Hijab controversy: petitions of Muslim girl students were sent to a larger bench
Protests near schools, colleges in Bengaluru banned for 2 weeks amid hijab controversy
The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday, 9 February has decided to refer the petitions filed by Muslim girl students in the state to a larger bench. These girl students had claimed in their petitions that they were not being allowed to enter the colleges wearing the hijab row due to a government order. A bench of Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi, Justice Krishna S Dixit and Justice JM Khaji of the Karnataka High Court will hear the petitions challenging the government rule on the hijab controversy on February 10.
Justice Krishna S Dixit said, "I feel that this matter requires consideration of a larger bench. The wisdom emanating from the judgments of the neighboring High Court should be treated
Let us tell you, the opponents and supporters of Hijab have come face to face in many educational institutions of Karnataka on this issue. In the last few days, many demonstrations have taken place in many districts including Shimoga of Karnataka in support and opposition to the hijab. During this, sporadic violence has also been seen.
New guidelines in Bengaluru amid controversy
Amidst the hijab controversy in Bengaluru, the Police Department has issued a new guideline. According to this, no gathering or protest will be allowed within 200 meters of the gate of schools, pre-university colleges, degree colleges or other educational institutions in Bengaluru. This guideline will be applicable for two weeks with immediate effect.
Attack on Hijab: On the plate, on the cupboard, on the clothes of the girls - understand the chronology
The debate on the hijab began in 1989 with the crackdown on some Muslim girls in French schools
Until recently, it was debated whether hijab and burqa were weapons of oppression of women. Does a piece of cloth raise questions about the existence of women? Hijab is the proof of what is called Lac of Agency in English. But the hijab controversy in Karnataka has turned the whole debate in a different direction.
Many school administrations in the state are full of hatred for this piece of cloth, the alleged weapon of oppression. Now here hijab is not just showing lac of agency. It has started creating fear in the public space. Or rather, fear is being created in public space through this.
Burqa controversy has a long history
The history of this dispute started from across the seven seas. In 1989, a debate broke out over the hijab in French schools. The controversy over the Islamic scarf or hijab began on September 18, 1989, when three girls at Gabriel Havez Middle School in Creel, northern France, were suspended from school simply because they refused to remove the hijab.
Between 1994 and 2003, about 100 middle and high school girls were suspended, or expelled, for wearing the hijab. Interestingly, in more than half of these cases, suspension or expulsion from school was invalidated by French courts. Still the series continued.
At present, many countries in Europe have banned facial coverings in public spaces. In Switzerland, through a law in March 2021, facial coverings have been banned in public spaces. This new law has been brought with the consent of the common people, which is led by a right-wing organization there. Apart from this, Denmark, Netherlands and Austria have imposed similar restrictions.
Threat of 'Islamic separatism'?
The special thing is that the manner in which these restrictions have been brought is very dangerous. In October 2020, French President Emmanuel Macron brought a controversial bill. The government claimed that there is a fear of forming a 'counter society' of around 6 million Muslims living in France. This bill is being brought to control the dangers of 'Islamic separatism'.
We can see these restrictions in France by linking them to imperialist thinking, where women who live in veils become political weapons. This notion stems from ethnic superiority where Muslim women need to be 'rescued'. French imperialism had been advocating for a long time to 'improve' the lives of the people living in its colonies, to 'civilize' them.
What is hijab - fear or terror, decide first
But are these restrictions now only so full? This whole episode in India should also be seen from the fear that is being created about Islamic symbols. Since the attacks of 9/11 and the invasion of Afghanistan, the US government has instilled a different fear among people about Islam.
Since doing so was necessary to justify his every act. Now for some people the hijab is a weapon of repression, for others the threat of radical Islam. So, what is this after all - oppression or danger? In the meantime Muslim women get trapped. In the West, hijabi women are a 'foreign element', a 'other'. And BJP is promoting similar politics in India.
During the last eight years all Muslims have been threatened with going to Pakistan. Slogans have been raised regarding the alleged love jihad. They are being described as cow killers, terrorists. It is being told that they are planning to capture India by producing more children. They are threatening to build a mosque by destroying the temple. Saying three words, they leave their women.
That is, this fear of Muslims or Islam that has arisen in public space is an expression of the current politics of India. This expression clearly says that we will not allow Muslims to dominate Hindus. Hijab has become like a takeover, see Muslims occupying every public space.
In those public spaces which are owned by Hindus. Hindus are being made aware of this ownership. It is being told that this is their area, and Muslims can live here only on their terms. This is the reason why hijab scares them.
People of one religion are being intimidated by another religion to mobilize them politically. They are being explained that if they do not unite, they will perish. The Palestinian cultural theorist Edward W. Said, also known as Othering. Being prejudiced towards people because of religion, gender, socio-economic status.
Why is the Burqa called Regressive?
There has been a long controversy over whether or not to wear hijab or burqa. Burke was called a 'portable exclusion' many years ago by American anthropologist and feminist Hannah Papanek. Seclusion means loneliness. His later generation anthropologist Leela Abu Lugod explains it in a way that the burqa actually works like a mobile home. He allows women to move freely in public places and among strangers.
Apart from this, it also does not mean that women's agency ends with this. In fact, the meanings of words like agency, choice and personality also differ in every society. Every society has its own way. Before raising questions on every method, one has to think from where it is being opposed. Women themselves are opposing it or men are deciding in their place.
There is also the question of Leela Abu Lugod that women are not always forced into clergy. Recent history is a witness to the fact that women have been forcefully exposed.
Syria's famous poet Mohza Kahf, in her essay 'From Her Royal Body the Robb Was Removed', has described how in the twentieth century governments in countries like Turkey, Syria and Iran humiliated women in the name of modernity. Instead of punishing him for not being under a veil in public, he was punished for being veiled.
Women were exposed at gunpoint so that the government could describe itself as progressive and secular. That is, wearing or not wearing hijab or burqa, in both cases women became political weapons. The freedom of women to choose themselves was in danger.
As Kahf writes, the presence of the veil does not take away the power of women, nor does her absence take away that power. This strength comes from the fact that they have got economic, political and family rights. That is, hijab or burqa, in itself, is not an atrocity on women – tyranny is to keep women out of social, political and economic agencies. That is, by not letting them study in schools, or teaching in isolation, their power, agency is being taken away. Otherwise, it is part of a longer conspiracy, which is constantly deciding what will be served on my plate - what book will be in my cupboard - what will be the clothes on my body.