Editorial: Of cultural markers and sectarian rows

The first reaction to the controversy in Karnataka over schoolgirls wearing the hijab or headscarf must be unequivocal condemnation. This is exactly the kind of dispute that is exploited by cynical politicians, backed by their ideological accomplices in the State government, to stoke sectarian and communal sentiments among ordinary people. A hijab is as much a religious or cultural marker as, for instance, the Sikh turban. And it should be the right of a schoolgirl to wear it, if she chooses.

The issue came to a boil after seven students wearing the hijab were refused entry into a government college in Udupi. The official response was that such action was undertaken to keep religion out of educational institutions. This is an argument that makes no sense unless implemented uniformly – going down this path would mean a ban on Sikh turbans, neck chains with crosses, or any other type of religious pendant. As a result, the attendant argument, that it was also implemented to respect uniformity (or to see that everyone is in uniform) falls flat.

The issue has now snowballed with other Karnataka colleges being caught up in the controversy. Hindu boys and girls sporting saffron shawls were seen protesting against those wearing the hijab; they were prevented from entering a school that turned back hijab wearers. Two persons were also arrested on account of brandishing knives, during a protest organised by students on the hijab row in Udupi. In response to the simmering row, which has now pitted student against student, the Karnataka government has issued an order making it mandatory for the government and private schools to wear the prescribed uniforms – clothes that disturb the “equality, integrity and public order” will be disallowed it says.

At the college, which has now become ground zero for the hijab-related controversy, the principal of the institution had spoken to the Muslim students wearing the headscarves and directed them to a separate classroom, which had been specially arranged for them.

Such directives derive their justification ostensibly from court orders. But the judgments of courts on the sensitive issue of apparel have, at best, been very varied. For every order that is interpreted as being in favour or uniformity, another can be dredged up that has allowed for diversity in dress codes. It needs to be watched whether this order, if sustained by law (which is a big if), will be applied uniformly or used to selectively discriminate against the hijab.

Some distinctions need to be made here. It is important to separate feminist or reformist criticisms of the hijab and the burkha (which is usually more than a headscarf and covers the whole body) from what is happening here. Such criticism about this mode of dress being oppressive and a tool of gender oppression, as well as counters to this point of view, have their place in public discourse. Also, there is a case for stating that there are situations – particularly those related to security or those which require verification based on facial identity – where it is necessary to ask people to comply. Laws that require that faces must not be fully covered when working in government offices exist in some Islamic countries. But this controversy has been born and stoked for entirely different reasons in India. It is important in classrooms for teachers to determine that students are attentive and engaged. There is arguably also a case for uniforms, in the interest of identification and fostering a sense of community – the mere addition of a turban or a headscarf to a uniform are not grounds for believing that equality and uniformity have been undermined.