When I was in school, the only thing we students used to worry about was what

we'd get for lunch. Or how much we scored on a test. Or which teacher's class
do we have next? Nowadays, things have deteriorated so much that in some
areas of the country, students are now fighting in the name of religion. These
students are now worried about who's wearing a hijab, and who's wearing
orange. These students are worried who's chanting 'Jai Shri Ram' and who's
proclaiming 'Allahu Akbar'. The division in the country has spread so deep, the
news claims that in several schools and colleges in Karnataka, hijab has been
banned, due to which, many girls are not allowed to enter into colleges, they're
not allowed to study. They protested against it, and in its response, some people
started a counter-protest by wearing a saffron shawl. In some places, these
protests turned into slogans, in some places, the girls were harassed. And in
some places, we even saw instances of stone-pelting. Things have gotten so out
of control, that the Chief Minister of Karnataka had to decide close the schools
and colleges for 3 days.
Everything that happened was truly embarrassing. And to understand it better,
we need to go to the roots of the problem. Let's start with clearly differentiating
between a hijab and a burqa. The hijab is a headscarf that covers the hair, neck,
and sometimes a woman’s shoulders and chest. The burqa is an enveloping
garment that comes in a variety of designs, but typically covers a woman's face
and head entirely and may cover most or all of the rest of her body. Both a hijab
and a burqa are garments worn by women in observance of Islamic modesty
codes. People often mix up the two but it is important to know they are
different. Because the burqa has been banned in many countries across the
world. For security reasons. Even including some Muslim countries, where it
was banned. But hijab is a head covering for Muslims. The entire issue here,
that is being discussed in media and social media, can be divided into two
questions. First, is the hijab right or wrong? And the second, the girls that wear
a hijab, should they be stopped from going to schools and colleges? It's very
important to see the 2 questions distinctly. Because people often mix them up
leading to confusion, and we can't reach a solution. So, let's focus on the first
question first. Is hijab good or bad? People who argue in the favour of the hijab,
those who support the practice of wearing hijab say that the hijab is an
undeniable part of their tradition, culture, and religion. And it is there in the
Indian Constitution, that every citizen has the right to practice and promote their
religion peacefully. So, it is their right to wear the hijab. It is their right
bestowed by the Indian Constitution. But with every right in the Indian
Constitution, there are some reasonable restrictions. Generally speaking, there
can be reasons for the restriction of any freedom, such as a threat to the
sovereignty of India, a threat to India's security, or the public order is being
hampered, or it is a contempt of court, or it is violating decency or morality.
These are the reasons that are cited for imposing any restrictions on a
fundamental freedom. But wearing a hijab, is it a threat to the security of the
country? No. Is it terrible for morality? Is it slight to decency? Is it adversely
affecting public order? Nothing of the sort. No one is getting hurt simply
because a woman chooses to wear a hijab. It doesn't affect anyone's life. That's
why it's not a threat. On the other hand, what are the arguments against it?
People that are against the hijab say that it is a symbol of patriarchy. Most
women don't wear a hijab because they choose to do so, rather, they wear it
because their family, their community surrounding them, force them to wear
this. If they don't wear the hijab, they wouldn't be accepted or included in their
community. And that they would be harassed. They'd be either forced to comply
or would be treated as second class citizens. This is similar to what people say
about Ghoonghat. [Veil; traditionally Hindu] And it does have a point. Because
we witnessed several protests in multiple countries where thousands of women
took to the streets, to protest against compulsory hijab. A recent example is the
2017-2019 Iranian protests. Women didn't want to be forced to wear a hijab
compulsorily. The argument here is about Women Empowerment and Freedom
of Choice. Unfortunately, friends, in our country, the people who are against the
hijab the most, they want neither women empowerment, nor want to give them
the freedom of choice. They are against the hijab merely because of their blind
hatred for this religion. That's why they want to assert their dominance, and
want to impose their will. You can see a recent example, where a group of boys
harassed a girl, who was alone, wearing a hijab. Had these boys truly wanted
women empowerment, they wouldn't have been shouting or threatening the girl.
But anyway, if we return to our two sides of the argument, both have their
merit. So who is in the right here? Let's look at this from the perspective of the
government. What should be the ultimate purpose of a government? The
government should strive to socially integrate people as much as possible. That
they live together in unity and harmony. And at the same time, they get as much
freedom as possible. That the people be free to do what they want, that they
have a freedom of choice, as much as possible. What should be done to achieve
this? People should be allowed to wear their religious clothes, people should be
able to wear their religious symbols and their traditional clothes, would people
be able to live together happily while being socially integrated then? Or should
religious symbols be completed banned? And everyone should be made to wear
the same kind of clothes, without representing their religion in their clothes,
would people be happier then? It has no straightforward answer. That's why
different countries have different approaches to this. It's the same with hijab.
Should women be given the freedom to wear the hijab? But how would we
know that the women are wearing it of their own free will? That they aren't
being forced to wear the hijab by their family and community? It is very
difficult to know this. For this reason, different countries have different
approaches and different types of secularism. The fundamental meaning of
Secularism is to be neutral to all religions. This philosophy began in Europe. At
a time when the Chruch and the Monarchy, governed the people together, in
those countries. The Church was heavily involved in government matters. In
state affairs. To get rid of this, secularism was conceptualised. To separate the
Church and State. The Chruch wouldn't interfere in the day-to-day governing
affairs, and the State wouldn't interfere in the religious affairs. I will talk about
this in detail in the video on the French Revolution it'll be released a few weeks
later, so be sure to watch it then. But as a consequence of this, all the public
institutions in the European countries, They were ordered to eradicate religion
from their premises. To stay away from it. Media, public schools, colleges,
bureaucracy, political parties, none of them should have anything to do with
religion. On the other hand, the concept of secularism in India, was much
different than this. In India, the church wasn't interfering in state affairs. Rather,
the ideologies of tolerance and co-existence had been prevalent in India. In
India, Jainism, Buddhism, Sikhism, Islam, Christianity, were all present. More
or less, they lived together. There were the Sufi and Bhakti movements, that
helped foster a feeling of brotherhood among people. They taught people to live
in harmony. Many people are credited for it. Including Baba Farid, Sant Kabir
Das, Guru Nanak, Mira Bai, and even rulers like Akbar. Because of these
reasons, the Indian version of secularism, was on the basis that all religions are
equal. Equality among them was a must. So that we may lead with unity in
diversity. Mahatma Gandhi was influential in this idea. He believed that India is
a highly religious society. People follow religion earnestly. And that it wouldn't
be possible to implement the French version of secularism here. That's why we
need to implement a kind of secularism, where people could follow their
religion, and could live together harmoniously. As the consequence, we saw that
in countries like India and America, the kind of secularism that's practised, is
known as Soft Secularism. That the government, wouldn't be averse to religion
completely. It would include religion by supporting all religions equally. It
would support religious activities, but equally. This is the reason that we see the
examples where, the Indian government sends people to the Hajj Pilgrimage, it
forms the Amarnath Shire Board, and a major example of this would be, Delhi
Government's Teerth Yatra Yojana in recent times. Where people of all
religions can go on pilgrimage to the sacred sites in their religion. The
government is paying for it. The government is basically promoting religion in a
way. But it is promoting all religions equally. Behind the ideology of Indian
secularism, there were great people involved. On the other hand, the secularism
practised in France and some other European countries is known as Hard
Secularism. Or the Negative Secularism. The government tries to distance every
public institution from all religions. That's why any sort of religious dress, or
any kind of a religious symbol, is often banned. Countries like France have
banned hijab from schools and the highest court of the European Union, has
stated that in the European countries, it is up to the employers, if they want, they
can ban hijab in their workplace as well. It is up to the companies, basically. In
France, this is so widespread that there was a case 7 years ago in which, pork
was been served at a French school, to the students, and obviously, Muslims
don't eat pork, but that day, students had only pork to eat for lunch. So the
parents of some students called up the school to say that they don't consume
pork as they're Muslims, the school replied by saying that the students have no
other choice than to eat pork. If they've been served pork, every student needs to
eat it. That no religious restrictions would be entertained in the school. Whether
you are vegetarian because of your religion, or anything else, the students would
have to eat what the school serves. The question here is which model is better?
The Indian-US version of secularism? Or the French-European version of
secularism? It has no straightforward, easy answer. If the French model is
implemented in India, It would mean that not only the hijab would be banned,
even the turbans for Sikhs would be banned, any sort of religious threads
wouldn't be allowed. A complete ban on Bindi and Tika. Apart from this, any
sort of religious prayers wouldn't be held at schools, whether they are Hindu
prayers or Christian prayers. And obviously, this would be valid for every
public institution in addition to schools. Even people in the government
wouldn't be able to wear any religious dress or symbol. It wouldn't be possible
in media or bureaucracy either. Can you imagine this? Honestly, there are pros
and cons to both models. What are the cons of the French Model of secularism?
We see its disadvantage in terms of social integration. There have been several
reports from France, these state that since France has banned the hijab in
schools and colleges, the social integration of Muslims in society has The
Muslims have become excluded from society. To understand this, you have to
understand the consequences first. Imagine if the hijab is banned in India, then
realistically, what would happen then? Oftentimes, the girls that wear hijab, are
from families to whom religion is very important. Often, religion trumps
education. In such cases, if hijab is banned from schools, what would happen?
The girl might be withdrawn from the school. She wouldn't be allowed to go to
school anymore. Or send her to some other religious school. And if there are no
religious schools nearby, the parents may not allow the girl to go to school at
all. They may get their daughter married off and build a new future for her. It is
basically robbing the girls of their opportunity of getting an education. Some of
you may say, what's so difficult about it? They can simply take off their hijab
before coming to school. But in reality, when a child when a young girl is going
to school or college, she isn't taking her decisions on her own. It is often the
parents that decide for her. On the other hand, if the hijab isn't banned, and
hijab-wearing girls are allowed to go to schools and colleges, those girls can
then complete their education. They'll get educated and perhaps then, after they
get an education, they'll teach their next generations, their children, about the
freedom of choice. And wouldn't let hijab be forcefully imposed on them. The
point about patriarchy, that the girls are forced to wear a hijab, the solution to
this is through women empowerment for which there is a dire need for
education. This is a complex paradox. But I believe that it is very true for Indian
society. What do you think? As I told you, each model has its pros and cons. So
there are some cons of the Indian version of secularism as well. The first
disadvantage is that where do we draw the line? If it is allowed to go to school
in hijab today, tomorrow, someone can wear a burqa to school. It will be their
freedom of religion. And tomorrow if I say that I am starting a new religion, and
in my religion, it is allowed to go to school in a bikini as well. So someone may
wear a bikini to school. How can we stop this from happening? What would be
the reasoning for this? And the second disadvantage is that because it is very
difficult to draw a line here, it becomes much easier to politically exploit
people. To incite people and get them to fight among themselves over religion,
it becomes easier here than in the French model. And we are seeing it happen
nowadays. People are using religions and clothes, to fight. Students are fighting.
What is the solution to this? Both sides should come together and calmly
discuss it to peacefully arrive at a solution. And if it fails, the High Court or the
Supreme Court should be given the task. To draw the lines and make the rules.
About what is allowed and what isn't. It isn't difficult to do this. But the problem
arises when some organisations try their best to incite the students. To get them
to fight their classmates over religion. Because it's election season. A Hindu-
Muslim issue needs to be fabricated asap, because if people aren't distracted
with these issues, people would start thinking about things like inflation and
unemployment. And it would be disastrous for the politicians. They want people
to keep fighting amongst themselves over petty things. So that the people are
busy with this. One needs to think which organisation was it that was
distributing the orange scarves to the boys? That was telling the boys to gather
in a group and start harassing the girls? To chant the slogans of 'Jai Shri Ram.' It
wouldn't be that the boys came up with the idea on their own, To gather there
wearing the same orange scarves. I remember, when I was in school, when
students were told to wear a white shirt, there used to be so many shades of
white shirts. To see more than 3 boys wearing the exact same shirt would've
been very rare. And here, more than 100 boys, are given saffron scarves that
look the same. This is the job of an organisation. These students haven't done
this on their own. Someone has tried to provoke them. The Karnataka
government gave a very disappointing response. Because they didn't try hard
enough to stop this. This isn't new. Since December, there were efforts to
provoke people and start a fight in the name of religion. We saw some cases in
Karnataka, where the people from an organisation entered a school or college
and started stopping Christmas celebrations. This wasn't a one-off incident.
There were 7 separate incidents. Christians were attacked before this. What was
the action by the government? Does that government want such incidents to
continue? It is a very important question that needs to be pondered on. And if
the government truly wants to increase social integration in the country, so that
everyone can live together peacefully. That there is unity in the country. That
there is freedom of choice and women empowerment. The government should
take apt decisions then. Thank you very much.