Polarisation of opinion on the hijab being worn in educational institutions is not surprising. Similar controversies have raged across the world for over a decade. While there is public consensus that campus precincts should be secular in nature, there is no agreement on what constitutes a ‘secular’ space.
The petitioners who have challenged the ‘no headscarf’ policy of certain colleges in the Karnataka high court have clearly stated that the hijab is a religious symbol. If so, does it have a place in a secular institution?
There are two ways of examining the question: in terms of ‘universalism’ or ‘multiculturalism’. In western democracies, where decades of immigration have resulted in the presence of significant minority populations, the debate has been the outcome of increasing social frictions. Differences among communities have become more pronounced than what they have in common.
France banned all religious symbols, including the hijab, in its public schools way back in 2004. Civil servants and those engaged in providing public services, too, cannot wear symbols of their faith.Proposals to forbid minors from wearing the hijab in public and a ban on wearing of religious symbols in sports competitions have also been widely debated.
The French notion of secularism is founded on laïcité, or separation of church and state. In effect, it places religion in the private sphere, and holds thatthe state must remain absolutely neutral vis-a-vis religion. Minority communities, notably the Muslims and Sikhs, protested vigorously, butthe ban on conspicuous religious symbols, be it the cross or the Sikh patka (turban) has stayed in place through various governments.
The British and American version of secularism, as opposed to French universalism, is founded on multiculturalism, the view that religious minorities need special acknowledgement of their differences within the dominant culture of the country in which they live, in order to preserve their identities. It may even extend to special protection under the law.
A dominant section of intellectuals in Britain and the US have long opposed the universalist view, whichhas gained traction in many parts of the world. After France forbade face-covering veils in public spaces in 2010, popularly known as the ‘burqa ban’, several European nations including Belgium, Austria, Denmark, Bulgaria and Switzerland followed suit. Several others have imposed partial bans.
Multiculturalism has attracted increasing criticism in recent years, on the grounds thatit discourages assimilation of minority groups with the laws and value systems of the host country. Ideally, in a heterogenous population, multiculturalism should eliminate bigotry and xenophobic tendencies, encourage mutual tolerance, serve the interests of national security and lead to fruitful exchanges of learnings and ideas. In other words, promote peace and harmony.
The experience has been quite otherwise, atleast after 9/11. Several Europeanheads of state have admitted that multiculturalism, while an excellent concept, has failed in practice.Ithas endedupundermining social cohesion and public faith in institutions.
Another criticism is that cultural practices followed by minority groups may violate the rights of individuals. In the US, the case of Naila Amin, forced to marry at 13 and sponsor her abusive husband for American citizenship, led to widespread outrage. A study by an independent non-profit found that thousands of such sponsorships by child brides had been approved by US Immigration.
In the UK, clothing chainMarks & Spencer has been criticised for selling child-sized hijabs – small enoughto fit a three-year-old.On the one hand, itis argued that hijab bans deprive women of their right to choose whether or not to wear them. On the other, girls as young as three are sexualised by being made to wear headscarves.
In India, personal laws of minority groups are respected, but are in many ways weighted against minors and women. Only in recent times have practices like child marriage, polygamy and female circumcision been challenged in courts of law. In 2020, the Supreme Court struck down the age-old practice of ‘triple talaq’, that allowed Muslim men to instantly divorce their wives.
Historically, India has accommodated different minority groups, which co-existed peacefully for centuries. Multiculturalism was very much a part of the Indian ethos, albeit not institutionalised until Independence.India adheres to the ‘unity indiversity’ principle – celebrating different cultures, while sharing a common ‘Indian’ identity. The problem arises when diversity, rather than unity, becomes the focus.
With regard to the hijab issue, arguments citing majoritarianism, feminism, civil liberties or freedom of expression have been made, but the basic question of whether religious symbols have a place in a secular space has not been addressed.
If the contention is that the co-existence of culturally differentiated students will enhance mutual respect and understanding, it falls flat. Quite the reverse – it will sharpen identities and create deep schisms inthe student body. For instance, as a consequence of the hijab row, a section of students have been flaunting saffron scarves.
In the current scenario, wearing of religious symbols cannot serve the cause of education, nor does it unite, rather than divide, the students and faculty. Ultimately, it is for the courts to take a call on just what secular means in the context of an educational institution.
The writer is a senior journalist with 35 years of experience in working with major newspapers and magazines. She is now an independent writer and author
