India: Hijacked by hijab | Javed Anand (The Indian Express, Feb 18, 2022)

The Indian Express

What is at stake in the hijab issue

Javed Anand writes: Secularists must support rights of Muslims in an increasingly Islamophobic world, but they should be wary of strengthening the Muslim right in the process

Written by Javed Anand |
Updated: February 18, 2022

To make sense of the contradictory voices within the community of secular-minded Indians on the raging hijab controversy, we would do well to recall a decades-old remark, in another context, of the US-based “Indian philosopher of language and mind”, Akeel Bilgrami: Sometimes who is saying it is as important as what is being said.

On the one hand are a large majority of secularists — women’s organisations, independent feminists, political parties — along with Muslim religious and political leaders, as also some secular-minded Muslim women and men, who see in the attempt of some pre-university colleges in BJP-ruled Karnataka to bar the wearing of hijab in classrooms as yet another attempt by Hindutva forces to impose their majoritarian agenda on the minorities. In full-throated support of the agitating Muslim girls, they believe they are defending the Muslim women’s constitutional right to freedom of religion, right to education, right to freedom of choice. On the other hand, are the relatively fewer voices of Muslim women and men at pains to point out that all the Quran asks of Muslim men and women is that they dress “modestly” and “decently”. Neither the hijab nor the full-body burqa has anything to do with the fundamental tenets of Islam. Included among these voices are those of Zeenat Shaukat Ali (Islamic scholar, author of The Empowerment of Women in Islam), Ghazala Wahab (author of Born a Muslim: Some truths about Islam in India), Zakia Soman (co-convener, Bhartiya Muslim Mahila Andolan), Shabnam Hashmi (Anhad), many members of Indian Muslims for Secular Democracy (IMSD). It is a view they share with a host of modern-day, internationally renowned scholars of Islam, both women and men.

A full bench of the Karnataka High Court is now set to deliberate on whether the hijab is among the “essential practices of Islam”. Here is the rub: The Quran is one but its interpretations are many. Like any other religion, there are in practice not one but many Islams. So, which version of Islam will the court rely on in reaching its judgment — that of orthodox or of reformist Muslims?

For progressive, reform-oriented Muslims, the veil is an age-old symbol of patriarchy whose origin lies outside Islam to which the mullahs of Islam continue to cling on to perpetuate male dominance over women. According to them, the veil is not a standalone issue; rather, it is among the external manifestations of an Islam which is at odds with modernity and a secular-democratic polity. The deep unease of such Muslims is best exemplified by the statements of a few Muslim women from Karnataka, who have been quoted in a report in this paper last week (‘A letter from Karnataka: Udupi, Class of 2012′, February 13).

Says a 45-year-old homemaker who preferred anonymity: “While we were in school and college, we never wore the hijab or the burqa. We just wore a dupatta like the other girls. Tab itna knowledge nahin tha religion ke baare mein. We didn’t know what was right and wrong.” Says her daughter Sana, who started wearing the hijab from Class 8: “Now I wear it (hijab) even at home… the hijab is a part of me.” Says Fatima, a medical student: “I wear it (hijab) because we have been taught that God wants us to wear it. It’s my individual choice.” Another homemaker Sabina Begum (36) says her eight-year-old daughter “loves wearing the hijab”.

So here we have it — the changing face of Indian Islam in recent decades where indoctrination is being paraded as the right to freedom and the right to choose. As many Muslims will tell you, Allah gives you the freedom to choose, but the “wrong choice” will land you in Hellfire. In any case, the current controversy is not about the barring of the hijab or burqa from all public spaces but only inside classrooms where a uniform is prescribed.

The mullahs have for long maintained that a Muslim woman must never step out of home unless covered in a head-to-toe burqa but they were ignored by the educated among Muslims until recently. With great success, however, someone in recent decades has taught educated, middle-class Indian Muslims a “new Islam” and the hijab or burqa (the “flag of fundamentalist Islam”) is but a small part of the new package deal. This someone is the Campus Front of India, the students’ wing of the Popular Front of India which like the banned Students Islamic Movement of India is rooted in the ideology of political Islam (Islamism) espoused by two highly influential Muslim propagandists of the 20th century, Maulana Abul A’la Maududi (founder of the Jamaat-e-Islami in the Indian Subcontinent) and Syed Qutb (the most influential leader of Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood). Like the Hindutva zealots, Islamists too are at heart hostile to the ideals of a secular democracy.

Also not to be forgotten is the role of the petrodollar-funded televangelist, Zakir Naik, in promoting Islamic supremacism among the gullible, though educated, young Muslim men and women. Naik deploys distasteful “logic” while asking Muslim women to cover up. Those who do not, he argues, expose themselves like uncovered sweets in a mithai shop. Sure to attract flies in one case, sexual predators in the other.

Ironically, while an increasing number of Muslim majority countries including ultra-orthodox Saudi Arabia are moving away from the hijab or niqab is mandatory-in-Islam position, a section of Indian Muslims are headed in the opposite direction. Needless to say, it is the moral and political obligation of secularists to support the rights of Muslims in an increasingly Islamophobic world. But should they not beware lest they end up strengthening the Muslim Right in the process?

As for the Muslim girls’ right to education, it may be worth pondering over whether education is for degrees alone or is education for life? A young Muslim woman has poignantly commented in a chat group of secularists: “What have we come to as a community? We need to initiate (the) process of dialogue within to figure out how to counter the increasing conservatism and fundamentalism in the community. If we don’t, the BJP will.” If not the communal BJP, the secular courts might.

This column first appeared in the print edition on. February 18, 2022 under the title ‘Hijacked by hijab’. The writer is convener, Indian Muslims for Secular Democracy and co-editor, Sabrang India online

India: The Hijab row in Karnataka Colleges will polarise and the BJP will make gains probably during the 2022 assembly elections in UP ?

Hijab controversy: More to do with UP than Karnataka? Is it entirely a coincidence that Owaisi has brought the hijab issue to the UP elections? by Bharat Bhushan (Deccan Herald, Feb 10, 2022) Udupi is a long way from Lucknow, but the hijab controversy is just the kind of emotive issue that could help the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) polarise voters in the UP election. https://www.deccanherald.com/opinion/hijab-controversy-more-to-do-with-up-than-karnataka-1079976.html o o How Hindutva Group Mobilised the Saffron-Clad Students at Udupi College (The Quint) [Two days before students protested against their hijab-wearing classmates at MGM college, a message was circulated] https://www.thequint.com/news/india/how-the-hindutva-group-mobilised-the-saffron-clad-students-at-udupi-college

India: ABVP waves saffron shawls at burkhas on campuses

The Hindu - Sunday Special, March 11, 2017

ABVP waves saffron shawls at burkhas on campuses

 Raghava.M

Muslim women wear the dress to be able to attend college in Karnataka, but Hindutva activists see it as a violation of the existing code

A saffron shawl is not part of the prescribed uniform at the Government First Grade College in the coastal town of Bhatkal in Karnataka. But Jayant Naika, a second year undergraduate student of Arts, was assaulted earlier this month by four of his college mates for not wearing one.
The incident marked an aggressive turn in the burkha-versus-saffron shawl battle over dress codes reported from colleges in Dakshina Kannada, Uttara Kannada and Shivamogga districts.
These districts made news for communal skirmishes, vigilante attacks and moral policing.
The saffron shawl appeared in colleges after right wing groups objected to Muslim women being allowed to wear a head scarf or burkha in college. Students (many affiliated to the Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad) decided to wear saffron shawls in protest.

Rule cannot change

The saffron group argues that one section of students cannot be allowed to break the norm on uniforms on the ground that it is a cultural or religious right.
Insisting that there was nothing communal about their stand, Mangaluru taluk unit of ABVP convenor Sujith Shetty said the State government should issue a non-negotiable dress code in schools and colleges.
“I will continue wearing a saffron shawl as long as they wear a head scarf,” said a student at the Government First Grade College, Bellare, Dakshina Kannada, which witnessed a confrontation six months ago.
Even though protests against head scarves or burkha on campuses have been reported since 2009 in Dakshina Kannada, boys wearing saffron shawls as a counter is recent. There have been four major instances since August 2016; in Bhatkal, Jayant Naika’s attackers said he was not wearing a shawl “despite being a Hindu”.

Passport to college

In all this, the voice of Muslim women has remained muted. “I wear a burkha because my family will not let me go to college without one. If they ban it, I might have to drop out,” says a student of the Sahyadri Science College in Shivamogga.

The town has no all-girls government science college and the government-aided girls’ science college does not offer as many subjects.
A teacher in a government first-grade college in Bhadravati, Shivamogga district, says: “Some of my students are comfortable in burkha and some may not be, but it is part of their negotiation with their families to continue education.”
Most of her students are from poor families and first generation college-goers. They often have to contend with boys of the community who report back to families if a girl is seen without a burkha or speaking to boys of other communities. The saffron shawl protests are “threatening, aggressive and leave no room for negotiation” and can potentially block a girl’s education, the teacher says.

Women helpless

“Women are unfortunately caught between fundamentalist groups,” says Sara Aboobacker, senior Kannada writer who has been vocal in her protest against imposition of burkha and hijab on women.
There have been instances where Muslim groups too refuse to engage in a debate and view the burkha as a religious issue.
For instance, in Shivamogga, some girl students, supported by the Campus Front of India, demanded protection from authorities, alleging that their rights were being violated in the name of a dress code.
Professor at Hampi Kannada University and a well-known culture critic Rahmat Tarikere said there are four clear stakeholders — the government, the Muslim community, progressive activists and the Hindu right.
“The government is being badgered for not imposing uniforms, the Muslim community for being conservative and progressive activists for being selectively silent. Clearly, only one group gains politically from this,” says Prof. Tarikere. “The Muslim community would be seen as defeated if it accepts the argument of the Hindu right, but branded regressive if it does not.”

Like Sara Aboobaker, Prof. Tarikere said the victims in all this are students, especially Muslim girls who want education and have to face conservative attitudes.

India: Hindu outfits protest over relaxing dress code for women

jantakareporter.com

Hindu outfits protest over relaxing dress code for women
By PTI -
November 30, 2016

Various Hindu organisations today protested in front of the Padmanabha Swamy shrine here against the decision to relax the dress code for women, permitting devotees to wear the traditional Indian salwar kameez and churidar while worshipping at the temple.

They were protesting against the decision of the Executive Officer (EO) K N Sateesh, allowing women to enter the temple wearing salwar and churidar and offer prayers.

Women devotees earlier had to wear a ‘mundu’ (dhoti) over their waist if they were attired in salwar and churidar before entering the famous shrine, considered the richest Hindu temple in the world.

Devaswom Minister Kadakampally Surendran said he had come to know about the officer’s decision and the protests.

“Government will take an appropriate decision on the matter after looking into all aspects,” he told reporters.

Some members of the Kerala Brahamanna Sabha squatted on the road leading to the western entrance of the shrine protesting the decision. However, women wearing salwar kameez and churidar could enter through the eastern entrance.

A member of the sabha said the EO’s decision was against the temple’s centuries-old tradition. Their representatives met the administrative committee chairman on the matter.

Hindu Aikya Vedi chairperson Shashikala Teacher said the executive officer cannot take such a decision which was against the temple’s rituals and tradition.

BJP leader Sobha Surendran said though personally she was not against women wearing salwar and churidar entering the temple, the EO should have discussed the matter before all concerned before taking such a decision.

Some temple employees were seen not allowing women wearing salwar and churidar to enter.

However, the Executive Officer told PTI devotees were entering the temple wearing salwar and churidar. This was an issue before the Kerala High Court and he had to get a legal advice from his advocate on the matter.

Asked if any status quo has been directed on the matter, he said he had not received any such order as of now.

Justice Shaji P Chaly of the High Court had yesterday, while disposing of a petition by Riya Raji, directed the EO to consider her plea against forcing women in salwars and churidars to wear a dhoti before entering the shrine and take an appropriate decision after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner or any other interested persons within a month.

Following the court order, the Executive officer had taken a decision to relax the age old dress code..

India: From shorts to pants - India’s 91-year old Hindu nationalist group is changing (Rama Lakshmi )

The Washington Post

From shorts to pants: India’s 91-year old Hindu nationalist group is changing

By Rama Lakshmi March 13 at 6:31 AM

This file photo taken on Jan. 9, 2016, shows the band of India's Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) as they take part in the "Shrung Ghosh Path Sanchalan" (Route March by Brass Band) by RSS cadets in Bangalore. A hardline Indian Hindu movement announced March 13 that it was abandoning its trademark khaki shorts to try to modernize the dress code, 91 years after adopting the austere military-style uniform. / Getty

It is the most talked about dress code in India this weekend.
India’s largest and most strident Hindu nationalist organization, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh is changing. No, not its core beliefs of Hindu supremacist pride. But its dress code.
Members of this 91-year old group of which Prime Minister Narendra Modi is part, traditionally wore loose khaki shorts, high socks and white shirts. The group conducts military-style drills, bamboo stick fights and sings hymns to the Indian motherland in small neighborhood parks across India at dawn.
But now the khaki shorts, the signature look of a member, is going to be replaced with brown pants.
“We have decided to replace khaki shorts with brown-colored full pants,” said Bhaiyyaji Joshi, one of the top leaders of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, or RSS. “Full pants are more common in normal life, so we have accepted it now. We are a group that moves with the times.”
RSS’s critics in India often lampoon its trademark wide shorts and derisively call its members “chaddi” or shorts. They routinely post awkward photographs of its overweight members in the loose shorts.
The RSS, which is Hindi for National Volunteer Corps, seeks to unite Hindus and restore national pride after centuries of Muslim invasions and foreign rule. But its belligerent rhetoric has often spurred Hindu-Muslim tensions and violence in this officially secular but predominantly Hindu country of 1.2 billion people.
Modi’s election victory in 2014 has pitched the RSS into national spotlight again. Many critics say that the growing popularity of RSS's ideology is changing the secular and liberal character of India’s multi-religious society.
On Twitter, many welcomed the long-awaited change as a sign of a modernity.
Change in the uniform of RSS is a decisive change, a vibrant organisation keep changing external features remaining firm on ideology — Dr Rakesh Sinha (@RakeshSinha01) March 13, 2016
  But critics mocked the change by using a Hindi hashtag that meant “change your thoughts not shorts.”  
 Changed half Chaddi to full, but does it cover narrow mindsets also #ChaddiNahiSochBadlo

— Bitter Pills (@kadavasach1) March 12, 2016
The change in dress code did not come suddenly. It has been in the works for some years now. Some suggested blue sweat pants, others blue trousers in the past two years, but there was no consensus.
In the last few years, the RSS has relaxed many of its strict traditions in an effort to upgrade its image for the 21^st century and recruit India’s urban professional youth. Instead of early morning drills, it allowed flexible timings for new members. Many who did not wish to wear shorts were allowed to wear jogging suits to the drills.
The group also announced this weekend that it now supports the entry of women into some Hindu temples that ban them.
But somehow, this did not get the same traction on social media as the passing of the loose RSS shorts.

India: Temple dress code in Tamil Nadu is just another tool to rein in 'provocative' women (TM Krishna)

scroll.in - 9 January 2016

The Thin Edge
The dress law for temples is just another tool to rein in 'provocative' women
The guardians of society are so obsessed with sexual propriety that they forget the gender and class discrimination involved in enforcing an apparel code.

[by] TM Krishna

As the new year dawned, Justice S Vaidyanathan’s prescribed dress code for Hindus visiting temples came into force in Tamil Nadu. These were new rules, amounting to an "apparel law". The “ruled” attire for men visiting temples, hereafter, is a shirt with pants or upper cloth with pyjamas or a dhoti, while women are to be in a sari, half sari or a churidhar with upper cloth. For children, the law is “any fully covered dress”. The order and the concept of an order on such a matter have been difficult enough to accept. But for me, what has been an uncomfortable reality is the fact that Hindus have more or less accepted this diktat, and find it most appropriate.

Dress codes as such are not new. “Customs and traditions,” according to the 1947 Tamil Nadu Temple Entry Authorisation Act, determine entry permissions. Temples in Kerala, for instance, enforce the rule that men need to be bare-chested and women are expected to wear a mundu.

Though the rules are directed towards all devotees, it is clear from the details that the target is the modern woman. It is more than obvious that all of these conditions are intrinsically misogynistic, further establishing the sexist notion of “distracting” women. This court order is no doubt another enforcement of puritanical notions set in place by one gentleman.

Determining what's appropriate

“Common” people have spoken up in justification of the words. The words in their statements supporting this order include “sanctity” and “modesty”, both only reiterating my understanding of the situation. All this brings to mind moving pictures from mythological Tamil films, of the pure and saintly Vishwamitra being lured by the seductress Menaka, dressed in a shimmering tightly-fitted dress highlighting her physical attributes. We often hear Pravachanakars turn these stories into metaphors, but even there the woman is the corrupter.

The fear is that unless there are rules in place, women would enter temples wearing “all kinds of odd clothes” such as shorts, mini-skirts and other Western clothes. These, it is presumed, will arouse the baser instincts in “poor, vulnerable men” and violate the sanctity of the place. Borne out of twisted traditional ideas of sexual control and violence, this is indeed an extension of the commonly held belief that women who “expose themselves” invite rape and molestation.

The 1947 Act referring to customs and traditions is against equality, which is the basic spirit of our Constitution. Almost every tradition and custom is a combination of patriarchy, caste and class. There is no doubt that the practice of men entering the sanctum without an upper cloth is at least in part linked to caste discrimination. In interior villages, even today we see lower caste men remove their loosely knotted headgear while speaking to a person of higher caste or class. If we do not question these cultural hangovers, how do we ensure equality? Therefore, to allow every temple to prepare its own set of guidelines according to its own traditions is no different from uppity clubs demanding that individuals are allowed only in shoes.

But what is “appropriate”, and how does one determine this? This is the difficult question that does not have a “right” answer. But let us step back further. What is our relationship with our bodies and sexuality? Enforced morality is borne out of our inability to embrace ourselves as sexual beings with intense desires that transcend the boundaries of socially created relationships. To avoid this emotional turbulence, we have “attired order” among other things. But the matter is not so simple, entangled in this are more complex barbed wires.

The man is seen as the uncontrollable sexual machine and by the laws of nature is corruptible. The woman exists to satisfy “his” needs and aware of his inherent weakness, a conniving enticer. When people speak of distraction in the context of the temple, they are referring to this entrapment that women are said to practice, whether by design or not being beside the point. And, therefore, clothing control is a tool to rein in the provocative woman and support the weak man.

Role of religion

Where does religion fit into all this? God is the perfect mechanism to establish this very idea and religious organisations across cultures play that role perfectly. Therefore, it is no surprise that we want to remove any idea of sexuality from the precincts of the temple, even though sculpted voluptuous women stare at us at every turn. Women being titillated by the carved broad shouldered, muscled dvarapalakas are of course of no consequence.

Ritual practices within the temple celebrate sex, but we should remember that sexual desire among the gods is pure while that which happens between homosapiens is neech. The tragedy is that this canvas is a creation of the powerful male (not gender-specific) who has altered the images at different times to suit his own convenience.

The larger issue is therefore far removed from the temple itself. What we have failed to create is a society where we respect our bodies and build relationships on trust, an environment where sexual desire is not suppressed and placed on the lowest step of nature, but absorbed into the understanding of each other irrespective of gender. Instead, we have made the woman the physically weak sexual object who provides pleasure to the insatiable man. And religion is one mechanism through which we manipulate her. I do not see any sanctity in this construction.

It is the same faith that we need in human interactions that should guide our relationship with god, and this bond will naturally determine how we present ourselves to him or her – not what men believe is appropriate or comfortable in their eyes. We stand before Rama, Kamakshi or Siva in a rapture that is as much about our own physical self, as it is about our belief. We admire Nataraja for the exquisite sexual imagery that human creativity bestowed upon him and surrender to the cosmic strength he gives us. This all-encompassing experience is the temple.

Varying degrees

Such controls are not confined to Hinduism. Islam and Christianity have their own customs and practices with regard to personal attire. I was once given a harsh shelling by a woman from the Islamic faith about the hijab. She convincingly argued that in every society, it is the man who determines the amount of skin that a woman can reveal, and therefore the hijab gives her the ability to take control of her body and deprive man of his control and consequently pleasure.

But what seems like a strong feminist statement ignores the fact the enforcement of the hijab is borne out of misogyny. There are enough cases of women being forced to wear the hijab by their families. Free will itself is not at all that liberated, and it high time we understand this nuance. And here I must say this: we the “majority Hindus” in this country constantly speak about the hijab as an oppressive tool, forgetting that Hinduism forces similar conditionalities on women in the form of the ghunghat, metti, and mangal sutra. There is also the unquestioningly accepted practice that menstruating women should not enter the temple. These are all abusive in nature, it is only the degrees that vary.

While the Acharyas, Mullahs, and other priests and judges are busy demanding sexual propriety, they ignore the class discriminations that choice of attire brings forth. No one seems to care that people flaunt the most expensive and branded clothes at the temple and create unfair comparison, jealousy, sadness and discrimination. The sight of legs affects us much more.

Bangladesh: no-one can be forced to wear religious attire in the secular state

BBC News

Bangladesh High Court passes key burka ruling

4 October 2010

Image caption The court ruled that Bangladesh was predominantly a secular country

The High Court of Bangladesh has ruled that no-one can be forced to wear the burka, or full Islamic headdress.

This follows a similar but more limited ruling in August that women could not be forced to wear the burka at work or in schools or colleges.

Correspondents say the move is the latest sign of the judiciary's support for the government's attempts to pursue a more secular agenda.

The governing Awami League prides itself on its secular credentials.

It says that it wants to challenge the power of Islamic conservatives.

The court ruled that "secularism is one of the four principles of the constitution... and no-one can be forced to wear religious attire in the secular state".

India: The restrictions on beef consumption are part of the same narrative that legitimises ‘offence’ as a tool to curtail rights and freedoms (Anup Surendranath)

The Hindu, October 9, 2015

Beefed-up curbs, feeble resistance
by Anup Surendranath

The restrictions on beef consumption are part of the same narrative that legitimises ‘offence’ as a tool to curtail rights and freedoms. The legislatures, the courts as well as the public are all guilty of giving credence to such narratives

Invariably, there are times in a Constitution’s life when its very fundamentals are under threat, times when the technicality of laws made under the powers of that Constitution are the very weapons used to undermine its foundations. Rarely do foundational threats to Constitutions come as sudden events, they often build up as liberties and freedoms are incrementally compromised. We are now perilously close to a moment where this is true of the Constitution of India as well.


From the perspective of the rule of law enshrined in the Constitution, it would be naïve to think that Dadri happened overnight. It is important to confront the tame manner in which rights are protected in this country and the ease with which the state can trample upon liberties and freedoms. Worse, Dadri is also a stark reminder of the extent to which we have surrendered our rights to the state. At the heart of Mohammad Akhlaq’s lynching is a group that has violently asserted a claim not to be offended, a legal regime that, through anti-cow slaughter laws, has given legitimacy to this claim, and a society that has allowed the state to chip away at the liberty of its people over the decades.

‘Being offended’ has emerged as an extremely effective ground for curtailing liberties and freedoms. Not only does ‘being offended’ serve as a political, religious and cultural tool, it has also crept into constitutional adjudication. Groups that represent various political, cultural, and religious interests routinely invoke this idea of ‘being offended’ to infringe upon other’s rights by resorting to the cliché that rights are not absolute.

Offence not a valid defence for curbs

Of course, rights are not absolute but people are mistaken to assert that ‘offending the sentiments’ is a sufficient justification for curbing constitutionally guaranteed freedoms. Often, this claim of being offended is backed with threats of violence if the offending material is not withdrawn; we have seen enough of these threats being carried out. Unfortunately, our governments have been more than content to give in to these kinds of threats and often sacrifice the freedoms involved.

Irrespective of whether or not violence is used as a threat, normalising this idea of ‘offence’ as the basis for protesting against the exercise of rights is dangerous for a democratic society. Be it protesting against Mira Nair’s Fire; Taslima Nasrin’s Lajja; or the latest round of objections to the play Agnes of God — invoking this idea of ‘being offended’ as the basis to restrict rights cannot be considered legitimate for some and illegitimate for others. The more we invoke this idea of ‘offence’ and maintain our silence when it is invoked, the more we legitimise it. The result of legitimising this idea of ‘offence’ is that sections of society come to believe that they have a ‘right not to be offended’. And when this imagined right is seen as being infringed upon by some members of the society, there is an increasing tendency to enforce it through violence. Our disappointing reactions to the cold-blooded murders of rationalists like Narendra Dabholkar, Govind Pansare and M.M. Kalburgi are tragic examples of the extent to which we have come to accept this ‘right not to be offended’.

You only need to watch some of the television channels that beam content into our homes to understand the extent to which we have internalised this right ‘not to get offended’. As the consumers of content on these channels, we are happy for them to self-censor and remove words like sex, beef, shit, vagina and lesbian/gay. Perhaps more worryingly, we seem to be increasingly comfortable with giving our rights away to the state without even demanding the most basic protections in return. The widespread support for Aadhaar is a classic example of this. And so is our tacit complicity with the extensive surveillance regime that has been put in place over the years with hardly any safeguards.

In these contexts, we eagerly accept the state’s narrative — that these restrictions are for our protection — without really reflecting on the manner in which we are making ourselves extremely vulnerable to state interference into our most private spheres. We seem to be unconcerned that through the Aadhaar scheme and its linking to a vast array of services, we are handing over a whole lot of information about our lives to the state — information it can access and use without any checks, information it has no rights to access.

Unfortunately, prioritising the ‘right not to be offended’ has influenced constitutional adjudication as well. The Supreme Court’s stamp of approval in March 2008 on banning the sale of meat in Ahmedabad during the Jain festival of Paryushan is a perfect example. The basis for restricting the rights of butchers in that case was “respecting the sentiments of a particular section of society”. That consideration has no constitutional basis and today we find ourselves burdened with this decision that governments are happy to exploit.

Another example is the Supreme Court’s approval in March 2004 for an all-year ban on sale of fish, meat and eggs in Rishikesh, like the ones that had existed in Haridwar and Muni ki Reti for many years. The Supreme Court invoked the dietary preferences of pilgrims visiting these towns as sufficient justification for such a ban. The Supreme Court’s freedom of speech jurisprudence is replete with such attempts aimed at preventing offence to the sentiments of others. The latest instance of this was Justice Dipak Misra’s judgment in the Supreme Court that artists cannot use abusive words, particularly against Mahatma Gandhi, in the name of artistic freedom.

The attack on our freedoms and liberties has also been facilitated through our deafening silences when the foundational civil liberties have been under attack. India’s legacy in its efforts to combat extremist violence of all sorts is characterised by torture, impunity and a persistent state of exception to the rule of law. Through draconian instruments like the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA); the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA); the Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA); the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) and organised crime legislations that have all disappointingly found the approval of the Supreme Court, the state has managed to play on our fears and convince us that the only way to achieve security is by sacrificing the rights of some. Large-scale violence with the complicity of the state machinery — be it in Nellie, Delhi, Bhagalpur or Gujarat — has seen far too little legal and political accountability. As a society and a legal system, we have often sent out the message that the most inhumane and cruel forms of violence will be forgiven and forgotten.

Imprimatur of law and courts

The story of the banning of cow slaughter and the restrictions on the consumption of beef follow a very similar trajectory. Different States have different provisions on cow slaughter in terms of the kind of cattle that can be slaughtered (if at all) and when they can be slaughtered in terms of their utility in agriculture. While State legislation in the 1950s imposed a complete ban on slaughter of cows and a partial ban on slaughter of bulls, the scope of the ban has increased over the decades. Relatively recent pieces of legislation like those in Gujarat (amended in 1994), Madhya Pradesh (2011), and Maharashtra (2015) contain a complete prohibition on the slaughter of cows, bulls and bullocks.

While the Supreme Court, in its early judgments on such laws, was clear that a complete prohibition on slaughter of cows, bulls and bullocks would be unconstitutional, it later proceeded to uphold Gujarat’s complete ban in October 2005 through a decision of a seven-judge bench. Since constitutionally all cow slaughter laws have to be justified in terms of agricultural interests — like Article 48, that forms a part of the Directive Principles of State Policy — the Supreme Court accepted the Gujarat government’s justification that all cattle, irrespective of their agricultural utility, need to be kept alive in order to use their dung as manure.

Another cause for worry in the pieces of legislation from Gujarat (amendment in 2011) and Maharashtra is the prohibition on the possession of beef per se and not just beef that is in contravention to that State’s Act. While courts are yet to rule on the validity of these provisions, it basically means that individuals in these States cannot consume beef that is sourced from States that permit cow slaughter. Our own reactions (or lack of it) to these measures and the Supreme Court’s approach to anti-cow slaughter legislation have sent the message that the protection of the cow has some sort of an exalted constitutional status. It is time we recognised that the Constitution does not protect the cow as a religious symbol.

In the contexts discussed above or countless others, we as a people have just not demanded sufficiently robust justifications from the state for infringing our rights. We have also placed our sentiments at too high a pedestal in the public discourse. Unfortunately, the courts have also not moved beyond standards of judicial review that often make it easy for the governments to justify draconian and outlandish measures in the name of national security, development and protecting the sentiments of certain sections of society. One suspects that the elite have never really protested because there is a comfortable indifference among their part about these infringements, an indifference that arises from a misplaced belief that those will not come to haunt them. But then, suddenly, the lynching of Mohammad Akhlaq threatens to destroy something fundamental to our moral fibre as individuals and as a society. And, as we desperately look for answers and explanations, we will have to start by acknowledging that we have given up too much, questioned too little and stayed silent for far too long.

(Anup Surendranath teaches constitutional law at National Law University, Delhi)

India: Far right Sanatan Sanstha has guidelines on how be a true Hindu -- complete with how to pee, hair care, wedding cards, dress code (report in DNA)

Daily News and Analysis

From urinating to wedding cards, the Sanatan Sanstha outlines how a 'Hindu' should live

Friday, 25 September 2015 - 9:51pm IST | Agency: dna webdesk 

 

If you are trying to be a true Hindu, you must follow the guidelines set by Sanatan Sanstha - or so they say.

• Sanatan Sanstha logo Twitter

If you are trying to be a true Hindu, you must follow the guidelines set by Sanatan Sanstha - or so they say.
The Sanatan Sanstha, which is accused of the murder of rationalist Govind Pansare, has laid out explicit rules and guidelines which governs each aspect of a believing Hindu's life. From what clothes one should wear, to how one should bathe and defecate, to the right way of urinating, the Sanatan Sanstha has all the answers.
1) Urinating: The Sanatan Sanstha states on its website that Hindus must not urinate from a standing position. This is because because it "causes a flow of accumulated Raja-Tama predominant energy towards the feet. As the negative energy gets concentrated there, the distressing vibrations emitting from Hell can very quickly enter the body through the feet." It also "activates the flow of black energy associated with the ground, charging the entire body of the individual with Raja-Tama components".
2) Defecating: While defecating, one must not use toilet paper as it does not 'destroy the Raja-Tama particles' in the feaces. This is because toilet paper is not 'sattvik'.
The rules for urinating and defecating apparently are scientific. The Sanstha claims that a French scientist has come to this conclusion, though it does not state his name.
3) Wearing clothes: Apparently, clothes are not meant only to protect us from the weather or to hide certain organs. The Sanatan Sanstha claims on its website that "Wearing clothes amounts to taking the support of Maya to attain a level of Brahman-realized state,".
It further goes on say that, "Clothes worn by men and women as prescribed in Hindu Dharma are designed by Deities and are those that manifest the Shiva and Shakti Principles." Using this definition, only a nine-yard saree is perfectly 'sattvik' and all other forms of clothes are less so. For men, the dhoti is prescribed. Sanstha claims that this knowledge comes from 'God'.
4) Washing clothes: The Sanstha has a full article on wearing washed and unwashed clothes. It says, "In case of washed used clothes there is sweating due to the Tej waves arising from the cloth. An unwashed used garment will give an experience of heat in the body due to gross appearing sagun. A higher proportion of dirt in unwashed clothes causes greater hindrance to the flow of sattvik waves that are attracted towards it and as a result, the extent of black covering on it is higher.".
Silk clothes are better than cotton clothes, but the best ones are made from the the bark of a tree. Some unknown person is cited as the authority for this knowledge, which also 'comes from God'.
5) Religious marriage v/s registered marriage: The Sanstha argues that a religious marriage is more spiritual than a registered marriage. It creates a glow on the faces of those marrying. The religious rituals increase 'sattvikta' in the groom and bride's bodies, and reduce the impact of 'Raja-Tama vibrations'.
Not to be outdone by fairness cream advertisements, the Sanstha's website then shows a picture of a woman before and after her marriage. While Photoshop may be suspected, the picture on the right is regarded as happier and more sattvik.
Moreover, we are told how to prepare a wedding invitation card. Apparently, none of the content should be in English, and the art work should be 'sattvik'. A full picture of Ganesha must be present in a seated position. Some propaganda matter about spreading 'Hindu Dharma' is a necessity.
6) Bathing: The Sanathan Sanstha informs us how we should bathe, in what position, and with what utensils.
Incredibly, one cannot be nude in the privacy of one's own bathroom while bathing Sanatan-style. One must wear undergarments. One must sit in a cross-legged posture, and chant some shlokas (prayers), which are fortunately not defined.
Only a brass tumbler should be used for bathing. "Clean all nine orifices of the body," is the Sanstha directive.
The Sanstha provides a 'scientific' reason for sitting in a cross-legged posture while bathing. When sitting in a cross-legged posture, the body shape becomes triangular, thus it becoming possible for a protective sheath to be easily generated during a bath," it says.
Interestingly, in December 2014, the Sanatan Sanstha had blasted the RSS for 'defaming' the organisation. Apparently, two families who were members of RSS did not allow their daughters to join the Sanatan Sanstha. This inflamed passions among the Sanstha faithful who condemned the RSS.
A few days ago, it had been reported in the media that the Sanstha had published guidelines on what hair oil to use, and the length of hair that men and women must keep.
The Sanathan Sanstha website focuses exclusively on such bizarrely detailed guidelines for the most mundane, every day things people do in life.
If you are a Sanstha fan, more power to you. If not, you may be doomed for all eternity.

 

 

Religious practices is best determined by clergy, not judiciary - Law Prof

The Indian Express - Aug 3, 2015

Judging The Headscarf
The essentiality of religious practices is best determined by clergy, not judiciary.

Written by Faizan Mustafa

AIPMT test, AIPMT Dress code, AIPMT MBBS dress code, MBBS dress code, CBSE AIPMT Dress code, SC AIPMT Dress code, AIPMT re-exam, AIPMT re-exam Dress code, Medical examination, indian express column, ie column, Faizan Mustafa column
The state has power to regulate secular activities associated with religious practice. The question is how to decide whether an activity is religious or secular.

The High Court of Australia observed in Jehovah’s Witnesses Inc vs Commonwealth in1943: “What is religion to one is superstition to another.” India’s Supreme Court has once again taken upon itself the task of defining “essential religious practices”.

The law and the state cannot and should not tell us what is essential or non-essential in religion. The judiciary should not take over the role of the clergy. The denial of the headscarf to MBBS aspirants in the name of “public order” may be justified if “public order” is widely interpreted, but pronouncing a verdict on the essentiality of the headscarf was unnecessary.

The Constitution combines freedom of religion with a mandate to the state to intervene in religious affairs if social welfare so demands. The state has power to regulate secular activities associated with religious practice. The question is how to decide whether an activity is religious or secular.

In the Shirur Mutt case (1954), it was held that the term “religion” will cover all rituals and practices “integral” to a religion. The SC took upon itself the responsibility of determining what is integral. The court said that the question of religion would be decided by taking into consideration what the religious denomination considered essential or crucial. This is called the “essentiality test”. But this exercise produces obscure results and tends to lead the court into an area beyond its competence.

The essentiality test was crystallised in the temple entry case. After examining selective Hindu texts, the court came to the conclusion that untouchability was not an essential Hindu practice. In Gramsabha of Village Battis Shirala vs Union of India, a sect claimed that the capture and worship of a live cobra is essential to its religion. It relied on Shrinath Lilamrut, which prescribed such a practice. The court relied on the more general Dharmasastra to rule that, since there was no mention of capturing a live cobra therein, it could not be an essential practice. In another case, a Muslim police officer challenged a regulation that did not permit him to grow a beard. Rather than looking at the essentiality of the beard in Islam, the court rejected the petitioner’s argument by relying on the irrelevant fact that certain Muslim dignitaries do not sport a beard. The court looked at empirical evidence of practice rather than religious texts. Yet, animal sacrifice among Hindus was denied protection, despite empirical evidence to the contrary.

Similarly, in the Tandava dance case, the Calcutta High Court had originally found that Tandava dance was an essential practice of the Ananda Marg. But the SC overturned this decision, relying on the doctrine of precedent to hold that Tandava was not an essential practice. Here, essentiality was determined by earlier judicial verdicts and not religious texts. Another strange reason cited was that, since the Ananda Marg came into existence in 1955 and since the Tandava dance was adopted only in 1966, the practice could not be accepted as essential. The apex court’s approach appears to identify a religious practice as integral only if it existed when the religion/ sect was founded. This logic could produce an approach to religious practices that is frozen in time, making religious reform impossible.

The essentiality test reached absurd levels in Ismail Faruqui, whereby land on which the Babri mosque stood was acquired. Instead of settling the issue in favour of the state on the basis of eminent domain, the court went into the question of whether praying at the mosque is an essential Islamic practice. It held that while offering prayers is an essential practice, the offering of such prayers at the mosque is not, unless the place has a particular religious significance in itself. Everyone knows that congregational prayer is central to Islam and mosques are an essential means for this objective.

The SC has consistently accepted that “every person has a fundamental right to entertain such religious beliefs as may be approved by his judgement or conscience”. Therefore, it is an individual right. Moreover, the court should not privilege certain religious practices over others. These are purely religious questions that are best left to the clergy. The essentiality test assumes some practices are central to religion and others incidental. This is not the correct understanding of religion, since all elements and practices together constitute a religion.

The writer is vice chancellor, Nalsar University of Law, Hyderabad

- See more at: http://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/judging-the-headscarf/

Muslim student, nun refuse to remove religious symbols, do not take AIPMT following dress guidelines

Muslim student, nun refuse to remove religious symbols, do not take AIPMT

TNN | Jul 26, 2015, 02.44 AM IST 

NEW DELHI: A 20-year-old Lucknow Muslim student on Saturday opted out of the All-India Pre Medical Test (AIPMT) as she did not want to take off her abaya (loose over-garment worn with a headscarf) in line with the Supreme Court order upholding ban on headscarves and long sleeves during the exam.

"I would rather not take the exam than put my religious sentiments at stake," said Rehana (name changed), who has been wearing abaya since childhood. She said she was asked to take off her abaya (over garment) and take the exam with her headscarf on.

Rehana said this was not the end of her aspiration to become a doctor. "This would have been my first attempt at AIPMT, but I do not mind wasting a year and appearing for the Uttar Pradesh Combined Pre-Medical Test if the call is a ban on my attire or my thinking. I do not regret taking this stand," she said.

Rehana, who had taken a year off to prepare for the exam, was not alone. In Thiruvananthapuram, 19-year-old Catholic nun Sr Seba was not allowed to take AIPMT after she refused to remove her head veil and cross attached to it.


READ ALSO: SC upholds ban on hijab and long sleeves in pre-medical test

AIPMT: Muslims dismayed by SC remark on dress code
The nun, who attended coaching classes for a year for the test, said she was aware of the Supreme Court order.

"But I thought that the school would permit me to use the head veil after frisking and I reached the centre by 8 am. I was subjected to checking at 8.30 and was waiting in the line when the school principal approached me demanding that I remove the veil to write the exam," Seba told TOI.

She agreed to remove the veil but pleaded that she be allowed to cover her head with a scarf. But Sathyadas, the principal of the school where her examination centre was located, said he understood her religious sentiments but had no choice but to comply with the order.

"I then consulted my mother provincial over the phone. My superiors informed me that I should not remove my veil as it was against our custom. Following this, I came back to convent without writing the exam."

The principal said they did not allow Seba into the exam hall since she was not ready to undergo frisking. "We were given written guidelines to be followed for the conduct of the examination. She was not ready to allow anybody to even touch her veil."

Cardinal Baselios Mar Cleemis of Malankara Catholic Church said the incident was disturbing and raises questions regarding the rights of a citizen.

"We do not wish to rake up a controversy over the issue but it is disturbing to note that the nun was not allowed to wear her religious paraphernalia even though she was ready to undergo security check. What is it that is being targeted — religious symbols or exam malpractices?"

The strict dress code, which barred students from wearing full-sleeved shirts, metallic items and shoes as well, forced five baptized Sikh students in Punjab, Chandigarh and Jaipur to remove their articles of faith before taking the exam.

Three baptized Sikh students were allowed to take the test in Bathinda after they removed their 'kirpans' (small swords) and 'karas' (iron bangles).

Two female students, Gurpreet Kaur and Harsimrat Kaur, too had to leave their articles of faith behind before taking the exam.

At an exam center in Chandigarh's Sector-47, Karanbir Singh from Patiala was asked to remove his 'kara' and sword before he was allowed to take the test.

The youth's father, Jarnail Singh, said, "I wanted to lodge a complaint but did not as my son was getting late for the exam. He finally handed over the articles to me."

The curbs have angered Sikh religious bodies. Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee additional secretary D S Bedi said they were fighting a battle for the right to wear religious symbols outside the country and it is worrisome that Sikhs have to face all this here

Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Management Committee president Manjit Singh GK said they would challenge the decision of a Jaipur school to not let a baptized Sikh student, Jagjit Singh, enter the AIPMT exam centre until he had taken off his 'kara' and 'kirpan'. 

source: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/education/entrance-exams/Muslim-student-nun-refuse-to-remove-religious-symbols-do-not-take-AIPMT/articleshow/48220760.cms

 

o o o

 

see also article by law prof. Ratna Kapoor in defence of Veiling

http://thewire.in/2015/07/25/un-veiling-the-politics-of-the-veil-7236/

India: Kahmir's Sopore is a town living in fear from Tehreek-e Taliban with their daily posters of what's permissible and what's not

The Times of India

Kahmir's Sopore is a town living in fear

M Saleem Pandit,TNN | Jun 10, 2015, 07.18 AM IST

SOPORE: The north Kashmir town of Sopore and its fringes, famous for apple orchards, is once again witnessing a reign of fear; only, this time, the portents are grimmer. New terror groups have arrived that sound chillingly like ISIS, with their daily posters of what's permissible and what's not. From a dress code to use of mobile phones, these ISIS clones issue dire warnings to all, with non-Kashmiri labourers told in clear, cold terms to leave the state.

In their latest decree, the terror groups have warned of attacks on petrol pumps, cable operators and alcohol shops. The posters, which appeared on June 6 under the banner of Tehreek-e Taliban (TeT), asked pump owners not to refuel vehicles of Indian military and police personnel.

TeT has also ordered locals not to rent their premises to "outsiders" and, even more bizarrely , warned tailors not to take measurements of women who want clothes stitched. This followed a diktat prohibiting women from wear ing body-hugging clothes. The posters further warned cable operators against telecasting Indian shows, and ordered liquor shops to shut down immediately.

Sopore cable operators travelled to Srinagar on Monday to inform hardline separatist Syed Ali Shah Geelani about the TeT warnings. A Sopore doctor, who didn't want to be named, said, "The situation is turning bad. Militants are seen roaming around the town with automatic rifles. Things are going to get worse," he presaged, saying well-off business families were talking about leaving Sopore for safer places. Migrant workers from Bihar and Uttar Pradesh are exiting in droves, creating another set of problems for locals who depend on their skills, from carpentry to farming. As a result, people are refusing to say or do anything that would earn the wrath of terrormongers. It's almost as if the clock has been rewound to 1990, the Valley's worst year of terror.

This week began with the cable network shut, and no public use of cell phones after a girl was attacked in the main market by two scooter-borne men who also snatching her phone. On Tuesday, gunmen shot and killed health department employee Altaf Rehman Sheikh, 45. "He was working as an overground worker for the militants, and his father is a staunch Jamat-e-Islami activist who had returned from Pakistan in 2004," an intelligence officer told TOI.

Atop administrative official said Sopore and its periphery have become a safe haven for terrorists owing allegiance to Hizbul Mujahideen and Lashkar-e-Taiba. Security agencies have categorized Sopore as highly "terrorist infested".

India: Kolkata theatre screens by skirt length

Kolkata theatre screens by skirt length
Saikat Ray & Subhro Niyogi,TNN | Nov 1, 2014, 06.36 AM IST

Kolkata theatre screens by skirt length
On October 28, the Class XI student, her father and younger brother went for the movie to celebrate her turning 17. She looked natty in a black-and-white floral print dress.

KOLKATA: A Taliban-like dress code at the KMC-owned Star Theatre drove a birthday girl, wearing a dress that barely revealed her knees, to tears with the hall staff labelling it 'drishtikotu' or obscene.

It was only when her outraged father intervened that she was allowed in. Neither KMC, nor Artage—the private firm managing the heritage theatre—had any reservations about screening Shah Rukh Khan-starrer 'Happy New Year' in which heroines gyrate to songs in skimpy dresses. After waiting for three days for an apology, the father filed a complaint with the state women's commission on Friday.

On October 28, the Class XI student, her father and younger brother went for the movie to celebrate her turning 17. She looked natty in a black-and-white floral print dress. The trio was about to enter the theatre when a female security guard asked the girl to step aside. "I thought I was being taken for frisking. But they took me to a ticket clerk's cubicle. He looked at my dress, pointed to the notice that read shorts aren't allowed and told me it was 'drishtikotu'. I felt so humiliated that I ran out crying," she recounted.

Her father was livid and questioned the hall staff's audacity to judge the appropriateness of his daughter's clothes. "When I confronted the ticket clerk, he maintained that boys wearing 'half pants' and girls wearing 'skirts that were like shorts' weren't allowed into the theatre. I couldn't believe it. Was I in Taliban territory? This happens in khap panchayats, not in Kolkata. Who gave them the authority to comment on her dress or act as moral police? It was a knee-length dress. She looked elegant and they had the gall to tell her she looked indecent!" he said.

Realizing they were in a soup, the security allowed her in. "But it was so sad to see my children sit grim-faced through the movie. I decided to have a word with the manager," he said.

Hall manager Ranjan Ganguly, who had been briefed about what had happened, refused an apology. The father then gave him a piece of his mind. "It is my daughter who will decide what she will wear, not you," he told Ganguly.

Actress June Malia, a member of the commission, expressed disgust, saying: "This is ridiculous. No one has the right to act moral police and decide what a girl or a woman will wear. That a theatre staff did this when she was accompanied by her father is outrageous."

The hall manager remained unperturbed and told TOI: "We have had many run-ins with patrons in the past but not allowed those with shorts and skirts. An exception was made in this case because it was her birthday."

On being asked what right he had to judge a girl's dress, he shifted responsibility to KMC. "We are simply following the rule that states that lungis, shorts and drunks are not allowed into the theatre. A skirt that is above the knee is like shorts," he insisted.

Mayor Sovan Chatterjee said he would "look into the incident" but did not approve of girls being turned out. "I have no knowledge of any KMC rule at Star Theatre that prohibits girls in skirts," he said.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/kolkata/Kolkata-theatre-screens-by-skirt-length/articleshow/45001125.cms

These Posters Regarding Women's Dress in Porbander Gujarat Amount to Moral policing

India: Rajasthan village panchayat bans women from bans mobile phones, market visits . . .

Rajasthan panchayat bans mobile phones, market visits for women
Mukesh Mathrani, Hindustan Times Barmer, February 09, 2014

A panchayat in a Rajasthan village has banned the use mobile phones for Muslim women and ordered them to take a male member of the family along while visiting public places.
The panchayat in Gagariya village in Barmer district, about 600km from Jaipur, passed the diktat after the meeting it said was organised to discuss "social evils"

"Some members suggested tougher restrictions on women," said a villager who did not wish to be named.The panchayat also asked the Muslim women to wear burka not only during travel but even while stepping outside their homes."

Moulvi Habeeb, who headed the panchayat, told HT, "We have issued certain dos and don'ts and asked Muslim women to avoid going to public places alone. If there is some urgency, they should go with their male family members."

Habeeb said these measures have been taken after some villagers raised concerns about the "safety" of women.

It was learnt the pamphlets containing these "guidelines" were also distributed in neighbouring villages.

source: http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/rajasthan-panchayat-bans-mobile-phones-market-visits-for-women/article1-1182227.aspx?hts0021

India: Police complaint against shooting for film P.K., thanks to the 'hurt religious sentiment' industry

Hindustan Times

FIR lodged against director, actors of Aamir Khan's P.K.
PTI
New Delhi, October 11, 2013

An FIR was lodged against Bollywood actor Aamir Khan, director Raj Kumar Hirani and other actors of the under-production film P.K. for allegedly hurting religious sentiments during the shooting of the film in Delhi's Chandni Chowk area.

The FIR was lodged after locals objected to a shooting sequence in which a man dressed as Lord Shiva was pulling a rickshaw with two burqa-clad women sitting as passengers.

Initially, people thought the actors were members of a Ram Leela party but once they saw cameras they inquired about the issue. The man who was dress like Lord Shiva was intercepted by the mob which had gathered on the spot.

A policeman who was on patrol duty also questioned them about the matter and the three actors were taken to Kotwali police station, said a police official.

The actors told the police that it was a dream sequence in the movie and they had all the legal documents and permission for the shooting. But the mob, that had reached the police station, started shouting slogans alleging they were hurting religious sentiments.

"We lodged an FIR under section 295 A (injuring or defiling place of worship with intent to insult the religious of any class) and 153 A of Indian Penal Code (IPC) (promoting enmity between different groups on ground of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language) against the actors," said a police official.

India: A teacher in Gujarat stands up against the govt dress code rules for teachers

From: Indian Express

Teacher stands up to Gujarat govt dress code, writes to Narendra Modi
Ritu Sharma : Ahmedabad, Thu Oct 10 2013, 21:50

ModiNarendra Modi had given the appointment letters to teaching assistants that had a code of conduct asking teachers to wear sarees.

A government girls primary school teacher in Chikhodra village of Anand district has written to Chief Minister Narendra Modi urging him to scrap a controversial dress code that does not allow teaching assistants to wear salwar-kameez to school and insists they wear sarees.

Arguing in favour of the salwar-kameez, Chhaya Upadhyay, 38, wrote Wednesday that she has been campaigning against this "ghost law" for 13 years at the panchayat, taluka and district levels until it became official, forcing her to seek the CM's intervention.

She has also said she will seek legal recourse for a permanent solution to the issue.

As reported by The Indian Express on August 28, appointment letters given to teaching assistants and primary teachers in Ahmedabad and Gandhinagar on August 23 had a code of conduct annexed which said women teaching assistants have to wear sarees to work and their male counterparts could wear shirt-trouser or kurta-pyjama.

Modi had given these appointment letters among the 3,000 teaching assistants appointed across the state that day.

The code does not apply to Upadhyay herself as she was upgraded as a permanent teacher on a regular pay scale in January 2001 after being inducted as a teaching assistant in January 1999. But she says she continues to oppose it on behalf of her junior colleagues.

"This rule can be interpreted as: in one school the permanent teacher can wear a salwar-kameez but the vidyasahayak (teaching assistant) sister has to wear a saree," Upadhyay has written.

Upadhyay recalls how for the first time on August 25, 2004, there was a written rule making sarees compulsory at the Bhileshwar primary school in Anand.

"My school at that time, which would have been named as an ideal school, got adverse remarks of 'no teaching happening here' in an official report only because two women teachers in that school had started wearing the Indian (Punjabi) dress," she has said in her letter, which also has the August 28 Indian Express report attached.

"This issue is not personal. Which woman employee would not prefer the comfort and versatility of the salwar-kameez given its decency?" she has asked. She also claims that women were free to wear salwar-kameez in certain schools in Ahmedabad, Vadodara and Saurashtra but not in Anand.

In another instance, Shaheenben Mansuri of Anand's Umreth taluka, had in October 2011 requested district education authorities to allow her to wear salwar-kameez to work since she had performed Haj.

But her request was refused, with authorities citing a resolution passed by the Anand district education committee which said "for all male and female vidyasahayaks and primary teachers, dress code of saree for females, trouser-shirt and kurta-pyjama for male teachers".

Speaking to The Indian Express, Upadhyay said that she has been asked by local officials and school union members whether she does not wear a saree because she has "some physical-medical problem".

She also said that education officials have been vague or refused to engage with her on the issue of the dress code.

Reached for comment, Anand's district primary education officer N J Vyas said he did not know about Upadhyay's complaint and her letter to Modi.

India: BJPs Skullcap Secularism Game

The Hindu, September 19, 2013

Skullcap secularism

Jyoti Punwani

It is strange that the BJP which denounces Muslims for their distinctive religious identity should now insist on their sartorial separation

What if the Muslims of Rajasthan who attended Narendra Modi’s Jaipur rally had turned up in normal attire, indistinguishable from their fellow Hindu Rajasthanis? What if wearing their traditional attire as they were told to, they had chosen to sit wherever they wanted, perhaps with the Hindus from their districts?

That would’ve been no good. To show the world that the prime ministerial candidate is loved by the community he has shown no love for, the community had to sport the markers of its religious identity. It also had to sit together as one huge bloc — a sea of beards, skullcaps and burqas.

Daadi, topi, burqa: these three words lost their original meaning years ago — at least for Mumbaikars. Thanks to Shiv Sena chief Bal Thackeray, they were transformed into symbols heavy with meaning, their very mention evoking hatred. These were the words on which the original Hindu Hriday Samrat used to pour acid in his newspaper Saamna. Vivid word-pictures used to be drawn of “traitorous” Muslims in “mini-Pakistans” wagging their beards. Ranting against Congress leaders, he would castigate them for wearing green caps metaphorically. When they actually wore them at iftaar parties, his rage would know no bounds.

The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has been no different. Last month, when Madhya Pradesh Chief Minister Shivraj Singh Chauhan wore a skullcap at an iftaar, Uma Bharti called the gesture “cheap.” Why, Mr. Modi himself recently used the word burqa to connote a negative meaning — a veil behind which the cowardly Congress chose to hide.

In 2002

As for beards, the genesis of Gujarat 2002 may not have happened if the sight of bearded Muslims at Godhra station had not triggered an automatic violent response among the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) cadre who got off the Sabarmati Express that terrible February morning. “Daadiwale mullah ko maaro,” they yelled as they ran amok, hitting out with their lathis and pulling beards.

But it was mullahs or maulanas who were given preference by the BJP while choosing who should participate in Mr. Modi’s Jaipur rally, an Ajmeri Muslim revealed. There’s another loaded word. “Maulana Mulayam” was the abuse coined for Mulayam Singh Yadav when, as Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh, he ordered firing on the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) cadre who attacked the Babri Masjid in 1990. Maulanas are the “fanatics” always blamed by the BJP for keeping Muslims “backward” and away from “the mainstream.”

Strangely, every time Muslims want to enter the “mainstream,” it is the Hindutva parties who push them out. The ghettoisation of Gujarat’s Muslims in 2002 took place under Modi himself. Mumbaikars have seen how wherever Muslims lived with Hindus, spoke the same language and looked no different from them, they were systematically attacked. After the 1984 riots in Thane, an RSS man recounted proudly that of the 57 killed, 55 had been Muslims, and two had been Hindus sheltering their neighbours. In Mumbai in January 1993, in the large, open, mixed colonies of Pratiksha Nagar and Abhyudaya Nagar, Muslims were made to flee. All of them relocated to congested Muslim areas.

During the last days of the January 1993 violence, many a Muslim seen alone in a “Hindu” area was lynched, then given a fittingly “mainstream” end by being burnt alive to the chants of “Jai Sri Ram.” The only way the mob knew he was a Muslim was by his beard and cap. It made me wonder, how did Muslims dare venture out sporting such attire? Could they not have shed their religious identity to save their lives? But would that have been enough? Pulling down trousers to ascertain religious identity became common, specially outside Masjid Bunder station, where hundreds of Hindus and Muslims alight to work in one of the city’s oldest markets.

For the Jaipur rally, the BJP distributed 5,000 caps and burqas free. Women who normally don’t wear burqas turned up wearing them. It’s been an article of faith for the RSS to denounce Muslims who stress their distinct religious identity instead of accepting what the RSS wants them to: their “Hindu ancestry and cultural heritage.” Muslims in a Maharashtra village were forced to shave off their beards when the RSS conducted one of their many Ram Mandir campaigns in the State in 2001.

In Godhra, for five days before coach S-6 of the Sabarmati Express was burnt on February 27, 2002, the police, expecting VHP hordes back from Ayodhya at night, ensured that no bearded Muslim remained inside the station after 3 a.m. A burqa-clad woman was advised to remove it before she got on to the Sabarmati in Faizabad, soon after the train started.

It’s this symbol of religious identity that Mr. Modi recoiled from in front of everyone just two years back, when a maulana offered him a skullcap at a so-called sadbhavna rally.

Yet, to drum up support for this man, the order given to the Muslims of Rajasthan was: ``Make sure you look like a Muslim, not like a Hindu.’’ Ironically, many Rajasthani Muslim groups are known for being culturally indistinguishable from Hindus; strange, then, that the BJP, which normally sees separatism behind every expression of cultural difference, should now be insisting on sartorial separation.

(Jyoti Punwani is a freelance journalist based in Mumbai.)

BJP has the cheek calling for participation of dressed up authentic muslims at its political show off event in Bhopal

Again, BJP tells Muslims to come for Modi's rally 'looking like Muslims'
Milind Ghatwai : Bhopal, Wed Sep 18 2013, 08:51
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/again-bjp-tells-muslims-to-come-for-modis-rally-looking-like-muslims/1170570/

India: No designer blouses, jeans for women employees in Karnataka State govt

From: The Times of India

No designer blouses, jeans for women employees in Karnataka: State govt
Naheed Ataulla, TNN | Sep 15, 2013, 02.31 AM IST

READ MORE women employees|Siddaramaiah|Shalini Rajneesh|Karnataka government
No designer blouses, jeans for women employees in Karnataka: State govt
“One should appear dignified and serious at the workplace. Casual dressing does not give that impression," said Shalini Rajneesh, secretary, department of personnel and administrative reforms.

BANGALORE: Drape yourself in nine yards or cover yourself from head-to-toe is what the Karnataka government is willy-nilly telling its women employees. A September 12 circular on the subject of "provocative" clothing at the workplace proscribed jeans, designer blouses and blouses that allow cleavage peeks or are held by spaghetti straps, strings or knots. Men were barred from trotting into work in jeans and T-shirts.

The preferred sarkari threads were saree or salwar-kameez for women and shirts and trousers or kurta-pyjama for men, the circular said.

Government sources said some oldies were embarrassed by the way new and junior employees dressed to work and seniors couldn't object to what they saw as provocative since there was nothing in black and white on who should wear what. Hence the sartorial prescription for the six lakh-plus employees in the state, said Shalini Rajneesh, secretary, department of personnel and administrative reforms.

"One should appear dignified and serious at the workplace. Casual dressing does not give that impression," Rajneesh added. She said since regulating what one wears to work is a sensitive issue, the government consulted the Karnataka State Government Employees' Association and took chief minister Siddaramaiah's permission.

The government's explanation didn't cut ice with many working women. "A state government cannot lay down conditions on how and employee should come dressed to office. It should be left to the employee's discretion. If such rules are laid, then where is democracy?" asked S M Mangala, director Centre for Women's Studies, Mysore University.

In fact, informal attempts earlier to impose a dress code had been resisted by employees. "Seniors who spoke to their younger colleagues about being dressed appropriately were asked whether any restrictions existed in black and white," a government employee said.

However, the Employees' Association head said he was okay with a dress code. "This was required to bring some sanctity in workplaces. Coming to a government office in a T-shirt or jeans gives an impression of not being serious," said association president L Bhyrappa.

Rajneesh said the dress code applies to Group D employees also. It's compulsory for drivers and peons to wear the uniform provided to them.

Times View

It was bad enough when vigilante groups were trying to behave as moral police. We now have the state itself taking over that role in Karnataka. The government says it is merely trying to ensure that its staff dresses in a dignified manner. Why then has it banned sleeveless blouses? Issuing a fatwa against jeans or sleeveless blouses exhibits a mindset that smacks of conservatism and stereotyping. The state should stay out of this and allow common sense to do its job.