India School Hijab Ban: Majority of Hindu Women Also Cover Their Heads

[Joe Shearer]

Indeed, that brings me back to the point about first principles. The issue at hand is not whether hijab is a constitutionally protected practice, but whether imposition of a school dress code is.

It IS a bit entangled, if you don't mind my pointing this out.

It seems to me that it is about whether a hijab is a constitutionally protected practice that prevails over a school stipulating a dress code. Without this context, there is, in fact, no issue; nobody bothers about a hijab as a general rule, or even the even more severe burkha.

This begs two questions, which I listed above:
1. What is the (constitutionally valid) purpose of a school dress code?
2. Can a school achieve that purpose without imposing a strict dress code? In particular, as I mentioned, can an item of clothing over a hijab serve the same purpose?

If the answer to #2 is 'yes', then the imposition of a strict dress code is an unnecessary violation of individual freedoms.

My own, original stand always has been that this is a question of individual rights, not of religious rights.

It follows, therefore, that the schools defining dress code in a ham-handed manner (forgive the expression) are setting up unnecessary barriers.

On the other hand, it is also a situation where the school administration can take an unnecessary step and create problems.

In my view, it was an error of judgement on the part of the schools and colleges, and imposes an extra psychological burden. However the cry of Islam in danger is out of place. We should be focussed on the violation of a woman's right to wear what she wants, and to dress as she wants.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Ironically, the anti-hijab activists claim that Muslim women are forced to wear the hijab, and here they are dictating what these women should wear instead.

That is a trope of monumental proportions. This will always be said, irrespective of the personal views of the woman concerned, irrespective of her family's views, and irrespective of those dreadful old busybodies who breathe their opinions into our faces.

I think the EU human rights court (or some such) ruled that employers could require workers to take off the hijab but, in that case, the court decided the business had a legitimate right to maintain a certain look. I don't know if such an argument would apply to schools.

It would apply, sadly, with even greater strength to schools, with the objective of mitigating socio-economic differences.

Speaking as a parent, I would encourage freedom of dress, but if a dress code were to be adopted, I would then bust myself trying to keep my daughter dressed as well as anyone else. It has happened.

 

[TheSolution]

It would apply, sadly, with even greater strength to schools, with the objective of mitigating socio-economic differences.

No it wouldn't, a hijab speaks nothing about socio-economic differences apart from religion.

You can make everyone (who wants to wear a hijab) wear the same style and colour hijab to mitigate any socio-economic differences which may appear in the hijab itself, and so everyone fits right in.

(The school could even have a single type of hijab which they sell themselves, and anyone wanting to wear it can simply purchase it from the school)

Here in the UK, schools all across the country with strict uniform rules, for the sole-purpose of eliminating socio-economic differences as well as enforcing appropriate clothing and appearing formal, still allow the hijab.

 

[Joe Shearer]

No it wouldn't, a hijab speaks nothing about socio-economic differences apart from religion.

You really must begin to read before beginning to bash your designated victim for the session. Nobody said that the hijab says anything about socio-economic differences; I did say, and continue to say, that a stipulated uniform covers socio-economic differences. It is strange that this simple difference can get lost so quickly and easily.

You can make everyone (who wants to wear a hijab) wear the same style and colour hijab to mitigate any socio-economic differences which may appear in the hijab itself, and so everyone fits right in.

(The school could even have a single type of hijab which they sell themselves, and anyone wanting to wear it can simply purchase it from the school)

True.

Here the problem is that the administrators concerned started with the premise that any deviation from what they had thought up in their unblinking wisdom was not negotiable. The deviation being the hijab.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Here in the UK, schools all across the country with strict uniform rules, for the sole-purpose of eliminating socio-economic differences as well as enforcing appropriate clothing and appearing formal, still allow the hijab.

There, in the UK, they are still ruled by the Queen.

They have a proven liar as the Prime Minister. OK, scratch that, I'll try for a better differentiator.

They have Priti Patel horsing around as Home Secretary, or some such thing. Damn! scratch that, too, we have our own fat Gujarati lump of blubber.

Wait, wait, there in the UK, they have a cricket team that can't bat, can't bowl and can't field. Yeah, how do you like them little green apples?

 

[WotTen]

We should be focussed on the violation of a woman's right to wear what she wants, and to dress as she wants.

I agree. The lawyers are fighting the wrong war. This hijab is secondary. The main issue they should be contesting is whether a school dress code is constitutionally valid in the first place to override individual liberties.

As a military man, I am sure you know that it is better to take the war to the enemy's back yard than to fight it in your own.

P.S. And, as usual, the answer to constitutionality may be different for public v/s private schools.

 

[xeuss]

I agree. The lawyers are fighting the wrong war. This hijab is secondary. The main issue they should be contesting is whether a school dress code is constitutionally valid in the first place to override individual liberties.

As a military man, I am sure you know that it is better to take the war to the enemy's back yard than to fight it in your own.

P.S. And, as usual, the answer to constitutionality may be different for public v/s private schools.

The lawyers were fighting the correct war. They did make this an issue of personal and religious freedoms. The judges were predisposed to deny Muslim girls their rights, so came up with a ridiculous excuse.

See what Gautam Bhatia wrote:
It is notable that the Court asks itself a question that nobody else had asked, and indeed, nobody could ask, given how absurd it is: whether a school uniform is itself unconstitutional. But that framing allows the Court to elide the fundamental argument before it – i.e., that the wearing of the hijab alongside a school uniform is consistent with the broader goals of constitutionalism and education – with the sanctity of the uniform itself.

Read more of this at:

Between Agency and Compulsion: On the Karnataka High Court’s Hijab Judgment

It is an old adage that the manner in which you choose to frame a question will decide the answer that you will choose to give yourself. In today’s judgment by the Karnataka High Court uphold…

indconlawphil.wordpress.com

 

[Maula Jatt]

Well, for general population they shows resentment over Indian treatment on Muslim students. We can see clearly on the comment section.

456.000 viewers

894 comments

155.000 viewers

981 comments

Half milion viewers

181.000 viewers

85.000 viewer
980 comments

Other related matter in December 2021

Almost 1 million

OIC has condemn India, so it is not right to say no Muslim nations responding. This has become a conversation between Muslim nation foreign ministers before this statement is released

India Kecam Pernyataan OKI Soal Larangan Hijab |Republika Online

India memandang OKI melakukan propaganda jahat terkiat larangan hijab

www.republika.co.id

All the islamic centric YouTube channels are also covering it

 

[Joe Shearer]

the answer to constitutionality may be different for public v/s private schools.

There are unconfirmed reports that one of the most adamant schools is a minority institution itself.

The judges were predisposed to deny Muslim girls their rights, so came up with a ridiculous excuse.

That is guesswork.

It is not what the record shows, with regard to the higher courts addressing this issue of essential religious practices.

While this particular judgement has been criticised, and while there is to be an appeal heard by a 9-judge bench, there is nothing to suggest that the judges were predisposed to deny Muslim girls their rights.

What may seem ridiculous to you may seem logical and rational to others.

If you remember the Sabarimala judgement, there was tremendous hostility and ill-feeling once the judgement was made. It didn't occur to anyone to consider that the judges were predisposed to deny the pilgrims their rights.

If you had bothered to explain why you think the 'excuse', as you call it, was ridiculous, it might make people think.

 

[Joe Shearer]

It is notable that the Court asks itself a question that nobody else had asked, and indeed, nobody could ask, given how absurd it is: whether a school uniform is itself unconstitutional. But that framing allows the Court to elide the fundamental argument before it – i.e., that the wearing of the hijab alongside a school uniform is consistent with the broader goals of constitutionalism and education – with the sanctity of the uniform itself.

Good for Gautam Bhatia; it is a privilege to read the discussion by him and two other authorities on the matter.

While each of us is entitled to hold our own views on a court judgement, even criticise it, it finally is the judgement that stays the position in law.

What, by the way, is absurd about asking if a school uniform is itself unconstitutional? One of the other commentators spoke with force about the relevance of administrative law in this case, side by side with the consideration of constitutional law. There is, in fact, a considerable body of opinion opposing school uniforms.

Bhatia's re-casting of the issue is itself an evasion - stating that the hijab and a school uniform are possible to be worn alongside is a flat contradiction of the proposition made by framers of a school - or college - dress code; it is equivalent to saying that if we are faced with a choice between a square and a circle, and a circle is chosen, if there is sufficient emotional force yearning for the square, we can combine the square and the circle.

All the islamic centric YouTube channels are also covering it

You sound like a Sanghi.

Numbers do not decide a legal or constitutional issue.

 

[StraightEdge]

This came up just during the UP elections, only an idiot will believe this was done by law and constitution. All Modi/BJP needs is such debates to continue on hindu-muslim agenda. This gives ammunition for entire right wing and some muslim fundamentalist groups to continue doing their agenda. Nobody has to answer for economy, education or health. Not 1 minister resigned for lakhs of death in UP. It's just a cesspool of filthy crackheads who are the worst scums of the earth.

 

[WotTen]

See what Gautam Bhatia wrote:
It is notable that the Court asks itself a question that nobody else had asked, and indeed, nobody could ask, given how absurd it is: whether a school uniform is itself unconstitutional.

As @JoeShearer pointed out, the question is not absurd at all, and this case should probably trigger a more fundamental debate about when a public or private institution can override personal freedoms on dress. The hijab defenders may find more allies in that quest.

Certainly a military or industrial workplace may have legitimate reasons to enforce dress codes related to workplace safety, but I can't think of a school having legitimate reasons to infringe upon those freedoms. In any case, this is for the high powered, highly paid lawyers to argue.

 

[Joe Shearer]

This came up just during the UP elections, only an idiot will believe this was done by law and constitution. All Modi/BJP needs is such debates to continue on hindu-muslim agenda. This gives ammunition for entire right wing and some muslim fundamentalist groups to continue doing their agenda. Nobody has to answer for economy, education or health. Not 1 minister resigned for lakhs of death in UP. It's just a cesspool of filthy crackheads who are the worst scums of the earth.

I like what you're saying, but the constitutional and legal issues remain, however they were triggered.

Is it I, or do others also see the high risk of decisions being taken by mobs and kangaroo courts and constantly disabling our courts?

Certainly a military or industrial workplace may have legitimate reasons to enforce dress codes related to workplace safety,

Yes, for instance, the lengths of sleeves being restricted due to safety considerations.

The military has a whole set of criteria of its own.

 

[M. Sarmad]

Sir, Let me remind you, the issue before the court was not to convert a state direction into the law of the land, for there was not even such a state direction; the court's job was to apply the test of essential practice of religion, and arrive at a conclusion whether the state could authorise institutions to stipulate a dress code.

The state was kept at arm's length; there is, in fact, no possibility of either a State such as the State of Karnataka, or the Union of India restricting an essential practice mandated by any religion, except in the interest of public order, morality or hygiene, and it was understood and accepted by all concerned (see below) that these exceptions did not apply. Regarding the acceptance that no exceptional circumstances prevailed, you may find a free acceptance of this by an officer of the court, the State's Attorney General, who went so far as to deprecate some words in his own government's Government Order regarding the authority of institutions to set dress codes, and the bench agreed that those words might be treated as rescinded.

It is not the state, but the courts of law that have the authority under the Indian constitution to examine religious matters and to adjudicate on them. In a nation ruled by a constitution, clearly the constitution must be supreme.


Yes, that is a commonly held view, and one of the objections to the ruling has been that everything should be done by the educational system not merely to encourage students to attend school, but to encourage diversity. Talking of bending over backwards, it was in Tamil Nadu that the practice of giving school children free meals began, based on the thinking that this would be an incentive for the dirt-poor parents of most school children to send their child to school at least for the sake of a filling meal.


Before going further, let us remind ourselves that one of the purposes of a uniform is to prevent disparities between the social situation of different students becoming an obstacle to their intermingling or to their sense of equality.


Precisely. It is not to deny that the other reasons you have cited are also important.

Sir, isn't judiciary one of the 3 organs of the State? .. Doesn't the Indian Constitution posit a separation between a secular domain regulated by the State, and a religious domain in which it must not interfere? Aren't Courts supposed to interpret law but not religion?

 

[Joe Shearer]

but I can't think of a school having legitimate reasons to infringe upon those freedoms.

I feel the issue should have been tackled on the grounds of individual liberty and individual rights.

As you said, however, it is those ridiculously excessively paid specialists who will help to decide.