Friday, 18 February 2022

GIVE THEM BACK THEIR HIJAB AND EDUCATION

    Anyone who thinks that the anti-hijab campaign is about discipline and dress code needs to have his or her head examined. And anyone who thinks it's about the emancipation of Muslim women needs to have a frontal lobotomy without any further loss of time. For it's clear as crystal that this is just the latest provocation in the right wing tool-kit for the de-identification of the Muslim community- to deprive them of their visible symbols, rituals and practices that define their identity. The attack on the hijab, remember, has been preceded by various other jihads (love, covid, spitting, conversion, IAS), and contrived agitations against public Namaz, abattoirs and beef, non-vegetarian food stalls, alleged conversions, birth rates, immigration of "termites" and of course the eternal mandir-masjid binary.

   As usual, our Prime Minister has not spoken on the subject. Is it because he realises the pathetic ironies implicit in this latest demonstration of double-speak? That to deprive young girls of education while preaching Beti Bachao, Beti Padhao  is nothing but chicanery of the highest order? That victimising this most vulnerable section of society while proclaiming empathy for them via the triple talaq law is not just a contradiction but an unscrupulous betrayal?

  The hijab is not so much about religion as it is about a woman's modesty and choice, like the ghunghat or the dupatta. It has been worn by generations of girls without stirring up dormant religious fervour in society. It has quietly merged with school uniforms without inviting any undue attention, just like the Sikh turban has with army and police uniforms. It is permitted in the Central govt's own Kendriya Vidyalaya's dress code which prescribes it in so many words:  "scarf with red hemmings for Muslim girls, matching with the lower." And that makes eminent sense to any one but a lumpen- let the head scarf match the colour of the uniform and become a part of it, rather than what it is falsely being made out to be- a defiance of the uniform.

  One would have expected the courts to appreciate this simple truth and reality. Sadly, the Karnataka High Court has not; in its forced quest for a deeper constitutional meaning and interpretation of the hijab it has only strengthened the position of the Hindutva fundamentalists. Its interim order of 11th February 2022 prohibiting the wearing of any religious dress- hijab or saffron scarf- is unfortunate, and misconceived on many counts, as per my humble opinion. It has only made a bad situation worse.

  Before this particular order, many colleges were permitting the hijab in classrooms, even after the campaign against it was started in the first week of January. Now, according to an NDTV report of 16th February, even they have stopped it, fearing charges of contempt of court ! The order has strengthened the hands of a state govt. which has made Karnataka the new laboratory of Hindutva, and of vigilantes for whom such agitations are bread and butter, for they can now legitimately piggy- back on this order to do what they wanted to do in the first place. Their ulterior motive has now acquired judicial legitimacy, till the final order comes, only the good Lord knows when.

  The interim order also ignores a basic principle of jurisprudence- that unequals cannot be treated as equals in law. It accords the same status to the saffron scarf as to the hijab, which is unjustified: the hijab has been a standard and traditional dress for Muslim girls for centuries and they have been wearing it for decades, including in educational institutions and in public. It has been practically de rigueur for them, whether out of religious dictat or modesty or sense of safety is irrelevant. The wide use of the saffron scarf outside of religious institutions or occasions, on the other hand, is a recent innovation as an assertion of Hindu identity, it is not intrinsic wear for members of the community, and certainly not in schools or colleges. By treating both on par, the court has diminished one and elevated the other, considering them equal in tradition and usage, which cannot be correct.

  Equally disappointing is the court's decision to hold that the hijab is a religious accessory, and to therefore examine in depth whether it is an essential part of Islam. The whole issue has now been given a constitutional dimension, and will be examined as such. The last time this happened, in the Ram Janambhoomi case, it took more than fifty years for a verdict to be delivered. The same time frame is likely in this case, and in the meantime the status quo (as directed by the interim order of the court) will mean that Muslim girls can no longer wear the hijab in schools and colleges. This is patently unfair as the enforced status quo suits the anti- hijabists and the state govt. The hijab is a form of dress, not a religious talisman, just like the salwar kameez or the sari or the ghaghra- why, in God's name, should Muslim girls be prevented from wearing it ? By imparting a religious hue to the issue the court is falling into the trap set by the right wing fanatics who would like nothing better than everything to be viewed through a religious prism. Ironically, by doing so the court is also pushing these young Muslim girls into the embrace of the Islamic fundamentalists, adding more grist to their " Islam is in danger" mill. Surely, our judges could not be blind to this?

   Quite often we miss the woods for the trees, and get entangled in undergrowth of no consequence. It must be remembered that the statue of the Goddess Justitia, which is the universal symbol of justice, holds a sword, not a scalpel. It is time our judges used the former, to slash through the thicket of obfuscations, jabberwocky, fabrications, mendacity and duplicity which comprise the tool-kit to harass minorities today, rather than using the ineffective scalpel to probe for a chimera that exists nowhere but in the putrid politics of a certain party. Give them back their hijab, their education and their sense of dignity.

17 comments:

  1. If a male student wants to wear dhoti or a female student wants to wear sari to the school, should it be allowed, where a dress code is prescribed for boys and girls?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Mr Sahu, in your usual haste to defend the indefensible, you are confusing the hijab with the burqua. The former is not a dress ( unlike the dhoti or saree): it is a scarf, a head covering not unlike a dupatta. If it matches the colour of the school uniform, as in the KVVs, there should be no problem. And when was the last time you heard of a college prescribing a uniform?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  3. I have not talked about burqa. You didn’t respond to my query. The colleges involved in prescribing uniform are intermediate/junior colleges. Plus two levels in schools. Not degree colleges. In any case, what matters is whether there is institutional prescription for uniform.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Very well put. However courts are caught. If they had maintained status quo you would have saffron gumcha being flooded. Court has to rule on the difference between diversity and discrimination.

    ReplyDelete
  5. We belong to a secular country having a well defined Constitution advocating Unity in Diversity .Enjoining colourful traditions of different sects and living in harmony really makes the life worth living.The youth energy especially needs to be properly channelised to make our country economically,socially and environmentally sustainable and worth living .Everyone should strive hard ideally to make this country a developed one.Nip the evil in the bud so the issue be .

    ReplyDelete
  6. Every assault on the Constitution of India is an act of treason. The operative words are assault and treason.
    While betrayal is of individual persons and groups or other collectives, treason is always attack and assault of the country. Against the very raison d'etre of the nation.
    Even as people rise up in protest, and increasingly so now, the Courts have to and have to uphold the Constitution and enforce the legal protection of the country. This is their bounden duty. Failing which the concerned authority must be held to account by the highest court and by its highest council; call it Synod or Supreme Council or what you will. And justice must be seen to be done.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Rightly said, Avay … the issue is being blown up out of proportion ….

    ReplyDelete
  8. When you write a blog, make sure you don't have a ideological leaning! Too much of breath has been wasted in wrong direction! Kerala HC made it clear that institution dress code has to be adhered. No religious symbolism is allowed in most Muslim nations...same goes with irreligious institutions like Police, Armed Forces.. it is more of a politically driven agenda, don't involve unless you too belong/believe in politicising

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How about Sikh Turban, worn by boys in school. It is a religious head dress. Of girls are not allowed to wear Hijab, than boys should be prevented from wearing a turban.

      Delete
    2. If not on the ideology and politics of the created hijab controversy what, then, should Avay Shukla's blog have dwelt upon?

      Delete
  9. If our societal fabric was not so tattered as it is now, this ongoing imbroglio would have passed off as another storm in a democracy's teacup. Or probably never have arisen.
    But over the past nearly 8 years, this ruling party has so sliced the demos cleanly with the blade of uniformist bigotry, that any expression, desire, sentiment or practice displayed by a non Hindu - or by a source in dissonance with the BJP and its alma mater the RSS - is harnessed to religious yoke and dragged ragged into ideological territory.
    The obvious reaction to this is the hardened, unrelenting retaliation by those oppressed from these zealots - be they students, journalists, activists, educationists, farmers and now even school going girls. We saw the lone schoolgirl resisting the boys in saffron scarves shouting "Allahu-Akbar". This takes the narrative into undesirable and explosive domain.
    To comment directly on the hijab, I do not really know if it was ever an established accessory to school uniform. But I also cannot recall it being refused to a schoolgirl as a part of her attire if she wore one. Infact one never, ever thought of the innocuous bit of head-drape as anything other than just that.
    I am - in my personal capacity - a believer in the authority of an institution, if the same is to acceptable practices that have passed the test of time. If a school therefore mandates a certain attire upon its students, I would personally be inclined to obey. Parallely, it is for the institution to decipher its laid rules and apply them judiciously. As Avay Shukla avers the KVs have done by including the hijab or headscarf within the ambit of uniform, laying down the colour code and embroidery.
    This was the peaceful path until last month, when somebody authoritarian and clearly blinkered chose to harden the emulsion. We now find ourselves in the ludicrous situation of girls refusing education but not discarding the hijab. And the stiff authorities preferring to convert their institutes into political battlegrounds than remaining the haloed imparters of education.
    I disagree with Avay Shukla in his remark on the hijab being the upholder of a girl's modesty, similar to a ghunghat or dupatta! I prefer to discard the observation which could emulsify the mess further. It may feed the pantomime politicians and principals - who derive grist from latching illegitimately onto such well intended but chauvinist statements - and empanel themselves as the protectors of women's dignity. I realise he is lending heft to the cause of the hijab, but I fear such remarks may conflagrate into a wholly avoidable situation where the ruling regime may choose to make mandatory the saffron scarf upon girls in a bizzare "fatwa-like" retaliation. We saw disturbing sights of school girls and boys playing challengers, draped in such scarves.
    Mr. P.K. Sahu, who often plays the Devil's Advocate to Mr. Shukla, may perhaps also avoid questions on the donning of dhotis and lungis or sarees to school. It is these extrapolative, argumentative cross questions that have the potential to lead to a tangential, perverse course that amplifies the earlier referred storm in the teacup to a cataclysmic misadventure - taking us regressively lower and under.
    If the country's men and women let commonsense and compassion prevail, and harbour a real desire to settle this matter, our girls can go back to schools - with and without hijab.



    ReplyDelete
  10. Unfortunately, I think you have just drawn attention to the existence of the rule allowing hijabs in KVs. I'm guessing now this will be revoked sooner rather than later.

    ReplyDelete
  11. It is heartwarming to hear a defence of hijab as this. The controversy is manufactured out of sheer bigotry. There is no basis for this as commonsense would tell you.
    This will only further destroy opportunities for girls who are Muslim of getting a decent education and embrace a more fundamental approach to every ones detriment. Test of proportionality seems to have been downplayed, God knows why?

    ReplyDelete
  12. I saw videos where based on the HC's temporary order, teachers were asked to remove Burqa/Hijab.. when did it change from students to teachers?

    May be it was for teachers too. Let aside that topic, with no offence to my Hindu brethren, I saw a video where a Hindu teacher having a huge tilak on her forehead, was asking students to remove hijab. Why then was she wearing a tilak? Does it not fall under religious symbology?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Of course it should be evident to anyone with even half a brain that this is a politically contrived controversy, timed with elections. It will distract the mindless herd from looking at the government's failures.

    If some school principals/governing bodies had the gumption, they would simply make an official statement that the HIJAB (not Chador, Niqab, or Burqa) matching the school uniform has always been a part of the school uniform, so there is no violation of uniform code of dress.

    Unfortunately our top officials in education and ESPECIALLY in our hallowed (or is it 'hollowed'?) Courts of Law have neither the principles nor the gumption to stand against a more powerful authority.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Lets just call a spade a spade.
    The saffron scum is working to tear the social fabric of this nation.
    And the powers that be are not only watching from the sidelines, they are actively encouraging the chaos which WILL follow!

    ReplyDelete