For whom the bells toll

NGT order clarifying Amarnath shrine is not a ‘silence zone' is welcome

It is important for the National Green Tribunal, which is a Bench of the Supreme Court of India set up to deal exclusively with environmental issues, to ensure that while doing justice to complaints of abuse of environmental norms, it is extra careful not to step into the Executive's domain. Naturally, their Lordships would pass an order only after due application of mind and taking cognizance of the cultural context and religious sensitivities, not mention development imperatives, involved in any issue.

In this context, it is important to appreciate the NGT clarifying on Thursday its order passed on Wednesday which declared the Amarnath shrine in Jammu and Kashmir a “silence zone” and forbade the chanting of mantras, ringing of bells and making religious offerings after the entry point to the cave shrine. Consequently, there was a predictable and perfectly understandable uproar on social media — which is really the only public platform on which common citizens can express their feelings — as the question was raised by some on how the ritual of aarti would be performed, while others felt the NGT order was very harsh because despite its criticism of the Amarnath Shrine Board in November for not implementing a 2012 apex court order on proper infrastructural facilities to be provided to pilgrims, matters continued as before. Other measures the NGT instructed the authorities to put in place to provide better facilities for pilgrims as well as preserve what it was pleased to term the “area's ecology” included a restriction on carrying anything at all further than the stairs leading to the shrine, proper frisking of pilgrims to ensure this, the removal of iron grills in front of the ice stalagmite holy Shiva Linga for devotees to get a better view and a ban on mobile phones beyond the last checkpoint. On Thursday, the NGT clarified that the entire Amarnath cave shrine would not be a “silence zone” and that devotees would have to maintain silence only in front of the Shivaling. It further clarified that its directions were (intended to) “maintain the sanctity of the cave and to ensure no adverse noise impact on the Shivaling. Silence restrictions will not apply on Aarti and other rituals.”

The broader point, however, remains that despite the welcome clarification by the Tribunal, there is an urgent need for a national dialogue in India on the need for a uniformity in approach towards appeals filed in courts asking for curbs — irrespective of the religion, way of life or culture whose members' sensitivities a decision may impact especially when it comes to rites, customs and holy/sacred places. Because, if the argument is a secular one of modernity, cleanliness, environmental protection, animal rights, noise/air pollution and the like, then they need to apply across the board. Otherwise, even if unintended, the message that goes out is one of ad-hocism, which is unfair because a court doesn't decide which plaint is submitted before it, and more worryingly the impression gains ground that India's Indic tradition inculcated citizenry which follows a Hindu mode of worship tends to get picked on. Worse still, the judiciary gets undermined when unimplementable orders are passed such as was witnessed in the Capital when the Supreme Court restricted the sale of fireworks during Diwali season this year.