I’m just about ready to tutup kedai — Manpreet Kaur and Tashny Sukumaran

January 20, 2011

JAN 20 — Last Sunday, Basant Singh, a National Service trainee, alleged that approximately twenty inches of his never-before-cut hair had been lopped off while he slept at a training camp in northern Penang.

This was met with outrage from all sectors, especially amongst Malaysia’s Sikh community (which numbers at 150,000). Abdul Hadi Awang Kechil, director-general of the national service training department, promised to carry out an investigation and sort out the situation.

For those who are accustomed to seeing sadarjis but are unsure as to why some Sikhs allow their hair to grow, here is a brief explanation:

In Sikhism, Kesh (uncut hair) is the practice of allowing one’s hair to grow naturally as a symbol of respect for the perfection of God’s creation. This is because our hair is seen as a gift from God and therefore uncut from the time of birth. This practice is a part of the Five K’s: kangha, kachera, kirpan and kara, symbols ordered by Guru Gobind Singh as a means to profess the Sikh faith.

These five items are believed to be able to aid Sikhs to live a life that revolves around God and submission to His Will. Kesh is combed twice daily with a kanga — comb and tied into a simple knot, also known as joora. This knot of hair is usually held in place with the Kanga and covered by a turban.

Most young Sikhs with even a cursory understanding of their religion know that keeping hair is a requirement of their faith. The Kesh is considered the most important element of the Five Ks because; as Guru Gobind Singh explained, “My Sikh shall not use the razor. For him the use of razor or shaving the chin shall be as sinful as incest”.

Now, according to Abdul Hadi, an investigation has been carried out and sixteen witnesses — trainees, trainers, staff and the commandant of the Seri Impian camp where the incident took place — were consulted.

The panel consisted of the department’s director of operations, Col Sanusi Hashim, and Commander Wan Zarihan Wan Ismail and Lt Thomas Anak Aungoom, both of the Royal Malaysian Navy. Read the full article on The Malaysian Insider here.

The panel found that no malice was intended towards the 18-year-old Basant, who has not cut his hair since birth. How they arrived at this conclusion, we do not know — especially as cutting a person’s hair without their knowledge or consent is considered nothing less than assault, which is by definition malicious.

It was premeditated, wasn’t it? How can such an act — which by some parties would be considered nothing less than a hate crime — be considered not malicious, we have no idea.

Assault is defined as a crime of violence against another person — however, this doesn’t just include violence, but any intentional physical contact with a person without their consent. The cutting of Basant’s hair was a wanton and deliberate act by parties who had full knowledge of what they were doing.

In every religion, there are certain rites and rituals which are held sacred. A violation of these rites can be considered an assault on beliefs. We urge readers to remember the incident where severed pigs’ heads were found in mosque compounds. That incident was painful for every Malaysian to read about, as this is a country where freedom of religion is enshrined in the constitution.

The incident involving Basant is no less painful, and labelling this act of assault as “not malicious” is giving scant regard to the Sikh community. It is especially unfortunate that this conclusion should be drawn despite the fact it happened at an NS training camp, where our youth are being indoctrinated with the 1 Malaysia credo.

By deeming this violation of a person’s beliefs and religious values “not malicious”, the panel is ignoring a criminal act against a person’s faith and instead brushing it under the carpet. This case of assault is being glossed over by those who should know better. We should very much like to know how and why they arrived at the conclusion which they did.

When there is intent to cause hurt or discomfort or to subject a person to ridicule, the act can be nothing less than malicious. What does the panel’s reaction say about our military institutions? Is a military that is unable to act on an appalling case of a religious insult at an institutional level capable of upholding the values of a united Malaysia?

So, dear esteemed panel, go buy a friggin’ dictionary. We’ll spot you the cash.

On that note, selamat sejahtera and salam 1 Malaysia.

* Manpreet Kaur and Tashny Sukumaran read The Malaysian Insider.