Hijab row: Uniform is the ruse, uniformity is the agenda

The Principal of the Government Pre-university College for Women in Udupi who has barred eight girls from entering their classrooms wearing the hijab has only the college’s uniform code on his side to defend his action. To back up the defence, there is also the claim that the students had signed a declaration at the time of admission to the effect that they would abide by the rules of the college. These do not stand a chance against constitutional rights. The students have not been allowed to attended classes for over a month though they have gone to the college every working day. They have been seen sitting in the corridors. The Karnataka government has supported the college authorities. The state Education Minister has called the wearing of the hijab an act of indiscipline.

The students have said that they have gone to the college wearing the prescribed uniform. They have not added anything to the uniform. The hijab they wear is the scarf, which is a part of the uniform, wrapped around their head. In any case, the students have the right to wear their religious symbols. The uniform rule imposed by a college or a state government cannot override the right to freedom of religion granted by Article 25 of the Constitution. The Article guarantees “freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practise and propagate religion.” The practice of religion would normally include the wearing of markers of faith associated with the religion.

At least one High Court has recognised the hijab as an essential part of Islamic religion and accepted the right of students to wear it as part of their religious practice. In a petition over the right to wear the hijab in an examination hall in 2015, the Kerala High Court said that “it cannot be insisted that a particular dress code be followed failing which a student would be prohibited from sitting for the examination”. It dealt with the matter again in 2016 and examined the Koran and the Hadith to see if the hijab and the long-sleeved dress are essential to the practice of the Islamic faith. It held that the wearing of the head scarf and the long-sleeved dress was a religious duty for Muslim women. If a student has the right to wear the hijab while taking an exam, she should also have the right to wear it to the college every day.

The matter came up before the Supreme Court also the same year. The court only made an observation by asking the petitioners, who had sought permission to wear the hijab in an examination hall, why it could not be removed for three hours. It did not pronounce any order in the case and allowed the petitioners to withdraw the petition.

While these are the existing judicial pronouncements on the matter, it is difficult to see how the girls could be denied their right to wear the hijab. The usual exceptions relating to public order, morality and health do not apply here. The issue of the use or non-use of religious symbols by members of the armed forces or other disciplined forces is a different matter. These are governed by specific laws passed by Parliament and are in conformity with the Constitution. The discipline in these forces is in any case different from the discipline that the Karnataka Education Minister talks about.

The wearing of the hijab cannot be treated differently from the wearing of the turban, the mangalsutra, bindis, bangles, crosses and other commonly worn religious symbols and icons. Nor is there any logic in the college authorities’ statement that the students can wear the hijab on the campus but should remove it in the classroom. The question why only some Muslim students insist on wearing the hijab while most of them do not wear it is also wrong. Those who want to wear it should have the right to do so, whatever others do, and that is why it is an individual right.

The wearing of religious symbols in educational institutions and in social life has not been frowned upon or objected to in the country till recently. The uniform should not be made an excuse for that. The school or college uniform should not be a rigid outfit that rejects and excludes the fundamental rights of those who wear it. A dress code in civil life should have room for accommodation and inclusion. Tolerance and respect for others can well be tailored into it.

Stripped to its basics, the controversy is not about uniform or discipline. It arises from the politics of intolerance directed at people who can be “identified by their clothes”. The hijab is hit because it is a visible sign of minority faith which the majoritarian politics does not want to be seen in public and seeks to suppress and control. The problem is not the uniform, but the urge to impose uniformity across society. It is part of the attacks on minority communities in politics, social and public spaces and in religious places. It is about intolerance and discrimination, and the unwillingness to recognise and accept differences.

When identities — religious, linguistic, racial or others — are allowed to flourish, they often cease to be self-conscious and sometimes even lose themselves. But when they are attacked, they try to assert themselves. That is what the girls are doing with their hijabs.

The hijab, the turban, the cross or the namam are not just markers of identity. They are not just the things they are made of, but are symbols of centuries of human experience and aspirations. They link the mundane world with other worlds and exist both in religious imagination and everyday reality. They link individuals to their communities and invoke meanings deeper than their significance in everyday life, though the meanings change in new social and cultural contexts. That is why the attacks on them are taken as attempts to cut the individuals off from the community and to purge them of the spiritual and social capital accumulated through centuries.

This should also be considered: If the Prime Minister, who has sworn an oath under the Constitution to uphold secularism and non-discrimination, can conduct a homa, which is a religious ritual, wearing religious attire, in public, can’t the students go to their college wearing the hijab? While the image of the Prime Minister as a priest endures and feeds the public imagination, the image of the woman as a Muslim offends and is sought to be driven away from the public gaze. That is a poor sign of the times.