Kirpan Sikh in Indonesian Legal Context
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research delves into the nuanced interplay between religious freedom and legal norms in Indonesia, with a specific focus on the Sikh practice of carrying the kirpan. This ceremonial dagger, integral to Sikh faith and identity, presents a unique challenge within Indonesia's diverse legal and socio-cultural landscape, marked by the country's commitment to Pancasila, which emphasizes religious freedom, unity in diversity, and social justice. By employing a normative juridical approach, this study scrutinizes the tension between the kirpan as a manifestation of religious expression and public safety concerns, utilizing comparative analysis to explore international perspectives and solutions. The investigation reveals a critical need for Indonesia to refine its legal and policy frameworks to more effectively accommodate religious practices like the kirpan. Drawing lessons from countries such as India, the UK, Canada, the US, and Sweden, the research advocates for inclusive legal reforms, enhanced public education, and robust intercultural dialogue. These strategies aim to reconcile the practice of carrying the kirpan with public safety imperatives, reflecting a deeper understanding and respect for religious diversity. The findings underscore the significance of integrating Indonesia's foundational principles of Pancasila into the contemporary discourse on religious freedom and minority rights. The study posits that respecting the kirpan within this ideological framework not only aligns with Indonesia's commitment to diversity and tolerance but also strengthens national unity and social harmony. This research contributes to the broader discourse on balancing religious expression and public safety in pluralistic societies, offering a comprehensive blueprint for policy and legal reforms that honor both religious freedom and collective well-being. It emphasizes the importance of dialogue, education, and legal inclusivity in fostering a society that upholds the dignity and rights of all individuals, irrespective of their religious practices. Keywords: Kirpan, Sikh, Freedom of Religion and Human Rights (FoRB), Criminal Law, Indonesia
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".