SIKHS AND KNIVES

Should Sikhs be allowed to wear a kirpan, a sort of dagger, when the carrying of knives generally is otherwise proscribed? Yes, says Sir Mota Singh, the U.K.'s frst Asian judge and himself a Sikh. Religious symbols are both very potent and very important to the individual concerned. For centuries, the kirpan has been one of the five "articles of faith" that are worn by practising Sikhs. The daggers themselves are always sheathed and nearly always hidden under clothing. They are often not very large or dangerous. Besides which, the practice is allowed by law in the U.K., there being an exemption in the Criminal Justice Act 1988 if a blade is carried for religious purposes.

But should there be? I admit that I have difficulties with this; and not just because kilt-wearing Scots are not allowed to wear a real dagger in their sock. Nor is it because only a minority of Sikhs happen to be fully practising and so carry the kirpan; no more than 10%, according to an adviser to the Sikh Federation U.K. Nor is it because Sikhs sometimes seem to get special deals in other areas (not having to wear crash helmets on motorcycles, for instance).

The wider point is that religious symbols, even if they are of ancient and long-standing heritage, need to take account of the society in which they are used, and adapt to that society over time, if necessary. In the Middle Ages, when almost everybody in Europe was a practising Christian, one of the highest symbols of secular religious piety was to become a knight. Men entering the brotherhood were expected to swear binding oaths, and preparation included an all-night vigil in a church on the eve before the ceremony. The symbol of that ceremony was a sword, which was not only the instrument used to dub a knight (indeed, as Sir Mota Singh well knows, it is still the instrument used), but was also the object, which most distinguished knights from ordinary people. However, while knights today remain a minority, nobody is seriously suggesting that Captains of Industry and senior civil servants should be allowed to wear a sword in everyday life as they used to do. Religious symbolism has had to bow to communal fears about people having potentially dangerous weapons.

It may well be that the general public's perception of the extent of "knife crime" is exaggerated. But that doesn't mean that those fears do not exist. The fact of the matter is that the kirpan is a knife, even if it is worn as part of a Sikh's religion. What may well have been mere common sense back in 1699 is not viewed as such by most citizens today. I think the religious exemption should be scrapped.

Walter Blotscher