The headscarf row in Karnataka is being framed in various ways, in terms of majoritarianism, feminism, civil liberties or freedom of expression. India is by no means the first country to have grappled with the issue. Worldwide, hijab controversies reflect the contradiction between the two western paradigms of secularism: universalism (France) and multiculturalism (US).
In France, the notion of laïcité, or separation of church and state, is a fundamental constitutional principle, held sacred since its introduction in 1905. While laïcité doesn’t have a precise translation, it is often interpreted as state neutrality towards religion. People are free to practice whatever faith they want in the private sphere, as long as it doesn’t disturb the public space.
It was in the spirit of laïcité that religious symbols, including the headscarf, the Sikh turban and the crucifix, were forbidden in French public schools in 2004. Civil servants and private contractors engaged by the state, too, cannot sport religious symbols. In 2010, France became the first European country to forbid face-covering veils in public spaces, popularly known as the ‘burqa ban’. Belgium, Austria, Denmark, Bulgaria and Switzerland have followed suit, while partial bans are in place in other countries.
The debate over laïcité and what it means is ongoing. In 2021, the French Senate approved an amendment to the anti-separatism law that would make it illegal for minors to wear the hijab in public. This was not accepted, but that didn’t deter the Senate from suggesting a ban on the wearing of religious symbols in sports competitions earlier this year.
The outpouring of criticism against the ban on religious symbols in the western English language press reflects another version of secularism. The US and UK have long embraced multiculturalism, and India has followed that principle. Minority religious groups whose practices deviate from the dominant culture are accorded special acknowledgement.
ALSO READ | Udupi Hijab Controversy: Should a Muslim Woman Necessarily Wear a Hijab, Asks Zakia Soman
India’s principle of ‘unity in diversity’ holds that different cultures can co-exist peacefully, while sharing a common ‘Indian’ identity. The question is one of emphasis. Is unity stressed over diversity or vice versa?
Multiculturalism, or diversity, is seen as a positive, because it promotes religious tolerance, eliminates bigotry, xenophobia and narrow-mindedness and enables learnings from different cultures, which in turn leads to cross-fertilization of ideas and innovation. It also serves to enhance national security, as all communities are equally invested in a peaceful and harmonious existence.
Yet, more than one head of state, notably then UK Prime Minister David Cameron and German chancellor Angela Merkel, were moved to observe that “multiculturalism has failed”. Does prioritizing diversity erode unity? Critics of mulitculturalism argue that it undermines social cohesion, creates friction and a loss of trust in institutions. They call for assimilation of minority groups within the value system and laws of the country where they live.
They also point to the fact that where legal pluralism is involved, personal laws are often weighted against women and minors. 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. In the UK, clothing chain Marks & Spencer has been criticized for selling child-sized hijabs.
In India, too, the dark side of multiculturalism is seen vis-a-vis the rights of minors and women in communities that allow child marriage, polygamy and female circumcision. They are at a disadvantage vis-a-vis their peers. Until recently, Muslim men were permitted to divorce their wives through ‘triple talaq’.
In the context of the current controversy, it can be argued that multiculturalism in the classroom is necessary to inculcate a spirit of mutual tolerance, respect and empathy between students from different cultural backgrounds. Can that objective be achieved by allowing any and all religious symbols within the precincts of the campus?
In the current, highly-charged atmosphere, it is more likely to lead to competitive expressions of faith, which is bound to create divisions in the student body. Already, groups of students have turned up in saffron scarves. Polarization along religious lines will not serve the cause of either education or mutual tolerance.
Be that as it may, there’s no question that the college or school campus is a secular space. How we define ‘secular’ should inform the decision of the courts.
Bhavdeep Kang is a freelance writer and author of Gurus: Stories of India’s Leading Babas and Just Transferred: The Untold Story of Ashok Khemka. The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not represent the stand of this publication.
Read all the Latest Opinions here
Comments
0 comment