8090

[만물상] 미국인 해녀_我的网站

铁线虫

A | New Delhi, Oct 13 (UNI) One of the judges in the Supreme Court bench, Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, differed with the view of his colleague, Justice Hemant Gupta on many issues.

Justice Dhulia said that asking a pre university schoolgirl to take off her hijab at her school gate, is an invasion on her privacy and dignity.

"Asking a pre university schoolgirl to take off her hijab at her school gate, is an invasion on her privacy and dignity. It is an attack on their dignity, and then ultimately it is a denial to them of secular education. These are clearly violative of Article 19(1)(a), Article 21, and Article 25(1) of the Constitution of India," Justice Dhulia said, in his verdict.

"Under our Constitutional scheme, wearing a hijab should be simply a matter of Choice. It may or may not be a matter of essential religious practice, but it still is, a matter of conscience, belief, and expression. If she wants to wear hijab, even inside her class room, she cannot be stopped, if it is worn as a matter of her choice, as it may be the only way her conservative family will permit her to go to school, and in those cases, her hijab is her ticket to education," Justice Dhulia said, in his verdict.

Justice Dhulia even went onto say that the unfortunate fallout of the hijab restriction would be that we would have denied education to a girl child. A girl child for whom it is still not easy to reach her school gate.This case here, therefore, has also to be seen in the perspective of the challenges already faced by a girl child in reaching her school.

"The question this Court would put before itself is also whether we are making the life of a girl child any better by denying her education merely because she wears a hijab!," Justice Dhulia questioned?

Our Constitution has visualised a just society and it is for this reason that the first virtue that is secures for the citizens is ‘Justice’ which is the first of our Preambular promises, he said.

On the other hand, the judge heading the bench of the Supreme Court, Justice Hemant Gupta, differed with the view of Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and said that the Government (Karnataka) Order cannot be said to be contrary to the State goal of promoting literacy and education as mandated under the Constitution.

"Article 21A is not applicable as all the students are over 14 years of age. The students have a right to education under Article 21, but not of insisting on wearing something additional to the uniform, in a secular school, as a part of their religion," Justice Gupta, heading the bench of the Top Court said.

"Secularism applicable to all citizens. Permitting one religious community to wear religious symbols would be antithesis of secularism. Govt Order can't be said to be against secularism or objective of Karnataka Education Act," Justice Gupta in his 133-page, out of 209-page, verdict said.

"It can't be said that State is restricting the access to education to the girl students through such an Order. The Government Order only ensures that the uniform prescribed is adhered to by the students and it cannot be said that State is restricting the access to education to the girl students through such an Order, Justice Gupta said.

He went on to say that the Act itself contemplates providing of opportunities and facilities in a healthy manner and maintaining the dignity of childhood and youth so that there is no moral or material abandonment. "The uniform for the students has been prescribed so that there is no distinction between the students coming from diverse background and that each student grows in an environment of equality, fairness and equal opportunities," Justice Gupta said.

The uniform is an equalizer of inequalities. Therefore, prescribing uniform for children at an impressionable age is not only important but has a salutary effect on the mental development of the child to grow in the environment of oneness, he said.

Justice Gupta, find that the following 11 questions arise for consideration in the present appeals:

Whether the appeals should be heard along with Kantaru Rajeevaru (Right to Religion) and/or should the present appeals be referred to the Constitution Bench.?

Whether the State Government could delegate its decision to implement the wearing of uniform by the College Development Committee or the Board of Management or otherwise on headscarves is ex facie violative of Section 143 of the Act?

What is ambit and scope of the right to freedom of ‘conscience’ and ‘religion’ under Article 25? What is the ambit and scope of essential religious practices under Article 25 of the Constitution?

UNI SM BAV GNK。 이탈리아의 미슐랭 스타 요리사들이 한국 해녀들을 찾아간 적이 있다. 예능 프로그램 ‘어서와~ 한국은 처음이지?’에서다. 세계 최고의 요리사들은 오리발을 차고도 물 속에서 허우적대며 당황한다. 반면 할머니 해녀들은 아무렇지도 않게 깊은 바다로 내려가 멍게와 소라를 건져 올렸다. “바다는 거울 같아서, 욕심 내면 바로 사고납니다.” 이날 그들을 매혹시킨건 식재료의 싱싱함보다 해녀들이 바다를 대하는 태도였다.▶서양 역사에서 바다는 정복과 탐험의 대상이었다. 귀향에 10년 걸린 오디세우스부터 대항해시대의 선원들까지, 그들은 바다 건너 보물을 찾아 나섰다. 반면 동아시아의 바다는 삶과 생계의 터전이다. 그 최전선에 산소통 하나 없이 차가운 심해로 맨몸을 던지는 해녀가 있다. 한참 뒤 수면 위로 올라와 허파에 남은 마지막 숨을 내뱉는다. 그 생존의 소리를 ‘숨비 소리’라고 한다.▶맨몸 잠수의 어로 전통은 물론 세계 곳곳에 있다. 하지만 제주 해녀 문화만의 차별성이 있다. 가부장 사회에서 여성 주도로 단단한 경제 공동체를 이끌어왔다는 점이다. 무엇보다 탐욕을 경계한다. 장비의 힘을 빌리지 않고 바다가 회복할 수 있는 만큼만 채취한다. 또 숙련된 해녀는 몸 약해진 동료나 나이 든 선배를 위해 수심이 얕은 바다인 ‘할망 바당’을 흔쾌히 양보한다. 제주 해녀문화는 이 생태 친화와 공동체 연대의 가치를 인정받아 2016년 유네스코 무형문화유산으로 등재됐다.▶엊그제 미국 CNN은 한국의 외국인 해녀 카일리 젠터(36)의 사연을 집중 조명했다. 뉴욕 출신인 그는 원어민 강사로 한국에 들어왔다가 제주 바다와 해녀 문화에 반했다고 한다. 2024년 해녀학교를 거쳐 서귀포시의 한 어촌계에 정식으로 입단해 직업 해녀가 됐다. 해녀학교를 졸업한 외국인은 더러 있었지만, 현재 어촌계에 소속되어 직업 해녀로 있는 이는 젠터가 유일하다.▶한국인 남편과 결혼해 제주 정착 10년차를 맞은 그녀는 “제주에서 살고, 제주에서 죽고 싶다”고 했다. CNN이 주목한 지점은 단순히 ‘신기한 외국인’이 아니라, 고령화로 소멸 위기에 처한 전통 공동체가 외국인을 포용하는 ‘상생의 힘’이었다. 우리는 흔히 전통 유산을 박물관 유물처럼 여기곤 한다. 하지만 이 젊은 미국인 해녀가 주는 교훈이 있다. 단순히 박제된 유물이 아니라 살아있는 공동체이자 지속가능한 미래의 힌트가 될 수도 있다는 것. 미국인 해녀의 ‘숨비 소리’가 단절된 한국 어촌과 세계를 조심스레 잇고 있다. 일러스트=이철원。