Skip to main content

'Karnanaka HC wrongly cites Ambedkar': Supreme Court told to stay hijab verdict

Counterview Desk 

Analysing the Karnataka High Court judgment on hijab point by point, several women’s and feminist organisations have said that the Supreme Court must stay the HC verdict which, they say, “will result in exclusion of hijab wearing Muslim girls from accessing education.”
Taking strong exception to the HC verdict, in a statement, they said, “Not a single college in Karnataka originally had any rule banning the wearing of hijab”, adding, “So, it was not hijab wearing girls who defied the prescribed uniforms. It was Hindu-supremacist groups that disrupted colleges, forcing them to amend the rules to selectively prohibit hijabs.

Text:

The Karnataka High Court in its order has held that wearing of hijab is not essential to the practice of Islam; that College Development Committees (CDCs) have a right to prescribe a uniform; and that Muslim girls must comply with whatever uniform is prescribed by their college.
We, the undersigned organizations working for women's rights and democratic rights, note that the Supreme Court is already apprised of the issue. We are confident that the Supreme Court will protect hijab-wearing Muslim girls and women from discrimination and exclusion in the name of school or college uniforms.
The Karnataka HC judgment recognises that CDCs of colleges have a right to make decisions regarding uniforms. In Karnataka itself, many colleges have made additions to their rules specifying that hijabs could be worn along with uniforms. Likewise we appeal to all CDCs in Karnataka to allow girls and women to wear hijabs along with uniforms just as Sikh boys and men can wear turbans, and Hindus can wear bindis, tilaks, threads, sindoor etc.
We take this opportunity to remind the CDCs that not a single college in Karnataka originally had any rule banning the wearing of hijab; in fact one college rule book actually specified that students could wear hijabs conforming to the colour of the uniform. So it was not hijab wearing girls who defied the prescribed uniforms. It was Hindu-supremacist groups that disrupted colleges, forcing them to amend the rules to selectively prohibit hijabs.
This was a chance for the Karnataka HC to address bullying in schools and colleges and both the institutions; but failing to do so, has endangered many people from minority communities and identities who may look different or be different from the most.
We appeal to the Supreme Court to issue an immediate stay on the Karnataka HC order. This order will have a far-reaching negative impact on the safety, dignity, and right to education of Muslim girls and women. We point out that the even the interim order of the Karnataka HC had resulted in not only Muslim girl students but even Muslim women teachers being prohibited from entering school/college grounds.
The order became a pretext for publicly humiliating Muslim girls and women by demanding that they strip off their hijabs publicly at school/college gates as a condition for entrance. Hijab-wearing students were forced to miss classes and even exams as a result of the order; and some Muslim women even resigned as teachers in protest at the indignity of being forced to strip off an item of clothing.
Also, the Karnataka order encouraged educational authorities all over the country to prohibit entry of hijab-wearing students and teachers into campuses. Further, there were instances of hijab-wearing women being accosted and harassed in other public spaces too -- for instance in a bank in Bihar.
Dr Ambedkar did not suggest, as HC order implies, that a Muslim girl voluntarily wearing headscarf be prevented from accessing education
So as to protect hijab-wearing Muslim girls and women from any further such grievous instances of Discrimination, exclusion, publicly humiliation, and harassment, we appeal to the Supreme Court to lose no time in issuing a stay on the Karnataka HC order.
This was a chance to address bullying in schools and colleges and both the institutions and courts failed in addressing it thereby endangering many people from minority communities and identities who may look different or be different from the most.
The reasoning of the Karnataka HC verdict is misleading and unsatisfactory on many counts:
  1. The verdict spends most of its time arguing that the wearing of hijab (headscarf) is not an essential practice in Islam. But it fails to satisfactorily address the main issues: is it not discriminatory and unconstitutional to selectively force a Muslim girl or woman to lose her access to education in case she wears a hijab?
  2. The verdict cites a passage from Dr Ambedkar's writings on how "compulsory system of purdah" results in segregation and seclusion of Muslim women, to then argue that wearing of hijab/veil etc. may inhibit emancipation, public participation, and access to education for Muslim girls and women. This is a shocking distortion of the thrust and intention of Dr Ambedkar's observations. Dr Ambedkar's remarks are not about any item of clothing. Dr Ambedkar refers specifically to the compulsory purdah system preventing girls and women from appearing in public outdoors; a form of forced segregation preventing them from accessing education and from "outdoor activity". Dr Ambedkar did not suggest, as the HC order implies, that a Muslim girl or woman voluntarily wearing a headscarf (hijab) be prevented from accessing education and thus forced back into seclusion inside the home or segregation by being forced to study in a separate Muslim school or college!
  3. The verdict cites the Indian Young Lawyers Association vs State of Kerala judgment (popularly known as the Sabarimala judgment) to assert that the constitutional "right to freedom of religion" does not protect all religious practices; and that therefore cannot protect the practice of wearing hijab. How can the Sabarimala verdict against prohibition of women's entry into temples be used to justify prohibiting the entry of hijab-wearing girls and women into schools or colleges?!
  4. The verdict makes the mistake of equating uniforms with "uniformity". In India, school/college uniforms have always accommodated social and religious diversity: allowing Sikh boys and girls to wear turbans, for instance. So such diversity that accommodates turbans and hijabs is not at odds with uniforms. Enforced uniformity has never been a feature of Indian schools and colleges. The verdict mentions the MEC EDUCATION: KWAZULU-NATAL judgment which held a South African school's refusal to allow a Hindu girl to wear a nose stud with her uniform, to be unconstitutional. It holds that this case cannot apply to the hijab since the nose stud is "ocularly insignificant"! The ethical and constitutional arguments of a court should not rely on such subjective biases: which does not see a Hindu girl's nose stud as disturbing to the eye but finds a Muslim girl's headscarf to be so.
  5. The verdict, as we have pointed out, wrongly applies Ambedkar's concerns about forcible segregation of women, to the voluntary wearing of hijab. It implies that the practice of hijab itself militates against women, and thus should not be allowed in schools and colleges. The verdict fails to understand the very concept of women's autonomy and consent, since it fails to distinguish between forcible imposition of religious practices on women against their will; and women's choice to observe certain practices based on their free will. The Sabarimala analogy can make this point clear. Women petitioned court to be allowed to enter Sabarimala since the prohibition on women's entry violated their rights and equality. The court in striking down the prohibition on women's entry in the name of the temple authorities' "freedom to practice religion", did not in any way force women who believed they should not enter Sabarimala, to enter it against their will in the name of "emancipation"! Likewise, it is abhorrent that hijab wearing girls or women should be barred from entering schools or colleges in the name of "emancipation". Emancipation lies in respecting the autonomy of girls and women, not in forcing practices on them in the name of either religion or secularism.
We reiterate our solidarity with the hijab-wearing Muslim students fighting for their right to education, dignity, and autonomy.
---
Click here for the list of organisation’s that endorsed the statement

Comments

TRENDING

'Flawed' argument: Gandhi had minimal role, naval mutinies alone led to Independence

Counterview Desk Reacting to a Counterview  story , "Rewiring history? Bose, not Gandhi, was real Father of Nation: British PM Attlee 'cited'" (January 26, 2016), an avid reader has forwarded  reaction  in the form of a  link , which carries the article "Did Atlee say Gandhi had minimal role in Independence? #FactCheck", published in the site satyagrahis.in. The satyagraha.in article seeks to debunk the view, reported in the Counterview story, taken by retired army officer GD Bakshi in his book, “Bose: An Indian Samurai”, which claims that Gandhiji had a minimal role to play in India's freedom struggle, and that it was Netaji who played the crucial role. We reproduce the satyagraha.in article here. Text: Nowadays it is said by many MK Gandhi critics that Clement Atlee made a statement in which he said Gandhi has ‘minimal’ role in India's independence and gave credit to naval mutinies and with this statement, they concluded the whole freedom struggle.

A Hindu alternative to Valentine's Day? 'Shiv-Parvati was first love marriage in Universe'

By Rajiv Shah*   The other day, I was searching on Google a quote on Maha Shivratri which I wanted to send to someone, a confirmed Shiv Bhakt, quite close to me -- with an underlying message to act positively instead of being negative. On top of the search, I chanced upon an article in, imagine!, a Nashik Corporation site which offered me something very unusual. 

Don't agree on domestic subsidies, ensure food security at WTO meet: Farmer leaders

Counterview Desk  The Indian Coordination Committee of Farmers Movements (ICCFM), a top network of farmers’ organizations in India, in a letter to Piyush Goyal, Minister of Commerce and Industry, has asked him to “safeguard food security and sovereignty, even as ensuring peasants' rights" at the 13th Ministerial Conference of the World Trade Organization (WTO MC 13), to take place from 26 to 29 February 2024 in Abu Dhabi.

Sharp 61-85% fall in Tech startup funding in India's top 'business-friendly' States

By Rajiv Shah Funding in Tech startups in top business-friendly Indian states has witnessed a major fall, a data intelligence platform for private market research has said in a series of reports it has released this month. Analysing Tech startup data of Telangana, Maharashtra, Delhi NCR, Gujarat, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka and Kerala, Tracxn Technologies Ltd , the Bengaluru-based research firm, finds that except for Kerala, funding witnessed a fall of anywhere between 61% and 85%.

Maize, bajra, jute, banana cultivation banned off West Bengal border: Plea to NHRC

Counterview Desk  West Bengal-based human rights defender Kirity Roy, who is secretary, Banglar Manabadhikar Suraksha Manch, and is national convenor of the Programme Against Custodial Torture & Impunity, in a representation to the chairman, National Human Rights Commission, second within few days, has bought to light one more case of trespassing and destruction of a fertile banana plantation by BSF personnel along the Indo-Bangladesh border, stating, despite a written complaint to the police has taken "no initiative".

India second best place to invest, next to UAE, yet there is 'lacks support' for IT services

By Sreevas Sahasranamam, Aileen Ionescu-Somers*  The United Arab Emirates (UAE) is the best place in the world to start a new business, according to the latest annual Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM) survey. The Arab nation is number one for the third year in a row thanks to a big push by the government into cutting-edge technology in its efforts to diversify away from oil.

Solar energy funding dips 9% in 2023; 2024 'kicks off' with US$1 billion investment

By Lakshmitha Raj*  Solar energy tech companies have already secured slightly over US$1 billion in funding in 2024 (till Feb 7, 2024) after total funding into Solar Energy companies in India fell 9% to US$1.55B in 2023 from US$1.7B in 2022. A total of 39 $100M+ rounds have been closed till date, with Delhi leading the city-wise funding, followed by Gurugram and Mumbai.

Buddhist shrines were 'massively destroyed' by Brahmanical rulers: Historian DN Jha

Nalanda mahavihara By Our Representative Prominent historian DN Jha, an expert in India's ancient and medieval past, in his new book , "Against the Grain: Notes on Identity, Intolerance and History", in a sharp critique of "Hindutva ideologues", who look at the ancient period of Indian history as "a golden age marked by social harmony, devoid of any religious violence", has said, "Demolition and desecration of rival religious establishments, and the appropriation of their idols, was not uncommon in India before the advent of Islam".

Mahanadi delta: Aggressive construction in flood plains, reduced fish stock, pollution

By Sudhansu R Das  Frequent natural calamities, unemployment, low farmers’ income, increase in crime rate and lack of quality human resources to strike a balance between growth and environment etc. continue to haunt the state. The state should delve into the root causes of poverty, unemployment and natural calamities.

Narmada Valley's fossil evidence: Ground for 'nationalists' to argue primates' India roots?

By Saurav Sarkar*  In December 1982, a geologist digging in India’s Central Narmada Valley found something he did not expect. Arun Sonakia, who at the time worked for the Geological Survey of India, unearthed a hominid fossil skullcap from the Pleistocene era. The discovery sent shockwaves through the field of paleoanthropology and put South Asia on the map of human prehistory. Some experts concluded that the skull likely belonged to a member of a predecessor species of ours, Homo heidelbergensis , or perhaps was a hybrid of homo species, while Sonakia himself suggested “ an affinity… to Homo erectus .”