Political Diary
New Delhi, 8 February 2022
Much Ado
About Hijab
BALANCED CONVERSATION, ANYONE?
By
Poonam I Kaushish
What’s in a dress? Nothing,
it’s a form of clothing, but politically, it spells a lot. Who could have
thought the innocuous Muslim hijab
(headscarf) would create a maelstrom when Muslim
schoolgirls at Udupi, Karnataka attended classes wearing it were first barred
entry and then made to sit in separate classrooms sans studies. Hindu students retaliated
by sporting saffron shawls as a sign of protest. Leading to nationwide
churning.
Last week the Bommai BJP Government
invoked 133 (2) of the Karnataka Education Act-1983, which states a uniform
style of clothes has to be worn compulsorily in public schools and colleges.
Asserting the directive was for “benefit of all students” as a common uniform
ensures they belong to a common family and behave in a manner that leaves no
room for discrimination.
Further,
it dismissed arguments touting Article 25 to justify hijab, as it clearly states freedom of religion is “subject to
public law
and order, morality and health and
to the other provisions”. It advised Muslim girls not to wear clothes
which disturb harmony in public institutions. Adding, like all Fundamental Rights, the State can restrict clothes
which go against decency, morality,
equality, integrity and other State
interests.
Predictably
a slugfest erupted with Congress’s Rahul accusing the State of robbing the future
of India’s daughters and the Sangh Parivar giving a saffron colour to
educational institutions, denying education to Muslim girls and creating
communal disharmony in the name of hijab.
The right to practice any religion
means one can wear any clothes according to their religion, he argued. The
Saffronites are using Karnataka as a laboratory for majoritarian Hindu
politics.
The BJP
countered that religion
should be ousted from classrooms and strongly defended uniform-related rules
being enforced by educational institutions. Calling the hijab a prominent religious
symbol of Islam and a declaration of allegiance to radical Islamism it vowed to disallow Talibanisation.
Politically
the hijab-saffron shawl is a power
play with an eye on the minority vote in the ensuing Assembly elections in five
States and Karnataka next year and indicative of polarisation between Muslims
and Hindus.
Whereby, the political class is
busy exploiting the common man’s emotions and only looks at what will help
popularize it more with its vote bank.
Muslims
contend it is symbolic of Islamic dress and the Constitution grants them
freedom of expression as long as public order is preserved. It is an infringement
not only on our right to freedom of religion, but also an obstacle to enjoyment
of other rights, like education, work, cultural rights and participate in
public life.
Banning
wearing hijab in the name of gender
equality paradoxically can result in less equality and autonomy, and more
exclusion and discrimination for Muslim women and girls. Why is there no
ban on Sikh turbans, Christian crucifix and a Hindu tilak, they query?
Critics
argue the Islamic dress is an issue of value conflicts and clash of
civilizations.
It could perpetuate stereotypical,
biased perceptions about the Muslim faith and the role of women. The existing patriarchal system might
lead women and girls to conform to societal expectations, even when they limit
their freedom. Also, legal bans or restrictions are akin to punishing the woman
herself which would further marginalize and perpetuate discrimination or perpetuate
harmful stereotypes. Besides, stigmatizing
Muslim women and prevent them from seeking redress.
The issue
goes beyond what the Karnataka High Court decrees as it hears a petition today
filed by five girls seeking a declaration that wearing hijab is a Fundamental Right guaranteed
under Articles 14 and 25. Arguing the Constitution guarantees the freedom of conscience and right to profess,
practise and propagate religion. A Right that guarantees the State shall ensure there is no
interference or obstacle to exercise this freedom.
“How can someone
ask us to keep away our modesty.... Are we saying those wearing saffron shawls
should not wear it? Both hijab is our
right while studies are equally important for us. We can give our lives but we
cannot leave hijab”. Dictating by law
what women should or should not wear is policing women’s bodies, they assert.
The Supreme Court in Shirur
Mutt case 1954 held that “religion” would cover all rituals and practices “integral”
to religion, but in 2004 it held the Anand Marg sect had no fundamental right
to perform tandav dance in public. In 2016 it upheld the discharge of a Muslim
airman from the IAF for keeping a beard.
The Kerala High Court in
2016 dismissed a plea by a Muslim girl student seeking permission to wear hijab stating collective rights of an educational
institution would be given primacy over individual rights. However another
Bench upheld the right to wear it even as the State Government said it would significantly
affect secularism.
Questionably, is placing
individual ideologies before national good wrong? Yes, if it on grounds of security as an anti-terrorism measure. Globally, UK, France, Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Bulgaria, Netherlands,
Germany, Italy, Spain, Switzerland, Sweden, Norway, Russia etc have banned hijab, burqa and niqab from public schools,
hospitals, public transport and public places. In France and Turkey the emphasis is on the secular nature of
the State hence the ban.
Primarily
the Islamic dress is seen as being incompatible with Western values, as symbols
of religious obscurantism and oppression of women. Instead, they advocate
values of Enlightenment liberalism, secularism and equality of women. A more
extreme view is that which is freely chosen.
Ironically even Muslim-majority nations
like Kosovo, Azerbaijan, Tunisia, Morocco, Lebanon have outlawed the hijab and burqa in varying degrees. Egypt and Syria have banned the face veil
in universities. They
argue the
Quran does not clearly stipulate the use of hijab
or niqab.
Over the past few years there has been
an increasing sense that space for liberty is becoming narrower shown by
repeated incidents of bans by State Governments and
self-appointed censors thereby promoting religious intolerance.
The Government should have a balanced conversation and underscore equality for
all where diversity is not just tolerated but fully respected and celebrated.
This requires joint efforts by States, religious authorities, faith-based and
civil society organizations with a view to ensuring non-discrimination and
gender equality, denouncing any advocacy of hatred that incites to violence,
discrimination or hostility as well as standing up for the rights of all
persons belonging to minorities to participate equally and effectively in
cultural, religious, social, economic and public life.
Clearly, in a milieu of competitive
democracy whereby politics based on religion has better chance of polarising
voters the time has come to desist from taking law into one’s hand and stoking seeds
of rabid communalism. It stands to reason Muslim girls should abide by schools
uniform rules as
hijab can transform them into UCOs
(unidentified covered objects), which are likely to turn them from an ‘us’ to a
‘them’. At the same time the hijab
should not be used as a means of applying social pressure on people. Remember, there
is no mysticism in the secular character of the State. It is neither pro God or
anti God . ----- INFA
(Copyright,
India News & Feature Alliance)
|