hardship or pain can deter them. They are fearless.quot;

SAD city chief G.S. Riar incited women to flout the law, promising that their challans would be reimbursed by gurudwara committees. He even announced that the women who got the highest number of challans would be honoured. Now, the police have stopped enforcing the law in deference to overwhelming public sentiment. The Chandigarh administration has filed a Special Leave Petition in the Supreme Court which will come up for hearing in September.

Theatrics apart, the helmet issue stayed alight because it was ingeniously linked to revolutionary Sikh history. During the reign of the autocratic Mughal Emperor Jehangir, all non-Muslims were forbidden to wear turbans, maintain a private army or gohunting. The sixth Sikh Guru, Guru Hargobind, defied the Emperor by breaking all three of these stipulations, thereby asserting his identity. At that time, non-Muslims were only permitted to wear caps.

If that were not sufficient fuel for the agitators, later history endorsed the cap taboo. Between 1740 and 1765, a Rahatnama treatise on the praxis of the faith was compiled by Chaupa Singh, one of the most trusted advisors of the tenth Sikh Guru, Guru Gobind Singh. A stanza in this explicitly warns: quot;Hoye Sikh sir topi dhare, sat janam kushti hoi marequot; those who wear a cap would be stricken by leprosy for seven lives.

Centuries later, as Major General Dr Kulwant Singh says, quot;during World War II, Sikh soldiers refused to wear steel helmets in place of their turbans, even though they were ordered to do so by the British. The cap had become a symbol of slavery. Ergo, the helmet too.quot; As university professor of Sikh Studies Dr Darshan Singh puts it, quot;The primary question is one of identity;security and safety come later. Like other minorities the world over, Sikhs feel threatened by the majority, which uses sophisticated means to get them to merge.quot;

Die-hard Sikhs in Chandigarh see the helmet issue as one of religious insensitivity. Fumes Kaur, quot;If beef is banned because it offends Hindu sentiments, why aren8217;t the sentiments of the Sikhs respected?quot; adds Dr Gurdarshan Singh, professor of history at Punjab University, quot;Faith has no logic. If anything hurts the religious sentiments of any community, l would oppose it tooth and nail.quot;

Story continues below this ad

The safety factor is irrelevant to the protestors. Asks Professor Prabhjot Kaur, an Amritdhari Sikh from the Sikh Missionary College, quot;What about the safety of the cyclist and the rickshaw-puller? They stand an equal risk of sustaining head injuries, or are they immune to them?quot;

But many Sikhs, particularly professionals, think the agitation is totally uncalled for. Exclaims noted theatre personality Neelam Man Singh, quot;The whole controversy is so ridiculous.Sikhs are their own worst enemies. Are their heads made of granite? A helmet gives protection. I think they are raking up non-issues.quot; Agrees Lt General Deepinder Singh, quot;If a lady doesn8217;t wear a turban, she should wear a helmet.quot;

In fact, most women8217;s organisations have given their tacit support to the agitation for anything but religious reasons. It is the discomfort and inconvenience of carting tin hats about that make them helmet-haters. Young Sikh girls at the university are quite candid. Says jeans-clad Bhavneet, 21, quot;They spoil our hair. We can8217;t wear fancy hairstyles, just plaits.quot;

Religion is a remote concern for this generation, even though they come from staunch Sikh families who do not even trim their hair. Blue-eyed, smart IInd year student Aman makes no bones about it: quot;The religious factor is immaterial. Sikhs have adopted other things that are against their religion 8212; they have cut their hair, some of them even smoke. But with a helmet, we can hardly hear a car horn and find it difficultto look to the side. Its a menace.quot;

Story continues below this ad

The whole debate is best summed up by a couple of youngsters: quot;We live in a democratic country; whether to wear a helmet or not should be a matter of choice. After all, we are the people who should be most concerned about our own safety.quot; Adds Maj General Kulwant Singh, quot;There should be mass education about the protective value of helmets, but we should not make them compulsory. It should be left to the individual to decide.quot;