The incident took place on February 17 in Government High School Number 2 at Jodhpur’s Peepar. In a video released by Maktoob Media, students from the school can be seen stating that they have even been threatened by the school teachers and have faced severe conditions saying that they are “threatened and tortured every day”. ‘They threaten us that they will not give us marks.’ Students asserted their class teacher, a teacher named Priyanka, had made these statements in the school.

After the incident, parents of the students arrived at the school and spoke to the administration and asked for an explanation why their children were turned away. The parents of the schoolgirls claimed that teachers had behaved improperly towards the students. The parents also reportedly stated, “It is very unethical that you are threatening students of reducing their marks if they continue to wear hijab.”

However, the school principal asserted that the students were barred from school due to a violation of the dress code.

Meanwhile, the social media site X is filled with posts that are designating the parents of the students as ‘radicals.’ A video is making the rounds on social media where presumably the parents of the students are speaking to the police, seemingly agitated that the students are thrown out of school. Many seemingly anonymous accounts have shared the video on the website stating the parents are ‘threatening the school with violence’, or as ‘radicals’.

In a daring show of respect for secularism:#watch muslim parents threaten school administration with violence if their daughters are not allowed to attend school in Hijab

This is the power of Pasmandas in New Bharat.

Reportedly, from BJP ruled #Rajasthan. pic.twitter.com/aVFkqTftVE

— Ritu #जिष्णु (@RituRathaur) February 18, 2024

Some radicals are coming to the schools of Rajasthan & threatening the school administration that their children will come only in hijab, if school administration stops them they will punish the school administration pic.twitter.com/9IE1YegAQc

— Frontalforce (@FrontalForce) February 18, 2024

As anti-Muslim sentiment continues to be shared in schools with the hijab issue, BJP MLA Balmukund Acharya  visited Government Senior Secondary Girls School in the state during Republic Day celebrations on January 26 where videos from the event captured him stating that hijabs should not be allowed in schools. Going further, he took to the school’s stage and chanted slogans like “Bharat Mata Ki Jai” and “Saraswati Mata Ki Jai,”  and asked in a taunting manner, ‘whether some girls not chanting it were ‘asked not to.’

Following the incident, Muslim students reportedly filed a complaint at the police station an even organised a protest on the basis that Acharya’s statements disrupted the school atmosphere and demanding an apology. Similarly, BJP minister Kirori Lal Meena has chimed in and stated that, “Hijab is a symbol of slavery brought in by the Mughals.” He has detailed 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 has found support by the Vishwa Hindu Parishad as well who are actively supporting it.

Related:

Rajasthan to implement hijab ban?

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

The National Eligibility Test (NET) is an examination conducted by the University Grants Commission (UGC) and the National Testing Agency (NTA) for granting eligibility for the lecturers and research fellows at Indian colleges and universities.

Speaking to Maktoob, Yusuf claims to have arrived on time and well-prepared for the examination and furthermore, that she followed all UGC rules and guidelines. However, she alleges that teachers and supervisors at the centre denied her the opportunity to take the test, insisting that she remove her hijab, a religious headscarf worn by Muslim women.

Speaking to Maktoob, Yusuf stated that she had thoroughly reviewed the UGC’s website and the instructions on her admit card before reaching the examination centre and pointed out that nowhere did it state that observing hijab during the examination is prohibited, and instead there are instructions that those who wear religious headgear need to come early to the examination centre, “Nowhere does it state that observing hijab during the examination is prohibited. However, it did specify that individuals wearing religious markers/attire should arrive early for a comprehensive screening and checking process.”

Yusuf says that she was granted entry after being checked by a female guard, but however, a male teacher arrived and told her to remove the hijab before taking the test. According to the report, the male teacher was an official from the National Testing Agency (NTA). Yusuf said she tried to reason out and state the existing provisions for students with similar concerns in the guidelines, but she was not heard of. According to Maktoob, “I even tried to convince the officer, providing an example of how passport offices allow wearing hijab, even with screened ears for biometrics. However, he didn’t listen. I faced the dilemma of choosing between my religion and academic setback, and I opted for my faith over potential academic loss.” Yusuf further states that nobody was removed from the examination centre for a turban and believes that she was targeted due to her religion.

This is not the first instance of Muslim women students being denied entry to examination centres and classrooms for wearing the hijab. In 2018, the Delhi Minorities Commission (DMC) issued a notice to the University Grants Commission asking for an explanation after a student wearing a hijab was similarly denied the opportunity to write the UGC-NET exam. Similarly, on a much larger scale, women school students in Karnataka from the Muslim community were denied the right to enter schools because they wore the hijab in 2021. According to a report by Sabrang India, this incident led to about 1,010 hijab-wearing girls to discontinue their education in pre-university colleges in Karnataka, The timing of the ban had also coincided with final examinations which further worsened the situation for these students. These instances of discrimination thus fall into a pattern of the challenges faced by the Muslim minority. For instance, it was noted this year that there was a staggering 8% decline in the enrolment of Muslim students in higher education, which led to a decrease in 1,79,147 students.

 Related:

AISHE survey shows enrolment of Muslim students in higher studies falls significantly compared to other communities

MOE: Alarming dropout rates among SC, ST, and OBC students in premium institutes of India since 2018

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

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

The post Muslim student denied to sit for UGC-NET due to hijab appeared first on SabrangIndia.

“Asking girls to take off hijab invasion of privacy, attack on dignity”

India is country of many religions, with its plurality and diversity being essential to its fundamental constitutional mandate. In the new India being insidiously re-fashioned, however, displays of difference, or minority cultures has led to manufactured public outrage. And, while the Indian government uses its flagship “Beti Bachao Beti Padhao” programme to ‘promote the education of daughters’ armed affiliate mobs have been seen to terrorise any girl, or woman who is “different.”

The Indian Supreme Court’s recent split-judgment on the Hijab Ban case has once again brought to light a problematic aspect of the ‘Hijab Row’, especially in the manner in which the issue was presented and argued –by petitioner organisations themselves –before the Karnataka High Court. Earlier this year, while during the hearing of the matter before the Karnataka High Court, one of the arguments that was majorly relied on by the petitioners was that wearing the hijab is an “essential religious practice” for Muslim women nationwide, and as such, it ought to be protected under Article 25 of the Indian Constitution. This argument takes the issue down a precarious slope. Tragically, the high court, a constitutional forum, instead of elevating the issue beyond and above this argument, also dealt and discarded the rights of the young girls on that count alone.

Determining if an activity is or was “essentially religious” is where the phrase “essential religious practice” originated. If accepted as such, it would be given Article 25(1) protection, which grants every individual the freedom of conscience and right to practice, profess and propagate any religion. However, over time, the Supreme Court’s interpretations have metamorphosed into one where the Court considers (or can consider) whether any activity is actually “essential to a religion.”

From all the arguments that were presented before the Karnataka High Court in this case, it is unfortunate to see that the focus was majorly on making the issue or controversy about religion, while the issue of the right or access of every girl’s right to education was majorly ignored. The entire issue snowballed after some Muslim girls were being denied their right to education.

In December 2021, six Hijab-clad Muslim students belonging to Udupi’s Government Pre-University College for Girls were barred from attending classes. The institute’s purported reason: “no religious activity will be allowed on campus.” The girls were marked absent for at least three weeks before they protested the ban on 31 December, saying “though it is our constitutional right, they are still not allowing us to go in the class because we are wearing hijab.” A government resolution on the issue was quoted as the reason behind this action.

The students subsequently filed a writ petition in the Karnataka High Court, and also approached the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC). Meanwhile, triggered by the increasingly shrill posturing around the issue, some Hindu students (clearly supported by politically supremacist outfits) donned saffron scarves as a symbol of their opposition to the hijab, while the number of institutions that prohibited more and more Muslim girls continued to increase across Karnataka. On January 4, around 50 students of a state-run degree college in Chikmagalur District wore saffron-coloured scarves and raised slogans outside their educational institution. This led to both scarves and hijabs being banned from classrooms in the institute.

What is pertinent to stress however what is at stake is not just the issue of religion or culture. While the ban was applied to both saffron shawls and the hijab, it was the Muslim girls who had to sit in separate classes till they removed their hijab, not give their final exams, stand outside the gate of the educational institutes to protest for their rights or opt for getting transfer certificates. It was their education that suffered, along with their future opportunities. But this issue, of the right of every girl/woman to education, was on the back burner while the High Court decided whether wearing hijabs constitutes an essential religious practice and if the court can at all, intervene in such matters.

The Karnataka High Court held that the hijab (head scarf) worn by Muslim women does not constitute a necessary component of Islamic religious practices and is, therefore, not protected by the freedom of religion provided by Article 25 of the Indian Constitution. The Court further determined that the need of school uniforms did not infringe on either the right to privacy protected by Article 21 of the Constitution or the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by Article 19 (1)(a) of the Constitution.

Additionally, the Court ruled that the ban on wearing a hijab in educational settings is just a fair limitation (of dress in a secular institution). The students cannot have a constitutional objection to this since it is legal. Thus, it affirmed the validity of the order issued by the Karnataka Government on February 5. In accordance with the Karnataka Education Act of 1983, the Karnataka government required the wearing of uniforms in schools and pre-university colleges in this order.

The Court also ruled that individual rights cannot be asserted in “qualified public places” like schools at the expense of overall decorum and discipline. This phrase is used a total of six times in the judgement. The court also notes that just as a detainee or a criminal does not always have absolute fundamental rights, a school is a qualified public space where the exercise of fundamental rights is regulated. The court makes this argument despite the fact that this word is not defined in the ruling. The court claims that in certain areas, “substantive rights transform into derivative rights.” On many levels, this proposition is itself a risky venture. A courtroom, a jail, a war room, and a defense camp are further instances of qualifying locations mentioned in the ruling.

This understanding goes against the essence of our democracy as rules made at such places can’t be seen as diluting rights under Article 14 (equality before law), Article 15 (no discrimination) and Article 19 (1) (freedom of expression). Fundamental rights were not intended to be protected by the Constitution in such a fragile fashion that they might be eliminated in the sake of “general discipline and decorum.”

The High Court Judgment further observes “…the Holy Quran does not mandate wearing of hijab or headgear for Muslim women…because of absence of prescription of penalty or penance for not wearing hijab….It is not that if the alleged practice of wearing hijab is not adhered to, those not wearing hijab become sinners, Islam loses its glory and it ceases to be a religion.” (Part IX, clause iii)

As this can be claimed about the majority of religious behaviour, the interpretation mentioned above would severely restrict the extent of religious freedom for all religions. The standard of evidence placed on the community in issue to demonstrate that donning the hijab is an essential practice has been set excessively high by the ruling, which has a severely constrained understanding of the freedom of conscience. The Court has overlooked the implications for Muslim women’s personal freedom in pursuing their education and leading the lives they choose while issuing its ruling and weighing the arguments. The ability to choose what and how to dress is something that needs to be granted to every women, religion no bar. Courts shouldn’t be used as a forum for religious changes in a democracy like India; “Individual fundamental liberties provide a far more sound and stable foundation for reform than secular Courts ruling on religious doctrine, which they are ill-equipped to do,” the judges had opined.

The judgment can be read here.

Thus, the approach taken by the Karnataka High Court in deciding this case was erroneous as courts even attempting adjudication over ERP has been criticised by academicians and scholar for a long time. Additionally, it has been contended that the essentiality/integrity concept tends to steer the Court into a realm outside of its purview and gives judges the authority to make decisions that are solely religious in nature. As a result, over the years, courts have taken differing positions on this issue. For instance, in Gandhi v. State of Bombay (1954), the Supreme Court stated that no outside authority has the authority to declare that these are the fundamental components of religion and that the secular authority of the state is not free to restrict or forbid them in any way. The Courts have occasionally used religious scriptures to assess essentiality, while in other instances they have relied on adherents’ actual behavior.

Some landmark judgments on religion and ERP:

• In 2018, in the case of Indian Young Lawyers Association and Others Vs. The State of Kerala and Others, the Supreme Court gave permission to menstruating women to enter the Sabarimala Temple. In this case,  in deciding the question as to whether a given religious practice is an integral part of the religion or not, the court observed that the test always would be whether it is regarded as such by the community following the religion or not.

• In 2016, in the case of Mohammed Zubair Corporal Vs Union Of India & Ors, the Muslim airman’s expulsion from the Indian Air Force for sporting a beard was affirmed by the Supreme Court. The Court effectively concluded that having a beard was not a requirement for practicing Islam.

• In 2004, the Supreme Court held that the Ananda Marga sect had no inherent right to perform the Tandava dance in public because it was not a basic aspect of their religion.

• The Supreme Court affirmed the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (Amendment) Act, 1970 in matter of Seshammal v. State of Tamil Nadu (1972). According to the Court, the Act’s main goal was to govern managerial and administrative practices. It was not intended to control or alter the customs observed in temples regarding rites and ceremonies.

• In Sardar Syedna Taher Saiffuddin Saheb v State of Bombay (1962), he Supreme Court’s five-judge panel confirmed the Head Priest of the Dawoodi Bohra Community’s claim to and authority over excommunication. It was also noted that information on what constitutes an important activity may be found in the religious books and tenets. The Legislature was not allowed, according to the Court, to eradicate a religion’s existence or identity.

In furtherance to this, the High Court judgment making this issue just about religion was not fair. They failed to take into account the fact that if the hijab was prohibited, it would severely restrict the Muslim women in question by infringing their fundamental rights and causing an irreparable loss to their educational opportunities. Even before this, when the interim order was enacted prohibiting the wearing of the hijab or saffron shawls as a means of displaying one’s religion, the trouble this would cause Muslim women who wear the hijab was disregarded.

Supreme Court on Hijab in the Classroom

The ruling of the Karnataka Government was affirmed by the High Court. The Supreme Court subsequently heard this matter. On October 13, 2022, the two judge bench delivered a split judgment.  In view of the “divergence in opinion”, the apex court directed the matter to be placed before the Chief Justice of India for appropriate directions.

The bench of Justice Hemant Gupta and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia was hearing the case. In dismissing the appeals, Justice Hemant Gupta stated that religious convictions cannot be brought to a secular institution run with state funds. Fundamental liberties are not untouchable and are open to legitimate limitations. He understood the goal of the Karnataka state government’s circular prohibiting headscarves to be upholding discipline and uniformity. He contended that uniformity fosters an atmosphere of equality where brotherly principles may be ingrained. He further emphasised on the value and absorbing qualities of uniforms. Additionally, he observed that students are free to carry their religious symbols outside of schools and that wearing a hijab is only prohibited during school hours. However, he added that at colleges, students should appear to be of a same mindset, i.e. look, feel and think alike.

On the other hand, Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia overturned the challenged High Court decision, declaring that demanding Muslim girls’ to remove their hijabs at the school gates constituted a violation of their privacy, a harm against their dignity, and ultimately a denial of a secular education. He emphasised that wearing a hijab does not violate public order, morality, health, or decency, some of the justifications for limiting basic rights. He urged that society make fair accommodations in light of India’s numerous traditions. He believed that respect for others’ dignity and a commitment to brotherhood call for tolerance and a willingness to make fair accommodations for their personal views. Contrary to Justice Hemant Gupta, he believed that the pre-university institution was the ideal setting for teaching students the constitutional ideals of tolerance and accommodation while also exposing them to the diversity that exists in the nation.

In his ruling, Justice Dhulia focused on the problem of Muslim females being denied access to school. He stressed the violation of Muslim women’s fundamental rights as well as the need of the court to advance diversity rather than uniformity in our nation. While giving his decision, Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia cited the decision given in the Bijoy Emanuel case, which had held that courts only need to test whether a practice is prevalent, was established and a bona fide one, he stated that wearing the hijab meets all three criteria.

Brief about the Bijoe Emanuel Case:

Facts: Following an allegation that they had refused to sing the national anthem, Bijoe Emmanuel, 15, a student in Class 10, and his sisters Bine and Bindu, 14, and 10, who were students of Classes 9 and 5, were suspended from school. The three kids belonged to the millenarian restorationist Christian sect known as Jehovah’s Witnesses, which has doctrines that are different from those of traditional Christianity. The dispute began in 1985, when the three were students at Kidangoor’s NSS High School in Kerala’s Kottayam district. The school, which was administered by the Hindu Nair Service Society, at the time had 11 Jehovah’s Witnesses as students. Five years had passed since Bijoe was first enrolled at the institution.

The family claimed that when others sung the national anthem, the kids stood as a sign of respect. That was not an issue for the administration of the school or other parents. Bijoe’s father had said that “some vested interests from outside the school dredged up the subject.” Politicians were interested in the situation after reading about it in a local newspaper. The UDF administration launched an investigation by a single-member committee after Congress (S) politician VC Kabeer brought up the matter in the Kerala Assembly.

The panel came to the conclusion that the kids were neither impolite nor had the school made any complaints about them. Nonetheless, the district educational officer stressed that, in order for the Emmanuels to continue attending school, they would have to follow the regulations. He required the kids to confirm in writing that they would join the rest of the class in singing the national song. The family, however, did not find this to be acceptable. The three kids and nine other members of the Jehovah’s Witnesses group were expelled from school on July 25, 1985, purportedly as a result of government pressure.

The Court: Emmanuel and his wife Lillikutty moved Kerala high court, where their plea was rejected by a single judge. They attempted a re-appeal but that too was turned down, this time by a division bench.  Emmanuel, who is not one to give up easily, filed a petition with the Supreme Court on behalf of his three young appellants, Bijoe, Binu, and Bindu.

The landmark Emmanuel v. State of Kerala, 1986 verdict, which is now known as the highest court’s decision, was delivered on August 11, 1986, and it sided with the students. Three children were granted protection as the Supreme Court’s bench of Justices O Chinnappa Reddy and M M Dutt ruled that making the kids sing “Jana Gana Mana” was against their basic religious freedom.

“We may at once say that there is no provisions of law which obliges anyone to sing the National Anthem nor do we think that it is disrespectful to the National Anthem if a person who stands up respectfully when the National Anthem is sung does not join the singing,” the SC court said in Para 2 of the judgment.

“Proper respect is shown to the National Anthem by standing up when the National Anthem is sung. It will not be right to say that disrespect is shown by not joining in the singing….” the SC court said in Para 4 of the judgment.

Justice Chinnappa Reddy noted in paragraph 2 of his judgment that that the High Court “misdirected itself” by considering the national anthem in minute detail and concluding that “there was no word or thought… which could offend anyone’s religious susceptibilities”. “But that is not the question at all. The objection of the petitioners is not to the language or the sentiments of the National Anthem: they do not sing the National Anthem wherever, ‘Jana Gana Mana’ in India, ‘God save the Queen’ in Britain, the Star-spangled Banner in the United States and so on…,” the order said.

The verdict is considered a landmark judgment on freedom of speech in India. The order can be read here. 

Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia

In a 73-page judgment, Justice Dhulia noted in para 79 of his judgment, “fraternity, which is our constitutional value, would therefore require us to be tolerant, and as some of the counsel would argue to be, reasonably accommodating, towards the belief and religious practices of others. We should remember the appeal made by Justice O. Chinnappa Reddy in Bijoe Emmanuel — our tradition teaches tolerance; our philosophy preaches tolerance; our Constitution practices tolerance; let us not dilute it.”

Distancing the hijab ban case from the essential religious practice issue, Justice Dhulia acknowledges wearing hijab as the individual’s right to choose. He states it unfortunate that the education of Muslim women had to suffer.

“A girl child for whom it is still not easy to reach her school gate. This case here, therefore, has also to be seen in the perspective of the challenges already faced by a girl child in reaching her school. The question this court would put before itself is also whether we are making the life of a girl child any better by denying her education merely because she wears a hijab!” he noted in para 65 and 66 of his judgment.

He continued by saying that under the constitution, donning a hijab should only be a matter of personal preference. It may or may not be a requirement for practicing one’s religion, but it is still a matter of conscience, conviction, and expression. As long as a girl chooses to wear a hijab, even in a classroom, she cannot be prohibited from doing so, according to Justice Dhulia. In certain circumstances, wearing a hijab is the only way a girl’s orthodox family will allow her to attend school.

There is a sharp contrast between the divergent opinions of this Bench of the Supreme Court. The actual problem here is not whether or not the hijab is worn; rather, it is the intrusive State’s denial of a person’s right to choose and the impact this has on a minority population in India. Today, a state that is headed for elections and is being purposefully divided along religious lines is using the uniform as a shield to demonstrate a fake uniformity and win political brownie points. Muslim women are denied the power to make their own decisions as lawmakers sit in their high seats, making pronouncements, and deciding whether or not the hijab is an essential Islamic practice. Access to education, dignity and freedom of expression are all basic rights, granted to us by our forefathers. But are they limited to the majority only?

It is now obvious that the topic has proven to be extremely polarising at all societal levels, and the case symbolizes the dilemma facing Indian culture and the rest of the globe over the actual nature of secularism. Does this imply that the government has a wholly neutral attitude toward all faiths, or does it imply that it recognises and tries to meet the needs, anxieties, and ambitions of individuals who lack the support of a large majority?

While the opinions forwarded by Justice Dhulia are refreshing and welcome, it is pertinent to note that while another bench is being constituted by the Supreme Court, the ban on the hijab still exists. Muslim girls are still not able to continue with their education, even though one year has passed. We might or might not agree with the practice of wearing hijab, but it will be wrong for us to delude ourselves that we are doing the Muslim women a big favor and bringing progress in this nation by imposing a ban on hijab. Forcefully taking away their choice, identity and self-expression might have the opposite effect.

The judgment by Justice Dhulia can be read here.

Related:

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

Hijab Ban case: SC wonders if right to dress also makes right to undress a fundamental right

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

Justice Hemant Gupta’s take on secularism, fraternity and uniformity in the Hijab Ban case

The post Right to Education under attack: Are the Courts misguided in treating the hijab ban case as simply a religious issue? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The complaint argued that the programme attempted to link protesting Muslim girl-students and their supporters with a terrorist organization. The anchor and the panelists promoted dangerous stereotypes against the Muslim community.  

On October 26, Justice Sikri passed a speaking order directing that:

• The programme violated principles related to impartiality, neutrality, fairness, good taste and decency under the Specific Guidelines Covering Reportage, apart from the Code of Ethics and Broadcasting Standards. 

• The anchor failed to abide by Bombay HC’s Nitesh Navalakah case guidelines and SC’s guidelines on the role of a news anchor in a panel discussion to maintain balance, prevent the discussion from drifting, and muting panelists who fly off the tangent. 

• NBDSA advised News 18 to train Aman Chopra on how to conduct debates on sensitive matters.

• Considering the repeat nature of violations, NBDSA imposed a fine of Rs.50,000 on the channel.

• NBDSA warned News 18 India stating that if it commits future violations, it may summon Aman Chopra before the NBDSA committee.

• NBDSA ordered the channel to delete the programme from all digital spaces within 7 days.

• The programme is available here  

Indrajeet argued the case before NBDSA on September 30, 2022 and brought to its attention that News 18 India and its employee, Aman Chopra, are repeat offenders who routinely prompte anti-Muslim hate speech. I urged NBDSA to take stringent and effective measures against News 18 India in order to put an end to this severely harmful practice. My written complaint and submissions are available in the attached document (Pages 2-5). 

This complainant has previously argued several cases before the NBDSA such as misinformation against the Farmer’s protest, media trial of Umar Khalid, anti-Muslim UP Population Control programme, transphobic reports by Telugu broadcasters, insensitive reporting on the death of Sushant Singh Rajput, and many more.

The full order is available here, pages 7-8.

Additionally, the attachment includes NBDSA’s decision in another case (pages 15-16) that Indrajeet also filed against News 18 for it’s anti-Muslim coverage of the Jahangirpuri demolition drive in April 2022, also hosted by Aman Chopra. NBDSA found the reportage to be in violation of its Code of Ethics and expressed strong disapproval against the programme. It ordered the removal of the recording from all digital spaces. 

Related:

NBDSA acts on CJP’s complaint, directs News18 to take down fake news video about bombing in WB school

The post NBDSA fines News18 50,000 for repeat hate violations by anchor Aman Chopra appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In a bizarre twist to the ongoing hijab controversy, the Supreme Court bench hearing a batch of petitions challenging the Karnataka High Court’s judgement which upheld the ban on wearing hijab by Muslim girl students in some schools and colleges in the state, has posed a rather strange question.

When Senior Advocate Devadatt Kamat, who was appearing for the Petitioners, submitted that the right to freedom of expression under Article 19 of the Constitution includes dress, Justice Hemant Gupta, reportedly responded by asking, “You can’t take it to illogical ends. Right to dress will include right to undress also?”

The matter is being heard by the bench comprising Justices Hemant Gupta and Sudhanshu Dhulia. Arguments and detailed submissions have been made before the court with respect to the fundamental rights of the students, scope of right to dress covered under Article 19 (Freedom of Expression), students of other faiths wearing religious symbols, India’s positive secularism practice and more.

On the request of Advocate Ejaz Maqbool to compile all the petitions into one matter, the bench agreed and suggested that the same could be completed in a day or two. The following arguments were made on September 7 and 8.

Argument-1: Essential religious practice

Senior Advocate Rajeev Dhawan argued that this was a constitutional issue and should be referred to a constitution bench as per Article 145(3) of the Indian Constitution. He stated that the issue involved a question as to whether women should yield to the dress code or the government and whether wearing a headscarf was an ‘essential religious practice’.

But LiveLaw reports that as per Justice Gupta, wearing of the scarf may or may not be an essential practice but the question whether the government could regulate the dress code remained. As Senior Advocate Dhawan brought to the Court’s notice about the fact that even Supreme Court judges wear tilak or pagdis to the Court, Justice Gupta reportedly remarked that ‘Pagdi’ was a non-religious item and would be worn in royal states. LiveLaw quoted him as saying, “My grandfather used to wear it while practicing law. Don’t equate it with religion…Our Preamble says ours is a secular country. In a secular country can you say that a religious clothing has to be worn in a government run institution? This can be an argument.”

Senior Advocate Dhawan further brought to court’s notice a suggestion made earlier about the scarf of the same colour of uniform could be worn.

Argument-2: Regulation of the Dress Code

Senior Advocate Sanjay Hegde argued that the Court must decide on the narrow point of whether the State Government had the power under the Karnataka Education Act to prescribe the uniform. He also asked, “Can the education of women be made contingent on not wearing a particular dress? Can you tell a girl, I’m sorry using a wrong phrase, a grown up woman, that you will have no control over your own concept of modesty and say you cannot wear a chunni?”

But according to LiveLaw, Justice Gupta responded by asking, “I remember the news- a lady advocate came in jeans and it was objected to saying you can’t wear jeans. But technically can the woman say you can’t bar me for wearing jeans… If you go to a Golf Course, there is a dress code. Can you say I can wear the dress I like there? In some restaurants, you have a formal dress code, in some you have a casual dress code.”

However, Senior Advocate Hegde stated that the present case involved the access to education being conditional to a vulnerable section of the society. He stated that it needs to be seen whether the State had the power to prescribe uniform as per the Karnataka Education Act. According to Justice Gupta, if there was no specific power, Article 161 would be applicable.

Senior Advocate Hegde then proceeded to discuss Section 39 of the Karnataka Education Act which prohibits any local authority or the Governing Council of any private educational institution from denying admission to any citizen on ground of religion, race, caste, language or any of them or; directly or indirectly encouraging any propaganda or practice wounding the religious feelings of any class of citizens of India or insulting religion or the religious belief of that class in the educational institution. He further went on talk about Section 133 of the Act which states that powers of State to give direction are subject to other provisions of the Act and the rule making power.

He brought to the Court’s attention that as per the provisions of the Act, educational institutions were required to inform parents about change in uniform at least one year in advance and that any uniform prescribed could not be changed for 5 years. Also, the government prescribed curriculum did not include power to prescribe uniform.

Therefore, he argued that government could not make rules on the dress code and the government order stating that a person cannot wear a uniform showing their religion created a substantial disadvantage to Muslim women. He submitted that wearing an additional item on the uniform would not be in violation of the uniform.

When Justice Dhulia reportedly remarked that strictly speaking hijab might not be a religious practice, Senior Advocate Hegde argued that scarf was already a part of uniform as a chunni was allowed. However, Justice Dhulia stated that chunni was different and could not be compared to hijab as it was worn on shoulders.

Argument 3: Discipline in School

Additional Solicitor General, KM Nataraj appearing for the State of Karnataka stated that the issued only pertained to the disciple in school, in response to which Justice Gupta reportedly asked, “How is the discipline of school violated if hijab is worn?”

Advocate General of Karnataka Prabhuling Navadgi explained how the Government Order had been issued after a situation of unrest arose. He reportedly stated, “As per Rule 11, uniforms are prescribed by the institutions. We directed institutions to prescribe uniforms. Some of the institutions prohibited hijab. Those resolutions have not been challenged.” He further clarified that the government order (GO) did not violate the rights of the students, as the State was not saying don’t wear hijab or wear hijab. “We only say follow the uniform prescribed. Once the students realized that institutions prohibited hijab invoking Rule 11, they elevated their argument that our rights under Article 25 are violated. The Govt Order is not very happily worded, but the purport of the order is to follow the prescribed uniform,” he said.

The State informed the bench that there is no government interference in the management of the minority institutions including government colleges where the decision-making power has been left to the College Development Council.

Argument-4: Freedom of Expression under Article 19 includes Dress

Senior Advocate Kamat submitted that the right to freedom of expression under Article 19 of the Constitution includes dress. He reportedly stated, “By actually saying if you come in school wearing a hijab we will not allow you, State violates Article 19… The GO (Government Order) is giving petitioners a Hobson’s choice, forcing them to choose between their identity and dignity and right to education.”

Justice Gupta reportedly remarked, “You can’t take it to illogical ends. Right to dress will include right to undress also?”

Kamat responded, “Nobody is undressing in school. Question is wearing of this additional dress as part of Article 19, can it be restricted?”

Further discussing about the reasonable restrictions under Article 19 (2) relating to public order, morality, state interest, he reportedly asked, “Advocate General conceded that the GO is not based on public order… Then (is it on the) ground of morality? If I wear a headscarf, whose morality is offended? Whether the wearing of headscarf matching the colour of uniform is offending anyone else’s fundamental rights or legitimate state interest so as to warrant the State issued the GO?”

Argument-5: Students’ Fundamental Rights

Speaking about student’s fundamental rights under Article 19, 21 and 25, Kamat asked if students should surrender their rights as a pre-condition to access education.

He cited the case of Bijoe Emmanual v. state of Kerala where students were expelled from school for not singing the national anthem due to their faith and the Court had observed that personal views and reactions regarding a particular religious practice are irrelevant if the belief is held genuinely & conscientiously as part of religion.

However, Justice Dhulia dismissed this case being applicable to the present case stating, “In that case, judgment was by Justice Chinnappa Reddy, it was held that there was no insult to national anthem, as the students stood up. Then it touched upon tolerance. It is on a different case.”

Argument-6: Principle of Reasonable Accommodation

Kamat argued that a headscarf is not a burqa or hijab and asked if the petitioner being present in court wearing hijab is offending anyone. He argued that how can the headscarf of the same uniform colour cause any kind of indiscipline.

He pointed out how Kendriya Vidyalas running under the Central Government allowed wearing hijab. He submitted that as per their circular, head scarf with matching colour of uniform for girls is allowed. He reportedly stated, “It makes a reasonable accommodation for Muslim girls to wear head scarf…This was placed before the High Court. But High Court said Central Government is different from State Govt. And this practice (in KVs) is in vogue even today.”

Argument-7: Students of other religions also wear religious symbols

In order to emphasise on reasonable accommodation, Kamat pointed out how the Government Order by excluding Hijab from Article 25 targets one community while students from other religions are allowed to wear religious symbols to schools such as Rudraksha, Cross, Naman.

However, Justice Gupta reportedly said, “Your reading of GO may not be correct, because it is only one community which wants to come in religious dress. Rudraksh or Cross is different. They are worn inside dress, not visible to others. There is no violation of discipline.”

Kamat continued to argue that the question is about reasonable accommodation and not about whether it is visible or not.

Argument-8: International precedents

Kamat relied on an international judgment of the Constitutional Court of South Africa, in KwaZulu-Natal and Others v. Pillay where a south Indian girl was allowed to wear a nose ring to school as part of her tradition. The State held that asking the girl to remove nose ring even for a short period will send out the message that she and her religion were not welcome.

Justice Gupta dismissed a nose pin to be a religious symbol similar to women wearing earrings which is also not a religious practice.

Kamat argued that it was a religious practice as wearing ‘Bindi’ and ‘nose ring’ has religious significance while performing certain rituals and are worn by women to develop good virtue and also believed to bring prosperity. Kamat then went on to cite a 2015 US Supreme Court decision which allowed head scarf in employment and a Canada judgment allowing wearing of kara in school for Sikhs.

However, Justice Gupta dismissed these precedents stating, “All other countries have a uniform law for its citizens. How can you compare USA, South Africa and Canada with India? We are a conservative society. Their judgment is based on their society, their culture, we can’t totally follow.”

Continuing his argument, Senior Advocate Kamat stated, “Your lordships were right, South Africa is much more diverse, and the scope of protection is wider. Justice Dhulia had pointed out decisions in Continental Courts, it was one judgment in Austria…there was head scarf ban targeted at one community which was held unconstitutional… Students belonging to Islamic faith said it was part of their decision. The judgement stated – Selective ban which forbids Islamic girls from wearing headscarf may have adverse effect on the inclusion of female students concerned and making access to education more difficult for Muslim girls and marginalizes them.”

Argument-9: India’s practice of ‘Positive Secularism’

Contrary to France and Turkey, where display of religion is offensive, he stated that India practices positive secularism. He stated, “Secularism has a positive meaning… Secularism does not mean that students of only one faith will not display their religion.”

He cited the Supreme Court judgement in the case of Aruna Roy v. Union of India where the Court held that all religions have to be treated with equal respect and that there has to be no discrimination on the ground of religion. He even pointed out how a proposal seeking to prohibit display of religion in public had been rejected by the Constituent Assembly.

Argument-10: High Court judgment is flawed

In respect of the Karnataka High Court judgement judgment upholding hijab ban in schools/colleges, Advocate Kamat reportedly argued, “High Court said forcing a girl to wear hijab will militate against Article 14. Nobody is forcing a girl to wear a hijab. The question is if a girl is wearing a hijab out of choice, can it be prohibited. With due respect, it is her choice. I may not personally agree with it. But it is her decision.”

He contented that the High Court missed the Petitioner’s point that the need to into the question of essential religious practice under Article 25 does not arise if the Petitioners succeed in showing that there can be no restriction on their right to wear Hijab. He pointed out that the High Court went straight into ‘Essential Religious Practice’.

Advocate Kamat even highlighted the divergence of views between Karnataka, Kerala and Madras High Court judgements on whether Hijab was an Essential Religious Practice.

Further expressing his concern over High Court’s comparison of students with prisoners, he stated, “I am amazed. High Court says once you go to school you are in the “custody” of teachers… High Court gives the examples of prison, detention and mentions qualified public spaces…this is leading to the argument that once you enter a school premise, you are like a convict.”

Denying that the High Court compared students with prisoners, Justice Gupta retorted saying, “This comparison is of general nature. What it says, qualified public spaces like schools, courts…you are in court, you are wearing a uniform… It is a way of expression, nothing more than that.”

Article 25(1): Restrictions imposed subject to public order, morality and health and other Fundamental rights

Kamat argued that the impugned Government Order could not be a valid restriction for the purposes of first part of Article 25 as the state had not justified the restriction of Hijab in school either on public order or morality or health. Whereas the State had reasoned that a headscarf would offend other people which could not be valid reason to ban hijab.

However, it was brought to Kamat’s attention by Justice Dhulia that he could have made an argument under article 25 only if he had argued that wearing hijab was an essential religious practice for Islam but he had refused to argue on those lines hence he could not make that now.  

Kamat reportedly stated, “No, I will make it clear. This right comes from Article 19 and also Article 25. Every religious practice may not be essential, but that does not mean that State can keep restricting it as long as it does not fall foul of public order, morality or health. For example, when I wear a Namam, Senior Advocate K Parasaran, he is a father like figure for us, he wears Namam…Does it affect discipline or decorum in Court?”

Justice Gupta, however, interrupted stating that dress code in court could not be compared with the present case. In response to this, Kamat further argued, “I can wear head gear, kara, as part of my religious belief. It may not be a core religious practice. But as long as it does not affect public order, health or morality, it can be allowed…Your lordships know the Anand Margis case, where Tandav dance was prohibited.”

However, Justice Gupta dismissed the argument and stated that wearing a hijab in street may not offend anyone but wearing it in school might affect the kind of public order the school wanted to maintain.

Heckler’s Veto Principle: Public Order v. Free Religious Expression

Senior Advocate went on to talk about the Heckler’s Veto which is the suppression of speech by the government, because of the possibility of a violent reaction by hecklers. Kamat trying draw an inference from the same stated, “School can’t take that ground of public order. If I wear a head gear and someone gets offended and makes an issue and shouts slogans, police can’t say I can’t wear it. That will be hecklers veto. It is on this basis that the ban was imposed. Last day the AG said the Government Order was issued after some students demanded to wear saffron shawls and the ban was imposed in that context. Can hecklers veto be allowed? You (State) can’t take a facile ground that public order will be violated. It is your duty to ensure an atmosphere of public order so that I can exercise my rights freely.”

However, Justice Gupta stated, “There are issues where there are disputes within religious precincts itself. Public order is a state responsibility at all places. Sometimes even in court…Mr Kamat don’t waste time on public order…You read the Government Order and tell subsequently what was held by the Court.”

Article 25(2): Does Karnataka Education Act, 1983 provide for ‘social reform in a religion’?

Article 25 (2) which provides that the state can make any law providing for social welfare and reform of Hindu religious institutions of a public character to all classes and section of Hindus. Kamat asked whether wearing a headscarf violated someone’s fundamental rights.

To this, Justice Gupta remarked, “It is not the question of violating other’s fundamental rights, the question is whether you have the fundamental right.”

LiveLaw quoted Kamat as saying, “State is pitching on the Education Act. The question which arises for your lordships is which is this great law which provides for social reform. None. Look at the preamble of Education Act, Section 7, Rule 11, none of the framers of the law ever thought this will be put to restrict right under Article 25. Any restriction on right must be direct and proximate, not indirect or inferential. The High Court says the Act is “as clear as Gangetic waters”. I submit it is totally muddied. According to the State, the Preamble (to the Education Act) is a restriction. High Court says the objective of promoting secular outlook mentioned in the Preamble to the Act is a restriction. I am at pains to understand how can this be a restriction. Then Section 7 of the Act. A scheme to promote harmony which the State can make under Section 7 is construed as a restriction on wearing hijab. HC refers to the power of the State to frame a scheme to restrict practices derogatory to women. Where does it say hijab is derogatory to women?”

Practice of Religion v. Display of Religion

He further argued that restrictions on fundamental rights on the ground of public order must have direct and proximate link with public order and not indirect or inferential.

He reportedly argued, “Whether uniformity in public space is a ground to restrict Article 25? Whether a Muslim girl wearing a head scarf is an affront to discipline? Article 25 does not recognise this ground of uniformity or discipline. The argument of the State is I wear hijab, other students will wear orange shawl. Wearing of orange shawl is not a genuine religious belief. It is a belligerent display of religion, that if you wear this, I will wear this. Article 25 only protects innocent bonafide practice of religion. Wearing a namam, yes, wearing a hijab yes. Wearing of orange shawl is not a bona fide practice.”

Freedom of Conscience and Freedom of Religion

The High Court, the freedom of conscience was distinct from religion based on Dr. Ambedkar’s Constituent Assembly Debates. According to Kamat, the debate did not mention about the distinction.

He reported argued, “Hindu religion provides for 16 forms of puja. Today somebody lights a diya, is it freedom of religion or conscience? People carry photos of Rama or Krishna. I do. It gives a sense of confidence. Is it religion or conscience? It is not something ordained in the scriptures. High Court has gone into a dangerous territory of separating conscience from religion. We have gone beyond the stage of seeing rights separately. The law has developed that all rights are interlinked. Every member in the Constituent Assembly Debate may have said something. We can’t say everything said in Constituent Assembly Debates as gospel truth…Ghanshyam Upadhyay is the only member who spoke of conscience. He says nothing is definite. The only other place where conscience is discussed is on the draft Article of present day Article 32.”

Justice Dhulia enquired what about a person who may not believe in any religion? To which Kamat reportedly replied that such a person had a right to conscience and that a person may follow some diktats of religion out of belief and some other diktats out of conscience.

Government’s Order

Concluding his arguments, Advocate Kamat finally raised questions with respect to administrative law. He stated, “My question is whether the Government Order suffers from a complete non-application of mind and whether the High Court could have supplied reasons for he Government Order? The AG rightly conceded that none of the judgments mentioned in the Government Order prohibited Hijab. But the State says as per aforementioned judgments, ban of hijab is not violating Article 25. That is complete non-application of mind…But the High Court says that the reasons do not matter as long as power to issue Government Order is there. It is settled law Court cannot supplant reasons. And High Court has done so in this case.”

He further argued that the power in the present case could not be delegated to any non-State actor. He reportedly stated, “President of CDC is an MLA. If they are placed under the custody of the MLA, kindly see the repercussions…MLA is not an authority subordinate to Stae Government. Can they decide issues of public order, morality etc under Article 25? See the enormity…High Court says I have not challenged the circular (constituting CDC). I don’t need to. Once you start investing in CDC state power, we can challenge.”

Are all religious practices protected or only essential religious practices?

Speaking about the dilemma, Advocate Nizam Pasha appearing for petitioners reportedly stated, “The question whether all religious practice or only essential religious practice are protected is a question on which 7-judges, 5-judges and 3-judges have taken different views. In Bijoe Emmanuel, three judges held that any belief which is held conscientiously held is protected. So not just essential practices, but any practice which is conscientiously held is protected. So, this put your lordships in a dilemma. There is variance between 7-judges and 5-judges and the 9-judges bench is now examining.”

Court interpreting religious doctrines

Referring to the Babri judgment, Advocate Pasha stated that the Court must not go into the interpretation of theological doctrines. He reportedly submitted, “Law is laid down on the interpretation of religious scriptures. There are multiple sects and multiple views in religion and each individual’s understanding of scripture must be protected. In Shayra Bano case, the Court did not interpret scriptures. It was only the judgment of Justice Kurian Joseph which proceeded on scriptures. The majority judgment went by the statute.”

Misterpretation of Islamic Verses by Karnataka High Court

Advocate Pasha argued that the High Court had misinterpreted Islamic verses to hold that Hijab was no mandatory. Advocate Pasha submitted that the High Court had referred to an unrelated verse, which stated that nobody can be compelled to convert to Islam, to hold that Hijab was not mandatory.

When Justice Gupta asked him to show the verses which said that holding Hijab as necessary, he referred to Surah An-Nur Ayat 31 (24:31 Quran)

Advocate Pasha referred to Surah 24 and submitted that basis a misreading of the footnote, the High Court concluded that the wearing of the Hijab is recommendatory and not mandatory. The High Court had wrongly misread the opinion of a translator and not the translation of the text. The footnote concerning the verse was about ‘Jilbab’ which covers the whole body whereas ‘Hijab’ covered only the head and chest.

Further, he submitted that the High Court had held Hijab as non-mandatory due to absence of prescription of penance on penalty. This being another misunderstanding, he stated, “There is no temporal punishment for a spiritual disobedience. Religion has spiritual implications for after life…There is no prescription in Quran. Even for violation of Namaz, Roza, there is no temporal punishment. Quran is the word of God and belief in the word of God is the first precondition for being a Muslim.”

Advocate Pasha further submitted that the commentaries cited by the High Court were used in the wrong context. He stated, “For believing Muslims, Quran is perfect for all the times to come. So, to say the verses have lost meaning with time is bordering on blasphemy.”

He further referred to Hadis and stated, “When the Prophet is quoted as saying veil is more important, and when the Quran says follow the prophet, nothing more is required to show it is essential…The High Court questioned the translation placed by Muhammad Muhsin Khan, doubting his credentials. But the other side never disputed his credentials. This is something which found its way to the HC judgment on its own…That way Abdulla Yusuf Ali (whose translation was relied on by the HC) was not even a Sunni.”

He also submitted that the comparison made with Triple Talaq by the High Court was irrelevant as Triple Talaq was not mentioned in Quran or even in Hadis.

Protection of “Cultural Practices”

With respect to the High Court’s observation that hijab was at best a cultural practice, he reportedly stated, “This finding is not borne out by anything but it is the finding of the learned judges themselves. Opinions of commentators are cited, but even that does not support the conclusion, leave aside the verse. Justice Gupta mentioned in morning wearing of turban as cultural. It is protected. Wearing of hijab, even if regarded as cultural, is protected…If a Sikh has to wear a turban, and he is told not to come to school if he wears turban, it is violative.”

However, Justice Gupta stated that a comparison with Sikh may not be proper as the five Ks of Sikhism (Kesh, Kara, Kanga, Kaccha, Kirpan) had been held to be mandatory. The bench stated that carrying a Kirpan was recognized by the constitution and there were judgments on other Ks being mandatory too.

Advocate Pasha contended that the exact same analogy could be applied to Islam. He stated, “I went to an all boys School, fortunately or unfortunately. And in my class, there were several Sikh boys who wore turban of the same colour of uniform. It has been established that it will not cause violation of discipline.”

To this Justice Gupta remarked, “There was a case in Punjab. A college run by SGPC. The condition of admission was that anybody who won’t follow tenets of Sikhism can’t get. A girl was denied admission on ground she trimmed her eyebrows and the matter is pending here…Please don’t make any comparison with Sikhism. These are all practices well established, well engrained in the culture of the country.”

When Advocate Pasha remarked that we are deluding ourselves if we think we are like France, Justice Gupta retorted, “We don’t want to be at par with France or Austria. We are Indians and want to be in India.”

Speaking about the negative impact of the hijab ban on students he stated, “Islam is also there for 1400 years and the Hijab is also present. A survey of Sikh students in France show how they felt humiliated to enter school. It showed how they lost their identity and how they wanted to leave the country. Even Muslims. Muslim students were negatively impacted.” However, the bench found this comparison irrelevant.

Advocate Pasha concluded his arguments by reciting verses in Quran, “O you disbelievers! I do not worship what you worship, nor do you worship what I worship. I will never worship what you worship, nor will you ever worship what I worship. You have your way, and I have my Way.”

It means that Quran mandates respect towards other religions.

Brief background of the hiijab controversy

The hijab controversy had originally erupted in wake of a Government Order issued on February 5 against the wearing of religion specific clothing in schools and pre-university colleges where a uniform has been prescribed. What followed was harassment of hijab-wearing girls on school and college campuses across the state.

Some were surrounded and heckled, others faced intimidation tactics by members and supporters of right-wing Hindutva groups. Some were even denied entry into educational institutions until they removed the traditional headscarf.

The contentious matter underwent several hearings in the Karnataka High Court that examined the following key questions:

• Whether wearing hijab is essential practice in Islamic faith, protected under Article 25 of the Constitution?
• Whether prescription of school uniform is not legally permissible as being violative of petitioner’s fundamental rights in alia guaranteed under Article 19 (1) (a) that is Freedom of Expression and Article 21 that is Privacy, of the Constitution?
• Whether the Government Order dated February 2, 2022, apart from being incompetent is issued without application of mind and further is manifestly arbitrary and therefore violates articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution?
• Whether any case is made out in WP 2146 of 2022 for the issuance of direction for initiating disciplinary enquiry against respondent no. 6 to 14 and for issuance of Writ of Quo warranto against respondent no. 15 and 16?

The high court ruled that no case was made out for invalidating the Feb 5 Government Order.

Related:

Hijab Ban case: Supreme Court pulls up petitioners for seeking adjournment

Walkouts, objections, after Karnataka HC verdict on Hijab, but BJP netas hail it
Hijab case verdict based on erroneous interpretation of Holy Quran: SKJU
Jamia students protest hijab ban, gov’t deploys paramilitary forces
Karnataka: Why is the BJP gov’t endorsing “Congress time rule” prohibiting non-Hindu vendors on temple land?
BREAKING: Wearing of Hijab not essential religious practice: Karnataka HC

The post Hijab Ban case: SC wonders if right to dress also makes right to undress a fundamental right appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Yet another Hate Watch complaint by Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP) against biased, stigmatising and most importantly fake news coverage has succeeded. On July 26, 2022, the News Broadcasting and Digital Standards Authority (NBDSA) held that the show titled ‘Toh hijab ke liye bam barsaenge?/ Danke ki chot par’ that aired on News18, violated the authority’s guidelines for fair and temperate reportage. NBDSA directed that its video be pulled down from all platforms within seven days, that is by August 2, 2022.

CJP had filed this complaint on February 21, 2022 with News18 for their unverified and misleading live debate programme titled ‘Toh hijab ke liye bam barsaenge?/ Danke ki chot par’ (Transaltion: Asking openly- So will bombs be hurled for hijab?) that aired on February 15, 2022. The show appreared to be stigmatising and demeaning the Muslim community on national television by broadcasting unverified news.

The channel’s response was dated March 11, 2022 to our Complaint dated February 21, 2022, and CJP’s complaint to the NBDSA was dated March 15, 2022. Online hearings took place on June 15, 2022 and Supreme Court lawyer Ms. Aparna Bhat alongwith Teesta Setalvad, Secretary, Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP) appeared for the complainant.

In its order dated July 26, 2022, the NBDSA noted that the principle of Impartiality and Objectivity enshrined under the Code of Ethics & Broadcasting Standards requires news broadcasters to give accuracy and balance precedence over speed otherwise, there is a danger of broadcasting ‘fake news’. It observed, “Since the issues raised in the programme were of serious nature and had serious implications, the broadcaster should have waited to obtain a clarification from the Police or Government Authorities or conducted a proper investigation and verified the news from different sources before telecasting the programme. The impugned programme had a tendency of disturbing racial and religious harmony. Since the broadcaster had not verified the facts and checked the veracity of the tweets before conducting a programme based solely on the said tweets, it had violated the principles of Accuracy, Impartiality, Objectivity and Neutrality enshrined under the Code of Ethics & Broadcasting Standards and the Specific Guidelines covering Reportage.”

Furthermore, NBDSA took serious objection to the language used by the anchor in the programme. It observed, “The broadcasters must be mindful of their duty towards communities and telecast programmes which are accurate, balanced and impartial and in accordance with the Code of Ethics and Broadcasting Standards and Guidelines.”

Accordingly, the NBDSA decided to issue a warning to the broadcaster not to hold such debates without verifying the facts and therefore, NBDSA directed that “the video of the said broadcast, if still available on the website of the channel, or YouTube, or any other links, should be removed immediately, and the same should be confirmed to NBDSA in writing within 7 days of receipt of the Order.”

The order maybe read here:

Objectionable content

The entire show was premised on false news, prejudicial to one community, and that it appeared to have been telecast with the intent of misinforming the viewers, spreading hatred and most importantly, stigmatising and demonising the Muslim community. It was replete with misinformation and communal hatred throughout its narrative.

The show was flagged off by the host with communally charged questions, “Kya hijab ki ladayibambazi par aa chukihai? Toh ab hijab keliye bam barsenge?”, “Danke ki chot par puchrahi hu kya bam barsayenge, shikshameishariyatlayenge?” (Translation: Has the battle for the hijab reached the extent of ‘bomb-bursting’? So will bombs be hurled for hijab? I am asking openly, will bombs be hurled, will the Muslim personal law be brought into education?)

The host depicted a distorted view around the incident which took place at a school at Murshidabad, West Bengal by making statements such as “Desh ke kayi hisso mei pradarshan kari itne ugr ho chuke hai, haalat itne kharab ho gye hai ki hijab pehen kar aane se mana karne par school mei pathtar bazi ki gayi, tod phod kiya gaya, dawa kiya bam bhi yahan phenke gaye”  (Translateion: In various parts across the country the protesters have been so violent that they pelted stones in the school and vandalized it, it is ascertained that bombs were hurled at the school). This was not only stigmatising the opposition-ruled state of West Bengal, but also its significant minority population.

As per the complaint, it was revealed by fact-checkers and news portals such as Alt News and The Print, that in truth, there were no bombs being hurled during the protest, and the claims made by News 18 were not supported by any ground reports or statements from local administration officials.

The complaint brought to light the obvious bias of the channel and how the host would immediately divert from a participant whenever such participant would attempt to make valid arguments. Finally, in the complaint CJP had urged the NBDSA to remove the show from all digital platforms and tender a public apology for their misinformed reportage.

Related:

CJP moves NBDSA against News18’s fake story on bombing in Bengal School

CJP Impact: NBDSA directs Zee News to take down video of communal show on Population Control

NBSA acts on CJP’s complaint against Zee News report on ‘Zameen Jihad’

The post NBDSA acts on CJP’s complaint, directs News18 to take down fake news video about bombing in WB school appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) has reportedly written to the Bengaluru commissioner to initiate an inquiry against the Clarence school. According to the information shared on social media by journalists the school has been accused of “violating Article 25” as they allegedly made Bible studies compulsory for all students.

The Commission has asked for a report to be filed within seven days. The complaint was filed by Hindu Janajagruti Samithi, a right wing organisation active in the state.

#BreakingNews @NCPCR_ writes 2 #Bengaluru commissioner to initiate inquiry against #Clarence school 4 violating article 25 by making #Bible study compulsory even 4 non #Christian students. Orders to submit a report within 7 days. #Hindujanajagruti had filed the complaint pic.twitter.com/DWvjqYh0hx

— Imran Khan (@KeypadGuerilla) April 25, 2022

School principal Jerry George Mathew told the media that the school was “aware that some people are upset about one of the policies of our school.We’re a peace-loving and law-abiding school. We’ve consulted our advocates on this matter and we’ll follow their advice. We won’t break the law of the land.”

The well known Clarence High School in Bengaluru has reportedly “taken an undertaking from parents that they would not object to their wards carrying the holy book Bible to school premises.” According to India Today, this directive was noticed by right-wing groups who alleged that it was “a violation of the Karnataka Education Act.”

The allegations were led by Hindu Janajagruti Samithi state Spokesperson Mohan Gowda who also claimed that the school was “forcing non-Christian students to read the Bible.” He told the media that non-Christian students of the school were “forcefully made to learn teachings in the Bible” and were being groomed for conversion. However, the school told the media that “it provides a Bible-based education” and that its the admission application form for Grade 11, there is a parents’ declaration that, as quoted by India Today says, “You affirm that your child will attend all classes including Morning Assembly Scripture Class and Clubs for his/her own moral and spiritual welfare and will not object to carry the Bible and Hymn Book during his/her stay at Clarence High School.”

According to the news report, the Karnataka government had recently announced plans to “introduce Shrimad Bhagavad Gita in schools.” The decision on adding Bhagavad Gita in school curriculum was to be “taken after discussion”. Last month the Gujarat government also decided to include Shrimad Bhagavad Gita in the school syllabus for classes 6-12. This was reportedly to “cultivate a sense of pride and connection to traditions.” According to its circular, Indian culture and epistemology should be included in the school curriculum in a way that is conducive to the holistic development of the students.

The right-wing group now targeting a Chritian School has itself been in the limelight for hate speech. O, April 18, 2022, Bengaluru’s Magistrate court directed the Sanjaynagar police to investigate the allegations of hate speech against Hindu Janagaruthi Samiti Coordinator Chandru Moger. State activists who approached the court said the police were unable to carry out their duties due to political pressure. 

On April 6, activists Khizer-e-Alam, Waseem Raja, Zia Nomani among others attempted to register an official FIR against Moger. The hate-monger had accused Muslims of monopolising the fruit vending business and of spitting on products as a form of “spitting Jihad”. Moger had also called for an economic boycott against Muslim fruit vendors.

Related:

Rashtriya Shiksha Shredder: Rahul Gandhi on CBSE’s latest omissions

Saffronisation of education is okay, but hijabs are out?

Sharp spike in cases of child marriage and child trafficking in 2020!

Hijab Case: Will action be taken against Karanataka BJP for sharing details of minor Muslim students?

Uttar Pradesh: Why were communal slogans raised in Ghaziabad?

2021: A year of unprecedented communal hate crimes

Bashing Christians in India

Gujarat: Why was a Christian ashram accused of conversion even after enquiry found nothing amiss?

Madras HC expresses “dismay and anguish” as NCERT removes report on gender non-conforming, transgender children

MP: Bajrang Dal men attack Christian-run school even as students were writing an exam inside!

The post Karnataka: Hindu Janajagruti focuses on ‘Bible in classrooms’, after hijab controversy appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Let me at the outset categorically junk the lurking innuendo evident in the latest diatribe of Al-Qaeda head Ayman Zawahiri. We Indian Muslims have never looked for external support to defend our rights guaranteed under the Indian Constitution. This is like a savage murderer crying out sermons on the value of human life.

Unlike your theocratic dictatorial regime, Ayman Zahiri, where the space for individual liberties is smothered to death invoking misconstrued religious dictates, India is the largest temple of democracy and pluralism. My country has the adequate fluidity to absorb and mitigate her inner contradictions.

Betraying the news of natural death, the Al-Qaeda’s supreme commander Ayman Zawahiri has recently released a standalone statement on the Hijab controversy in India. This comes from the head of a dispensation who has clipped the freedom of women by banishing them from schools. After initial progressive signs of moderation, the Al-Qaeda regime that was emboldened after the bungled withdrawal of American bootsfrom Afghanistan, has blatantly succumbed to pressures from hardliners. It has demonstrated, once again, that it still clings to outdated tribal Islam with a crass regard for civil liberties and multiple religiosities.

Although India has already found fleeting references in his speeches earlier, his broadcasted messages solely on an Indian issue today demand critical attention. This shows the designs the Al-Qaeda has entertained in the region in manipulating the occasional discontent innate to a democracy. In their pipedream of establishing an Islamic Caliphate, India with its large Muslim population has been a vital cog. Community leaders and security experts should proactively engage to distill the incipient trends of radicalism, especially based in the cyber world.

Al-Qaeda’s version of Islam

Understanding of blinkered understanding of the Al-Qaeda’s religious views will help better read the messages in context. Al-Qaeda believes in ethnic tribal Islamic traditions nurtured by hardcore Salafism exported from the Middle East. It is antithetical to divergent religious interpretations and follows contrived rigidity of Islamic Sharia totally expunging the spirit of religion, Sufism. Following tribal traditions of patriarchy and sustenance through war spoils, they believe in the harsh interpretations of Islam.

Islam, like any religion, embraces changes in terms of laws and cultural evolutions. Al-Qaeda refutes timely accretions to the religion discrediting them as profane innovations as they believe in a puritanical form of religious version. In their scheme of a polity, Pashtun ethnicity is endowed with hegemony. They follow a highly illiberal patriarchal social system and thus women are prevented from appearing in public.

They resort to violence to destroy and tarnish anything they deem as ‘Shirk’ (forbidden things in Islam). This is a scriptural stricture in the Al-Qaeda’s interpretation of Islam. They conveniently dump into oblivion the plural and multi-cultural teachings of Islam. To establish a Pan-Islamic Khilafat to prop up their radical ideologies is central to their political idea. According to the Al-Qaeda, also identical to political Salafism, Islam cannot survive without political establishment. 

Indian Muslims reject the Al-Qaeda’s dogma

Al-Qaeda has no moral right to guide Indian Muslims. Al-Qaeda is at loss without the rudimentary understanding of Indian democracy. Indian democracy is celebrated not for the absence of inner contradictions; but for the pragmatic forte to accommodate and diffuse differences.

The sermon of Zawahiri, although focused on the Hijab issue, is a sinister ploy to discredit democracy and send out innuendoes of subverting the system. It has in fact tried to preach misogynistic and theocratic political messages. The allegations of Indian democracy supporting pagan Hinduism is plainly misleading, and a rigid theocracy like the Al-Qaeda cannot digest the notion of mutual coexistence.

Whether Hijab is essential to religion is contentious within the religion. But, for a muscular patriarchal Al-Qaeda, Hijab is indispensable- to limit the visibility of Muslim women. The Karnataka High Court’s verdict banning Hijab from schools with compulsory uniforms, itself shows the diversity of the Indian system to accommodate diverse opinions in a rainbow polity. Indian judicial system has ample space for grievance redressal through peaceful means.

The militant ascendancy of Right-wing Hindutva poses existential threats to the idea of the nation, but the country has enough checks and brakes to prevent such aberrations from being the norm. While the recent shift to majoritarian nationalism spawns doubt, the nation has the consciousness to implement the Constitution which guarantees equal justice irrespective of religious affiliations. But the exhortations of Al-Qaeda’s supremo to disparage Indian nationhood based on this fickle aberration are like blaming the eclipse on the sun. This has actually hurt the cause of the Muslim community, evident from the statement of the Karnataka home minister who attributed the Hijab protests to ‘outsider influences’.

Indian Islam is one among the multiple interpretations of Islam. It is fundamentally different from puritanical bare dogmas of the Al-Qaeda in its inclusiveness, localism and syncretic moorings. Indian Islam is malleable and adaptive to timely evolutions as a religion is supposed to be. It reposes faith in multicultural society and plural cultural ethos. Indian Muslims are not hapless lots to seek guidance from the rugged terrains of uncertainties.

The Zawahiri’s call to arms should not be taken as such and dismissed, as the wails of a self-styled evangelist. It is part of a larger plot to promote radical insurrections in multi-religious societies. Indian Muslims have earlier repudiated the call to join ISIS to fight the infidel state. The Muslim community has to maintain extra vigilance from radical overtures from ‘outsider forces’. Along with this, governments have the constitutional onus to assuage the grievances of the minority communities to assure safety to all.

*Mubashir is a journalism student at Indian Institute of Mass Communication, Delhi currently on internship with SabrangIndia

Related:

Muskan’s father gives fitting reply to Al Qaeda chief
Now Al Qaeda intrudes into the Hijab controversy
Hijab row: Udupi girls dubbed terrorists by BJP leader
Karnataka: Minority dept bars hijab, saffron scarves in govt schools, PUs

The post We Indian Muslims need no sermons from the Al-Qaeda appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Clearly and strongly dIstancing himself and his family from the video statement released by Al Qaeda chief Ayman Al Zawahiri (late night of April 5), Mohamned Hussain, father of Muskan, a second year B-Com student condemned the contents. 

In a video message “praising” Karnataka college student Muskan Khan for defending hijab, her father on Wednesday termed the comments of the terror outfit’s leader as ‘wrong’, and said he and his family were living peacefully in India.

He also observed that such incidents have the potential of disturbing the peace of the family, he said. He also added that the police and state government can initiate any inquiry to ascertain the truth.

PTI quoted him as saying that, “We don’t know anything about it (video), we don’t know who he is. I saw him today for the first time. He has said something in Arabic…..We are all living here with love and trust like brothers,” Mohammad Hussain Khan reportedly said to the media in response to a question on Zawahiri’s video.

When asked about Zawahiri praising Muskan, he said, “People say whatever they want….this is unnecessarily causing trouble. We are living peacefully in our country, we don’t want him to talk about us, as he is not related to us… it is wrong, it is an attempt to create division among us.”

In the Arabic video clip, with English subtitles provided by SITE Intelligence Group that tracks online activity of white supremacist and jihadist organisations, Zawahiri also reads out a poem, which he says he wrote for ‘our Mujahid sister’ and for her ‘brave feat’.

“May Allah reward her for exposing the reality of Hindu India and the deception of its pagan democracy,” the Al Qaeda chief said in the video, also ending speculations about his death due to natural causes.

Observing that Muskan too has seen the video, Khan said whatever Zawahiri has said is ‘wrong’.

“… she (Muskan) is still a student, she wants to study,” he said.

When asked about demands from politicians and a section of people for an inquiry to “find any links”, Khan said let it be done, there is law, police and government for it. 

Earlier, reacting to the video release, Karnataka Home Minister Araga Jnanendra had, predictably, said, it proves involvement of ‘unseen hands’ behind the row.

He further said the Home and Police department officials are keeping a watch on developments and track things in this connection.

At the peak of hijab row in February, Muskan Khan, a second-year BCom student in Mandya was heckled by a group of students, wearing saffron shawl, for entering the college with hijab.

As they shouted ‘Jai Shri Ram’, Muskan retorted by shouting ‘Allah-hu-Akbar’.

Following this, college authorities had intervened and brought the situation under control. 

The post A fitting reply to Al Qaeda chief: Muskan’s father  appeared first on SabrangIndia.