If God has given you a face for identification, he would never like you to hide it from others. I can’t believe that hijab that acts as a veil is a religious symbol. Religious symbols are those that define its followers. For example ‘kesh’ (hair) or ‘Pagri’ (turban) are integral religious symbols in Sikhs.Similarly, if one asks who is a Muslim? I don’t think the various headgears or dresses worn by its followers would define them being followers of Islam. Practices followed by members of a religious group for separate identity does not define the religion.
The Islamic sanction for hijab comes in Sura 33 Ayaat 59 of The Holy Quran, where the Prophet has been directed by Allah to instruct his wife, daughters, and other women followers of the faith to put a covering on the face so that they can be identified as respectable women and not molested. Here it is very clear that this comes in the context of women safety. But how about situations where molestation is not a possibility because of stringent laws or higher social consciousness.
For example, France has been trying to protect its liberal culture by disallowing all sorts of religious attires. The hijab ban in France was described as the weaponisation of secularism. In India, any such attempt would be described as the weaponisation of communalism.
The dress does not define identity and it has variations all across the world. Many women do not wear any dress symbols yet are followers of Islam. Can one wear a sari or put vermillion on the head and still be a Muslim? Many Muslim women in Bihar follow these practices. The Jamaat is trying its best to homogenise all Muslims by telling them what to wear and how to behave to be true Muslims. But the real reason is to prevent their looking as Hindus—the faith of their ancestors.
The controversy that began due to opposition to some Muslim girls wearing hijab in a government college in Karnataka has taken an amusing turn with many political leaders commenting on it and some Muslim women coming on the streets in many states to assert their right to wear hijab. It is as if wearing hijab would liberate them? Juxtapose this with women in Afghanistan resisting the Talibani dress code imposed on them. For them, showing face is liberation from a medieval mindset that the Taliban represents.
I was aghast that Nobel prize winner Malala Yousafzai who once had opposed wearing a burqa has jumped in to support those demanding hijab rights. She had once said that the hijab should not be worn if the situation demanded facial recognition. But it seems she has become a pure Islamist after marriage and shining in the eyes of the same people she opposed is more important than upholding liberal values.
After all, she changed her opinion on marriage after entering wedlock. Before marriage, she had said marriage was not needed. In an interview in July 2021, she had said: “I still don’t understand why people have to get married. If you want to have a person in your life, why do you have to sign marriage papers, why can’t it just be a partnership?” And in November of the same year, she tied the knot with full Islamic rituals.
But it is expected that Malala would grow up and become mature so that she gets full context before she comments on any issue. Otherwise, she would fall in the category of Greta Thunberg and singer Rihanna who tweeted in support of farmers’ agitation in India without even knowing what the agitation was about. One would not object if she has already become a part of the Islamist toolkit to defame India and polarise people.
That being an Islamist blind you against rationality was proven when the US Ambassador at Large for International Religious Freedom Rashad Hussain, of Indian origin, jumped into the controversy and said that the hijab ban in school violates religious freedom. India gave a befitting rejoinder. Most of the west, including the US and the UK, is suffering from Islamophobia and hence it is difficult to talk rationality to them. They move from one end of the divide to the other in search of the Holy Grail that would fix Muslim-Christian relations in search of secularisation.
Some Muslim women, supported by radicals, are demanding that they be given the right to wear hijab. All such dresses are an outcome of patriarchal fear that they could become a victim of the evil gaze of men outside immediate male family members. I am surprised that the liberals are defending these vestiges of a patriarchal system in modern society. The Udupi PU college is a girls college and the possibility of male gaze is thus minimised.
One of the girls told the BBC that she needed to cover her head in the classroom as the teacher was a male. How disgusting this could be for the teacher who is trying to pass on knowledge to students? In the Indian context, teacher-student relations still command a lot of sanctity. And if you are so particularly concerned why go to such a school or college.
Priyanka Vadra made a very funny comment. She tweeted: “Whether it’s bikini, ghoonghat or jeans, a woman has right to decide.” Dilation of her remarks would make her look foolish. Imagine men and women in the army saying they would not wear battle combat dresses and wear only traditional dresses. If you wear a bikini in college and ghoonghat on a beach, there is something seriously wrong with your thought process.
The issue is not what you wear in public but what you wear in a classroom of a school. When one enters a Gurudwara, one keeps a handkerchief or headgear while entering it. One loses one’s choice. One cannot enter a school or college and not follow its dress codes.
I vividly remember that when a delegation of the British High Commission paid a visit to the Akshardham temple in Delhi it was faced with a major dilemma. Members wanted to meet the head priest to know about the ideology and faith and the head priest would not meet any women member in the delegation. There were three to four lady members. The Political Counsellor then resolved that since they had paid the visit they must abide by their rules. The ladies privately passed acerbic comments but accepted the decision.
This is the same in the case of educational institutions. You don’t expect the Gayatri mantra in a madrasa school and you don’t expect an ayat from the Holy Quran to be recited in a Dayanand Anglo Vedic (DAV) school. In Convent schools run by the missionaries, you get to learn a lot from the Holy Bible. If these hurt, you don’t go there. Nobody is forcing you. The country is still to achieve uniformity in education or prayers at school or the dresses that should be worn by students in schools and colleges.
I would not mind anyone wearing any kind of dress that one wears till it adds to the elegance. I don’t have to say much on vulgarity since there is already a law for it. In a secular college, if certain individuals want to exhibit their traditional practices, they may be opposed by others who may not feel comfortable. You cannot say that you will have to tolerate me because this is part of my custom. If you are so possessed by these values, you can prefer admission in minority institutions. You can also take to learning through correspondence. But if you want to enjoy the culture of the college and also demonstrate your Islamic identity, there is going to be trouble.
But if we take a sympathetic view, these Muslim girls are getting the liberty from home to join co-educational colleges because they have demonstrated their willingness to adhere to Islamic identity. If they do not do so, they may not be sent to colleges or feel that breath of fresh air that defines youth and energy. Maybe the next generation would be better and more liberated. The Udupi college has been liberal enough to allow hijab on the campus but forbidding the same in classrooms.
How it all started is important. Six Muslim girls wearing hijab were denied entry into classrooms at a pre-University college in the Udupi district in December last year. Most Muslim girls followed the dress code and there was no problem. It seems there was an attempt to convert this into a controversy to experiment with polarisation.
These girls protested and finally approached the Karnataka High Court claiming this to be a violation of their fundamental right and the Court has set up a higher bench to decide the issue. However, the Court has passed an interim order that prohibits wearing all religious symbols including hijab in such schools and colleges. The matter was taken to the Supreme Court saying the interim order violated the rights of Muslims but the Apex Court has rejected the plea saying let the High Court adjudicate on this.
Those who are unaware and may think this row has suddenly erupted should know that coastal Karnataka has become communally very sensitive because of the rising Muslim population and radicalisation of youths due to the Jihadi mindset of the Islamic organisation the Popular Front of India (PFI) and its political affiliate the Social Democratic Party of India (SDPI) that has politically aligned with the Congress.
The role of the PFI in anti-CAA protests in Delhi and elsewhere is well documented. Agencies are investigating their role in the hijab row as well. It is only handful that tried to assert their Islamic identity that too closer to elections in Uttar Pradesh. The Islamists are scared that a large section of Muslim women finds virtue in the administration of the BJP under Yogi Adijyanath that prevents violence against women. There are many who are happy with the abolition of the Triple Talaq. But some believe they must behave like Islamists and should not be influenced by liberal values.
How is this possible that when the world is struggling to fight Islamists even in Islamic countries, some Muslim women in India are demanding the right to wear hijab or burqa? There are many countries that have banned covering of face by burqa or any other dress. The list includes France, Switzerland, Netherlands, Belgium, the UK, Germany, Sweden, China, Austria, Bulgaria, and Sri Lanka.
There are many reports that have come out from counties such as Afghanistan, Iran, and Arab countries showing the desire of Muslim women to come out of the feudal, medieval mindset that says women should be put behind veils since their faces or body have corrupting influence on the minds of the men. Liberals all across the world champion the rights of these women but they have different standards for India. Wearing a hijab is a sign of liberalism.
The writer is the author of “Narendra Modi: the GameChanger”. A former journalist, he is a member of BJP’s media relations department and represents the party as spokesperson while participating in television debates. The views expressed are personal.
France has been trying to protect its liberal culture by disallowing all sorts of religious attires. The hijab ban in France was described as the weaponisation of secularism. In India, any such attempt would be described as the weaponisation of communalism.
