5 min readFeb 15, 2022 09:21 PM IST
First published on: Feb 15, 2022 at 03:40 AM IST
Will the hijab controversy become another Shah Bano moment? That we’ll know only after the Supreme Court decides because neither side is likely to accept an adverse High Court ruling.
As things stand, the comparison is not apt. In 1985, a lone divorcee was pitted against the male leadership of her community. While these orthodox men had the tacit backing of the ruling party, Shah Bano could get the support of just a few courageous Muslims. Isolated, as lakhs of men rallied against her on the streets, the 69-year-old finally succumbed and rejected the Supreme Court order which, following both law and precedent, had granted her a monthly maintenance of Rs 179.20 to be paid by her affluent husband. This victory had come after seven years, but she gave it up because, as she told this reporter, “I don’t want khoon kharaba in my name.”
If the Goliath then was the Muslim Personal Law Board, which mobilised lakhs of Muslim men, today the Goliath is the BJP government in Karnataka, which has mobilised groups of male students to violently intimidate the young Muslim women who have until now, never been stopped from entering college in hijabs.
No wonder, then, that democratically-minded citizens are rallying around today’s Davids, be it the gutsy Muskan of Mandya who didn’t back off even when surrounded by a pack of saffron-scarf-wearing hounds, or the small groups of girls who found the gates of their colleges suddenly closed to them because of a show of strength earlier by male students wearing saffron scarves. That action was as arbitrary and unfair as the Karnataka government’s sudden order mandating a uniform in government educational institutions, and banning anything that goes against the “idea of equality, integrity and unity and affects law and order”.
Can a government suddenly issue such an order in the middle of an academic year? How does law and order get affected by the presence of a hijab-clad student, and if it does, who is responsible? These questions will undoubtedly be discussed in court, but so will the more controversial questions on whether the hijab is an integral part of Islam; and whether the order violates fundamental rights. Will the losing side accept the Supreme Court’s decision?
Shah Bano’s repudiation of the Supreme Court order granting her maintenance led to the passing of a law which, going against both women’s rights and secularism, excluded Muslim women from the benefits of a legal provision available to all divorced women. What followed was even worse. In another act of appeasement, this time aimed at Hindu fanatics, the locks of the Babri Masjid were opened, boosting the Ayodhya movement.
Will the outcome of the hijab controversy be equally fearsome? On the one side are those who swear by “religious identity”, on the other, a powerful ruling party determined to obliterate all but Hindu identity.
Did it have to come to this? The Udupi college, where it all started, had no rule banning the hijab, though only a few had worn it in class earlier. The management may have eventually given in to the girls, but that would have required discreet negotiations, the kind that routinely take place between parents and principals without political parties stepping in. That wasn’t allowed to happen. The moment the students approached the Campus Front of India, the issue not only became political, but one that suited the BJP. A radical Muslim outfit for whom “Muslim identity” overrides everything is the BJP’s dream opponent.
Incidentally, parents in Mumbai have often got the Shiv Sena or MNS to pressure convent schools to declare holidays for the Ganpati festival — also projected as a demand related to “religious rights”. Progressive sections have never sided with them. But today, the country’s Leftists, liberals, and feminists find themselves standing shoulder to shoulder with organisations that support the Taliban, carry out Islamic punishments for “blasphemy” and harass Muslim girls who wear jeans in colleges. These organisations are invited on media channels as the young women’s spokespersons, the same way that the most regressive male leaders were allowed to become the voice of the community against Shah Bano.
The tragedy of this situation is that those who have struggled for decades to reduce religiosity in public spaces have been reduced to fighting for more of it. But is there a choice, given the nature of the Goliath today?
This column first appeared in the print edition on February 15, 2022 under the title ‘Shah Bano, not Shah Bano’. The writer is a senior journalist
Students protest outside a college in Udupi, Karnataka. (Express Photo: Jithendra M) 
Share
