Bearded Soldier: A virtue whose time hasn't yet come

In a recent ruling, the SC upheld the dismissal of a Muslim pilot from IAF upon his insistence to grow a beard in accordance with his religious beliefs. The reason cited by the court was predictable – an individual can’t be allowed to violate defence rules, which permit beards only for Sikhs, or for others under special circumstances.

India’s armed forces disallow beards for the sake of maintaining a homogeneous, secular atmosphere. Sikhs are an exception because keeping a beard is an “essential practice” of their religion. However, as per the SC, beard-keeping fails the essential practices test for Islam, which is why the man wasn’t granted exception.

Legal scholar Gautam Bhatia, in his erudite blog, criticized the court for applying the contentious essential practices test – so far reserved for communities/groups – to an individual. As per him, the court should have only tried to figure out whether the individual’s belief in his religion was genuine, and ruled in his favour if it that was the case.

Without even getting into the quagmire of how the court could have figured out genuineness of personal beliefs, I disagree with Bhatia’s argument. Judiciary has already invaded the executive’s turf, and it has simply no business dictating terms to armed forces. The armed forces, under Article 33 of the Constitution, are empowered to regulate fundamental rights of their personnel.  Any external intervention would vitiate the sanctity of hierarchy of defence forces, and open a Pandora’s Box.

However, my initial thoughts were sympathetic to the dismissed Muslim man, and probably scores of others who can't practice religion in the armed forces. The rule against beards seemed silly and unnecessary. But running my views past a friend from the armed forces threw up challenges that made me rethink my position.

Initial thoughts

While I'm strictly against judicial interference, I did think it was time for the armed forces to take a look at this draconian rule internally. If the Sikhs can be allowed a “neat, well-trimmed” beard, why should a smattering of heterogeneity harm the armed forces? After all, a lot of army/air force/navy officers do keep neat moustaches, and tribals are allowed tattoos, including on the face. Moreover, the rules against beard-keeping sound arbitrary. For example, Muslims who had a beard prior to joining the defence forces on or before Jan 1, 2002 are allowed to retain it, but those who joined after this date aren’t extended the same privilege. No one is allowed to grow a previously non-existent beard after joining, irrespective of the date. Those who are allowed to retain one can only do so along with a moustache, but never without one. Clearly, this rule is an attempt to eliminate any overt display of religiosity, and might well be inspired from a similar rule of the British army that prohibits a beard without a “full set”. Similar regulations against overt displays exist for other religions too, except Sikhism, though even turbans are strictly regulated for colour and style of wearing.

I personally don’t see why someone can’t be deeply religious and patriotic at the same time. There is a distinct possibility that rules dictating appearance, especially the one against beards, might be keeping certain people at an arm’s length from the forces. Worse, as in this case, it might lead to alienation of those who take a religious turn while serving the forces. For the non-religious, there is that major inconvenience of not being able to look like Virat Kohli. After all, the legendary Admiral Zumwalt of US navy, in one of his orders titled “Elimination of Demeaning or Abrasive Regulation”, said, “I want to restate what I believed to be explicit: in the case of haircuts, sideburns, and contemporary clothing styles, my view is that we must learn to adapt to changing fashions. I will not countenance the rights or privileges of any officers or enlisted men being abrogated in any way because they choose to grow sideburns or neatly trimmed beards or moustaches or because preferences in neat clothing styles are at variance with the taste of their seniors.”

Revision in position

With these thoughts in mind, I had a long chat with a (Muslim) friend from Indian navy. To Bhatia’s blog, his response was, “civilian ne likha hai na?” When I tried moving on to my arguments about the futility of these rules, the response was, “bhai, tum bhi civilian hi ho aakhirkar.”

My first instinct was to dismiss his response as the superiority complex that is known to afflict armed forces, but the issue goes deeper. He mentioned two points in favour of the rule against beards. One, each defence personnel is issued a fresh ID card for every rank he/she occupies, the photo on which remains unchanged for the tenure of the given rank. Sporting a beard could lead to departure in appearance from the photo on the ID card, which could lead to a security lapse. In case one wants to change facial appearance, one has to be cleared by the commanding officer, barring which the change can’t happen. Two, and the larger point, in the current political climate keeping a beard signals strands of puritanical Islam within armed forces, which is anathema to Indian armed forces’ psychological edge over its counterparts. He recounted incidences of Indian navy personnel sailing to far-off shores simply to participate in sporting and networking events – all for the sake of psychological warfare. He confessed to looking down upon navies whose personnel displayed overt religiosity. As per him, similar behaviour by India’s armed forces would be a blot on its professionalism, reputation, and ultimately operational competence. This doesn’t happen due to Sikh personnel because the exception granted to them , by not just Indian but also British and Canadian forces, is well known all over the world. A personal note there – there’s plenty of Islamophobia but hardly any Sikhophobia in the world. It is also noteworthy that Admiral Zumwalt lived in a pre-Islamophobic era and his comments are not cognizant of religious significance of facial hair.

To wrap it up, there are two opposing forces here. One is the obvious sanity of letting people look the way they want to, within acceptable standards. The other, as well argued by my friend, is the security issue and the perceived psychological harm emanating from beards. Maybe India’s armed forces should keep off beards in the current political climate. Hopefully that will change soon.