The hijab row in Karnataka has become a topic of a lot of debate – on women’s rights, feminism, uniform civil code, secularism, Islamophobia and more. Even as the issue continues to polarise opinions, the Karnataka High Court is hearing the case to ascertain wearing the hijab is essential to Islam and thus, protected under Article 25 of the Constitution, which guarantees freedom to practise religion, after some Muslim girl students approached the court against their PU colleges banning the hijab. However, in a country like India where religion is as intrinsic to personal as well as public life, how practical is it to consider banning clothing that is considered a part of faith?
As per Washington-based Pew Research Centre, 89% Indian Muslim women cover their heads outside their home. “About one-in-four Muslim women in the South (23%) say they wear a hijab, compared with single-digit percentages elsewhere in the country,” the report said. However, Muslim women are not the only group who dress differently in public – 86% Sikh women, 59% Hindu women and 21% Christian women respondents also said that they covered their heads outside their home.
The study titled Religion in India: Tolerance and Segregation surveyed 29,999 Indian adults between 2019 and 2020 before the COVID-19 pandemic, and found that at 23%, south India had the most Indian Muslim women respondents who wore a hijab outside their homes. Meanwhile, wearing the burqa was the most common practice in west India (67%), followed by north (61%) and south (59%) regions of the country.
The study, the findings of which were released in June 2021, also noted that most Indians “consider religion very important in their life” – 84% Hindus and 91% Muslims held this view. For other religions too, a minimum of 76% respondents echoed this belief. Not just the hijab, there are many markers that people wear as religious practice. For instance, 18% Hindus (mostly Brahmins) wore a janeu (a sacred thread around their upper torso), while 53% Hindu men wore the tilak; 69% Sikhs wore a turban; and 51% of all people surveyed (including 51% Hindus and 50% Muslims) across religions said that that they generally wore “a religious pendant, such as an amulet, cross, image or symbol of god.” The study notes, “In general, Indians with higher religious observance are more likely to follow these practices related to clothing and appearance.”
It is in this context that we must see advocate Ravivarma Kumar’s argument in the Karnataka High Court on Wednesday, February 16, against the hijab being banned. The petitioners argued against the Karnataka government’s order, and alleged that Muslim students are being singled out, even though many others wear religious symbols as part of their attire, including turbans by Sikhs and bangles by Hindus. “Why are only hijabs chosen for this hostile discrimination? Is this not because of their religion? Why pick out these Muslim students? A dupatta is not banned, a bangle-wearer is not sent out, a Christian girl wearing a cross is not sent out, why only these girls? This is a violation of Article 15,” senior advocate Ravivarma Kumar said.
Other Indian courts, in the past, have held varied opinions on what constitutes essential practice in a religion. In this video in TNM’s Let Me Explain series, Anna Isaac recaps four cases where Muslim students had challenged the hijab bans. In two separate cases before the Kerala High Court, the hijab was deemed an essential part of practising Islam in one, but not in the other, where the court upheld a private institution’s right to govern itself over individual rights. While the first pertained to the hijab being allowed in the CBSE’s dress code for the All India Pre-Medical Test in 2016, the second pertained to a petition by a Muslim man whose two daughters studied in a Christian school.
“But advocates Sanjay Hegde and Devadatt Kamat, who are representing the Muslim girls, have argued in court that this Kerala High Court order cannot be considered a precedent. And this is because in the Kerala case it was a private minority institution and not a government one. Minority institutions in India enjoy certain rights under Article 30 of the Constitution,” Anna states in the video.
While some argue that the hijab is an oppressive, patriarchal garment, and that batting for it to be allowed is against the feminist cause, there are problems with this line of thought. It is also known that most religions traditionally preach more subservient roles for women, placing conditions on their freedom. In an ideal world, every girl and woman would have the right to choose if she wants to wear a hijab, or perhaps the practice would not exist. However, the world around us is far from ideal – regressive ideas of community honour are often placed on the shoulders of the woman. Muslim women already have the least freedom of movement (32%) compared to women in other religious groups as per the National Family Health Survey-4 (2015-16), measured by the freedom women have to go alone to the market, a health facility, and places outside the village or community. So, it is not difficult to imagine that banning the hijab, seen as an affront to the Muslim identity, could potentially lead to hesitancy or unwillingness among families to send girls out of homes and to schools, marginalising them further.
Sowmya Rajendran articulates this further in an earlier piece for TNM: “Irrespective of their personal view on the hijab, what must Muslim women do in such a situation? Bow to the diktat or assert their identity? It is not an enviable position to be in, and as a multicultural society, it is to our shame and failure that they are in such a place. There is yet another argument that the ban, even if it is due to religious hate, is a win against patriarchy. But how can we see it that way when we know that there won’t be similar bans on the innumerable patriarchal practices that exist in other religions, including Hinduism? How can we expect Muslim women to selectively rejoice when their entire community is being alienated on an everyday basis? How can we celebrate it as a feminist win when it strips women of their agency?