The ban on wearing Hijab in India has brought into question the so-called secular democracy, which combines the features of a secular state as well as a democratic state. Secular democracy accords all citizens equality before law and Parliament, and no religious or political attachment confers advantages or disadvantages to any inhabitants. All citizens are equal regardless of their religion. With the 42nd Amendment of the Constitution of India enacted in 1976, the Preamble to the Constitution declared that India is a secular nation.
Also, it violates the constitutional right of freedom of religion which is conferred upon people, including Muslims, under article 25(1) of the Indian Constitution that reads:”…, all persons are equally entitled to the freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practice and propagate religion.” Since the constitution is the basic body of rules and regulations, by which countries are governed and veiling is a religious obligation of Muslim females, wearing Hijab is their fundamental constitutional right of which they cannot be deprived.
The ban on Hijab was enforced after some Hindu students, patronised by rightwing Hindu group, protested for the removal of Hijab, or demanded they be allowed to wear saffron shawls- commonly associated with Hindu nationalism. The ban resulted in anger among Muslims in Southern India and Muslims in large numbers protested against the ban. They said that they would keep protesting until their fundamental right was restored.
In a video clip, Hijab-clad Muskan Khan can be seen facing Hindu students, wearing saffron shawls, in a college who were chanting ‘Jai Shri Ram’- praising their god. In response, Muskan Khan raised the slogan ‘Allahu-Akbar’ (‘Allah is the Greatest’) that termed Muskan khan a symbol of resistance and a brave daughter. Simultaneously, it was a challenge to the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), which it dubbed a ‘Hijab Jihad or Hijab terrorism’ fso as to gain a huge number of votes in the month-long election of India’s most populous state of Uttar Pardesh that was considered as a test for the Modi-led central government. Yogi Aditiyanath, a hardline Hindu Monk, is up for re-election in a race that will be followed across the country. Further, Adityanath, toiling to boost his margin on the campaign trail, when he- referring to state’s demographic split on religion basis- unequivocally blazoned the election a fight between 80 percent and 20 percent.
For out-matching its opponent, the BJP Karnataka Government ordered a ban on wearing Hijab. Consequently, numerous Hindu students supporting the ban rushed to campuses to frighten veiled Muslim students with slogans praising Hindu gods. Apart from this, Muslim students were denied entry in colleges while wearing Hijabs. If some Muslim students were permitted to enter college, they were made to sit in separate rooms and no teacher went to teach them. Some were even treated like beggars at doors. Ayesha Imtiaz, one of the students, said that the humiliation of being asked to leave the classroom for wearing a headscarf by college officials had shaken her core belief. She verbalized that her religion had been questioned by the place she used to deem a temple of education.
Moreover, Noorjehan Safia Niaz, cofounder of the Muslim women’s group, the Bhartiya Muslim Mahila Andolan, viewed that the ban on wearing Hijab is a part of larger agenda. Certainly, when election is imminent, religion is racked up to garner votes. But, the agenda is not just winning the election; it is to convert India into a Hindu Country.
Regretfully, Nalin Kumar Kaleel, the BJP state chief in Karnataka, has endorsed the ban saying that ban on Hijab would ensure that classrooms did not become ‘Taliban-like’. Such a statement by the BJP state chief depicts hatred not just for the Taliban but also for all Muslims. It is to trigger anger among Muslims and make rightwing Hindu nationalists antsy to demand removal of the Hijab, which in consequence will be favourable in polls- which is the ultimate desire of the BJP.
Still naming India a secular democracy is unjust and a joke with the term. International human rights Organizations must step forward to safeguard the rights of minorities and ensure that human rights are protected in India. Students should not be humiliated for religious practices because it is their constitutional right and they must be provided protection.
Apart from him, the national spokesperson for the Vishva Hindu Parishad, one of the rightwing groups at the vanguard of the anti-hijab protests, termed the Hijab row a conspiracy to propagate ‘Jihadi Terrorism’ and said that Muslim students were waging Hijab Jihad in college campuses. The statement is kindling anti-Islamic thoughts among rightwing nationalists, who will then elect them just for their anti-Islamic election manifesto, leaving aside theprosperity of India.
Sadly, when a girl in Karnataka approached the Supreme Court after the high court advised to avoid wearing religious garments until the case regarding restriction on Hijab in educational institutes is decided, the Chief Justice NV Romana said, “Don’t spread these things to a national level. We will interfere only at an appropriate time.” If it is not an appropriate time, probably the appropriate time will be after the achievement of the ghastly manifesto of the BJP.
He also ignored, when alLawyer argued for far-reaching implications. CJ Romana said, “Please do not spread it to larger level…we know what is happening…if there is anything wrong, we will protect…” Here is still a question in remarks that whom and when will the Supreme Court protect, either Muslims or rightwing Hindu Nationalists, after rightwing Hindu nationalists execute their desireed task? If the apex court had to protect minorities and their religious values, it was absolutely an appropriate time to interfere and protect. But, if it had to protect rightwing nationalists, then it was not appropriate time. Let them garner their political manifesto and again remain in power not because of their performance for the betterment of the country, but for tyrannizing and tightening the space for minorities.
This is not novel; history is replete with such heinous acts which have been perpetrated to garner their ghastly manifesto. Sometimes, disputed religious sites, such as the Babri Mosque in Ayodhya, which was demolished by a Hindu mob in 1992, because Hindus believe that it was the birthplace of their Lord Ram. Apart, Adityanath took another disputed site in the city of Mathura, where he promised supporters a project, like Babri Mosque, which was in progress.
Besides, lynching Muslims under pretext of cow protection has caused the RSS-leaning BJP to win elections many times. Simply put, the religious card is played in India during elections to outsmart their rivals. Similarly, Prime Minister Modi has only one manifesto to win an election, and that is to persecute Muslims, tighten space for them.
According to an Indian analysis, about 97 percent of beef-related violence took place after Modi came to power. Also, the BJP has enacted multifarious laws in various states which strictly forbid cow slaughter. Some states have even introduced life imprisonment, if anyone slaughters a cow. Such state support emboldened pro-Hindutva or rightwing groups to lynch Muslims under the alibi of cow protection. The perpetrators, instead of being brought to book, are termed heroes, true servants of religion, and garlanded. Various BJP leaders support them at every level and executors remain scot-free. All these abominable activities cause the BJP to outsmart its political rivals overwhelmingly in the so-called secular democracy.
Still naming India a secular democracy is unjust and a joke with the term. International human rights Organizations must step forward to safeguard the rights of minorities and ensure that human rights are protected in India. Students should not be humiliated for religious practices because it is their constitutional right and they must be provided protection.
