Should Students Be Allowed To Wear Hijab In Schools?

This post will mainly deal with the recent hijab controversy in Karnataka though I’ll be touching on other similar religious “dress code” issues in the past. To really understand and address this problem it is essential to question some fundamental ideas on which our society is built upon. So I’ll be diving into those as well.

Disclaimer : This post will NOT discuss the politics of political parties, leaders or mobs regarding the hijab issue. As Socrates says “Strong minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, weak minds discuss people”. We’ll better stick with ideas.

What is hijab?

Unfortunately we live in a world where we talk so much without even knowing what we are talking about. So let’s first understand what exactly we are talking about.

Hijab is a cloth used for covering the head and neck of a person. Unlike niqab or burqa, this will not cover the face at all. So there is no question of safety being involved here. I’ve strangely heard some arguments claiming hijab is a safety threat for children. Maybe people are hyper paranoid on hearing the news every week about school shootings in the USA.

What does the Quran say?

All religious practices stem from their respective religious texts. So the obvious official authority of Islam is none other the words of prophet Muhammad. In the Quran, the term ‘hijab’ refers to partition or curtain in the literal or metaphorical sense.

يَـٰٓأَيُّهَا ٱلَّذِينَ ءَامَنُوا۟ لَا تَدْخُلُوا۟ بُيُوتَ ٱلنَّبِىِّ إِلَّآ أَن يُؤْذَنَ لَكُمْ إِلَىٰ طَعَامٍ غَيْرَ نَـٰظِرِينَ إِنَىٰهُ وَلَـٰكِنْ إِذَا دُعِيتُمْ فَٱدْخُلُوا۟ فَإِذَا طَعِمْتُمْ فَٱنتَشِرُوا۟ وَلَا مُسْتَـْٔنِسِينَ لِحَدِيثٍ ۚ إِنَّ ذَٰلِكُمْ كَانَ يُؤْذِى ٱلنَّبِىَّ فَيَسْتَحْىِۦ مِنكُمْ ۖ وَٱللَّهُ لَا يَسْتَحْىِۦ مِنَ ٱلْحَقِّ ۚ وَإِذَا سَأَلْتُمُوهُنَّ مَتَـٰعًۭا فَسْـَٔلُوهُنَّ مِن وَرَآءِ حِجَابٍۢ ۚ ذَٰلِكُمْ أَطْهَرُ لِقُلُوبِكُمْ وَقُلُوبِهِنَّ ۚ وَمَا كَانَ لَكُمْ أَن تُؤْذُوا۟ رَسُولَ ٱللَّهِ وَلَآ أَن تَنكِحُوٓا۟ أَزْوَٰجَهُۥ مِنۢ بَعْدِهِۦٓ أَبَدًا ۚ إِنَّ ذَٰلِكُمْ كَانَ عِندَ ٱللَّهِ عَظِيمًا

Translation : O you who have believed, do not enter the houses of the Prophet except when you are permitted for a meal, without awaiting its readiness. But when you are invited, then enter; and when you have eaten, disperse without seeking to remain for conversation. Indeed, that [behavior] was troubling the Prophet, and he is shy of [dismissing] you. But Allah is not shy of the truth. And when you ask [his wives] for something, ask them from behind a partition. That is purer for your hearts and their hearts. And it is not [conceivable or lawful] for you to harm the Messenger of Allah or to marry his wives after him, ever. Indeed, that would be in the sight of Allah an enormity.
SURAH AL-AHZAB, VERSE 53

It is crucial that we pay attention to the original language used in the Quran to avoid any confusion. In our modern interpretation, we commonly refer to the hijab as the scarf that Muslim women wear on their heads. But this is not the same term used in the Quran. The original term for head covering in the Quran is ‘Khimar’. ‘Khimar’ originates from the trilateral verb ‘khamara’, which means ‘ghatta’, meaning to conceal, hide, or to cover something.

The most important thing to clarify is that, only the wives of the prophet Muhammad had to enforce this type of hijab. The hijab of the prophet’s wives are special. Due to the fact that they were the wives of the prophet, not only they had to cover themselves with garments, but also with khimar. This is explicit in the verse. But in my interpretation, this suggests the followers should follow the same practice if they too value their women as much as the prophet values his wives.

قُل لِّلْمُؤْمِنِينَ يَغُضُّوا۟ مِنْ أَبْصَـٰرِهِمْ وَيَحْفَظُوا۟ فُرُوجَهُمْ ۚ ذَٰلِكَ أَزْكَىٰ لَهُمْ ۗ إِنَّ ٱللَّهَ خَبِيرٌۢ بِمَا يَصْنَعُونَ

Translation : O Prophet! Tell the believing men to lower their gaze and guard their chastity. That is purer for them. Surely Allah is All-Aware of what they do.
SURAH AN-NUR, VERSE 30

This is a command to Muslim men that they should not lustfully look at women (other than their own wives); and in order to prevent any possibility of temptation, they are required to cast their glances downwards. This is known as “hijab of the eyes”.

وَقُل لِّلْمُؤْمِنَـٰتِ يَغْضُضْنَ مِنْ أَبْصَـٰرِهِنَّ وَيَحْفَظْنَ فُرُوجَهُنَّ وَلَا يُبْدِينَ زِينَتَهُنَّ إِلَّا مَا ظَهَرَ مِنْهَا ۖ وَلْيَضْرِبْنَ بِخُمُرِهِنَّ عَلَىٰ جُيُوبِهِنَّ ۖ وَلَا يُبْدِينَ زِينَتَهُنَّ إِلَّا لِبُعُولَتِهِنَّ أَوْ ءَابَآئِهِنَّ أَوْ ءَابَآءِ بُعُولَتِهِنَّ أَوْ أَبْنَآئِهِنَّ أَوْ أَبْنَآءِ بُعُولَتِهِنَّ أَوْ إِخْوَٰنِهِنَّ أَوْ بَنِىٓ إِخْوَٰنِهِنَّ أَوْ بَنِىٓ أَخَوَٰتِهِنَّ أَوْ نِسَآئِهِنَّ أَوْ مَا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَـٰنُهُنَّ أَوِ ٱلتَّـٰبِعِينَ غَيْرِ أُو۟لِى ٱلْإِرْبَةِ مِنَ ٱلرِّجَالِ أَوِ ٱلطِّفْلِ ٱلَّذِينَ لَمْ يَظْهَرُوا۟ عَلَىٰ عَوْرَٰتِ ٱلنِّسَآءِ ۖ وَلَا يَضْرِبْنَ بِأَرْجُلِهِنَّ لِيُعْلَمَ مَا يُخْفِينَ مِن زِينَتِهِنَّ ۚ وَتُوبُوٓا۟ إِلَى ٱللَّهِ جَمِيعًا أَيُّهَ ٱلْمُؤْمِنُونَ لَعَلَّكُمْ تُفْلِحُونَ

Translation : And tell the believing women to lower their gaze and guard their chastity, and not to reveal their adornments except what normally appears. Let them draw their veils over their chests, and not reveal their hidden adornments except to their husbands, their fathers, their fathers-in-law, their sons, their stepsons, their brothers, their brothers’ sons or sisters’ sons, their fellow women, those bondwomen in their possession, male attendants with no desire, or children who are still unaware of women’s nakedness. Let them not stomp their feet, drawing attention to their hidden adornments. Turn to Allah in repentance all together, O believers, so that you may be successful.
SURAH AN-NUR, VERSE 31

It’s a similar command as given to the men in the previous verse regarding “hijab of the eyes”. This hijab of eyes is similar to the teaching of Jesus where he says, “You have heard that it was said by them of old time, you shall not commit adultery. But I say unto you, That whosoever looks on a woman to lust after her has committed adultery with her already in his heart”. To be noted that this verse 30 and 31 applies for all men and women.

A common misunderstanding is that the phrase that means to place the khimar over their chest doesn’t mean the hijab as we know it today. According to the commentators of the Quran, the women of Medina in the pre-Islamic era used to put their khimar over the head with the two ends tucked behind and tied at the back of the neck, in the process exposing their ears and neck. By saying that, “place the khimar over the chest,” Almighty Allah ordered the women to let the two ends of their headgear extend onto their bosoms so that they conceal their ears, the neck, and the upper part of the chest.

The context in which the verse was revealed clearly talks about concealing the head and then using the loose ends of the scarf to conceal the neck and the chest. It is absurd to believe that the Quran would use the word khimar (which, by definition, means a cloth that covers the head) only to conceal the chest with the exclusion of the head. It would be like asking you to put on your shirt only around the belly without covering the chest.

Though the texts seem to imply to me that hijab is mandated in Islam, most experts seem to agree that it is not mandatory. Moreover, there are still a lot of ongoing debates within their community regarding the interpretation to decide whether hijab is mandatory or not. So the bottom line is nobody really knows for sure without a shadow of doubt.

Judgment of Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court upheld the restriction on Muslim women wearing a hijab in educational institutions. A three-judge bench comprising Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi and Justices Krishna S Dixit and Khazi M Jaibunnisa, held that the right to wear a hijab is not constitutionally protected.

“It is not that if the alleged practice of wearing hijab is not adhered to, those not wearing hijab become the sinners, Islam loses its glory and it ceases to be a religion”

This is called the essential religious practices test. It means that only those essential religious practices with reference to the doctrines of the religion are constitutionally protected by Article 25 under the fundamental rights as per the Supreme Court (Shirur Mutt case). Since there is no punishment for women not adhering to the practice of wearing hijab as per Islamic texts, the Karnataka High Court held that the right to wear hijab is not protected by the constitution. Further, the order said that the practice may have something to do with culture but certainly not with religion. But then arises the question, why is religion more sacrosanct than culture?

Freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion

(1) Subject to public order, morality and health and to the other provisions of this Part, all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practice and propagate religion.

(2) Nothing in this article shall affect the operation of any existing law or prevent the State from making any law—

(a) regulating or restricting any economic, financial, political or other secular activity which may be associated with religious practice;

(b) providing for social welfare and reform or the throwing open of Hindu religious institutions of a public character to all classes and sections of Hindus.

Explanation I.—The wearing and carrying of kirpans shall be deemed to be included in the profession of the Sikh religion.

Explanation II.—In sub-clause (b) of clause (2), the reference to Hindus shall be construed as including a reference to persons professing the Sikh, Jaina or Buddhist religion, and the reference to Hindu religious institutions shall be construed accordingly.
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, ARTICLE 25

This is the only article in the constitution that talks about the fundamental right to profess, practice and propagate religion. But it is clearly implied that it is not an absolute right. Government is allowed to impose reasonable restrictions.

“We are of the considered opinion that the prescription of a school uniform is a reasonable restriction Constitutionally permissible, which the students cannot object to”

I don’t think anyone would want to go down the line arguing that uniform is a tyranny. But the court has answered that too for the few who might take that road.

“An extreme argument that students should be free to choose their attire in the school individually, if countenanced, would only breed indiscipline that may eventually degenerate into chaos in the campus and later in the society at large,”

I personally feel that this statement is too far-fetched. One of the best countries for education like Finland doesn’t have uniforms. But they seem to be doing fine. However, there are some undeniable psychological and practical benefits to having a uniform. Uniforms are cheaper. So the parents won’t have an economic burden, which is very important in a country like India. Uniform shifts the focus of kids from their wardrobe everyday to something more productive. This is the same reason why successful people like Barack Obama, Mark Zuckerberg, Steve Jobs, wear the same dress everyday. Another very important benefit is safety. Keeping all the children in the same attire makes it easy for the security to distinguish between outsiders and students.

“We are not impressed by this argument. Reasons are not far to seek: firstly, such a proposal if accepted, the school uniform ceases to be uniform. There shall be two categories of girl students viz., those who wear the uniform with hijab and those who do it without. That would establish a sense of ‘social-separateness’, which is not desirable. It also offends the feel of uniformity which the dress-code is designed to bring about amongst all the students regardless of their religion and faiths,”

One could argue that hijab is just one exemption. What could possibly go wrong with it? But if hijab is the one and only exemption in India, there has to be a very very strong reason to back it up. Why should hijab be an exception?

“Young students are able to readily grasp from their immediate environment, differentiating lines of race, region, religion, language, caste, place of birth, etc. The aim of the regulation is to create a ‘safe space’ where such divisive lines should have no place and the ideals of egalitarianism should be readily apparent to all students alike”

Though this argument sounds right to everyone’s common sense, I personally feel that this is pulled out of thin air. Is there any scientific proof that uniforms promote a true egalitarian mindset with the children? What if uniform actually promotes students to treat everyone equally one and only if others are dressing the same way as they do? What if abolishing uniform might actually lead to promoting egalitarianism despite all the cultural and religious differences? Nobody knows for sure until we have a concrete psychological study on students.

“Prescription of school dress code to the exclusion of hijab, bhagwa (saffron), or any other apparel symbolic of religion can be a step forward in the direction of emancipation and more particularly, to the access to education. It hardly needs to be stated that this does not rob off the autonomy of women or their right to education, in as much as they can wear any apparel of their choice outside the classroom”

Even though the case was only about hijab, due to the polarization of our society, the judgment clearly mentions that the rules are applicable for any religious apparel. The judgment is completely fair. No one could argue otherwise.

One may argue that KV schools allow hijab. So why not others?

“What the Kendriya Vidyalayas prescribe as uniform/dress code is left to the policy of the Central Government. Ours being a kind of Federal Structure…, the Federal Units, namely the States need not toe the line of Center,”

This is a valid question. But the answer by the court regarding this is incomplete and cyclic in logic. Central government can allow hijab because they have the power to do so. State government can prohibit hijab because they have the power to do so. This sounds more like rule by law than rule of law. Rules and regulations cannot be arbitrary. Even more so when it comes to children and their future. The court failed to answer how the concerns of uniformity among children suddenly vanishes when it comes to KV schools.

Stubborn rule on hijab might affect children’s education

This is a very noble concern. Everyone would acknowledge that conservative Muslim parents may not feel comfortable in sending their children to school without hijab. Though I refuse to believe that there are people who value these arbitrary things more than education in this present world, let’s go with this argument. If we provide a positive incentive for this regressive behavior by allowing hijab as the only exception, then won’t this promote the same kind of behavior with the parents of all religions? Fundamentalists are present in all religions. It is not something unique to Islam. I hope nobody would disagree with it. What if every parent starts to propagate their beliefs using their children as the means to do so? This may lead to chaotic polarization and jeopardize the future of those children. In this deadlock situation between the government and the conservative parents, the society should step up and threaten to ostracize those regressive parents in order to prevent them from spoiling the life of their children.

Logical fallacy of Islam supporters

On the one hand, they say Islam is such a progressive religion that it doesn’t enforce any religious practices. On the other hand, they say that hijab is a mandatory clothing for their women. You can either be progressive and not enforce hijab on women or be regressive and enforce hijab on women. You cannot have the best of both worlds. One could argue that the paradox is due to the difference between what is being preached and what is being practiced. If you are not practicing what Islam is preaching, then are you even a true Muslim? If you are not even part of the religion in the true sense, then can you claim your right stating the same religion? The paradox can only be resolved by agreeing that the texts of Islam is progressive but the people are not ready to be so.

Is hijab regressive?

One argument says that progressive and regressive value judgment should be done according to the culture. In olden times, slaves are sold naked. So more clothes meant more modest and respect. In that sense, hijab cannot be judged as regressive. But in modern times we all can agree that the same argument doesn’t hold validity. Hijab, in name of modesty and religion, is a tool used by the patriarchal society to prevent women from exerting their sexual autonomy. Apart from these, some women consider hijab as their cultural or religious pride. Hijab is a symbol. It means different things to different people. Even if we agree that it is regressive, is banning the right way to solve this problem? I would say that empowering those women to break away from those shackles by themselves in their own way is the right way to go about it.

Every culture or religion will have its own primitive mindsets. Should the solution come from within their close knit community or from outside? Solution from within is evolution. Solution from outside is imposition. When we impose solutions in the name of greater good, the community starts to reaffirm to their faiths to feel secure. This might strengthen fundamentalism. So imposition of anything may not be the right thing to do. So what is the right way to go about it? Maybe the government should be intelligent enough in their moves to play reverse psychology. But then that means the government should promote dialogue in these sensitive issues, which means they’ll have to strip off blasphemy laws or restrict their powers. That’s a topic for another day.

Practical privilege of Hindus due to majority

Since about 80% of the population in India are Hindus, they enjoy certain practical privileges. This happens because most probably the authority, the teacher or the principal, is a Hindu due to the sheer majority of the population. I’ve observed it in my school. Hindu girls are prescribed and almost forced to wear bindi everyday. I don’t think it is a part of the uniform. Even if it is part of the uniform, why should it be so? What is the significance of bindi with regards to discipline? Isn’t the purpose of uniform is to keep everyone uniform? Won’t the bindi promote Hindus vs others groupism among children? Not so surprisingly, the boys are not prescribed to wear vibuthi or naamam. At the same time, the people who voluntarily choose to wear them are not questioned either. So it is neutral for the boys. During a particular season, sabarimala bakhts may come in their religious attire. They attract mixed reactions from different teachers. Some allow it, some condemn it. Moreover, the sabarimala attire might qualify the essential religious practices test by the court.

Sikhism exempted because they are of Indian origin?

Sikhs are allowed to wear turban even in the army. But Muslim men are not allowed to sport beard in the same. Sikhs are allowed to carry kirpan even on the air. On the surface level, this argument might seem to hold true. But it is not. Sikhism mandates these practices to their followers. Sikhism ceases to be Sikhism without these practices. So they are allowed as per the essential religious practices test by the Supreme Court. But then arises the question whether the essential religious practices test is a sound argument.

Rubbish argument of Indian secularism

In India, secularism doesn’t mean the separation of the state and religion. The government interferes with religious affairs in order to regulate and reform them. The argument goes like this. We cannot separate people from religion. We cannot separate the government from the people. Hence, we cannot separate government from religion. Simple transitive logic. This idea of Indian secularism is the core issue. They come up with arbitrary tests to determine essential religious practices. Even many legal experts criticize that ideas like ‘essential religious practices test’ makes the court delve into theological interpretations. And more than that, I don’t understand how they separate culture from religion. Religion and rationality are poles apart. Courts, based on rationality, cannot interpret religion which is based on faith.

In my opinion, it’s best that we practice secularism in its original form. No religious, cultural, ethnic, linguistic contamination should be allowed in the school, regardless of whether it is mandated or not. Attend the school with a clean slate as mother nature brought you into this world. This is what will truly educate children to keep their beliefs to themselves and respect others’ sentiments. You can practice all kinds of foolish rituals and hold all kinds of superstitious sentiments in your own private space. Nobody cares about it. It is the right thing to do.

What if I start my own religion?

I’m very disappointed with the logic of allowing the Sikhs to carry kirpan in airplanes. It is a grave security concern. Is religious sentiment more important than safety concerns? People cannot even carry a ghee bottle inside the plane, let alone a knife. What if I start my own religion where I make it mandatory to carry an AK47 all the time? You cannot stop me from starting my own religion. If you say that such a new religion of mine is invalid due to a small number of followers, then isn’t that tyranny of majoritarianism? What exactly is the minimum number of followers required to officially recognize a religion? I’m sure the Supreme Court could come up with an arbitrary number without any logic. If you say that the government only recognizes old religions and not new ones, then what is the reasoning behind it? How could you justify it? If you don’t have any valid reason and arbitrarily impose such restrictions, then this democratic government is no less tyrannical than a religious monarchy.

If a group of retarded people start to follow an idiotic practice for no reason whatsoever, the government validates their sentiment. If I, as an individual, decide to do the same thing on the basis of my personal choice, the government will not allow me to do it. How is the personal choice of an individual less important than a collective religious foolishness? If this is what India is all about then we have a long way to go.

Western centric view of dress code

Why do we have one dress code? India is a diverse country with diverse cultures. Why should we adopt one single dress code? Won’t each student be more productive if they were able to be in their comfortable attire? Why is the dress code western centric? It is completely western centric for boys and partially western centric for girls. Maybe this difference between the genders is a proof of Indian society holding back women from adopting western culture while they have no such problems with men doing so. Why should a culturally rich country like India adopt western centric dress code? What if we had multiple options of dress code according to each culture and religion? The same dress code will be followed nationwide by every school in the country. So there won’t be any disparity between a student studying in a private school and a student studying in a government school. I’m sure all students will be bored to wear the same uniform everyday. So this will provide an opportunity for the students to wear the clothes of other cultures and religions. They’ll get to at least partially experience life in the shoes of others. Won’t this promote religious and cultural unity?