India in a communal trap

The hijab debate has come as an unwelcome present to a BJP administration that has been on its heels since its poor handling of the COVID-19 crisis last year, much as the Pulwama suicide bombing in 2019.

The same thing is about to happen again in history. Shah Bano, a 62-year-old divorced Muslim lady, won a unanimous ruling by a five-judge Supreme Court bench thirty-seven years ago that she had the same right to maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC that women of other religions had. This ruling maintained the judgement rendered previously by two three-judge benches of the court and made clear that its decision did not interfere with minority’ ability to uphold their own laws. Muslim organisations erupted in a fury of outrage at the ruling. The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, hastily passed by the Rajiv Gandhi administration out of fear, restricts the wife’s entitlement to alimony to the capital sum agreed upon by the parties at the time of marriage plus three months’ worth of subsistence. Although a series of later court rulings slightly restored the balance, they were unable to undo the harm done to the Congress’s and Indian democracy’s secular credentials. 

The Shah Bano case provided the “Hindutva” revival that had started in response to the Babri Masjid controversy with the intellectual credibility it had been lacking up to that point. At a time when the Modi government’s popular support has reached an all-time low due to its never-ending string of gaffes and callous contempt for the constitution and human rights, the hijab controversy that has emerged in Karnataka is about to do the same for it. On January 1, 2022, six female students from the Mahatma Gandhi Memorial College in Udupi held a press conference to protest the college administration’s decision to deny them permission to continue wearing their hijabs after they entered their classes. This sparked a nationwide uproar. Given that the Modi government has a history of inciting communal strife in order to increase the support of the ‘Hindu’ vote, the students’ interpretation of the ban as an assault on their minority religious rights has been widely accepted by Indian and international civil society.

The origin of the controversy, however, suggests that the hijab was not raised as a significant issue by the BJP and its state government in Karnataka, but rather by the students themselves, presumably at the request of those who organised the press conference on January 1 where the story first surfaced. Six of the 60 Muslim female students at the institution raised concerns about the hijab; the rest 54 don’t appear to have been contacted to confirm the validity of the principal’s claim. At any rate, nobody has yet challenged his assertion. One of the six protesters present at the news conference, Leefa Mahek, verified that the administrators had not brought up the issue of wearing a headscarf. What then caused her to reconsider? Who organised the press conference on January 1? is a question that almost probably has an answer in it. Press conferences have a function, thus it is important to consider the motivations and goals of those who organise them. The Campus Front of India, a group that has chosen to make the hijab a point of contention at Karnataka’s colleges, organised the news conference on January 1. The Popular Front of India, the CFI’s parent organisation, is a branch of that group. The National Investigation Agency or the CBI have not made any claims of violence against the PFI, which has its headquarters in Delhi.

The Kerala police detained 16 CFI members in September 2018 on suspicion of murdering Abhimanyu, a well-liked student at Ernakulum’s Maharaja’s College. The Students’ Federation of India, a member of the CPI(M), has Abhimanyu as its district president. Fighting between members of the CFI and the SFI over who would get to paint their slogans on a particular wall on the college campus led to the fatality, which was probably definitely unintentional.

It would be incorrect to assume, in the absence of any evidence, that the CFI’s sponsorship of the six girls’ news conference is a part of a “plot” to incite communal unrest. Tragically, such politically motivated altercations are prevalent on college campuses in India. However, when the clash between impeccable saffron-clad.

Therefore, in the coming days, everyone who wants to keep India’s plurality and democracy must stop such knee-jerk reactions, as they have the potential to start a far bigger dispute than the one that the Babri Masjid caused, one in which secularism and democracy would be the final losers. Fortunately, Karnataka is not Uttar Pradesh, and Yogi Adityanath is not Basavaraj Bommai. It was ethically and legally correct for the Karnataka administration to make the choice to let the courts resolve the case. It is now possible to resolve this matter in accordance with the law and the constitution.