Liberal stand on hijab is hypocritical

Liberal stand on hijab is hypocritical

While the imbroglio on the hijab continues unabated, divisive forces are using the opportunity to push their agenda of painting India as “intolerant”, demonising the BJP/RSS as anti-Muslim and fascist and insinuating that the hijab is being forced on Muslim women as part of the Sangh Parivar’s plan to eventually create a Hindu Rashtra.

The tactics used by the divisive pack are drearily familiar. Rhetoric is routinely used as logic. Facts are twisted or conveniently dropped to build an ideologically suitable narrative — mostly poor in substance and divorced from reality and reason. Views laced with prejudice are presented as facts.

In this politico-ideological war, repackaged as a fight to protect minority rights, the education and careers of Muslim girls are collateral damage. Instead of focusing on studies, students are wasting their energy on emphasising their religious identities — through hijabs and saffron scarves.

Smelling blood, politicians of every hue have jumped into fray, adding to the turbulence. Priyanka Gandhi Vadra tweeted, “Whether it is a bikini, a ghoonghat, a pair of jeans or a hijab, it is a woman’s right to decide what she wants to wear.”

What Gandhi Vadra has said is true, but it’s not the complete truth. No right is absolute. Rights are always subject to social norms, vocational and institutional restrictions. Women do have the right to wear a bikini, but it would be unacceptable in a market, workplace or in an educational institution.

What is at stake? Is the Karnataka government guilty of violating the fundamental freedom of students to choose their dress? Is the state denying girl students their right to education by backing the ban on wearing the hijab to college? Is this a ploy by the “wily” BJP to target Muslims and usher in a “Hindu Raj”? The issue is now before a full bench of the Karnataka High Court, which has restrained the students from wearing any kind of religious attire on educational institutions’ premises for the time being.

Interestingly what Karnataka is doing now, its immediate neighbour, Kerala, has already done. Why the cowering silence on the issue then, and such a noisy ruckus now? The glaring difference in response on the part of Left-liberal pack underlines real reasons for the present impasse.

Recently, Riza Nahan, a Class VIII student of GHSS, Kuttiyadi, Kerala, contended that the existing SPC (State Police Cadets) dress code is not in accordance with Islamic religious beliefs. She wanted permission to wear cadet uniforms in accordance with her community’s customs. She also argued that it is a religious obligation to wear the hijab and full sleeve dress, and it is her fundamental right, provided as per article 25 (1) of the Constitution.

The SPC is a volunteer force operated by the state government for school children. While rejecting Nahan’s plea, it said that it aims to create a society where the nation is above all differences to become a constructive platform between police and students and act as a feeder organisation for Kerala Police. It said, “As such, it was decided to have a similar training programme and uniform of the police for the SPC project. In Kerala Police, all police personnel are wearing the same uniform and no religious symbols are permitted in the uniform. The same system is being followed for SPC also.”

What colleges in Karnataka are being hauled over the coals for, many enlightened Muslim educational institutions too have done. Kerala’s Muslim Educational Society (MES), which controls 150 educational institutions, has banned “any dress that covers the face” for girls on all the campuses it runs. An official circular says “The MES will not encourage any type of veil on its campus. Managers of each MES institution will have to ensure that girl students do not come to the campus with their faces covered.”

Can one accuse the Kerala government or the MES of following the Hindutva agenda? Dozens of countries, from China to liberal democracies such as Switzerland, France and Belgium too have banned the hijab in public places in the last few years. Nearer home, the hijab is compulsory in Afghanistan and Iran, optional in Pakistan and banned in Sri Lanka and Myanmar.

Any suggestion that banning the hijab is an effort to target the Muslim community smacks of chicanery. According to Hindu traditions, marriage is sacrosanct, irrevocable and lasts several lives. But the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 (and three other acts) changed this. Divorces between incompatible partners became possible. Ancient scriptural wisdom had to acquiesce to human dignity and changing values.

The tradition of sati was buried deep for the same reason. The ghoonghat, prevalent among Hindu women, is now rarely practiced.

Untouchability is a crime, irrespective of what Manu had said. Were these reforms targeting Hindus?

The argument goes, what’s the harm in allowing the hijab in classrooms? But then can one say no to skull caps, dhotis, Ram naami chaddars…. the list is endless. Already, the hijab controversy has had a ripple effect. The headmistress of a government school in Karnataka’s Kolar district was suspended for allowing namaz in classrooms.

Why the sudden insistence on the hijab? It’s part of pan-Islamic the phenomenon of demonstrating and establishing an Islamic identity that transcends geographical and political boundaries, overriding all other identities and concerns.

Is the hijab central to Islam? Recently, in a TV debate, Pervez Hoodbhoy, a renowned nuclear physicist of Pakistan, said about a university of his country, “Forty-seven years ago you’d be hard-pressed to see even one woman wearing a burqa there, but now the hijab and burqas are commonplace.” Don’t forget, Pakistan is a declared Islamic Republic, and there was hardly any hijab there.