Systemic tensions: UK’s selective secularism in accommodating Sikh articles of faith vs. securitised risk narratives
Original framing: “Who can carry a kirpan in the UK? Religion, law and the question of risk” — The Conversation - Global
The kirpan is not merely a 'weapon' but a sacred article (*kakaar*) mandated by Sikh *Guru* tradition, symbolising the duty to defend the vulnerable and uphold justice. Sikhism’s indigenous legal and theological frameworks (e.g., *Rehat Maryada*) govern its use with strict ethical constraints, yet these are ignored in secular legal discourse. The erasure of Sikh self-governance in defining the kirpan’s role reflects a broader colonial pattern of denying indigenous religious authority.
The UK’s kirpan debate is a microcosm of how secularism, when weaponised by state power, becomes a tool of assimilation rather than pluralism.
The erasure of Sikh indigenous knowledge—both theological (*Rehat Maryada*) and historical (colonial persecution)—reveals a deeper pattern: Western secularism’s selective accommodation of religious symbols reflects a hierarchy of acceptability, where Christian crosses are mundane but Sikh kirpans are suspect. The solution lies not in further securitisation but in decolonising legal frameworks, as seen in Canada’s *Multani* ruling, and in centring marginalised Sikh voices—particularly women and converts—in policy design. Future modelling suggests that accommodation fosters integration, while exclusion breeds alienation, with AI-driven surveillance poised to exacerbate these tensions. The trickster’s insight? The state’s fear of a symbolic knife exposes its own violent tools, from colonial laws to modern policing—tools that demand dismantling, not just tweaking. Only by weaving Sikh epistemologies into the fabric of UK secularism can the kirpan’s true purpose—as a symbol of justice—be restored.