On the day, Ex-Muslims International, a coalition of ex-Muslim groups and activists, is calling on women to remove their hijab and for men to wear it as a humorous way of highlighting a serious violation of women’s rights.

Of course, adults who want to wear the hijab should be able to. (Child veiling is a different matter and nothing less than child abuse.) But it’s important to recognise that on a mass and global scale, innumerable women and girls are coerced into wearing it in order to comply with Islam’s modesty rules. Acquiescence to coercion or religious directives is not the same as choice. Until women are allowed to refuse or remove it, there is no real choice involved. Choice must be preceded at the very least by legal, social, and sexual equality for it to have any real meaning.

Algerian sociologist Marieme Helie Lucas says that the use of the word ‘choice’ regarding the wearing of the hijab is reminiscent of an old debate on

workers’ ‘freedom to work’ at the time of Britain’s industrialisation, i.e. a time when in order to not actually starve and die, workers’ only ‘free choice’ was to work 14 hours a day in hellish circumstances that also killed many of them, including women and children under the age of 10.

Islamists and the religious right always gift-wrap their rules as ‘choices’ and ‘rights’ to manufacture consent and legitimacy when they are not in power. When they are, their imperatives on women are always backed by threats of hell, shunning, violence, morality police, and even imprisonment and murder. The killing of Jina Mahsa Amini in Iran, which sparked the Woman, Life, Freedom revolution in 2022, is a clear example of the level of violence used by the religious right—and also the contestation of and resistance to it that exists there and everywhere.

To defend the hijab, apologists and Islamists even use the slogan ‘My Body, My Choice’, which came out of the feminist movement in the 1960s during the fight for abortion rights. A more accurate slogan would be ‘Woman’s Body, Man’s Choice’.

The call for men to don the hijab on No Hijab Day is to show that modesty is always the remit of women. How many times have we seen a woman in full burqa walking behind a man dressed in shorts and a T-shirt? This is because men will apparently not cause fitnah, or chaos, in society if they show their hair. Rivers will not run dry. Earthquakes will not follow from seeing men’s bare heads. And men certainly don’t fill hell; immodest and ungrateful women do. Hence why there is never a men’s modest clothing line sold at M&S and Dolce & Gabbana.

Modesty culture sexualises girls from a young age and puts the onus on them to protect themselves. In her 2005 book Bas les voiles! (Veils Off!), Chahdortt Djavann argues that the psychological damage done to girls from a very young age by making them responsible for men’s arousal is immense and builds fear and feelings of disgust for the female body. It also removes male accountability for violence, positioning men as predators unable to control their urges if faced with an unveiled or ‘improperly’ veiled girl or woman. It feeds into rape culture. Women are to be either protected or raped depending on how well they guard their modesty and the honour of their male guardians. Many an Islamist has absurdly argued that modesty is an important deterrent for society’s well-being: if unveiled women mix freely with men, women will lead men astray and will need to be stoned to death for adultery, so better to prevent such an outcome from the get-go by imposing modesty rules on women!

It is important to note that the hijab is the most visible symbol of a broader, all-encompassing system of sex apartheid that uses systematic violence and terror to oppress, persecute, and kill women in order to deny them equality and autonomy and exclude them in every field, including education, employment, health, the law, and the family and from public and political life. It means, for example, that a woman’s testimony is worth half that of a man’s, that she cannot travel or work or study without her male guardian, that she must use a separate entrance to access government buildings, that she must sit at the back of the bus… In Afghanistan, this system is so heinous that the International Criminal Court Prosecutor has announced this month that he will seek arrest warrants against Taliban leaders over the persecution of women and girls.

Diane Nash, a leader of the 1960s US Civil Rights Movement, once said:

Segregation was humiliating. Just the reality of signs that said you couldn’t use front doors or you couldn’t use this water fountain implied that you were subhuman… Every time I complied with a sign, I felt like I was acquiescing to my own inhumanity. I felt outraged and hated it.

Similarly, sex apartheid is humiliating and deems half the population subhuman. This is why a global campaign is calling for sex apartheid (also known as gender apartheid) to be considered a crime against humanity like racial apartheid.

Despite the cost to the lives of women and girls, criticism of the hijab is often labelled ‘Islamophobic’. But as Egyptian feminist Aliaa Magda El Mahdy has put it, ‘Hijab is sexism, not anti-racism’.

In a recent submission to the Women and Equalities Committee’s session around ‘Gendered Islamophobia’, Southall Black Sisters, One Law for All, and Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain stated:

The term Islamophobia…carries a problematic history. Anti-racists may use the term to refer to attacks on Muslims but the term Islamophobia has the effect of moving these experiences from an analysis of structural, systemic, and institutionalised racism to an irrational individualised fear or ‘phobia’ of Islam. It erases the connections with other forms of racism, which are often manifestations of exactly the same axis of power, violence, ideology and policies [thus shutting down much-needed conversations about women’s rights].

No Hijab Day’s theme this year is #HijabSilences (as a subversion of World Hijab Day’s theme #HijabisUnsilence), which speaks directly to the hijab’s role in erasing and silencing women and girls.

As the Ex-Muslims International statement says:

A symbol that has been used to shame, control, and suppress women cannot be used to combat intolerance and racism. A sexist tool to control and erase women is antithetical to women’s empowerment and visibility. Whilst anti-Muslim bigotry and xenophobia are undeniable, racism cannot be combatted with sexism and the hijab, rooted in modesty culture and oppression.

No Hijab Day stands in solidarity with women who resist… [and] calls for global recognition of the struggle against sex apartheid and the hijab and a commitment to supporting the fight for women’s freedom, equality, and rights.

How to take part in No Hijab Day

We are calling on women of all beliefs and backgrounds to take off their hijabs and put them on a man on 1 February. Men should also feel free to don a hijab in solidarity.

Use this opportunity to spark meaningful conversations about purity culture in Islam, challenge sex apartheid, and show your solidarity with ex-Muslim, Iranian, Afghan, and other women around the world who refuse to wear the hijab.

Share your thoughts, experiences, and support using #NoHijabDay and #HijabSilences.

Let your voice inspire real change for women’s rights.

Maryam Namazie is an Iranian-born campaigner, writer and Spokesperson of the Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain and One Law for All. Author photograph: Emma Park.

Courtesy: The Freethinkers

The post Ex-Muslims observe ‘No Hijab Day’ appeared first on SabrangIndia.

While issuing the order of the partial stay, the bench slammed the authorities of the private college established in the year 2008, by stating that women must have freedom of choice in what they are wearing and college cannot force them. Coming to the argument of empowering women by banning hijab, naqab, and burqa, the bench had commented “How are you empowering women by telling them what to wear?”

The bench had also remarked why the college did not ban ’tilak’ and ‘bindi’ if it intended the religious faiths of the students to not be revealed. It had further asked if the religion and religious identity of the student would not be revealed by their name.

It is to be noted that pursuant to the interim order of the Supreme Court, Chembur’s Acharya Marathe College has complied with the orders by temporarily removing the ban on hijabs while continued to prohibit the niqab and burqa, the face covering and full-body veil respectively, in keeping with the said decision.

Background of the case:

The petitioners in the present case, pursuing their second and third-year undergraduate courses, had moved the Bombay High Court first by challenging the dress code on the ground that restriction on hijab, nakab, burqa, stole, caps etc. in the campus violates their fundamental rights. Under the impugned dress code, the dress of the students is expected to be formal and decent and should not reveal the religion of any student.

The students contend that the dress code is arbitrary and discriminatory, infringing upon their right to choose their attire, right to privacy, right to expression under Article 19(1)(a) and right to freedom of religion under Article 25 of the Constitution.

They argue that the college’s actions are discriminatory and violate the principles of equity and inclusiveness mandated by the Maharashtra Public Universities Act, UGC guidelines, RUSA guidelines, and the National Education Policy (NEP). According to the petition, the college’s actions intend to exclude the petitioners from pursuing higher education and discriminate against them compared to other students, akin to denying them admission.

It is essential to note on June 26, 2024, the division bench of Justice AS Chandurkar and Justice Rajesh S Patil had delivered a judgment on the said case by observing that the dress code prohibiting students from wearing hijab, nakab, burqa, stole and cap on the campus is in the student’s larger academic interest. The court had referred to the case of Miss Fathema Hussain, a minor v. Bharat Education society and Ors., where in the Bombay High Court in 2003 held that, merely asking the students to maintain the dress code by not wearing a hijab does not violate the students’ fundamental right of freedom of conscience and free profession. In the said judgment, the court had even gone on to say that regulation of a dress code is an exercise towards maintaining discipline at the Institution, and this right flows from Article 19(1) (g) and Article 26 of the Constitution of India. (A detailed analysis of the case, the arguments presented and the judgment of the HC can be read here, here and here respectively.)\

It is crucial to be highlighted here that while the Bombay High Court had cited previous rulings where dress codes were upheld. However, these cases involved schools and uniforms. A dress code is different from a uniform. In this case, what the court has failed to take note of is that, the dress code is disproportionately affecting only female Muslim students of the college.

Details of the hearings:

During the hearing, the bench comprising Justices Khanna and Kumar scrutinized a college’s notification that prohibited students from wearing hijabs, caps, or badges on campus. Expressing astonishment at the rule, Justice Khanna questioned its intent, stating, “Why enforce such a regulation that hides one’s religion?”

As per LiveLaw, Justice Kumar further critiqued, “Names themselves can indicate religious identity. Will students now be assigned numbers to avoid this?”

Senior Advocate Madhavi Divan, representing Acharya Marathe College, faced the bench’s scepticism. Justice Kumar lamented, “It’s disheartening that after decades of independence, such directives emerge… suddenly emphasising religion.”

Justice Khanna probed further, asking if traditional marks like a “tilak” would also be banned. Divan responded to the same by stating that out of 441 Muslim female students, only a few objected with most attending without issues. To this, Justice Khanna emphasised the importance of unity in education, remarking, “They must study together.”

As per a report in the LiveLaw, when it was brought to the notice of the Court that the three petitioning students had transferred to another institution and that hijabs weren’t traditionally worn in the college, Justice Khanna expressed regret, “That’s unfortunate… How does dictating attire empower women?” Justice Kumar echoed this sentiment, querying, “Shouldn’t the choice of clothing rest with the individual girl?”

Justice Khanna also underscored the societal pressures students might face, suggesting, “Authorities should recognize that family expectations might compel students to wear certain attire.” He then added, “Don’t force them out of the college. We’ll suspend the circular… Quality education is the remedy to many such issues.”

While Divan argued against a broad suspension, citing that face-covering veils like niqabs or burqas hinder interaction, the bench concurred, allowing the college to maintain its restriction on face coverings in the form of niqabs and burqa in class.

Order of the Court:

The court issued a notice on the petition, set to be revisited in the week starting November 18, 2024. The order included a caveat ensuring the suspension of the clause 2 of the circular, which banned hijab, cap or badge is not exploited, and it permitted the college to request modifications should any misuse arise.

“In the meanwhile, we partly stay clause 2 of the impugned circular to the extent it directs that no Hijab, Cap or Badge will be worn. We hope and trust that the said interim order will not be misused by anybody. It will be open to the respondents to move an application for vacation of this order, in case of misuse.”

The complete order can be read here:

Related:

Quoting Tagore, the Madras High Court flags misuse of preventive detention laws to censor critical social media posts

Telangana High Court affirms right of Akbhari Shia Women to conduct religious activities in Hyderabad’s Ibadat Khana

Redefining Indian Tradition Minus Christianity & Islam is Intellectual Dishonesty

The post “How does dictating attire empower women?” Supreme Court partially stays Mumbai College’s Hijab Ban appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Observations of the court

The Bombay High Court observed that the dress code prohibiting students from wearing hijab, nakab, burka, stole and cap on the campus is in the student’s larger academic interest.

The court referred to the case of Miss Fathema Hussain, a minor v. Bharat Education society and Ors., where in the Bombay High Court in 2003 held that, merely asking the students to maintain the dress code by not wearing a hijab does not violate the students’ fundamental right of freedom of conscience and free profession.

“Reference can be made to the judgment of the Coordinate Bench in Miss Fathema Hussain, a minor Vs. Bharat Education Society and Ors., AIR 2003 BOM 75, wherein a direction issued by the Principal of a High School to a girl student that she could not attend classes wearing head scarf was under challenge. On behalf of the student, it was urged that the direction issued by the Principal was violative of her fundamental right of freedom of conscience and professing, propagating and practicing Islam religion. Considering such challenge, it was held that by merely asking the student to maintain the dress code prescribed by the school, it could not be said that the student’s fundamental right of freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion was violated. There was no breach of the provisions of Article 25 of the Constitution of India” the court said.

The court referred to the infamous Karnataka High Court judgment wherein, a government order banned hijabs in schools and colleges across Karnataka, in this case it was held that this is not violation of Article 25 of the constitution of India.

“In its detailed judgment, the Full Bench held that prescribing such dress code did not result in violation of any fundamental rights as claimed under Article 19(1)(a) and Article 25 of the Constitution of India. It was held that the dress code when prescribed for all students was intended to treat them as one homogeneous class so as to serve constitutional secularism. The object of prescribing a uniform code would be defeated if there was non uniformity in the matter of uniforms”

“We are in respectful agreement with the view expressed by the Full Bench that prescription of a dress code is intended to achieve uniformity amongst students in the school/college so as to maintain discipline and avoid disclosure of one’s religion” said the court.

The court then referred to the case of, Fatima Thanseem (Minor) and another vs. The State of Kerala and others, wherein the court held that an individual cannot seek imposition of his/her fundamental right as against the larger right of the educational institution.

“We may also note that a similar challenge to prescription of dress code by which head scarf and full sleeve shirt prescribed for girl students was the subject matter of challenge before the Kerala High Court in Fatima Thanseem (Minor) and another vs. The State of Kerala and others, (2019) 1 KLT 208. It was held that though there may be a fundamental right for a student to choose a dress of his/her own choice, there was also a fundamental right of establishing, managing and administering an educational institution. Between competing rights, an individual could not seek imposition of his/her fundamental right as against the larger right of the educational institution. On this premise, the challenge was turned down”

The court went on to say that regulation of a dress code is an exercise towards maintaining discipline at the Institution, and this right flows from Article 19(1)(g) and Article 26 of the Constitution of India.

The court then held that, prescription of the dress code by the college does not offend the provisions of Article 19(1)(a) and Article 25 of the Constitution of India.

“We do not find as to how the prescription of the dress code by the College offends the provisions of Article 19(1)(a) and Article 25 of the Constitution of India. The object behind prescribing the dress code is evident from the Instructions since they state that the intention is that a student’s religion ought not to be revealed. It is in larger academic interest of the students as well as for the administration and discipline of the College that this object is achieved. This is for the reason that students are expected to attend the educational institution to receive appropriate instructions for advancement of their academic careers” 

The court further held that the college’s dress code did not violate UGC (Promotion of Equity in Higher Educational Institutions) Regulations, 2012, and other educational policies aimed at promoting non-discriminatory environments.

The order of the court can be read here:

Conclusion

The Bombay High Court’s decision upholding the hijab ban in colleges is a miscarriage of justice. While the court argues that the dress code is in students’ best interests and promotes uniformity, it fails to consider the fundamental right to freedom of religion and expression.

The court cites previous rulings where dress codes were upheld. However, these cases involved schools and uniforms. A dress code is different from a uniform. In this case, what the court has failed to take note of is that, the dress code is disproportionately affecting only female Muslim students of the college.

Further, the court argues that the dress code promotes secularism. However, secularism does not require the erasure of religious identity.  Ultimately, the court’s decision forces women to choose between education and religious practice, this is a violation of their fundamental rights and a gross miscarriage of justice.

Related:

Nine Muslim students petition Bombay HC, college’s ban on hijab violates fundamental rights

Students challenge Hijab ban, college defends secular dress code – Bombay HC to rule on June 26^th

Hijab ban case: K’taka HC concludes hearing, reserves judgement

Right to Education under attack: Are the Courts misguided in treating the hijab ban case as simply a religious issue?

Hijab ban case: Hijab in line with freedom of expression, submits petitioner

The post Bombay High court upholds hijab ban in colleges: Muslim students’ rights curtailed appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Petitioners’ arguments

Advocate Altaf Khan, representing the students, argued that the ban was imposed without any legal authority, communicated merely through a WhatsApp message stating that decent and formal dress should be worn, explicitly prohibiting niqab, hijab, stole, and caps. He highlighted that the message allowed a relaxation on Thursdays, indicating inconsistency and lack of formal policy.

Khan emphasized that the students had been wearing the hijab and niqab without issue for the past two years, making the sudden imposition of the ban disruptive and arbitrary. He referenced the Karnataka High Court’s judgment on a similar issue, pointing out the differences; in Karnataka, a pre-existing uniform policy was reinforced, whereas, in this case, no such uniform policy existed and that the college just had a dress code, which was abruptly changed.

Khan contended that the instructions violated the students’ fundamental rights under Articles 19 and 21 of the Indian Constitution, which protect the right to personal choice and privacy. He argued that the college’s directive impeded access to education, particularly for marginalized communities such as SC, ST, OBC, and Muslims, contravening various educational guidelines aimed at increasing their access to higher education. A detailed analysis of the Karnataka hijab ban can be read at CJP.

College management’s defence

Senior Advocate Anil Anturkar, representing the college management, asserted that the WhatsApp group through which the message was disseminated was not officially created by the management but by teachers and students. He downplayed the policy’s formal status, suggesting it was not an official directive from the college authorities.

Anturkar argued that the college’s stance was not discriminatory and applied to all students to maintain a secular environment by avoiding the display of religious symbols unless they were essential to the practice of the religion. He asked the petitioners to provide judicial precedents affirming the hijab as an essential practice of Islam.

Anturkar further stated that the priority should be on education rather than religious attire, asserting that the college had provided changing rooms to accommodate the students’ needs while maintaining a non-religious environment on campus. He cautioned the court against entertaining the petition, suggesting it could set a problematic precedent.

Another advocate for the university highlighted that unlike the Karnataka case, where a government order was challenged, the petition did not sufficiently demonstrate how the college acted as an instrument of the state, thus questioning the legitimacy of the writ petition.

Conclusion

The court has reserved the plea for an order, which is scheduled to be pronounced on June 26, 2024. The decision will have significant implications for the balance between institutional policies and individual rights to religious expression in educational settings.

Related:

Nine Muslim students petition Bombay HC, college’s ban on hijab violates fundamental rights

Does the State have the right to disrupt Muslim woman’s right to education?

Educational inequities worsen for Muslim students in India

Parents and students protest in Gujarat after girls asked to remove hijab before board exam

Karnataka: Muslim girl asked to not wear hijab to school, after students protested wearing saffron shawls

Removing Hijab ban is a step forward, for gender justice & pluralism

The post Students challenge Hijab ban, college defends secular dress code – Bombay HC to rule on June 26th appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The petition, filed through advocate Altaf Khan, is set to be heard by a division bench. According to the petitioners, all female students, they have been wearing the niqab and hijab for several years, both inside and outside the college. The college recently issued an undated notice titled “Instruction for Student” on its website and through a WhatsApp message, mandating a dress code that explicitly forbids the wearing of burkha, niqab, hijab, caps, badges, and stoles. The petitioners argue that these instructions are illegal, arbitrary, and unreasonable. They contend that such directives are not supported by any statutory authority and infringe upon their rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19, 21, 25, 26, and 29 of the Constitution of India.

The students’ petition also highlights that the college, being affiliated with the University of Mumbai and receiving state aid, lacks the authority to impose such restrictions on attire. They argue that the college’s actions are discriminatory and violate the principles of equity and inclusiveness mandated by the Maharashtra Public Universities Act, UGC guidelines, RUSA guidelines, and the National Education Policy (NEP). According to the petition, the college’s actions intend to exclude the petitioners from pursuing higher education and discriminate against them compared to other students, akin to denying them admission.

The petitioners also reference Quranic verses and Hadith, asserting that wearing the niqab or hijab is an essential religious practice and a symbolic expression of their faith. They state that the restrictions do not align with the National Policy on Higher Education and the Rashtriya Uchchatar Shikshan Abhiyan (RUSA), which aim to promote access and equity in higher education for disadvantaged groups, including women and minorities. The petition argues that the dress restrictions breach the college’s own Policy on Code of Ethics, which promotes equality and respect for all students. “Petitioners ought not have subjected to have excessive moral policing and insistence of dress code,” the petition adds.

The petitioners claim that the imposed dress code violates their rights to privacy, freedom of expression, and religious practice. They assert that the niqab and hijab are integral to their religious beliefs and personal identity, and the college’s actions amount to an infringement on their bodily autonomy and personal choice. The petition further states that the college’s direction for “formal and decent dress” indirectly categorizes hijab and burkha as indecent.

The petition states that on May 13, 2024, the petitioners attempted to discuss their concerns with the college management and the principal, seeking the withdrawal of the dress code restrictions, but their efforts were unsuccessful. They have approached various authorities, including the Chancellor, Vice-Chancellor of the University of Mumbai, University Grants Commission (UGC), Ministry of Higher and Technical Education, and the Ministry of Education, requesting intervention and withdrawal of the dress code, but have received no response.

With the academic year set to commence on June 12, 2024, the petitioners argue that the case is urgent as the dress code will prevent them from attending classes and pursuing their studies, thereby necessitating immediate judicial intervention. They are seeking the quashing of the undated notice and the WhatsApp message dated May 1, 2024, imposing the dress code and a declaration that the restrictions on wearing a niqab, burka, and hijab are unconstitutional and not binding on them. The petitioners have also sought an interim stay on the notice till the pendency of the petition.

The background

The issue of the “hijab ban” remains a pressing concern, as the struggle for Muslim women continues to intensify with different states now imposing similar restrictions. The controversy began in Karnataka, setting a worrying precedent that is spreading across the country.

The controversy over wearing hijab in educational institutions in India came to the fore in January 2022, when some Muslim women students at a government pre-university college in Udupi, Karnataka, were barred from wearing the hijab on campus. The college administration cited Karnataka government guidelines to ensure uniformity among students.

Six students who protested this policy were suspended on January 2nd. Subsequently, on January 26th, 2022, the Karnataka government set up an expert committee to find a solution to the issue. On January 31st, one of the students filed a petition at the Karnataka High Court challenging the ban.

On February 5th, the Karnataka government issued an order under the Karnataka Education Act, 1983, prescribing a uniform for all students in state-run educational institutions, effectively banning the hijab inside classrooms.

This order was challenged at the Karnataka High Court on February 7th, prompting Chief Minister Basavaraj Bommai to order the closure of all schools and colleges for three days while the court heard the matter.

On February 10th, the Karnataka High Court delivered an interim order allowing the schools and colleges to reopen but permitting the hijab ban to continue while the case was still being heard. The hearings were completed on February 25th, and the order was reserved.

On March 15th, the three-judge bench of the Karnataka High Court upheld the hijab ban in state educational institutions. The court held that wearing the hijab was not an ‘essential religious practice’ and therefore did not receive constitutional protection.

Furthermore, the court ruled that the ban did not violate the students’ right to freedom of speech and expression, as it was a reasonable restriction to maintain discipline in public spaces. On the same day, the All-India Muslim Personal Law Board filed an appeal against the Karnataka High Court decision at the Supreme Court.

Despite the immediate filing of the appeal, the Supreme Court did not hear the case for over five months, until August 29th, 2022. During this period, lawyers representing the petitioners repeatedly approached former Chief Justice Ramana’s bench, requesting that the case be heard urgently, given the impending board exams in Karnataka. However, the case was finally listed before a bench comprising Justices H. Gupta and S. Dhulia on August 29, after multiple requests.

Substantial arguments in the case began on September 5, 2022 and concluded on September 21. The hearings covered a wide range of issues, including the right to equality and non-discrimination, liberty and dignity, education, and religion. The bench also discussed whether the case should be referred to a five-judge constitutional bench to decide the scope of the ‘Essential Religious Practices’ (ERP) test, though all parties and the judges agreed that the ERP test did not significantly impact this case.

On October 13, 2022, the bench delivered a split verdict. Justice Hemant Gupta upheld the ban, stating that it applied equally to students of all religious communities and that the restrictions were reasonable to maintain discipline and unity in secular schools. Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, however, found the ban unconstitutional, emphasizing the detrimental impact on girl children’s access to education and arguing that the ban imposed an additional burden on them. He stressed that the belief in wearing the hijab was sincere and should be reasonably accommodated.

Conclusion

This case isn’t merely about a headscarf; it’s a potent symbol that transcends individual expression and touches upon the very core of India’s identity as a secular nation. A delay in justice here translates to the continued marginalization of Muslim women, potentially jeopardizing their educational opportunities and fostering a climate of alienation.The Supreme Court’s intervention is paramount at this critical juncture. The Karnataka High Court’s split decision and the ongoing legal battles in Mumbai highlight the need for a definitive judgment on the hijab issue.

A judgment that upholds the right of Muslim women to wear the hijab in educational institutions would be a resounding victory for religious freedom and inclusivity. It would resonate far beyond the courtroom walls, sending a clear message that India’s secularism is not just a lofty principle enshrined in the Constitution, but a vibrant tapestry woven from the threads of tolerance and respect for diverse faiths. This verdict has the potential to become a beacon of hope, not just for Muslim women seeking an education, but for all those who cherish the ideals of a pluralistic society.

Related:

Mumbai college bans hijab, demands students wear ‘decent’ clothes

Karnataka: Muslim girl asked to not wear hijab to school, after students protested wearing saffron shawls

Hate Buster: Hijab didn’t hold back Ilham from academic excellence

Discrimination in Rajasthan Schools: Muslim students targeted, labelled ‘chambal ke daaku’ for wearing hijab

Educational inequities worsen for Muslim students in India

The post Nine Muslim students petition Bombay HC, college’s ban on hijab violates fundamental rights appeared first on SabrangIndia.

This follows last year’s implementation of a uniform policy for junior college students by the college, which also prohibited burqas and hijabs on campus in August 2023. The dress code now introduced by the college is said to be implemented from the new academic year. It also instructs students that if they are wearing any of the prohibited items, then they will be given a common room in the college on the ground floor to remove them. 

A student was seen telling the media that Muslims were specifically told on a WhatsApp group that from now onwards hijab, burqa, and even kurta-pyjama (for men) would not be allowed in the college. The student also told the media that no official notice has been given as of yet. 

#Mumbai: Students of the Acharya Marathe College Chembur #HijabBan pic.twitter.com/FnXdIebpER

— Saba Khan (@ItsKhan_Saba) May 16, 2024

As per a report, over thirty students have submitted a letter to the college, urging it to reconsider the dress code. They also approached national and state human rights commissions to challenge the policy as they say the order violates their right to choose as well as the right to religion guaranteed by the constitution. 

As per a report in the Hindustan Times, when a resident activist spoke to the college administration informing them that the ban on the burqa will deter Muslim women students from attending college, the college responded that the burqa is a ‘barrier’ to education. 

In response to the outrage, the college has staunchly defended the dress code by stating that it aims to increase campus placements and promote ‘etiquette’ among students by encouraging them to dress in ‘decent’ outfits. The newspaper contacted the college’s principal who responded that she cannot comment right now. 

Subodh Acharya who is general secretary of the college’s governing council and a Shiv Sena leader told Free Press Journal, that it was a question of the students’ ‘future’, “We want to increase college placements. If the students go to seek jobs in burqa, will they be considered? Students should be imbibed with values and etiquette – how to live and behave in society,”

In August, 2023, a similar ban was issued by the junior college at the same institute. Young Muslim students who sought to come to study and observe their religion by wearing the burqa or hijab were banned from entering the college premises. The college administration had also promised disciplinary action against them. 

In 2022, after a government order, the Karnataka government, led by the BJP, had banned the hijabs in government colleges across the state. The ban came after hijab wearing students were denied entry into classes at a pre-university college in Udupi in December 2021. After this incident, demands to ban hijab were made by students from the ABVP. This had led to over 1000 Muslim women students being forced to drop out from the college, according to a ground report. To this day, despite the change in government, the ban still remains. Furthermore, the newly elected Rajasthan government led by the BJP has also seemed to be toying with the idea of hijab ban. Recently, hijab wearing students were called “chambal ke daaku” by their teachers and were prevented from entering the school premises in the state after a video of the students went viral. 

Related

Spewing hate, slurring Muslims: an unchecked decade-long diatribe by Bharatiya Janata Party?

Rajasthan: Muslim students barred from school, called ‘Chambal ke Daaku’ for wearing hijab

Karnataka: Muslim girl asked to not wear hijab to school, after students protested wearing saffron shawls

Removing Hijab ban is a step forward, for gender justice & pluralism

Muslim student denied to sit for UGC-NET due to hijab

The post Mumbai college bans hijab, demands students wear ‘decent’ clothes appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Following a review of CCTV footage and a meeting with concerned parents, District Education Officer Swati Raol took the action to suspend Ilaben Suratiya Suratiya from her role as the exam centre administrator. Raol has stated, “I have seen the CCTV footage and the parents also gave their application to me in this regard. I have ordered an inquiry into the incident and also started the process to change the exam centre administrator because I found merit in the complaint.”

Parents have stated that their daughters were very distressed after they were pressured by school staff to remove their hijabs prior to the exam. One parent reported that his daughter cried for hours after the incident, according to ABP Live.

The Indian Express reported that one of the parents of a student attending a Gujarati medium school has filed a formal complaint with the Ankleshwar police station. The parent also told the newspaper how the incident impaired his daughter’s ability to take the exam well, “The school lowered the morale of the students even before the exam began. It was not just one child but around 15 girls were treated similarly… They belonged to different schools. They disturbed the students and also harassed them. Some cried at the spot and were not able to write their exams well.”

As per a video clip posted by Hate Detectors on X, a parent of a student has claimed his daughter, and other students affected, could not write the exam properly. His daughter even told him she was being stared at during the exam as if she was a ‘thief.’

In #Gujarat‘s #Bharuch, around 20 Hijab-wearing students were forced to remove their #Hijab for appearing in the exam of class 10th at #Ankleshwar.

“My daughter came home crying,” said a father while talking to the media. pic.twitter.com/BtPCqBl6NX

— Hate Detector (@HateDetectors) March 15, 2024

Deputy Director of Gujarat Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Board, M K Raval has stated that there is no uniform for the board exams and students can wear the clothes they prefer, “Since there is no uniform applicable in Board exams, there are no specific instructions about what the students should wear while appearing for the exam. It is not a standing instruction that the face of the students has to be visible in the cameras. As far as verification is concerned, any female staff of the examination centre can verify the identity of the student with the receipt and be allowed to write the exam in whatever outfit she desires.”

A similar incident took place recently at a private college in Karnataka’s Hassan district, where Muslim women students were instructed to take their hijab off after a group of students recently organised a gathering in opposition to the wearing of hijab on campus. Reports indicate that the protestors wore saffron shawls as they protested against the girl’s decision to wear the headscarf. Following this incident, college authorities had called for a meeting with the Muslim students the girls had agreed to refrain from wearing the hijab in the future. Similarly, in January 2024, a school located in Rajasthan’s Jodhpur saw Muslim girl students wearing the hijab reportedly labelled as ‘chambal ke daaku’ and denied entry in their school by the teachers. As per reports, the BJP-led Rajasthan government has also been mulling a ban on hijab in educational institutes.

Related:

Karnataka: Muslim girl asked to not wear hijab to school, after students protested wearing saffron shawls

Rajasthan: Muslim students barred from school, called ‘Chambal ke Daaku’ for wearing hijab

Class 3 student threatens to kill Muslim classmate in Gujarat

Cop caught kicking and slapping Muslims during Friday prayer

The post Parents and students protest in Gujarat after girls asked to remove hijab before board exam appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Range Gowda, the Principal of Vidya Soudha College, revealed that the incident took place on March 6 after which the college authorities soon convened a meeting with the Muslim students and their parents. As per the report, the girls agreed not to wear the hijab again.

Gowda also stated that students who participated in the protest by wearing saffron shawls have been instructed to stop their demonstrations. As per a report by India Today, the Block Education Officer was unaware of the issue, and the Hassan Superintendent of Police is actively collecting information from the Education department.

In February 2022, the Basavaraj Bommai led BJP government in Karnataka had released a government order banning the hijab in government educational institutes. The move had seen widespread protests by Muslim students, who argued for their right to religion and education. As per report, the ban of hijab in classrooms led to over a 1000 Muslim girls dropping out of school during the incident. The government order had been challenged in the court with a petition. However, in March 2022, the Karnataka High Court ruled that the hijab is not an essential religious practice in Islam and thereby the ban was not impinging on the right to freedom of religion. The order was challenged by filing it further in the Supreme Court which finally delivered a split verdict on the issue and recommended it to be referred to a larger bench.

In December 2023, Congress’ Siddaramaiah had reportedly proposed after their electoral victory that they would be reversing the previous government ban on hijab in educational institutes, however, as of now, no such order has arrived. As per The Hindu, BJP’s R. Ashok said that the Congress government was making way for ‘religious identity politics in the classroom’. Similarly, a report by The Hindu has suggested that the chief minister has been made aware by the leaders at the Centre to not make decisions that may be ‘sensitive issues’ before the 2024 upcoming Lok Sabha elections and also as the case remains pending in the Supreme Court.

In recent news, the new BJP government in Rajasthan has also been dropping hints about bringing forth a ban on the hijab in government institutions. In January 2024, students in a school in Jodhpur were also reportedly called ‘chambal ke daaku’ after teachers turned away Muslim girl students who wore the hijab from entering the school. The students have claimed that they were harassed and have been threatened and that their marks would be deducted.

In a similar vein, BJP Agriculture minister Kirori Lal Meena had stated that the hijab is a ‘symbol of subjugation introduced by the Mughals.’ Meena also reportedly told the media that he will be discussing a ban on hijab with Chief Minister Bhajan Lal Sharma. The call for a hijab ban in schools was also supported by the Vishwa Hindu Parishad. Similarly, there were also reports that a committee was formed for drafting regulations to formulate a hijab ban in government schools in the state and has been seeking reports from other state on the topic.

Related:

Right to Education under attack: Are the Courts misguided in treating the hijab ban case as simply a religious issue?

It is a matter of choice, nothing more nothing less: Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia in Hijab Ban case

Needs and rights of Muslim girls ignored by administration: PUCL’s interim report on Hijab Ban in Karnataka

BREAKING: Wearing of Hijab not essential religious practice: Karnataka HC

Rajasthan: Muslim teachers suspended for ‘love-jihad’, as students allege they were made to falsely testify

Rajasthan: Muslim students barred from school, called ‘Chambal ke Daaku’ for wearing hijab

The post Karnataka: Muslim girl asked to not wear hijab to school, after students protested wearing saffron shawls appeared first on SabrangIndia.

According to a report by Maktoob Media, Muslims students went and made a complaint at the police station after the incident stating that the MLA was spoiling the school atmosphere and that he must apologise for his statements. Following this incident, it was also reported by Maktoob Media, that scores of Muslim girl students from the Government Senior Secondary Girls School, Gangapol protested against the Acharya’s statements.

Similarly, reports have arrived of a committee drafting a detailed report on implementing a hijab ban in Rajasthan. The state’s education minister Madan Dilawar has unveiled plans to rigorously enforce a dress code for all students in government schools throughout the state.

A student stated, according to a report by The Wire, “What does he have to do to what we wear? We are coming here to study and we will study. We will not stop our protest till the Baba doesn’t apologise. He always targets Muslims, sometimes over meat, shops run by Muslims, now over hijab. Today he wants to end hijab in school, tomorrow he may stop us from wearing hijab in school. Muslim students at the school are being targeted. Wearing hijab is our right,” one of the protesting students told reporters on Monday.

Meanwhile, according to the report, Acharya is previously dealing with a case against him where he is accused of spitting on and assaulting a member from the Scheduled Caste community in Rajasthan.

Meanwhile, BJP minister Kirori Lal Meena tuned in by saying that the “hijab is a symbol of slavery brought in by the Mughals, and that he will talk to CM Bhajan Lal Sharma regarding the implementation of a ban on hijab. The demand for a dress code in schools been supported from the Vishwa Hindu Parishad, who has talked about the need for “discipline and equality” among students.  Interestingly, in the midst of the din about hijab, The Mooknayak has reported about a girl named Tanjim Merani has launched a hunger strike in CM Bhajan Lal Sharma’s constituency against the wearing of hijab in educational settings. Her strike has so far received a 5 -day permission to be conducted at VT Ground.

However, hijab ban in India seems to be an attempt at stigmatising religious practices of Muslims. Muslim women have been prevented from accessing educational opportunities due to discrimination based on the wearing of hijab. Similarly, the hijab ban in government institutions was implemented in Karnataka by the then BJP government in the state. The ban saw widespread protests by Muslim students who argued that it was their fundamental right. The matter was taken to the Supreme Court who delivered a split verdict and referred to a larger bench for the matter. According to a survey by PUCL, the hijab ban led to over a 1000 Muslim women dropping out of educational institutes. The hijab ban has been unanimously protested in India. However, in countries such as Iran where it has been imposed as compulsory, women have opposed it stringently and the country has seen wide scale protests and disruptions by feminists and allies over the past few years.

Related:

UP court awards land with Muslim shrine and graveyard to petitioners claiming it to be a Mahabharata site

Muslim student denied to sit for UGC-NET due to hijab

1000s or hundreds of thousands, the Karnataka govt’s ill-motivated ‘Hijab ban’ has pushed Muslim girls out of school

Removing Hijab ban is a step forward, for gender justice & pluralism

The post Rajasthan to implement hijab ban? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Giving assurance to the people, Siddaramaiah said that they were free to “eat” and “wear” as they wanted. As he put it, “How you dress and what you eat is your choice. Why should I obstruct you? Wear what you want. Eat what you want. I will eat what I want, you eat what you want. I wear dhoti, you wear pants shirt. What’s wrong with that?”

The decision of the Karnataka Government not only strengthens social harmony in India but also promotes the ideals of gender justice, cultural diversity and pluralism, one of the key pillars of the Indian Constitution. The decision to withdraw the ban on Hijab will empower women and encourage them to pursue their education. 

A day after his Mysore speech, the Chief Minister made it clear that so far no order to remove the Hijab ban had been issued. According to a report in The Indian Express (December 23), Siddaramaiah said that “We have still not issued any order regarding this. A question on hijab was asked for which I said we are considering lifting the ban on wearing hijab (in schools and colleges). We will discuss at the government level and then take a decision”.

Fearing a counter-mobilisation from the BJP, the Congress Government in Karnataka is looking into the matter before taking a final call. After the CM’s statement, School Education Minister Madhu Bangarappa issued another statement clarifying that the Government was looking into all legal aspects before taking the final decision.

Before taking a final call on the decision, the Chief Minister Siddaramaiah is trying to mobilize more support on the issue, both within the party and within the party and outside. He has been advised that the Hijab issue has been made a “controversial” issue by the BJP and the RSS and he should not give the saffron party an issue ahead of the 2024 General Elections.  However, political commentators have opined that the Chief Minister Siddaramaiah is personally keen to lift the Hijab ban.

Chief Minister Siddaramaiah, who comes from a historically oppressed caste and whose association with the movements of social justice, goes back years, has set an example for other leaders of the secular parties to follow. His clear message to the secular camp is that the soft-Hindutva strategy and turning back on the marginalised communities including the Indian Muslims, is self-defeating. 

In the light of the Congress defeat in Madhya Pradesh, Siddaramaiah’s act assumes much bigger importance. For example, Kamal Nath, former chief minister and the face of the Congress party within Madhya Pradesh wasted a lot of crucial time by visiting Babas and fell at their feet to seek blessings ahead of the assembly elections. He even publicly made a statement that credit goes to the Congress party for opening the gates of the controversial Ram Temple at Ayodhya. 

Even the “blessings of Hindutva-funded Babas” and Kamal Nath’s compromise with secular politics could not prevent the Congress from facing a humiliating defeat in the state. Leaders like Kamal Nath should learn from Siddaramaiah that politics-based secularism and social justice is the only way that the BJP and the RSS can be defeated. 

Siddaramaiah was quite aware of the game plan of the saffron government that had banned the Hijab at the public educational institutes ahead of the state assembly elections to fight elections on an anti-Muslim agenda. The BJP chief minister B. Bommai was desperate to create a religious polarisation so that the public attention from his government’s failure and the alleged corruption could be diverted. The Hijab ban came months before the assembly elections. Godi media mischievously created an impression that the protests against the ban were led by “radicalised” Muslim students and organisations. Intellectuals and activists who spoke in favour of gender justice and cultural pluralism were demonised as “supporters” of obscurantism and patriarchy within the Muslim community. 

The same trope was also used during the BJP’s campaign around the triple talaq issue. While the BJP is fond of selectively invoking the Muslim women question and using it as part of its anti-Muslim agenda, it is both afraid and uninterested in improving the subordinate position of Hindu women within the family. Amid all these challenges, the Karnataka Government has taken a bold decision to stand with marginalised Muslim women.

This opposition to the Hijab ban by this author should not be used as a weapon against women who oppose wearing a Hijab. Simply put, my position is that we should uphold freedom and oppose coercion. For example, if Muslim women are happy to wear a Hijab, they must be respected. If they do not want it, they must be supported, too.

Our Constitution gives citizens the right to freedom. The state has no business in policing head gear, dress or food habits. A significant number of Muslim women wear Hijab when they step out of their homes. For some, wearing a Hijab outside their homes gives them confidence. Hijab does not pose any threat to security as argued by communal forces. Rather, it showcases our multicultural society. Such women are within their right to enter college, university, seminar rooms and Parliament, wearing a Hijab. Minus Islamophobia, then hijab will appear to us as normal as a saree, salwar, shirt, or pants. 

The harsh truth however also is that, in Muslim male-dominated society, the Hijab is often also imposed on women. This is a form of coercion that is not peculiar to Muslim society alone. Even Hindu males, in some ways, do impose a particular dress code on their women. That is why, we should uphold freedom and denounce coercion wherever they are practiced. Put simply, support wearing a Hijab when it is worn out of choice or preference and oppose the same Hijab when this is imposed by patriarchy. 

So the larger issue is not the Hijab per se but the principle of individual freedom, general justice and pluralism. Progressive sections, therefore, have defended Muslim women’s right to wear hijabs in Karnataka, at the same time they have also spoken in favour of Iranian women’s right to cut their hair. 

Contrary to this, the BJP and the RSS appropriate gender issues selectively to promote their divisive and regressive ideology. Hindutva forces are never tired of demonising the leaders of the minority community as “anti-women”, “anti-national” and “anti-secular”, while they are afraid to touch the gross social inequality within the Hindu social order based on caste and gender. For example, untouchability, caste-based discrimination, multiple crimes against Hindu women, exclusion of Hindu women from large share of property, asymmetrical wage-relations, dowry, discrimination against sexual minorities and martial rapes hardly figure in the agendas of the BJP and the RSS.    

 (Dr. Abhay Kumar is a Delhi-based journalist. He has taught political sciences at NCWEB Centres of Delhi University.)

The post Removing Hijab ban is a step forward, for gender justice & pluralism appeared first on SabrangIndia.