The Karnataka college uniform row will keep spreading until HC passes a ruling
The Karnataka Government has enacted a State law to support the ban on Muslim girls wearing hijab in some colleges. The controversy surfaced in a Udipi college and has now spread to several colleges, in the process taking political overtones. The controversy may eventually have to be resolved by the courts. The State High Court will be hearing two petitions in the coming week. It is relevant to understand what exactly the Government means by saying, in its statement, that “students in some institutions are following their religious practices and this is threatening equality and unity in school colleges”. Its solution is to order the colleges to “maintain equality and unity and wear clothing that does not disrupt public order”. In the same breath, the statement that includes this order also recognises that the Supreme Court and various High Courts have said that covering “the head with a headscarf is not (sic) violation of Article 25 of the Constitution”. However, these judgments notwithstanding, the State pushes for what it calls “uniformity of learning”. It quotes the Karnataka Education Act, 1983, that says “…all students and students of all schools of Karnataka should act in the same manner and not be confined to any class..Must act in favour of justice (sic)”.
The Government thus bases its hijab ban on the principles of ‘uniformity’, ‘equality’, ‘unity’ and ‘public order’. However, the statement does not clearly explain how these words are linked to one another and how the ban upholds them. Secondly, there is no clarity on how “uniformity of learning” is linked to a religious practice “threatening equality and unity in schools and colleges”. Thirdly, the State Government may need to clarify if the “uniformity” its order refers to is the same as the principle of healthy coexistence of religions. Does it mean that the people of all religions are free to wear at all times clothes or accessories their religions prescribe? Or does it simply mean a total ban on people of all religions wearing any religious symbols? The former is practising secularism. The latter is enforcing uniformity. There is a tendency for such issues to sidetrack society if these are left unattended. It is up to the courts to reiterate the basic definition of secularism, once again, for the benefit of all the parties concerned.