I was summoned by the teacher of my son in Class XII at Modern school as it had confiscated the mobile phone that he had carried to school. I sat at the waiting room for close to two hours (the teacher was actually busy at a meeting with other teachers) and made to sign an undertaking saying that my son would not carry mobile to school and, if was found with one, the instrument would be confiscated and not returned.
As a liberal parent, I did not find an issue with him carrying a mobile since at many times it comes as a rescue when we have to pass on messages to him or make an urgent call. I could have made arguments but I realised that I must abide by the school discipline. Mobiles actually lead to distractions in classrooms. Also when we join some institutions, we agree to abide by the rules and regulations. This was the simple logic.
Without getting into the merits of the decision taken by Justice Hemant Gupta and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, and the arguments on which they based their decisions, I want to approach the issue as a common man who tries to make sense of the entire controversy. Both Justice Gupta and Dhulia have given compelling arguments representing the two sides of a coin and the Supreme Court of India is well equipped to take a final call on this. The entire country would await that since it would decide which way the country would move.
School uniform is an integral part of school discipline. Why teachers scold you when you wear dirty shoes or unkempt hair or unwashed clothes? It is not our scolding but the fear of the school teacher that has often forced my son to go to the barbers and have a decent hair-cut. School is the place where we develop bonhomie with other students, learn discipline and receive the message of oneness of being an Indian first.
What happens if we all interact by wearing our badges of differences? Our separate identities would prevail over oneness- the least common factor. We would learn to tolerate the issues that divide but not appreciate the issues that unite. Assertion of such individual identities would create problems of assimilation and provide opportunities for conflict. When these students come out of their classes, the divide would get further accentuated since those flashes of brilliance that called for bonhomie would be missing. A Muslim would be a Muslim first and a Hindu would be a Hindu first. The search for national identity would get lost in factors of conflict.
But this is exactly what Islamists want. The PFI and its student wing the Campus Front of India have been working hard to train its cadre that would demonstrate on issues considered Islamic and that would intend to polarise the community. The theory of Hindus and Muslins being two nations got compromised due to the process of secularisation. It is reasserting at a time when waves of liberalism is blowing across the country. Muslims should not look like Hindus (they come from the same cultural stock) and they should not have Hindu cultural practices (Muslim women in places like Bihar wear vermillion on their forehead and wear saris) and for these two to happen the identity issues must be reinforced. Muslims in danger or Islam in danger makes a deadly narrative to polarise even the liberal section among Muslims.
Nonetheless, the controversy itself is interesting and sounds ironical when juxtaposed against the massive protest happening in Iran on the rights of women not to wear hijab and the entire world coming in support of this. And Iran is an Islamic country.
India is sitting on a cusp of identity explosion if the issue is not handled in a sensitive way. There is likely to be a massive reaction or ideological backlash from the other side if the hijab controversy is not understood in the right context. It is ironical to find scores of legal luminaries, who claim themselves to be liberal, fighting for the hijab. It is satisfying to watch Muslim panellists on Indian television news channels debating pro and against hijab in educational institutions. This means that there is division within the community on this and none can claim monopoly.
What happens if tomorrow Hindus start asserting their identity symbols in such educational institutions? It would be amusing to find out saffron clad students dotting tilak on their foreheads or other symbols while coming to schools. Every state has its own cultural dress. What happens if students start wearing their state’s cultural attires? School would become a place for fancy dress competition and none can be stopped since they would be exercising their choices as per the constitution. Why bother to wear school uniform then?
And when it comes to choices, we would look hypocrite if we do not question why an adult who can elect a Government at the age of 18 years by exercising his vote, cannot drink alcohol at the same age? Why should Indian states have different age for allowing adults to drink? It is 18 years in Goa, Himachal Pradesh, Karnataka, Sikkim and Puducherry where as in many other States including Delhi it is 21 years. And there was no reason why till recently males and females in our country had different legal ages for marriage in an era where we talk of equality (the Modi Government raised the age of marriage recently to bring it at par with male).
Accepting the pro-hijab argument would mean a death knell to liberty of millions of Muslim women who feel the fresh wave of liberal air by not covering their faces and face the world boldly without revealing their religious identity. What is more secular? Interacting after asserting an intense religious identity? Or, interacting without using religious symbols? Tomorrow these girls or women would be asked to follow the example of those wearing hijab. This would be nothing but reinforcement of fundamentalism by the liberal society. One question that many people are asking is why has controversy surfaced now. Millions of girl students from rural areas attend schools and colleges and without facing any difficulty. People in the villages and the social fabric guarantee their safety. Some undesirable incidents may happen but these are far few in comparison to those that happen in so called civilised societies. And there is no statistics to prove that after wearing hijab or burqa, a girl becomes more safe. If hijab is the solution to women safety, the State can save a lot by making it mandatory for all. And there is no statistics to prove that only Muslim girls are unsafe and have to work at home and hence they be allowed to wear hijab.
But this would also be an admission on the part of the State that is has failed to provide safety and security to its citizens. The challenges to law and order due to breakdown of societal values cannot be compensated through hijab. If gaze of men is the issue, these men found to be guilty of giving such gaze should be compulsorily asked to wear hijab. Why should women suffer for fault of men?
Imagine what would happen if teachers in schools or colleges are looking at these hijab wearing women to find out if they have understood a concept or not. Facial expression is important in such education. The simple logic is if you can look at my face I should be able to look at your face. Otherwise a hijab wearing teacher should teach and it would be really funny to find out a such a teacher teaching hijab wearing girls.
Modern technology has come as a rescue to resolve this dilemma. Why go to school at all? Have a Class where teaching is done by computer: male voice for male student and female voice for female students. Why create problems for others when you can have the best of education at home?
No social, cultural or such spurious arguments should vitiate the atmosphere at schools and colleges. We will need to think of such extremities to find a solution to such a controversy. Regressive thoughts must give ways to liberal and progressive ways of life. And the only maxim that guides us all is You always Have a Choice.