Iranian Women V Supreme Court of India
Iranian Women V Supreme Court of India
Iranian women are demonstrating and answering the question Supreme Court of India seems to be confused about.
The Supreme Court of India is deciding whether to allow an Institute to impose a uniform dress code on ALL its students, thereby not allowing a full-face hijab in school (part scarf is allowed).
At the same time, Iranian women are protesting the imposition of a full-face hijab by the Iranian model police in all aspects of their social life.
Both the Supreme Court of India and the Iranian women claim to be liberal but have an opposite stance on the issue of the hijab.
Why are Iranian women protesting?
The nub of the problem is the unfettered power exercised by the Morality Police in imposing a regressive dress code. The Morality Police beat the women (a punishment prescribed by Islamic law), but the excesses were so abhorrent that a woman died in custody.
However, the subjugation of women under the Iranian Regime may be only part of the reason. It is possible the protests are a clash between the modern aspirations of society and the theocratic rigidity of the Iranian leadership that denies any modernity. In an economy weakened by sanctions, pressures on families and society are immense, and their safety valve is sealed by the religious rigidity of the ruling elite.
The people might support the geopolitical battles of rulers and bear the lack of modernity and conveniences if there were some respite in daily life. Tarek Fateh once said everything that increases joy or relieves pain is banned in Islam. The theocratic state of Iran has chosen to clamp down on each and every one of these psychological outlets.
Nowhere is it more evident than in the treatment of women. Iranian women say the prescribed dress under Islam is not practical for everyday life. More critically, they recognize its role in psychologically stifling their humanity. In effect, the Iranian women are saying that the Hijab is a regressive tool for restricting the personal freedoms of women to control and stifle their humanity.
What are the details SC is considering in the particular case of hijab?
In the Karnataka Hijab case, Supreme Court is concerned about whether practices derived from the faith of the student can be restricted by education institutes. Particularly, the Supreme Court is considering whether the right to religion of a Muslim student requiring her to wear a burqa to school overrides the right of the school to enforce equal treatment by prescribing the same uniform for all religions.
I must highlight that the term hijab is misleading in this case as I understand it. The students wanted to wear the niqab and/or burqa. The school, as per media reports, allows Muslim women to wear a head scarf (depicted as Shayla - refer to different head coverage for women in Islam below).
The question before the court may be framed in different ways:
Whether the right to religion of a student, classified as a human right, can supersede the right of the discipline of the secular institution.
Whether a secular (as in “true” secular or irreligious) institution like the Supreme Court should favour the freedom of religion of a student over the freedom of secularism of the educational institute. If yes, why do the courts have a dress code even for visitors?
Should we deny the choice of interaction to the school or society and compel it/them to interact with a person who chooses to disregard their rules?
Should we allow a personal choice to dictate how society chooses to interact with that individual? It is as much the choice of the society to interact with the person as it is the choice of the person to interact with the society.
It is also pertinent as to what practice from the faith we are talking about before we can understand if it can be restricted or not. Should the Supreme Court be a party to imposing a dress code so regressive that those living in it have chosen to burn it and are ready to sacrifice their own lives to preserve their humanity?
In sum
The case before the Supreme Court is not a clash of rights but a clash of ideologies. India knows that once we cede any ground to radical Islamic elements, it is difficult to reclaim them. In the situation in Iran and globally too, we see a similar clash of ideologies. The
A broad-based reform of Islam is required; that much is clear. And this “manthan” will first yield a Halahal before it yields Amrit and that means we will need Lord Shiva.
Notes:
