The debate over Karnataka's hijab ban is being compared on social media to Iranian women's anti-hijab demonstrations.
Protests against mandatory women's attire in Iran are still going on. In India, the protests have generated a lot of excitement. The demonstrators in India feel that this development supports their stance that Muslim women shouldn't cover their faces in public and that by enforcing this rule, Indians will be shielded from the sight of this allegedly anti-woman and archaic clothing.
The fight by women to regain control over their own bodies, however, is the true problem. If women prefer not to wear the hijab, it is also an issue of how they should dress and whether they are allowed to wear lipstick and nail paint in public.
After seven months, the controversy around the hijab is back. However, compared to coastal Karnataka, the developments this time are taking place closer to Tehran, the capital of Iran.
Mahsa Amini, a 22-year-old Kurdish woman, died after allegedly suffering physical abuse from Iran's morality police for inappropriately donning her hijab. As a result of Mahsa Amini's death, anti-hijab demonstrations have become more violent, with some demonstrators even burning their hijabs and cutting off their hair. All of this is being done in protest against the nation's morality police, who have been in charge of enforcing the hijab since 2005 and are currently being held accountable for Amini's passing.
It is not only ethically reprehensible and intellectually dishonest to compare the "hijab" situations in Iran and India, but it is also an insult to Mahsa Amini and the countless other people who risk their lives so they can live lives of dignity.
Post after post on how women are fighting for their right to wear the hijab in India while women are fighting for their right to not wear the hijab in Iran and, in both areas, women are fighting oppression in some way, fill the social media and politically engaged forums in India.
First off, Muslim students in Karnataka are not battling for their right to don a headscarf—a "hijab"—inside the building; rather, they are seeking to continue wearing their college uniform. Since deeds speak louder than words, it is clear that they are fighting for the right to wear a burqa and a niqab on campus, which are two garments that fully conceal the student's identity and uniform by covering their entire bodies in black. Hijab is being used to minimise how stringent their expectations are.
Second, unlike the theocratic regime in Iran, there is no statute requiring a code of conduct for women in the Indian Constitution. Instead, Muslim women in India are entirely allowed to wear hijabs or even a burqa in public places without any legal consequences at all as long as they adhere to the "Right to Live with Human Dignity" as stated in Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
In a similar vein, it is crucial to recognise that an institution has the authority to establish a dress code on its property. The freedom of a woman to wear whatever she pleases does not supersede an institution's authority to establish a dress code for applicants. The rule doesn't just apply to school uniforms; it also holds true for any private or public office space, including hotels, restaurants, places of worship, and other establishments.
Comments