The Supreme Court of India delivered a split judgment on the Hijab ban in Karnataka schools. Justice Hemant Gupta upheld the order of the Karnataka High Court and ruled in favour of the ban on hijab in educational institutions. However, Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia overturned the order of the Karnataka High Court and ruled in favour of the pro-hijab petitioners. Now the matter has been sent to the Chief Justice of India to be considered by a larger bench. In the interim, the order of the Karnataka High Court will remain applicable.
Let us try to understand this issue in a very simple manner, busting the myths one by one. The entire controversy erupted when few girls of a government school in Karnataka tried to enter the school premise wearing hijabs (head scarves). Naturally, they were stopped by the school staff for two obvious reasons.
First, the identity of the girls was hidden because of wearing scarves and masks and another more important reason was that Karnataka Education Act, 1983 prescribes a uniform to the students which excludes any religious attire. It is also to be noted that these girls had never worn hijab in school earlier so who made them do it for what reasons is also an important factor which can’t be ignored.
It was also revealed that the entire conspiracy was instigated by the Campus Front of India, the college wing of the Popular Front of India (PFI) which is a banned organization now. The poster girls of the hijab row have also been found to be related to PFI members.
The matter went to the Karnataka High Court which banned hijab in educational institutions. This order of the HC was challenged in the apex court which delivered the split judgment and sent the matter to the Chief Justice of India to be decided by a larger bench.
The pro-hijab lobby is saying that wearing hijab is a matter of choice and these girls should be free to choose their attire. This reason sounds pretty lame because nobody is curtailing the right to choose any particular dress. Going by this logic, some girls may want to come to school in jeans, some may want to wear a bikini and some may want to wear saffron gowns.
There is nothing wrong in wearing any of these outfits and anyone can wear it wherever they want. However, this right to choose our attire can be exercised only in our personal lives. When we go to a public place or institution, we have to follow the dress code and rules and regulations of that place. For example, we can’t wear a burqa in a swimming pool. Similarly, we can’t wear a swimming costume in a shopping mall. A woman may love to wear bright red but if she is a lawyer and appearing in court, she has to follow the dress code of the courtroom. It is as simple as that.
If wearing hijab is a matter of choice, then what about those Muslim women who do not want to wear it. Why is it that they are blamed and accused of being a bad Muslim? They are named and shamed as kafirs. Why their right to choose is not accepted and respected? I am a Muslim woman, a practising lawyer and I got rape threats for not wearing a hijab. Imagine the plight of those women and girls who are not independent and strong enough to raise their voice.
I get to meet so many young girls and adult women who are forced to wear hijab in the name of religion even if they don’t want to. So this theory of ‘right to choose’ is completely bogus and manipulative to twist and turn facts. Right to choose is neither forced nor regulated by religion.
Some people are using the ‘religion’ card stating that wearing hijab is an Islamic practice and Muslims being minority in India needs to be safeguarded to preserve their religious practices. It is important to know here that any practice in order to be termed as an essential practice of a religion needs to be codified in the scriptures of that religion.
For example, pagdi of our Sikh brothers is an essential practice of their religion and duly mentioned in their scripture. However, naqab, burqa or hijab is nowhere mentioned in the Quran as a dress code. This is not at all an essential practice of Islam and whoever is trying to establish this should come up with even one verse in Quran that talks about naqab, burqa or hijab as a dress code.
The Quran directs Muslim women to cover their bosoms and guard their private parts. That’s all about the guidance regarding clothes. Hence, wearing hijab is not an essential part of our religion but a mere social malpractice which has been forced on Muslim girls and women in the name of religion.
Some people are stating that the Constitution of India safeguards the rights of minorities to practice, profess and propagate their religion; which is absolutely true but this is only half truth. Fundamental rights are subject to certain limitations like public order, morality, decency and interest of the state. We can exercise our right to religion as enshrined in Article 25 but at the same time we have to follow public order; if we are going to a public institution we have to follow the rules and regulation of that public institution. Similarly, we can exercise our right to protest but we can’t block roads and take cities hostage.
Individual rights cannot supersede the rights of the public at large. Moreover, in this case, we can’t violate the law of the land and must adhere to Karnataka Education Act, 1983. There are many judgments of the Supreme Court of India which clearly say that if fundamental rights clash with any provision of the law, the law of the land prevails.
For the sake of argument, if wearing hijab is a matter of choice and right to religion, why this right is not given to non-Muslim students of Aligarh Muslim University? In that case, rules and regulation of the educational institution supersede the right to choose and right to religion. All male students are made to wear sherwani and female students are made to wear salwar kameez irrespective of their religious background.
Therefore, it is absolutely clear that protesting and fighting to wear hijab in Karnataka government schools is neither for right to religion and nor for right to choose. It is a well-orchestrated, pre-planned propaganda of anti-Bharat Islamist forces to show their religious supremacy and force religious dictatorship on us. It is their time tested psychological formula which has succeeded throughout the world.
We need to understand that Islamic states are not made overnight. There is a sequence of events that follow each other. First, a feeling of separatism is promoted in young minds that their language, food, dress code, education, laws, judiciary are different from their motherland. Thereafter, they become extremist and in the final stage some are trained to become terrorists and foot soldiers to fight for Islamic state.
Some get scared by these terrorists and stay silent, some get convinced that this is a fight for religion and give silent approval. This is a standard process and technique of breaking secular countries and making them Islamic states. This has happened in many countries, including Pakistan and Afghanistan, and the same pattern is being repeated.
Our young kids are being manipulated, controlled and brainwashed to fulfil the political benefits of people who have nothing to do with Islam as a religion of peace. They are only using Islam as a statecraft to fulfil their dream of making Islamic states. Wearing or not wearing a clothing item is a personal choice and the moment you associate it with religion you start judging people. Then converting, forcing, beating and killing follows like it’s happening in Iran.
We, as Indian citizens, must strongly resist this Talibanisation of Bharat. Nobody is banning hijab and women are free to wear it just like they are free to wear a bikini. But, where there is a dress code or rules and regulations of an institution; it needs to be followed.
We must understand that schools are important in shaping a child’s psyche and religion is the last thing that should be brought in schools. We have to make an inclusive and a secular society which is possible only if our kids are brought up uniformly without brainwashing them to suit our agenda.
Subuhi Khan is a Supreme Court lawyer and a social activist. The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not represent the stand of this publication.
Read all the Latest Opinion News and Breaking News here
Comments
0 comment