by Nafis Haider 17 February 2022
On the recent hijab row in India, both- the opponents and proponents- are offering liberal arguments- though starkly contrary to each other, and make their case in light of the constitution. This, therefore, makes it important for us to examine the different arguments proffered by both camps in order to identify their legitimacy and efficacy.
To begin with, from the vantage point of India’s liberal constitutional tradition, the question of hijab, fundamentally represents a conflict between tradition and modernity; when seen in the light of politics, it offers a paradigm of sharp competitive politics defined by religion. Importantly, the hijab controversy also raises the question of the claims of India being a secular and tolerant nation. The investigation of the above-mentioned tensions is probably the reason why intermittently India is faced with uses that have a religious overtone. The Hijab row is nothing new; rather it is in continuation of the controversy of like nature of Mandir- Masjid, cow vigilantism, etc. where religion becomes a site for contestation.
On the side of right-wing saffrons, it is being argued that hijab is offensive and hence should not be allowed in an educational institution. Also, many other BJP leaders like CT Ravi, a minister in the state of Karnataka, stated that girls must stop going to school if they could not follow the school rules. Others like BJP MP Hema Malini have argued that every school has a uniform that should be respected, implying there is no wrong in banning girls with hijab in school as it is not a part of the college uniform. People have also voiced the importance of uniforms as a practice essential for the promotion of equality, and hence banning students with hijab is valid. It is argued that every school has a uniform and every institution has the right to maintain that. This argument may hold legitimacy if the college were to be a private institution, but since the college is funded by the state, the ethics and rights that are guaranteed by the constitution on the State apply to the college as well. Therefore, this particular banning of a hijab goes against the right of freedom of choice and right to religious affairs.
Another argument that is presented by the saffrons is that the wearing of the hijab is offensive. But, how can freedom of choice that is guaranteed by the Indian constitution and does not go against the rigors of the fundamental rights provided by the constitution is offensive, and even if it is then the offense and the burden to prove the offense is on the person who is arguing and it must stand on the pedestal of logic and reason? When the supreme court of India gave the landmark judgment on the right to privacy in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy vs Union of India (2017) stated that each individual carries with itself its right to privacy. This implies that each individual is free to do whatever he/she wants to, limited by the rigors detailed in the constitution of India.
Others who are contrasting them argue that since India provides a fundamental right to choice and expression, hijab should not be banned but at the same time portray hijab as an act of repression and patriarchy against women which should be addressed. Though, they support people’s right to freedom of choice and expression but have a different issue with hijab. They see the hijab as a form of social indoctrination and bad practice that should be abolished. They have argued that women are made to wear hijab not actually by choice but because of the pressure by religious authorities and the socialization that they grew in which has manufactured their consent and made a task of repression look like their choice. But if that be so, why this particular target on hijab? There is a multitude of such practices that promote social indoctrination and patriarchy. One such is sindoor, mangalsrta, ghungat, even cooking food for the family. If hijab does not stand on the pedestal of freedom and choice, then these others fail too.
Also, how far will we go in the name of social indoctrination? We all are socially engineered in one sense or the other. Humans are not unencumbered self. We live in a belief system is that created due to the effect of society we live in and culture. Everyone has a belief system, and functions according to that. Even the idea that hijab is social engineering is a belief system and comes from a particular epistemological paradigm. It is plausible that the postmodern world sees this argument against hijab as a part of imposed modernity.
Even if we agree that the hijab is social engineering and indoctrination that need to be abolished, then again a plain government act will go against the reason to solve a social issue because it will give negative repercussion. A social issue cannot and should not be solved through political means. It requires social impetus from the community itself who are facing the issue at hand. The need for reform must come from the society, particularly the community not from any other external factor. Otherwise, this will result in neo-colonialism and undermine the agency of the people who are struggling with the issue.
Hijab is a fundamental choice and nobody should feel offended because the offense is based on hatred and antagonism which goes against the idea of India that has been inscribed in our constitution. Also, if a person is being offended with an act that is self-concerning, in this case with a mere act of performing one’s identity, then the problem is with the person itself not with the one who is exercising their freedom of choice. The right to freedom of expression should be a ruling factor over all other arguments because it reigns supreme. The need is to promote reasoning and logic that is concrete and not based on circumstances for developing India as a mature democracy.