Hijab Controversy: Who Made The Rule?

The recent controversy around a Muslim woman’s ‘right to wear a hijab’ versus ‘follow a dress code’ in an education institution has sparked many trains of thought. The dominant one is that ‘if there’s a rule, it needs to be followed’, ‘if the institution has a uniform, all students must wear it, irrespective of their religious or cultural identity’. The moot question is who made the rule? Is it a set of people with a majoritarian viewpoint that had a blind spot and could not see the needs of a minority? Is it inability to see or unwillingness to see? Is it a lack of awareness, insensitivity or arrogance?

Respect is as fundamental a human need as food, clothing, sex, housing, etc. The need for being respected for who one believes one is – has been the base for many path-breaking struggles across the globe. Whenever the identity of a people is suppressed or used as a tool to marginalise – sooner or later, there is an uprising that turn the tables in their favour. World history is marked with struggles based on differences among people – of skin colour, religion, region, nation, caste, gender, sexuality, age, etc. White-skinned people blocking ‘Blacks’ from accessing facilities, voting rights, positions of power were challenged by Martin Luther King and the American Civil Rights Movement, Nelson Mandela and the South African breakdown of Apartheid, the rise of the ‘Black Lives Matter campaign. Brahminical intolerance and atrocities against lower caste people were challenged by the Untouchability campaign, Gandhi, Ambedkar, and others. Equitable justice can be achieved if one challenges dominant positions and suppressive tendencies to demand inclusion.

Differences between people often cause discomfort, usually based on perception, assumed interpretation, judgement rather than facts. In the interest of one’s mental peace, most choose a simplistic solution of avoiding that which causes discomfort by excluding them from events in their life. Instead of separation, a challenging and uplifting choice would be inclusion – trying and understanding the other, making adjustments in one’s behaviour to include different points of view, and providing psychological safety to every identity. It’s about committing to stay together rather than looking for opportunities to break up at the drop of a hat.

Uniformity is a simplified solution, often provided by the majority, that reflects an inability or unwillingness to work with differences, where the casualty is minority expression. In the uniformity paradigm, decisions often guided by the majority render the minority group’s voice or choice unimportant and sidelined, which festers discontentment and a feeling of being disrespected. Uniformity is often the choice of a dictator or a controller, who likes to see a predictable pattern of behaviour and outcomes and is uncomfortable with uncertainty. Whereas the natural rule of law is the opposite – God’s creation – Nature tells us that diverse flora, fauna, animals, planets can co-exist.

Sameness is not the solution for dealing with different people. The sameness of language, clothing, customs, marriage rules, etc., cannot help in leveraging existing differences. Again, what sameness are we demanding – is it making them follow the majoritarian view?

What is psychological safety provided to a community member who is constantly being told to leave the country and go to Pakistan? Is the expression of a difference of opinion so prohibited that one has to leave a country one owned up when standing at the crossroads in 1947. If a point of view or action causes no harm or damage to another, it has every right to be expressed.

In 19th century Britain, ‘only white skin allowed in first class trains’ was a rule. Who made the rule? Gandhi got thrown out for that despite having bought a ticket. Or the British taxing Indians for salt that they toiled to extract. Gandhi led the Dandi Salt March despite conflicting views within the Congress and the British. But, the rule changed once he challenged it — the excluded need to challenge dominant positions constantly to be included. And create allies among the majority community to support their cause, like Lady and Lord Mountbatten became supporters for India’s Independence.

Allowing multiple identities to co-exist in a diverse country in private and public spaces is critical and must be encouraged. We have all grown up with the Vishnu Sahasranamam being chanted and the Azaan being called out early morning and have learnt to live with it. We must teach our children the same – to learn to live with differences.

Dealing with diversity requires constant dialogue between communities and attempts to understand each other. We do this by creating more and more opportunities to engage with the other rather than secluding them into compartments – this nation for Muslims and this one for Hindus, this school for boys and this one for girls, this drinking water well for higher caste and this one for the lower, this job for men and women but not for the third gender.

Have we ever noticed how such rules are often imposed for women more than for men? It’s always easier to instruct someone you perceive as lower than you on the Respect Ladder – that’s why for aeons, women received instructions on what to do, what to wear or how to behave. Men were rarely told. And Transgender got ostracised and shunted out totally, with no scope for engagement. It’s similar for minorities, whether political, religious or ideological – one is unwilling to listen to the other point of view, often throwing it out as impracticable or frivolous.

The Indian Constitution documented the freedom fighters’ dream – of an India – egalitarian, loving, peaceful. The best way to express our gratitude to them is to make that dream come true by allowing this diversity to bloom.

Today, in the corporate sector, organisations are spending resources on robust diversity training programmes for employees to reverse unconscious biases, source the best talent, and leverage differences for business prosperity. They are also focussing on the psychological safety and mental well-being of employees. We need to invest in more of these programmes at school and college levels where mindsets are formed so that we don’t have to reverse them later at workplaces.

IMHO, the solution is in providing psychological safety to each identity, creating an environment that facilitates an individual’s natural self-expression. Dealing with it each time will make us evolve as human beings when we learn to appreciate the rule of nature – i.e. diversity.

This diversity makes India a country that people look up to. When told, look at the rigidity that Islamic nations have chosen; why can’t India do that. I say, “India can teach the rest of the world how to manage diversity lovingly. Let’s do that.” Like Gandhi taught the world the message of non-violence by choosing the more difficult path in a time of World Wars. Choose the more difficult way – it will make us evolve as humanity.

Because that is the primary purpose of education to make us better human beings.

Think think think.