Head-on | Beyond the hijab: Modernising the Muslim mind

The hijab controversy is a proxy battle between reformers and anti-reformers. The petitioners in the Karnataka High Court want to transport Muslim girls back to the medieval ages. By arguing that the hijab is obligatory under Islam and protected by Article 25 of the Constitution which guarantees freedom of religion, the petitioners are deliberately misinterpreting Article 25. It’s important to read Article 25 in conjunction with Article 21 and Article 14. As Abhishek Mishra of ABP explained: “Freedom of religion is part of the Indian Constitution. Nevertheless, it is the weakest fundamental right of all the available fundamental rights in Part III. The Supreme Court has laid down that what is guaranteed under freedom of religion is core of religious belief and anything which is not core has no protection under Article 25. In the Quranic injunction, the word hijab is not mentioned at all. What is mentioned is ‘wrap their head-cover over their chest’. The hijab should therefore be understood as a piece of cloth to cover the head and chest (not face) of women.” Freedom of religion is not absolute. It is subject to reasonable restrictions. This is similar to freedom of speech guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a). This again is subject to specific conditions — that it does not cause public disorder, incite an offence, compromise security of the state, violate public decency, and so on. Indeed, Article 25(i) specifies that freedom of religion is subject to the maintenance of “public order and morality”. Did the violent disruptions caused by pro-hijab protesters in Karnataka violate these reasonable restrictions? The short answer: yes. If the basic premise of pro-hijab petitioners is accepted, it will create a divide not only between Muslims and non-Muslims but among Muslim men and Muslim women — and, worst of all, between two classes of Muslim women. The first alienation: Peer pressure would force increasing numbers of Muslim women to wear the hijab almost everywhere. They would end up being segregated from modern, secular Indian society, not integrated into it.

***

Also Read **Opinion | On ‘Hijab Day’, the only choice is to drop the cloth for ‘No Hijab Day’** **Karnataka hijab controversy: Why Modi government should seriously think about Uniform Civil Code** **History will not be kind to ‘liberals’ cheerleading for hijab and burqa** **Udupi hijab row: A pre-planned move to stoke communal tension in Karnataka’s sensitive coastal belt?** **There’s a good case to ban hijab in schools, but Congress cheers orthodoxy**

***

The second alienation: Muslim men with a regressive mindset would be emboldened to compel their wives and daughters, who do not currently wear a hijab, to henceforth wear one. The rift within families would widen. The third alienation is the most dangerous: Creating two classes of Muslim women. Those who wear a hijab would embrace a court judgement in favour of the petitioners as a vindication. Those who do not war a hijab would regard the judgement as an illiberal imposition. Pro-hijab petitioners insist that wearing a hijab is obligatory under Islam but not mandatory. Ignore that semantic contradiction for a moment. “Not mandatory” means that those who don’t want to wear a hijab need not. But when you defy what’s obligatory in your religion, you risk ostracism from the wider community. The gulf between two classes of Muslim women — hijabis and non-hijabis — will thus deepen, causing social tension. Is this what the Muslim community wants? The worst enemies of progressive Muslims are often self-declared “liberal” and “secular” Hindus. Pratap Bhanu Mehta, writing in The Indian Express, thundered: “The court will make the same mistake when it adjudicates the matter under the essential practices test that most of us have been saying is an insidious piece of judicial chicanery. This is religion by fiat, not by the freely defined subjectivity of its adherents. The court can decide what compelling state interest might be under Article 14 or Article 21. But it should leave the interpretation of religion alone.” What Mehta in essence is telling the Karnataka High Court is this: The hijab matter is none of your business. Leave the interpretation of religion to the clerics. So in Mehta’s view, the courts are subordinate to mullahs and priests — Muslim, Hindu or Christian — when it comes to interpreting religious practice, however backward, regressive and oppressive that practice is. It would be difficult to find a more reprehensible view on how constitutionality should be interpreted: by clerics, not courts. [caption id=“attachment_8968351” align=“alignnone” width=“640”]  The complex Muslim debate. Representational Image from Reuters[/caption] Self-appointed Hindu secularists and liberals like Mehta and many others are well-intentioned. They truly want to help Muslims. And how do they do this? By encouraging Muslim women to be covered from head to toe as they are in Saudi Arabia, Iran and (increasingly in) Pakistan. Indian Muslims are already the most impoverished and backward community in India. Why might this be so? Because “liberal” and “secular” political parties like the Congress, CPM, NCP, SP, RJD, NC and AIMIM have treated Muslims as an electoral prize. They are paraded every five years to vote against the “communal” BJP and then returned to their ghettos. The biggest harm caused to Muslims in terms of education and progressive values is inflicted by such political parties and a corrosive cabal of journalists, activists, lawyers and NGOs who embellish this chicanery. It is time Indian Muslims recognise that the only way their community will prosper is when political leaders follow the dictum: Favour none, empower everyone. Today, the mechanic who fixes your car, the young man who repairs your air-conditioner or mobile phone, the boy who delivers your food from Swiggy, is more often than not a Muslim. But among India’s top 100 startups, how many founders are Muslims? The answer — none. That lies at the heart of the Muslim debate: reform or regress? The hijab is an instrument in the hands of one-eyed clerics who want to keep their flock blind. Only then can they exercise power over them. India must stand together to defeat them and their supporters who have weaponised the hijab. The writer is editor, author and publisher. Views expressed here are personal. Read all the Latest News , Trending News ,  Cricket News , Bollywood News , India News and Entertainment News here. Follow us on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram.