There are no easy answers. The issue perhaps needs to be openly debated in the civil society.
An Indian Air Force NCO had challenged the IAF order of 2003 not allowing Muslims serving in the IAF to keep beards. Prior to that, Muslims serving in the IAF could do it with the sanction of a senior authority. This is what the Indian government has told the Supreme Court now.
All Air Force personnel, while on duty, are required to wear similar uniform and do not display any sign or object which marks him distinct from others. In an armed force, it is always intended that to the extent possible, all personnel should look identifiably similar so that they may work in a cohesive, co-operative and co-ordinate manner.
The reasoning sounds pretty cogent and the principle of an indistinct religious identity in uniform should be followed across the board, without any exceptions. The problem in executing that order in the IAF lies with practitioners of Sikhism.
In this connection, it may be mentioned that when IAF is allowing its Sikh personnel to grow long hair and beard as it is in keeping with the injunctions of the Sikh religion, it must not disallow its Muslim personnel from keeping beard as it is enjoined upon the Muslims by Sunnah and Hadith to keep beard. The IAF can in no case be discriminatory against the Muslims. It has either to ask its Sikh personnel also to shave off their long hair and beard or else it must allow Muslims to grow a beard. That would meet the ends of the justice. Moreover, I think that IAF is allowing its Muslim personnel to have upto four living wives. So, it is not totally free of religion as it claims.
The Additional Solicitor General had earlier provided the argument that would make it difficult for the IAF to keep the Sikhs out of the scope of this new order.
The government is bound to respect religious freedom…. But there is an overdriving concept of public interest when one is working in the armed forces. Can one sport a beard as an act of distinctiveness when the person is expected to work in an environment of cohesiveness? The pursuit of faith is not abrogated, but standing out is what concerns the forces.
Should a personnel deserve his identity as a matter of duty or his faith? The State is free of any religion. Those who have already entered service and are keeping a beard, we are not stopping them. But for fresh recruits, we are applying a uniform rule.
There are no simple solutions to this vexed question. History, tradition, freedom of pursuing religion (as deemed fit by an individual) versus public service norms, secularism (separation of religion from the state) and efficiency of the armed forces. This needs to be vigorously debated in the civil society rather than being dealt by an order of the court.
Perhaps, a note similar to the note issued by Council of Europe on wearing of religious symbols in public areas needs to be brought out in the Indian context as a starting point for the debate. It is not only Europe, even the United States is struggling with restriction on displaying religious symbols in military cemeteries.
One hopes that the Indian society and polity is mature enough to debate such fundamental issues in a healthy and frank manner. Or is the nation better keeping a controversy at bay by letting the court make its pronouncements on the subject.