Banning religious symbols - who should have the right and who shouldn't?

[BacktoCricaddict]

In the Iran thread, an interesting point was brought up by @Gollum that certain non-governmental institutions should be allowed to impose bans on specific clothing that represent a religion (e.g., Hijab).  @coffee_rules has brought up instances where convents ban symbols like bindi. 

 

Question:  What is your view on these bans?  Which institutions should or should not have the right to impose such bans?  Why?

 

And then there's the related issue of religious institutions banning certain groups of people (e.g., Sabarimalai temple banning women who are between puberty and menopause), but that's for another day and thread :-)

[BacktoCricaddict]

My views:

 

Logic: it makes no sense for institutions to dictate what people choose to wear, as long as it does not hurt others.  Instead, it would be good if institutions with uniforms can work with individuals who want to wear hijab, saree, dhoti etc. to conform to specific colours that match the uniforms.  Now, some may ask "where to draw the line?  ... Is it okay for students to show up in chaDDi baniyan (or not even that) to college?"  I really don't have an answer to that, except to say that perhaps where I draw the line is that a dress code can just be to stay within the accepted norms of decency. 

 

Legal:  No governmental bans on clothing that may be a religious or cultural symbol.  Full stop.  In addition, no institution that is serving the public, including educational institutions that receive government funding of any sort, should be allowed to ban religious or cultural symbols.  This includes convents that may receive tax benefits or state subsidies for the education that they are providing and, of course, government colleges.  If it were up to me, I would even say that fully private institutions (e.g., corporates) should comply with this because individual religious rights supersede institutional rights to impose bans, but am still not 100% sure about that.  Tagging legal expert  @Mariyam 

 

Edited September 26, 2022 by BacktoCricaddict

[zen]

Generally, institutions should have the right to determine what should go on their properties. And if the institution is respected and influential, it could guide what is acceptable outside its properties too.

 

Government involvement should be from general inconvenience, security, etc., point of view. 

 

Many Hindu institutions, like any religious or non religious institution, may receive government support. That does not oblige them to become “secular”  or “whatever”.

 

 

[zen]

Regarding Sabarimalai temple, it is up to it to allow how it should conduct its affairs. 
 

 

[IndianRenegade]

Govt:

Personally, I believe in the definition of secularism which is the separation if state from religion, so from a government perspective create rules on dressing with an assumption no religion exists & ask everyone to confirm to it.

 

But alas this is easier said that done, I am fine with the definition of secularism where all religions are treated equally. So religious, cultural clothing is acceptable as long as it doesn't hamper functionality. I am totally against full facial veils as it regressive & hamper normal social interactions creating obvious barriers especially in places like schools where we should be teaching the opposite.

 

Private institution can do what they want as long as their restrictions are in line with their business activities. 

 

Other than that what people chose to wear in public places (not work) or in private is their business. 

[coffee_rules]

I don't think Hijab/Parda should be banned by any institution. But they can impose some restrictions like removing it in class upto a certain age. Even now, Hijab/Burqa is banned in Indian schools and colleges during exams. 

 

https://www.indiatoday.in/education-today/news/story/sc-308570-2016-02-13

 

This looks so disturbing to see a 6-yr old in Hijab. Even Dhume criticized it. 

 

 

 

 

 

[Mariyam]

@BacktoCricaddict

 

Interesting thread.

 

The Supreme Court is currently hearing a batch of appeals challenging the decision of the Karnataka HC verdict that has upheld a ban on the hijab in government schools in the state. 

 

The ban was on the basis of two axes of reasoning:

 

a) That the hijab is not an essential part of Islam.

b) The requirement of a Uniform is a reasonable restriction on the fundamental right to freedom of expression.

 

The appellants base their argument on the premise that the constitution gives us the freedom to practice our religion in its entirety , or in fragments. The constitution doesn't just give us the freedom to practice the essential part of our religion.

That is a compelling argument.

 

The other argument from the appellants is that by banning the of the hijab infringes the right to education for a section of the Muslim populace. That, IMO, is a poor argument.

 

Those for the ban also have some good arguments. Primarily, they say that if the Hijab is instituted as an essential religious practice that is necessitated by  religion, to avail the fundamental right to education, then it opens a can of worms that this country could do without.

For eg, if a precedent is set, what if tomorrow some Muslim and Christian students say that chapters on evolution infringes their right to freedom of religion and those chapters should be left out of the syllabus.

 

That is a very convincing argument too.

[coffee_rules]

8 hours ago, Mariyam said:

@BacktoCricaddict

 

Interesting thread.

 

The Supreme Court is currently hearing a batch of appeals challenging the decision of the Karnataka HC verdict that has upheld a ban on the hijab in government schools in the state. 

 

The ban was on the basis of two axes of reasoning:

 

a) That the hijab is not an essential part of Islam.

b) The requirement of a Uniform is a reasonable restriction on the fundamental right to freedom of expression.

 

The appellants base their argument on the premise that the constitution gives us the freedom to practice our religion in its entirety , or in fragments. The constitution doesn't just give us the freedom to practice the essential part of our religion.

That is a compelling argument.

 

The other argument from the appellants is that by banning the of the hijab infringes the right to education for a section of the Muslim populace. That, IMO, is a poor argument.

 

Those for the ban also have some good arguments. Primarily, they say that if the Hijab is instituted as an essential religious practice that is necessitated by  religion, to avail the fundamental right to education, then it opens a can of worms that this country could do without.

For eg, if a precedent is set, what if tomorrow some Muslim and Christian students say that chapters on evolution infringes their right to freedom of religion and those chapters should be left out of the syllabus.

 

That is a very convincing argument too.

Strange that you are aware of all this and still wonder why we are comparing Iranian situation with Indian! 
 

The precedent of essential religious practice was already used in RJB case when the SC ruled that praying in a particular mosque is an essential part of Islam. The courts had decided that the mosque can be built anywhere and it is not essential to pray only at BM site

[Mariyam]

15 hours ago, coffee_rules said:

Strange that you are aware of all this and still wonder why we are comparing Iranian situation with Indian! 
 

The precedent of essential religious practice was already used in RJB case when the SC ruled that praying in a particular mosque is an essential part of Islam. The courts had decided that the mosque can be built anywhere and it is not essential to pray only at BM site

You've mixing a lot of unrelated concepts. You should re-visit the verdict by the SC re: RJB case.

 

Also the comparison with Iran re: Hijab case is ridiculous. Iran is an Islamic theocracy in the garb of a democratic society, that has punitive laws for not wearing the hijab. India has no such legislation. De jure, India doesn't enforce a dress code on anyone. Strange that you insist on comparing the two cases. 

[coffee_rules]

41 minutes ago, Mariyam said:

You've mixing a lot of unrelated concepts. You should re-visit the verdict by the SC re: RJB case.

It was not in the Title suit of RJB. But a petition was filed to object to the hearing of the Title suit as it claimed that the Mosque is integral part of Islam and it can't be disputed against the secular articles (25?) of the constitution. The SC ruled that it is not which paved way for the subsequent RJB title suit.

 

https://www.outlookindia.com/website/story/is-namaz-in-mosque-essential-to-islam-supreme-court-reads-out-verdict/317272

 

Looking at essential part of religion has always been looked at before especially in Hindu reform laws. This is a case of Islam.

 

41 minutes ago, Mariyam said:

 

Also the comparison with Iran re: Hijab case is ridiculous. Iran is an Islamic theocracy in the garb of a democratic society, that has punitive laws for not wearing the hijab. India has no such legislation. De jure, India doesn't enforce a dress code on anyone. Strange that you insist on comparing the two cases. 

 

But some Muslims are fighting for the right to wear Hijab against the dress code of the school, while Iranians are burning it. That's the irony that people are talking about.