Hijab Controversy from various perspectives

 Hello, friends!

Nowadays, things have deteriorated so much that in some areas of the country students are now fighting in the name of religion. These students are now worried about who's wearing a hijab, and who's wearing orange. The division in the country has spread so deep, the news claims that in several schools and colleges in Karnataka hijab has been banned, due to which, many girls are not allowed to enter into colleges they're not allowed to study. They protested against it, and in its response, some people started a counter-protest by wearing a saffron shawl.

In some places, these protests turned into slogans in some places, the girls were harassed and in some places, we even saw instances of stone-pelting. Things have gotten so out of control that the Chief Minister of Karnataka had to decide close the schools and colleges for 3 days. Everything that happened was truly embarrassing and to understand it better, we need to go to the roots of the problem.

Let's start with clearly differentiating between a hijab and a burqa.

This is a hijab.

This is a burqa.

People often mix up the two but it is important to know they are different. Because the burqa has been banned in many countries across the world for security reasons even including some Muslim countries, where it was banned but hijab is a head covering for Muslims, The entire issue here that is being discussed in media and social media can be divided into two questions.

First, is the hijab right or wrong? and the second the girls that wear a hijab, should they be stopped from going to schools and colleges?

It's very important to see the 2 questions distinctly because people often mix them up leading to confusion, and we can't reach a solution.

So let's focus on the first question first.

Is hijab good or bad?

People who argue in the favour of the hijab those who support the practice of wearing hijab say that the hijab is an undeniable part of their tradition, culture, and religion and it is there in the Indian Constitution, that every citizen has the right to practice and promote their religion peacefully. So it is their right to wear the hijab. It is their right bestowed by the Indian Constitution but with every right in the Indian Constitution, there are some reasonable restrictions. There can be reasons for the restriction of any freedom, such as a threat to the sovereignty of India, a threat to India's security or the public order is being hampered or it is a contempt of court or it is violating decency or morality. These are the reasons that are cited for imposing any restrictions on a fundamental freedom.

But wearing a hijab, is it a threat to the security of the country? No. No one is getting hurt simply because a woman chooses to wear a hijab. It doesn't affect anyone's life. That's why it's not a threat.

On the other hand, what are the arguments against it?

People that are against the hijab say that, it is a symbol of patriarchy. Most women don't wear a hijab because they choose to do so, rather, they wear it because their family, their community surrounding them, force them to wear this. If they don't wear the hijab, they wouldn't be accepted or included in their community and that they would be harassed. They'd be either forced to comply or would be treated as second class citizens. We witnessed several protests in multiple countries where thousands of women took to the streets, to protest against compulsory hijab. Women don't want to be forced to wear a hijab compulsorily. The argument here is about Women Empowerment and Freedom of Choice.

Unfortunately, in our country the people who are against the hijab the most they want neither women empowerment nor want to give them the freedom of choice. They are against the hijab merely because of their blind hatred for this religion.That's why they want to assert their dominance and want to impose their will.  So who is in the right here?

Let's look at this from the perspective of the government. 

What should be the ultimate purpose of a government? the government should strive to socially integrate people as much as possible. That they live together in unity and harmony and at the same time, they get as much freedom as possible. That the people be free to do what they want, that they have a freedom of choice,as much as possible.

What should be done to achieve this?

People should be allowed to wear their religious clothes, people should be able to wear their religious symbols and their traditional clothes,would people be able to live together happily while being socially integrated then? Or should religious symbols be completed banned?and everyone should be made to wear the same kind of clothes without representing their religion in their clothes would people be happier then?

It has no straightforward answer.

That's why different countries have different approaches to this. It's the same with hijab. Should women be given the freedom to wear the hijab? But how would we know that the women are wearing it of their own free will? That they aren't being forced to wear the hijab by their family and community? It is very difficult to know this. For this reason, different countries have different approaches and different types of secularism. The fundamental meaning of Secularism is to be neutral to all religions. This philosophy began in Europe at a time when the Chruch and the Monarchy governed the people together in those countries. The Church was heavily involved in government matters. In state affairs.To get rid of this, secularism was conceptualised.  To separate the Church and State.The Chruch wouldn't interfere in the day-to-day governing affairs, and the State wouldn't interfere in the religious affairs.But as a consequence of this, all the public institutions in the European countries, They were ordered to eradicate religion from their premises to stay away from it. Media, public schools, colleges,bureaucracy, political parties, none of them should have anything to do with religion.

On the other hand, the concept of secularism in India,was much different than this. In India, the church wasn't interfering in state affairs. Rather, the ideologies of tolerance and co-existence had been prevalent in India. In India, Jainism, Buddhism,Sikhism, Islam, Christianity, were all present.More or less, they lived together. There were the Sufi and Bhakti movements, that helped foster a feeling of brotherhood among people. They taught people to live in harmony. Many people are credited for it, because of these reasons,the Indian version of secularism,was on the basis that all religions are equal. Equality among them was a must So that we may lead with unity in diversity.As the consequence, we saw that in countries like India and America, the kind of secularism that's practised, is known as Soft Secularism. That the government, wouldn't be averse to religion completely. It would include religion by supporting all religions equally.It would support religious activities,but equally.

On the other hand, the secularism practised in France and some other European countries is known as Hard Secularism Or the Negative Secularism. The government tries to distance every public institution from all religions. That's why any sort of religious dress, or any kind of a religious symbol, is often banned. Countries like France have banned hijab from schools and the highest court of the European Union, has stated that in the European countries,it is up to the employers, if they want, they can ban hijab in their workplace as well. It is up to the companies, basically. In France, this is so widespread that there was a case 7 years ago in which, pork was been served at a French school, to the students,and obviously, Muslims don't eat pork, but that day, students had only pork to eat for lunch.So the parents of some students called up the school to say that they don't consume pork as they're Muslims, the school replied by saying that the students have no other choice than to eat pork.If they've been served pork, every student needs to eat it. That no religious restrictions would be entertained in the school.

In China, churches are literally demolished, and the crosses are removed from the churches. They've jailed thousands of pastors. And it is being said that more than 1 million Muslims in China are being sent to "Reeducation Camps." To politically brainwash them.This is the extent to which the Chinese government hates religions.

If we look at the original definition of secularism,that the government shouldn't interfere in religion at all,China has gone in the other direction, so much so that perhaps China can't be called a Secular country anymore.

Honestly, there are pros and cons to both models. So there are some cons of the Indian version of secularism as well. The first disadvantage is that Where do we draw the line? If it is allowed to go to school in hijab today, tomorrow, someone can wear a burqa to school. It will be their freedom of religion. And tomorrow if I say that I am starting a new religion, and in my religion, it is allowed to go to school in a short dress as well. How can we stop this from happening? What would be the reasoning for this? And the second disadvantage is that because it is very difficult to draw a line here, it becomes much easier to politically exploit people. To incite people and get them to fight among themselves over religion.

And we are seeing it happen nowadays.People are using religions and clothes, to fight.Students are fighting.What is the solution to this?Both sides should come together and calmly discuss it to peacefully arrive at a solution. And if it fails, the High Court or the Supreme Court should be given the task.To make the rules.About what is allowed and what isn't.It isn't difficult to do this.But the problem arises when some organisations try their best to incite the students. To get them to fight their classmates over religion. Because it's election season. A Hindu-Muslim issue needs to be fabricated as soon as possible, because if people aren't distracted with these issues,people would start thinking about things like inflation and unemployment. And it would be disastrous for the politicians. They want people to keep fighting amongst themselves over petty things. So that the people are busy with this.

It is a very important question that needs to be pondered on and if the government truly wants to increase social integration in the country, so that everyone can live together peacefully. That there is unity in the country. That there is freedom of choice and women empowerment. The government should take apt decisions then.

Thank you very much.