The news of an Indian Air Force Tejas falling silent during an aerobatic display at the Dubai Air Show breaks something deeper than headlines can capture.

Aerobatics are poetry written in vapour trails at the far edge of physics—where skill becomes prayer, courage becomes offering, and precision exists in margins thinner than breath.

These are not performances for cameras; they are testimonies of human mastery, flown by souls who accept the unforgiving contract between gravity and grace in service of a flag they would die defending.

To the Indian Air Force, to the family now navigating an ocean of absence:

I offer what words can never carry—condolence wrapped in understanding that only those who’ve worn wings can truly know. A pilot has not merely fallen. A guardian of impossible altitudes has been summoned home. Somewhere tonight, a uniform hangs unworn. Somewhere, a child asks when father returns. Somewhere, the sky itself feels emptier.

But what wounds me beyond the crash, beyond the loss, is the poison of mockery seeping from voices on our side of a border that should never divide the brotherhood of those who fly.

This is not patriotism—it is the bankruptcy of the soul. One may question doctrines, challenge strategies, even condemn policies with righteous fury—but never, not in a universe governed by honour, does one mock the courage of a warrior doing his duty in the cathedral of sky.

He flew not for applause but for love of country, just as our finest do. That demands reverence, not ridicule wrapped in nationalist pride gone rancid.

I too have watched brothers vanish into silence— Sherdil Leader Flt Lt Alamdar and Sqn Ldr Hasnat—men who lived at altitudes where angels hold their breath, men who understood that the sky demands everything and promises nothing.

In the moment an aircraft goes quiet, there are no nationalities, no anthems, and no flags. There is only the terrible democracy of loss, and families left clutching photographs of men who once touched clouds.

A true professional recognises another professional across any divide.

A true warrior—one worthy of the title—salutes courage even when it wears the wrong uniform, flies the wrong colours, speaks the wrong tongue.

Anything less diminishes not them, but us. Our mockery stains our own wings, dishonours our own fallen, makes hollow our claims to valour.

Let me speak clearly: courage knows no passport. Sacrifice acknowledges no border. The pilot who pushes his machine to its screaming limits in service of national pride deserves honour—whether he flies under saffron, white and green, or under green and white alone.

May the departed aviator find eternal skies beyond all turbulence, where machines never fail and horizons stretch forever.

May his family discover strength in places language cannot reach, in the knowledge that their loss illuminates something sacred about human courage.

And may we—on both sides of lines drawn in sand and blood—find the maturity to honour what deserves honouring, to mourn what deserves mourning, and to remember that before we are citizens of nations, we are citizens of sky—all of us temporary, all of us mortal, all of us trying to touch something infinite before gravity reclaims us.

The sky grieves without borders.

Let us do the same.

Air Commodore Pervez Akhtar Khan

فضاؤں کے پار ایک سلام

دبئی ایئر شو میں بھارتی فضائیہ کے طیارے تیجس کے المناک حادثے کی خبر وہ درد ہے جو سرخیوں سے بڑا ہے۔ ایروبیاٹکس محض کرتب نہیں—یہ بخارات کی لکیروں میں لکھی گئی شاعری ہے، طبیعیات کی آخری حد پر، جہاں مہارت دعا بن جاتی ہے، جرات قربانی بن جاتی ہے، اور درستگی سانس سے باریک حاشیوں میں قید ہوتی ہے۔ یہ کیمروں کے لیے نمائش نہیں—یہ انسانی کمال کی گواہی ہے، ان روحوں کی اُڑان ہے جو کشش ثقل اور وقار کے درمیان بے رحم معاہدہ قبول کرتے ہیں، اس جھنڈے کی خاطر جس کے لیے وہ مر مٹنے کو تیار رہتے ہیں۔

بھارتی فضائیہ کو، اس خاندان کو جو اب غم کے سمندر میں ڈوبا ہے: میری تعزیت وہ ہے جو الفاظ کبھی ادا نہیں کر سکتے—صرف وہ سمجھ سکتے ہیں جنہوں نے پر باندھے ہیں۔ صرف ایک پائلٹ نہیں گرا۔ ناممکن بلندیوں کا ایک محافظ واپس بلایا گیا ہے۔ آج کہیں ایک وردی بے استعمال لٹکی ہے۔ کہیں ایک بچہ پوچھتا ہے کہ ابّا کب آئیں گے۔ کہیں آسمان خود کو خالی محسوس کرتا ہے۔

لیکن جو مجھے حادثے سے بھی زیادہ زخمی کرتا ہے، نقصان سے بھی زیادہ تکلیف دیتا ہے، وہ ہے ہماری سرحد کے اس طرف سے اٹھنے والی تمسخر کی آوازیں۔ یہ حب الوطنی نہیں—یہ روح کا دیوالیہ پن ہے۔ کوئی نظریات پر سوال اٹھا سکتا ہے، حکمت عملیوں کو چیلنج کر سکتا ہے، یہاں تک کہ پالیسیوں کی مذمت کر سکتا ہے—لیکن کبھی نہیں، عزت کے قوانین میں کبھی نہیں، کوئی اس جنگجو کی جرات کا مذاق نہیں اڑاتا جو آسمان کی عبادت گاہ میں اپنا فرض ادا کر رہا تھا۔ وہ تالیوں کے لیے نہیں بلکہ وطن کی محبت کے لیے اُڑا، بالکل جیسے ہمارے بہترین پرواز کرتے ہیں۔ یہ احترام کا مستحق ہے، نہ کہ قومی غرور میں سڑے ہوئے طعنوں کا۔

میں نے بھی بھائیوں کو خاموشی میں غائب ہوتے دیکھا ہے—شیردل لیڈر فلائٹ لیفٹیننٹ علمدار اور اسکواڈرن لیڈر حشناط—وہ مرد جو ان بلندیوں پر رہتے تھے جہاں فرشتے بھی سانس روک لیتے ہیں، جو سمجھتے تھے کہ آسمان سب کچھ مانگتا ہے اور کچھ وعدہ نہیں کرتا۔ جب طیارہ خاموش ہوتا ہے تو قومیتیں نہیں ہوتیں، ترانے نہیں ہوتے، جھنڈے نہیں ہوتے۔ صرف نقصان کی خوفناک برابری ہوتی ہے، اور خاندان جو ان مردوں کی تصویریں تھامے رہ جاتے ہیں جو کبھی بادلوں کو چھوتے تھے۔

سچا پیشہ ور کسی بھی تقسیم کے پار دوسرے پیشہ ور کو پہچانتا ہے۔ سچا جنگجو—جو اس لقب کا حقدار ہو—جرات کو سلام کرتا ہے چاہے وہ غلط وردی میں ہو، غلط رنگوں میں اُڑے، غلط زبان بولے۔ اس سے کم کچھ بھی انہیں نہیں بلکہ ہمیں چھوٹا کرتا ہے۔ ہمارا مذاق ہمارے اپنے پروں کو داغدار کرتا ہے، ہمارے اپنے شہیدوں کی بے عزتی کرتا ہے، ہمارے بہادری کے دعووں کو کھوکھلا بناتا ہے۔

میں صاف کہوں: جرات کا کوئی پاسپورٹ نہیں ہوتا۔ قربانی کوئی سرحد نہیں مانتی۔ وہ پائلٹ جو اپنی مشین کو قومی فخر کی خدمت میں اس کی چیخ کی حدوں تک لے جاتا ہے، عزت کا مستحق ہے—چاہے وہ زعفرانی، سفید اور سبز کے نیچے اُڑے، یا صرف سبز اور سفید کے نیچے۔

اللہ مرحوم ہوا باز کو ابدی آسمان عطا فرمائے جہاں ہنگامے نہیں، جہاں مشینیں کبھی ناکام نہیں ہوتیں اور افق ہمیشہ پھیلتے رہتے ہیں۔

اللہ ان کے اہلِ خانہ کو ان جگہوں پر طاقت عطا فرمائے جہاں زبان نہیں پہنچ سکتی، اس علم میں کہ ان کا نقصان انسانی جرات کے بارے میں کچھ مقدس روشن کرتا ہے۔

اور اللہ ہمیں—ریت اور خون میں کھینچی گئی لکیروں کے دونوں طرف—یہ سمجھ عطا فرمائے کہ ہم جو عزت کا مستحق ہے اس کی عزت کریں، جو ماتم کا مستحق ہے اس کا ماتم کریں، اور یاد رکھیں کہ قوموں کے شہری بننے سے پہلے، ہم آسمان کے شہری ہیں—ہم سب عارضی، ہم سب فانی، ہم سب کوشش کر رہے ہیں کہ کشش ثقل ہمیں واپس بلانے سے پہلے کچھ لامحدود کو چھو لیں۔

آسمان سرحدوں کے بغیر غم کرتا ہے۔

ہم بھی ایسا ہی کریں۔..

The post A Salute across the skies, from Air Commodore Pervez Akhtar Khan appeared first on SabrangIndia.

There has been a bit of a buzz about the Supreme Court judgement in the case of Mohammed Zubair and Aftab Ahmad, servicemen in the Indian Air Force who were discharged from service for sporting beards.

Three things need to be clarified:

First, they sported the beards in breach of Air Force Regulations.

Second, there’s no wholesale bar on Muslims having a beard for religious reasons even under the Regulations.

Third, they were unable to substantiate the claim that the beards were being sported for religious reasons.

The apex court confirmed the judgement of both the Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court, which had agreed with the Air Force. However, many of the headlines that came up after the Supreme Court judgement on Thursday appear to have been read as suggesting that the Supreme Court had somehow outlawed Muslim servicemen from wearing beards.

Going by social media reaction, this seems to have resulted in either rage-clicks from those who thought it was a bad thing or gloat-clicks from those who thought it was a good thing.

Prosaic judgement
The actual judgement is far more prosaic.

Zubair, for instance, had been asked by his superior officers to shave off his beard as it was not in compliance with Regulation 425 which governs facial hair among Air Force personnel. He challenged this direction in court and lost. Subsequently, when he didn’t comply, he was discharged from service in accordance with the relevant rules.

Interestingly, this case didn’t decide the validity of his discharge from the Air Force since, oddly he doesn’t seem to have challenged it.

The Court has concerned itself therefore only with the issue of whether he could be lawfully directed by the Air Force to remove his beard in accordance with Regulation 425. In specific, paragraph (b) of Regulation 425 which allows personnel to maintain beards for religious reasons, subject to certain requirements. The Air Force had come out with certain policies implementing this rule and Zubair was found to be in contravention of this rule. He didn’t challenge this rule or any of the policies implementing it as being illegal or unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court’s reasoning is careful. In these days when judges have had the reckless tendency to veer off into tangents in judgements, spouting their own views on matters unrelated, Justice DY Chandrachud sticks to the straight and narrow, laying down the law with clarity and thought.
At times, the recitation of the history of the regulation of beards in the Air Force, the way servicemen may apply to keep one, and the relevant regulations have a Catch-22-like dark humour about them. It seems somewhat odd that in the age of biometric identity, the primary reason given for regulating facial hair seems to be the need to easily recognise and establish the identity of the serviceman, apart from the the need to maintain “uniformity of personal appearance” in the forces.

What not to read into it
Too much should not be read into the wider impact of this judgement. Servicemen do not enjoy all the protections of Part III of the Constitution to the same extent as everyone else. Article 33 of the Constitution states that the rights they enjoy are only those that are granted by law made by Parliament and not those granted by the Constitution. In some cases, servicepersons enjoy the same rights as everyone else (such as the right to approach the constitutional courts for rights violations), but their rights, while in service are restricted.

Justice DY Chandrachud’s sedate and sober judgement stands in stark contrast to Justice Katju’s brimstone and bluster in the context of another similar issue involving the maintenance of beards, this time in educational institutions. Even keeping in mind that Justice Chandrachud wrote a detailed judgement and Katju just said things in court, it’s a reminder that moderation is sometimes undervalued in a judge.

The issue of public displays of religious symbols and religious practice is a thorny issue that doesn’t always have cut and dried answers. It is a matter of trying to balance the individual’s right to practice religion in the ways they deem fit, with larger concerns such as public security, health and morality. The balancing act is difficult and it is bound to cause some resentment. Should firecrackers be banned or merely regulated on health grounds? Likewise, jallikattu? And what about slaughter of animals for ritual purposes?

In recent times, these issues have gained a perverse competitive communal edge. “If ‘they’ can be allowed to do their thing, why can’t ‘we’?” It is stoked for obvious political gain on all sides. It is also the wrong approach to resolving these issues. Whether firecrackers should be banned as a public health measure has nothing to do with whether some other practice is allowed or banned for another reason. It’s hard enough weighing the competing interests of religion and public health, without competitive communalism being brought into the mix.

The court’s task in Zubair’s and Aftab’s cases was rather straightforward – were they permitted to keep a beard under the regulations or not? The regulations themselves were not challenged as violating the constitution. As such, this judgement, while correct in its reasoning and ultimate finding, is unlikely to help answer larger questions on religion in the public space, and how to regulate it.

Alok Prasanna Kumar is an advocate based in Bengaluru and was a Senior Resident Fellow of the Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy. Views expressed here are purely personal and not a reflection of any other organisation’s views.

Courtesy: Scroll.in

The post Much ado about beards: How not to read Supreme Court’s judgement on Muslim servicemen appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Representation Image        Image: topyaps.com

सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने कहा है कि एयरफोर्स के स्टाफ जब तक सर्विस में हैं वे दाढ़ी नहीं बढ़ा सकते। ड्यूटी पर रहते हुए दाढ़ी बढ़ाने के कारण मकतुम को एयरफोर्स से निकाल दिया गया था।

इसके बाद पहले उन्होंने कर्नाटक हाई कोर्ट में अपील की और फिर सुप्रीम कोर्ट में। लेकिन यहां से भी मकतुम को निराशा हाथ लगी और कोर्ट ने मकतुम की अपील यह कहते हुए खारिज कर दी की एयरफोर्ट में सर्विस में रहते हुए कोई भी जवान दाढ़ी नहीं रख सकता।

नवभारत टाईम्स की खबर के अनुसार, यह पूरा मामला साल 2001 का है। बताया जाता है कि मकतुम हुसैन ने अपने कमांडिंग अफसर यानी सीओ से दाढ़ी बढ़ाने को लेकर स्वीकृति मांगी थी।

इसके लिए मकतुम ने ‘धार्मिक आधार’ पर बल दिया था। सीओ ने शुरुआत में तो इसकी इजाजत दे दी, लेकिन बाद में उन्हें यह अहसास हुआ कि नियमों के मुताबिक सिर्फ सिख सैनिकों को ही दाढ़ी बढ़ाने की इजाजत है।

नियम के तहत सीओ ने बाद में मकतुम हुसैन को दी गई अनुमति वापस ले ली। सैनिक ने इसे ‘भेदभाव’ मानते हुए कर्नाटक हाई कोर्ट में नियम के खि‍लाफ अपील की। इसके बाद भी जब मकतुम ने दाढ़ी नहीं काटी तो उनका तबादला पुणे के कमांड अस्पताल में कर दिया गया।

वहां नए सीओ ने भी मकतुम से दाढ़ी काटने को कहा। लेकिन वह अपनी जिद पर अड़े रहे। इसके बाद मकतुम को कारण बताओ नोटिस भी जारी किया गया। इन सबके बाद भी जब मकतुम दाढ़ी नहीं काटने की अपनी जिद पर अड़े रहे तो निर्देशों की अवहेलना करने के कारण उनके खिलाफ कार्रवाई करते हुए उन्हें सेवा से हटा दिया गया।

Courtesy: Janta Ka Reporter

The post मुस्लिमों को एयरफोर्स में दाढ़ी रखने की इजाज़त नहीं, सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने अस्वीकार की अपील appeared first on SabrangIndia.