The Muslim women's rights organisation which spearheaded the movement against triple talaq in the country, the Bharatiya Muslim Mahila Andolan (BMMA), on Tuesday said it agreed with the Karnataka High Court order that hijab was not an essential practice in Islam, but asserted that those wearing it must not be barred from schools and colleges. Other prominent women's rights groups have, however, outrightly rejected the court's decision for being discriminatory.
"The Karnataka High Court has reiterated that hijab is not an essential practice of Islam. We also believe that there is no place for hijab or burqa or veil in religion. It is a patriarchal imposition meant to control women," the BMMA said in a press statement. However, it added, "education is of utmost importance for girls. Only empowered and educated girls can lead the community and the country forward. Girls should be in schools, colleges, university & workspaces irrespective of hijab."
A joint statement issued by the women's wing of the CPM, the All India Democratic Women's Association, along with a few other leading women's rights organisations such as Saheli Women's Resource Centre, National Federation of Indian Women, Forum Against Oppression of Women, urged that the Supreme Court must stay the Karnataka High Court order as it will lead to exclusion of girls from education.
Arguing that recent developments across various pre-university colleges in Karnataka had resulted in Muslim girl students and women teachers being prohibited from school and college grounds and humiliated by being made to remove their hijabs publicly, they urged, "So as to protect hijab-wearing Muslim girls and women from any further such grievous instances of discrimination, exclusion, publicly humiliation, and harassment, we appeal to the Supreme Court to lose no time in issuing a stay on the Karnataka HC order."
The BMMA maintains that studies point out that the occurrence of the Arabic word sitr in the religious texts and its various meanings ranging from curtain to physical barrier to simple cover applied to males in various social situations and milieu, but over several centuries of male-dominated social order across Muslim societies, the sitr or covering came to be exclusively applied to women. It also says that discrimination on the basis of hijab was unconstitutional, and believes that religion should be confined to homes and religious symbols in public life must not be encouraged for any religion.
The AIDWA and other groups argue that the High Court has failed to address the crux of the matter, which is whether it is discriminatory and unconstitutional to selectively force a Muslim girl or woman to be denied access to education because she wears a hijab.
"Practices of wearing sacred threads, bindi/ pottu/ tilak/ sindoor etc. may not be essential practices in Hinduism, nevertheless students are not excluded from educational institutions for wearing these items. When Sikh boy students can wear their turbans along with their uniform, and Hindu girls and boys can wear bindi/ tilak/ threads etc., how can hijab be singled out as the only religious symbol that is inconsistent with uniforms?" they say.
They say that in the name of emancipation, Muslim girls and women should not be denied autonomy. They also questioned the Court using the famous Sabrimala verdict of the Supreme Court to justify prohibiting hijab-wearing women from entering schools and colleges.
"The verdict fails to distinguish between forcible imposition of religious practices on women against their will and women's choice to observe certain practices based on their free will. Women petitioned court to be allowed to enter Sabarimala since the prohibition on women's entry violated their rights and equality. The court in striking down the prohibition on women's entry in the name of the temple authorities' "freedom to practice religion", did not in any way force women who believed they should not enter Sabarimala, to enter it against their will in the name of emancipation," said the joint statement.
