"Wearing Hijab Is Indiscipline": Karnataka Minister On Students' Protest

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Equality will be defined by the entity which the constitution has bestowed the jurisdiction. That will be high court and eventually Supreme Court.

Pakistanis may not have high regards, trust, proud and dignity in the jurisdiction system due to the dire situation that Pakistani courts are in but in India, the integrity and dedication has been held in greater standard throughout history.

This is nothing but your opinion, and as it is coming from an Indian patriot, can hardly be considered objective. Reads more like wishful propaganda. You should not be bringing in Pakistani courts to compare Indian courts favourably as Pakistani courts are not the topic here so you are derailing the thread.

 

[LaLoco]

It is difficult to explain, democracy, judiciary, secularism to people who grow up in a military controlled theocratic state. Religious concessions can be a privilege bestowed upon at the pleasure of an institution, its not a right, certainly not in a secular institution.

A man is killed in pakistan for blasphemy. Not even 100 posts. But hijab issue in another country and 700 posts.

LOL, it is a tell tell sign of you got nothing to counter with and nothing to defend the bigotry of Hindutva when you start comparing India with Pakistan, telling other not to comment on India's matter, India will do as India will please, blah blah blah blah.

Most of the posters on this forum reside in the west, they have pretty good grasp on Democracy, so let's not defend bigotry by calling other "idiot" on this forum, there are many other options to defend it with, a better way would be, just come out and own it

Same goes with Judiciary, but lets not put Indian Judiciary on a pedestal, not deserving at all.

The counterfeit secularism in India is just that, counterfeit, to marginalize Muslims and give sense superiority to bigoted Hindutva over minorities in India.

And it would be better if dictation on secularism would stop to those who experienced it daily in the western countries .

You do not see 700 posts on Pakistani related thread because no one is trying to defend bigots out of sheer hate

 

[Gharib Aadmi]

In my school no religious symbols were allowed. Except sikh dastaar.

and yet people say Muslims are the ones who are being appeased.

Muslim groups should try to get the Sikh turban banned if hijab goes.

 

[Gharib Aadmi]

The Karnataka High Court has imposed a temporary ban on the wearing of all religious symbols in schools while it considers the headscarf ban.

This is the only fair solution. If hijab goes then they all should go.

 

[Itachi]

and yet people say Muslims are the ones who are being appeased.

Muslim groups should try to get the Sikh turban banned if hijab goes.

They can put petition.

 

[Colorblind Genius]

and yet people say Muslims are the ones who are being appeased.

Muslim groups should try to get the Sikh turban banned if hijab goes.

Why Muslims try to take out Sikh turban. Our religious guidance does not allow it.

Let these bigot sanghies man up and take it on Sikhs - but these hatred filled hypocrite cowards won’t dare do it .

 

[cricketjoshila]

and yet people say Muslims are the ones who are being appeased.

Muslim groups should try to get the Sikh turban banned if hijab goes.

Sikh dastaar is one of the 5 essential practices of Sikhs as per the courts and is obligatory for them to practice it to remain a part of the Khalsa.

Let the muslims prove that hijab is one of the pillars of islam and practising it is obligatory to the followers of islam. Even the local ulema are of the opinion that hijab isn't needed inside the class rooms.

 

[cricketjoshila]

This is the only fair solution. If hijab goes then they all should go.

What all should go?

 

[cricketjoshila]

The courts have some interesting issues to judge.

1. Whether Hijab is an obligation for muslims?

2. Are all religious obligations of muslims be provided for by an institution, whether private or government? Because tommorow demands will be made for Abaya, Namaz rooms, halal food and so on. Is the institution bound to provide this in a secular country?

3. If muslims are allowed, why the mandates of the vedas or bible or guru granth sahib be not followed?

This is a constitutional test of the limits of articles 25 and the restrictions one can put under article 25A. It also tests article 33, article 14.

 

[Gharib Aadmi]

What all should go?

All religious symbols. As in what France does for public schools.

Sikh dastaar is one of the 5 essential practices of Sikhs as per the courts and is obligatory for them to practice it to remain a part of the Khalsa.

Let the muslims prove that hijab is one of the pillars of islam and practising it is obligatory to the followers of islam. Even the local ulema are of the opinion that hijab isn't needed inside the class rooms.

Same way you can find ulema who say its not needed, their will be ulema who say it is needed as part of Islam. And I am sure their will be some Sikh who will say its ok for them to cut their hair.

 

[cricketjoshila]

All religious symbols. As in what France does for public schools.



Same way you can find ulema who say its not needed, their will be ulema who say it is needed as part of Islam. And I am sure their will be some Sikh who will say its ok for them to cut their hair.

What religious symbols are allowed that should go?


The girls met their local ulema and the ulema association they both said that hijab inside the classroom isnt necessary.

Some neutral scholars also have said that Hijab isnt necessary.

Please find me a sikh authority who says cutting hair is fine.

 

[IMMY69]

I'm not even sure this is about the hijab or any other religious item...

This is more about making a raucous about girls covering their hair and because they happen to be Muslims.
In most countries no one cares about girls covering their hair at school or anywhere else.

Today its the hijab, tomorrow it will be something else

 

[Extra_Cover]

The thread that brahmins wear is wore under the shirt and is not visible. So just as no one is checking anyone's underwear, no one is checking whats wore under the shirt inside the clothing. Its not visible.

If the cross or locket or whatever is not visible no one is objecting as no one is asking anyone to open their clothes and show what they are wearing inside their clothes.

So your comparison doesn't work.

We can go around in circles mate to no end here. The argument from equality in schools turned towards religious symbols and now from religious symbols its turning towards "visible" religious symbols. I can ask you about the Kippa (Jews wear on head) and Kara (Sikhs wear on wrist) and you would bring forth another theory associated with those but you would not admit that this is specific targeting of one community and blatant hypocrisy. If it was not hypocrisy I would have expected blanket bans on all religious stuff (visible or not). One thing for sure this is not about equality.

 

[cricketjoshila]

We can go around in circles mate to no end here. The argument from equality in schools turned towards religious symbols and now from religious symbols its turning towards "visible" religious symbols. I can ask you about the Kippa (Jews wear on head) and Kara (Sikhs wear on wrist) and you would bring forth another theory associated with those but you would not admit that this is specific targeting of one community and blatant hypocrisy. If it was not hypocrisy I would have expected blanket bans on all religious stuff (visible or not). One thing for sure this is not about equality.

How can one stop anything anyone cannot see? Dress code or uniform doesn't apply to things that are not visible. There is no dress code for under garments or hidden things.

You are failing in logic here.

 

[MenInG]

New Delhi: The controversy over hijabs in classrooms spreading out of Karnataka and being heard by its high court is an internal matter of India and other countries have no right to comment on it, the Ministry of External Affairs said on Thursday.
"This is not a matter for the Ministry of External Affairs. Being an internal matter of India, any comment on it by an outsider or another country is not welcome," Arindam Bagchi, the official spokesperson of the ministry, said in response to a question.

"We have a constitutional mechanism, judicial system and democratic ethos. This gives us a framework to find solutions to such things. And this issue is sub-judice. Karnataka High Court is looking into it," he added.

"Outsiders have no right to comment on internal issues and matters relating to India's constitution and its people," Mr Bagchi said.

The comment follows similarly worded rebuttals by the government to comments by the US and an intergovernmental organisation of Muslim nations called OIC on the controversy surrounding the right to wear religious headscarves in schools and colleges.

Going a little firmer on the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation, or OIC, the External Affairs Ministry had said, "The communal mindset of the OIC Secretariat does not allow for a proper appreciation of these realities. OIC continues to be hijacked by vested interests to further their nefarious propaganda against India."

"As a result, it has only harmed its own reputation," India said, pointing out that that this was not the first time the Jeddah-headquartered organisation with 57 member states has given a "motivated and misleading statement... on matters pertaining to India."

NDTV

 

[IAJ]

New Delhi: The controversy over hijabs in classrooms spreading out of Karnataka and being heard by its high court is an internal matter of India and other countries have no right to comment on it, the Ministry of External Affairs said on Thursday.
"This is not a matter for the Ministry of External Affairs. Being an internal matter of India, any comment on it by an outsider or another country is not welcome," Arindam Bagchi, the official spokesperson of the ministry, said in response to a question.

"We have a constitutional mechanism, judicial system and democratic ethos. This gives us a framework to find solutions to such things. And this issue is sub-judice. Karnataka High Court is looking into it," he added.

"Outsiders have no right to comment on internal issues and matters relating to India's constitution and its people," Mr Bagchi said.

The comment follows similarly worded rebuttals by the government to comments by the US and an intergovernmental organisation of Muslim nations called OIC on the controversy surrounding the right to wear religious headscarves in schools and colleges.

Going a little firmer on the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation, or OIC, the External Affairs Ministry had said, "The communal mindset of the OIC Secretariat does not allow for a proper appreciation of these realities. OIC continues to be hijacked by vested interests to further their nefarious propaganda against India."

"As a result, it has only harmed its own reputation," India said, pointing out that that this was not the first time the Jeddah-headquartered organisation with 57 member states has given a "motivated and misleading statement... on matters pertaining to India."

NDTV

Outsiders can go and bomb and destroy country after country, but no outsider can comment on basic human rights violations in the biggest 'decomcracy' in the World.

 

[Pakpak]

https://twitter.com/Article14live/status/1493808631183478787?s=20&t=MtRhvP0hELQnCYmQ4HyBhw


Secular India.

I still can't believe the BJP party members arguing here

 

[Extra_Cover]

How can one stop anything anyone cannot see? Dress code or uniform doesn't apply to things that are not visible. There is no dress code for under garments or hidden things.

You are failing in logic here.

Are you telling me that Kippa and Kara as mentioned above are not visible? Seriously?

 

[kumjsr]

https://twitter.com/Article14live/status/1493808631183478787?s=20&t=MtRhvP0hELQnCYmQ4HyBhw


Secular India.

I still can't believe the BJP party members arguing here

Article posted in the link that 83 families were served eviction notice mentioning that they are living illegally on govt land.

Out of those 83 families, half are Hindu families.

 

[Technics 1210]

What is even more hilarious is some of the most staunch hindutvas are still trying to define their actions as secular, thus proving their own subjugation to western ideals. Nothing wrong with that in itself, but if you want to resurrect Hindu power, you should have the confidence to do it through your own lens instead of trying to justify your bigotry by using western definitions such as secularism which have nothing to do with either Hindu priniciples or Indian culture.

Indeed, if India wants to stand on its own 8 feet, its values, then why seek Western justification? Every defence of Hindutva apologists seems to be “The West do it, so can we”; smacks of the reality India has no identity, lives in the shadow of the West, Hindutva is an intellectually bankrupt ideology, and is rather walking on the coat-tails of the west, even after what one can say is pseudo independence. The ultimate evidence of this is Indians trying to flee ‘incredible’ India their droves!

The day India stands on its own 8 feet, speaks non-English, doesn’t rely on the West for justification, is the day Hindutva India take a step towards truly independence; until then Indian is shackled to the West. Slaves to the white man.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Are you telling me that Kippa and Kara as mentioned above are not visible? Seriously?

I haven't seen anyone wearing a kippa in any school in India.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Article posted in the link that 83 families were served eviction notice mentioning that they are living illegally on govt land.

Out of those 83 families, half are Hindu families.

Its another of those propoganda websites that crops up on twitter posts anti government propoganda and collects fund.

 

[MenInG]

India shines away

==

Bengaluru: An English professor in Karnataka resigned today citing "self-respect" after she was allegedly asked to remove her hijab before entering her college.

Chandini, a lecturer at the Jain PU College in Tumakuru, said she had worked at the college for almost three years but had been asked to remove her hijab for the first time.

"I have been working at Jain PU college for the last three years. I haven't faced any issues so far. But yesterday, the principal told me that I can't wear hijab or any religious symbol while teaching. But I have taught for the last three years wearing hijab. This new decision is a hit to my self-respect. That's why I have decided to resign," Chandini told reporters.

The college principal KT Manjunath, however, said neither he nor anyone else in the management had ever asked her to remove the hijab.

Schools and colleges in Karnataka have been has seen weeks of tension over hijab restrictions and protests against them.

The protests started late last year when six students alleged that they were stopped from attending class wearing the headscarf. As the protests spread to several colleges, there were counter demonstrations involving saffron scarves.

Karnataka's state government temporarily closed schools last week amid tension. As they reopen gradually, many schools and colleges have been seen telling students and teachers to remove the hijab before entering.

The Karnataka High Court has imposed a temporary ban on the wearing of all religious symbols in schools while it considers the headscarf ban.

NDTV

 

[cricketjoshila]

Now they want burkha in colleges. They want to study in a Christian missionary run minority institution, but want islamic laws to be implemented.

Btw as per the judgement of the Kerala High Court, a missionary run school as a minority institution has every right to not allow any religious attire.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.th...ntry-class-andhra-s-loyola-college-161091?amp




Amid the ongoing hijab controversy in Karnataka, two Muslim girls studying in Loyola College, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh, were prevented from attending classes when they insisted on wearing a burqa. The college Correspondent had asked the students to remove the burqa and continue to attend the class in the uniform, which is part of the code of conduct. However, according to the students, they had always worn a burqa in class.

The two students, Patan Sadikunnissa and Shaik Reshma are pursuing their second year in Bachelor of Science.

Speaking to the media, Sadikunnissa said that they were asked by the Correspondent, Father Kishore, to remove the burqa before entering the class. According to her, they had never faced this issue earlier. “We have been wearing burqas inside the class since our first year. Even in our ID cards our photos show us wearing a burqa. The Correspondent claims that since there is a controversy going on, we have been wearing burqas now. Though we clarified that we have been wearing burqas since our first year, he says that he never saw us in it,” Saidkunnissa said.




Home
☰


Controversy
Burqa clad students refused entry to class in Andhra’s Loyola college
Two second-year BSc students were not allowed inside the class when they insisted on attending classes wearing their burqas.

Balakrishna Ganeshan

Thursday, February 17, 2022 - 15:35

The burqa-wearing students speaking with reporters inside the college

Amid the ongoing hijab controversy in Karnataka, two Muslim girls studying in Loyola College, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh, were prevented from attending classes when they insisted on wearing a burqa. The college Correspondent had asked the students to remove the burqa and continue to attend the class in the uniform, which is part of the code of conduct. However, according to the students, they had always worn a burqa in class.


The two students, Patan Sadikunnissa and Shaik Reshma are pursuing their second year in Bachelor of Science.

Speaking to the media, Sadikunnissa said that they were asked by the Correspondent, Father Kishore, to remove the burqa before entering the class. According to her, they had never faced this issue earlier. “We have been wearing burqas inside the class since our first year. Even in our ID cards our photos show us wearing a burqa. The Correspondent claims that since there is a controversy going on, we have been wearing burqas now. Though we clarified that we have been wearing burqas since our first year, he says that he never saw us in it,” Saidkunnissa said.



Contrary to the girls’ claim, they are not clad in a burqa in their photo id, but wearing the hijab, which covers only the head. Burqa is a garment covering the body from head to toe, while hijab covers only the head and neck. Speaking to TNM, Father Kishore said, “The college code of conduct stipulates that all students must wear their respective uniforms. We have no objection to Muslim girls coming in their traditional dresses and change their attire in the dressing room and enter the class. This has been the practice.”

“Today when I was on my rounds, three students including these two Muslim girls were late to the class, and were waiting outside the class. I asked the students to remove their veils in the waiting room and attend the classes in their uniforms. But they said that their parents would object. Then I asked them to bring their parents. When one person came to speak on their behalf, I showed them the code of conduct. The person asked me why I am creating trouble for which I responded that I am trying to avoid trouble,” Father Kishore explained.

According to Father Kishore, wearing a hijab or burqa was never allowed inside the class. “We never saw anyone wearing a hijab or burqa inside the classroom. We have many Muslim students, and they change their traditional attire in the waiting room.”

Father Kishore said that they do not differentiate between hijab and a burqa, and suggested that both are not allowed as per the code of conduct.

 

[Hermoine Green]

Thank you Mr. Jinnah !

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Indeed, if India wants to stand on its own 8 feet, its values, then why seek Western justification? Every defence of Hindutva apologists seems to be “The West do it, so can we”; smacks of the reality India has no identity, lives in the shadow of the West, Hindutva is an intellectually bankrupt ideology, and is rather walking on the coat-tails of the west, even after what one can say is pseudo independence. The ultimate evidence of this is Indians trying to flee ‘incredible’ India their droves!

The day India stands on its own 8 feet, speaks non-English, doesn’t rely on the West for justification, is the day Hindutva India take a step towards truly independence; until then Indian is shackled to the West. Slaves to the white man.

Don't expect a reply to this, all of the hindutvas camped on here still refer to French secular ideals and FATF grey lists as their benchmarks, including their champion passion bhais. They either have no identity of their own, or don't have the confidence to express it openly. This truth will strike deep and can't really blame them for pretending they didn't see the post.

 

[KingKhanWC]

The courts have some interesting issues to judge.

1. Whether Hijab is an obligation for muslims?

2. Are all religious obligations of muslims be provided for by an institution, whether private or government? Because tommorow demands will be made for Abaya, Namaz rooms, halal food and so on. Is the institution bound to provide this in a secular country?

3. If muslims are allowed, why the mandates of the vedas or bible or guru granth sahib be not followed?

This is a constitutional test of the limits of articles 25 and the restrictions one can put under article 25A. It also tests article 33, article 14.

Indian courts can have a view, its just their view. Its not up to them to conclude if hijab is a requirement for women in Islam. Would Hindus accept some court in the world deciding what their religion is?

 

[cricketjoshila]

Indian courts can have a view, its just their view. Its not up to them to conclude if hijab is a requirement for women in Islam. Would Hindus accept some court in the world deciding what their religion is?

Well in India its the view of Indian courts that will matter when there is a dispute, like this one.

Muslims are free to wear hijab in a muslim institution or any institution that allow it. But if a secular institution or non muslim institution doesn't allow it, then the opinion of the court will matter. Same goes for hindus or christians or sikhs or Buddhists.

 

[Stewie]

Well in India its the view of Indian courts that will matter when there is a dispute, like this one.

Muslims are free to wear hijab in a muslim institution or any institution that allow it. But if a secular institution or non muslim institution doesn't allow it, then the opinion of the court will matter. Same goes for hindus or christians or sikhs or Buddhists.

Why are Sikhs allowed turbans then? I happen to know Sikhs who dont. Is it not a requirement for them?

Also what happens to religious freedom? In democratic/secular states freedom of religion is allowed and if one believes her religion makes it mandatory for her to do hijab, not allowing it is against her right to freedom..even if the court finds that its not necessary in Islam for women to do so. Basically the court is telling a citizen how to practice their religion.

Same can be said about consuming meat in Hinduism. From what I understand none of the holy hindu books or traditions have it as a law that consuming meat is a sin. Its a personal choice, so why is cow slaughter in certain states disallowed? Obviously it is to NOT offend certain Hindus who consider it a slight? But its obviously not the same across the board because I know hindus who eat cow as well.

 

[KingKhanWC]

Well in India its the view of Indian courts that will matter when there is a dispute, like this one.

Muslims are free to wear hijab in a muslim institution or any institution that allow it. But if a secular institution or non muslim institution doesn't allow it, then the opinion of the court will matter. Same goes for hindus or christians or sikhs or Buddhists.

Yes again, its their view. No Indian court can decide what Islam requires or not. Its actually idiotic for a court to even think they can make such a ruling. Millions of women in India cover their heads, its common sense this is normal for a Muslim. Who are the judges, what is their expertise and religion also?

 

[KingKhanWC]

Why are Sikhs allowed turbans then? I happen to know Sikhs who dont. Is it not a requirement for them?

Also what happens to religious freedom? In democratic/secular states freedom of religion is allowed and if one believes her religion makes it mandatory for her to do hijab, not allowing it is against her right to freedom..even if the court finds that its not necessary in Islam for women to do so. Basically the court is telling a citizen how to practice their religion.

Same can be said about consuming meat in Hinduism. From what I understand none of the holy hindu books or traditions have it as a law that consuming meat is a sin. Its a personal choice, so why is cow slaughter in certain states disallowed? Obviously it is to NOT offend certain Hindus who consider it a slight? But its obviously not the same across the board because I know hindus who eat cow as well.

These are tough questions you are asking. Hindus say there is no one Hinduism but happily attack those who eat Cows.

I sense this ruling is another way of attacking Muslims. Imagine if this court decides its NOT required in Islam for a woman to covers her head. Hindus extremists will be running to other schools or colleges attacking women who cover their heads.

This country is a real mess.

 

[Realromeo]

Well in India its the view of Indian courts that will matter when there is a dispute, like this one.

Muslims are free to wear hijab in a muslim institution or any institution that allow it. But if a secular institution or non muslim institution doesn't allow it, then the opinion of the court will matter. Same goes for hindus or christians or sikhs or Buddhists.

What about Turban ? Does a Sinkh wearing turban has to take of his turban during exams ? Isn't that not a religious symbol ?

 

[Stewie]

I find it hilarious that a state's courts are deciding requirements of one's religion. Whats next? They are going to tell Muslims the direction to Kaba is wrong?

 

[KingKhanWC]

What is the update, this court seems to be taking its time?

 

[cricketjoshila]

Why are Sikhs allowed turbans then? I happen to know Sikhs who dont. Is it not a requirement for them?

Also what happens to religious freedom? In democratic/secular states freedom of religion is allowed and if one believes her religion makes it mandatory for her to do hijab, not allowing it is against her right to freedom..even if the court finds that its not necessary in Islam for women to do so. Basically the court is telling a citizen how to practice their religion.

Same can be said about consuming meat in Hinduism. From what I understand none of the holy hindu books or traditions have it as a law that consuming meat is a sin. Its a personal choice, so why is cow slaughter in certain states disallowed? Obviously it is to NOT offend certain Hindus who consider it a slight? But its obviously not the same across the board because I know hindus who eat cow as well.

To keep kesh and cover it is obligatory in Sikhism. Those who cut their hair cannot be part of the khalsa. People do lots of things in the west. Muslims drink, Hindus eat beef, sikhs cut hair.

Right to freedom isnt only for a person. Its also for the institution. They also have the right to make rules that are uniformly applied on its constituents. Hence Right to freedom comes with reasonable restrictions. Its not absolute.

If a institution is making a rule and some individual is trying to impose his or her own wish on that institution then the only route she has is to move court.

Consuming meat and slaughtering a cow are two different things. In sanatan dharma, Gau hatya is a big sin.

I know muslims who drink, dont offer the namaz. How does it change the tenets of islam?

 

[cricketjoshila]

Yes again, its their view. No Indian court can decide what Islam requires or not. Its actually idiotic for a court to even think they can make such a ruling. Millions of women in India cover their heads, its common sense this is normal for a Muslim. Who are the judges, what is their expertise and religion also?

Well the muslim women moved court saying xyz institute isn't allowing them to wear hijab. Every institution has the right to decide their own rules unless they are infringing upon the laws of the land.

Now courts will decide if the institution is infringing upon article 25.

 

[cricketjoshila]

I find it hilarious that a state's courts are deciding requirements of one's religion. Whats next? They are going to tell Muslims the direction to Kaba is wrong?

Its amusing that muslims want every institution in a secular country to obey islamic ways. Not going to happen unless court rules it.

 

[Stewie]

To keep kesh and cover it is obligatory in Sikhism. Those who cut their hair cannot be part of the khalsa. People do lots of things in the west. Muslims drink, Hindus eat beef, sikhs cut hair.

Right to freedom isnt only for a person. Its also for the institution. They also have the right to make rules that are uniformly applied on its constituents. Hence Right to freedom comes with reasonable restrictions. Its not absolute.

If a institution is making a rule and some individual is trying to impose his or her own wish on that institution then the only route she has is to move court.

Consuming meat and slaughtering a cow are two different things. In sanatan dharma, Gau hatya is a big sin.

I know muslims who drink, dont offer the namaz. How does it change the tenets of islam?

So the institutions needs come before individual and groups right to freedom of religion? Why doesnt the same apply to Sikhs then? They are covering their hair too. Surely women covering their heads cannot be graver a transgression than the Sikh men covering their hair? How does the institution deem one is justified and the other is not?

Consumption of liquor is also considered a grave sin in Hinduism, yet I dont see anybody getting killed over drinking.

 

[Stewie]

Its amusing that muslims want every institution in a secular country to obey islamic ways. Not going to happen unless court rules it.

It is amusing some Hindus deflect everything over to Muslims being the problem when its quite clear all the recent laws are targeting Muslims in their country.

Muslims simply expect equal religious of freedom, just like Hindus can prevent killings of cows, why cant muslim women wear headgear like Sikhs? Or is it that certain Hindus have fallen victim to slective hinduism. We will let drinking continue but surely we cannot let them kill any cows because they will enjoy eating their favorite meals!

Because thats what it sounds like!

 

[cricketjoshila]

Its rather simple, they are not Muslims.
So the institutions needs come before individual and groups right to freedom of religion? Why doesnt the same apply to Sikhs then? They are covering their hair too. Surely women covering their heads cannot be graver a transgression than the Sikh men covering their hair? How does the institution deem one is justified and the other is not?

Consumption of liquor is also considered a grave sin in Hinduism, yet I dont see anybody getting killed over drinking, DO YOU?

Sikhs moved court and the judgement said that covering hair is compulsory for sikhs to be part of Khalsa hence they were allowed to cover their hair.

If muslims can prove that hijab is essential to be considered a muslim, the court may allow that also. Btw some girls are now demanding burqa. Is that also obligatory? Do institutions also have provide for prayer rooms? What about changing day off from Sunday to Friday so that they can go to mosques on Friday?

 

[Stewie]

In the United States, using "I cannot vaccinate because its against my religion" was actually a very common and often used reasons to not get the jab. Thats what true democratic countries do. They dont try to target a specific community or religion with specific laws. Rgarldess of what some idiots here claim about Muslims, we are still a big chunk of law abiding and productive members of communities the world over.

 

[Stewie]

Sikhs moved court and the judgement said that covering hair is compulsory for sikhs to be part of Khalsa hence they were allowed to cover their hair.

If muslims can prove that hijab is essential to be considered a muslim, the court may allow that also. Btw some girls are now demanding burqa. Is that also obligatory?

Based on certain interpretations, yes. Point is how can you judge whats right or whats wrong? Who gave you the religious authority to tell Muslims, Hindus, Christians how to practice their religion?

Courts cannot decide that. There are a lot of Muslims who believe women can only show their eyes and face and hands cover their hair and rest of their body.

But i digress, this discussion is pointless. What can you expect from a country where alcohol is allowed yet cow slaughter is a crime when both are illegal in their religion.

You can just claim this is righteous all you want but you are not fooling anybody.

 

[KingKhanWC]

Well the muslim women moved court saying xyz institute isn't allowing them to wear hijab. Every institution has the right to decide their own rules unless they are infringing upon the laws of the land.

Now courts will decide if the institution is infringing upon article 25.

Who are the judges? What are their religions?

If they want to judge religions they should start with Hinduism. In which Hindu scripture does it state to make idols of animals, such as rats, snakes etc?

 

[cricketjoshila]

Based on certain interpretations, yes. Point is how can you judge whats right or whats wrong? Who gave you the religious authority to tell Muslims, Hindus, Christians how to practice their religion?

Courts cannot decide that. There are a lot of Muslims who believe women can only show their eyes and face and hands cover their hair and rest of their body.

But i digress, this discussion is pointless. What can you expect from a country where alcohol is allowed yet cow slaughter is a crime when both are illegal in their religion.

You can just claim this is righteous all you want but you are not fooling anybody.

Who decides whether the right of the institution to make rules is important or whether the right of one individual to impose his religious laws over the institution is lawful?

In a secular country the court decides in such disputes. All this wouldn't happen if these girls would have moved to an institution which allowed hijab rather than trying to force secular institutions to follow islamic laws.

Who told you alcohol is illegal in Hinduism?

There is a entire mandala in rig Veda called SomaMandala describing Soma Ras.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Who are the judges? What are their religions?

If they want to judge religions they should start with Hinduism. In which Hindu scripture does it state to make idols of animals, such as rats, snakes etc?

A secular state has nothing to do with the religion of a judge.

How is hindus worshipping anything in their temples affect anyone? Is anyone asking muslims what they do in the modques?

 

[KingKhanWC]

A secular state has nothing to do with the religion of a judge.

How is hindus worshipping anything in their temples affect anyone? Is anyone asking muslims what they do in the modques?

You didnt understand the point.

If Hindus cannot figure out what their religion states, no secular judge in India has the ability to determine what Islam states.

 

[cricketjoshila]

You didnt understand the point.

If Hindus cannot figure out what their religion states, no secular judge in India has the ability to determine what Islam states.

Who told you hindus can't figure out?

If a muslim is moving a constitutional court saying her rights has been infringed upon, then ofcourse the judge has to decide and give a judgement.

 

[KingKhanWC]

Who told you hindus can't figure out?

If a muslim is moving a constitutional court saying her rights has been infringed upon, then ofcourse the judge has to decide and give a judgement.

Hindus did inc on this forum. They feel Hinduism is whatever a person feels it to be. Ie Different Gods or different rules ie eating meat etc.

The girls have little choice but to go to court. In any civilised nation, it would be no issue for a woman to cover their head. In India where crimes against women are an epidemic, its only right women want to feel comfortable esp in an education setting.

 

[Kroll]

If the girls believe wearing hijab is mandatory for them to fulfil their religious obligations then that should be the end of it. They aren't doing it to antagonise anybody or to deviate from uniform.

Shame that fascism and bigotry are being allowed to dictate people's fundamental rights.

 

[chrismatt83]

I’m just appalled by some of the deluded Indian posters here, completely agreeing to the ban on woman wearing a hijab in schools with ridiculous reasons. I see it not just as a religious issue but one where ones personal space and rights being violated. I’m a Christian from Kerala and even though I don’t live in India, the day there’s someone deciding for me that I shouldn’t be wearing a cross on a chain around my neck, is the day I would feel India is just some middle eastern country pretending to be a democracy. We need to support gender equality and our woman. I do agree that if the law decides that hijab should be banned in schools, then we shouldn’t stop there. The Sikh turban, the thread and religious symbols Hindus wear and the cross on chains Christian’s wear and even the caps that Jews wear even though they are a few in India should all be banned.
I just hope the courts sees reason to support woman who want to wear hijab and do what’s right.

 

[Kroll]

I’m just appalled by some of the deluded Indian posters here, completely agreeing to the ban on woman wearing a hijab in schools with ridiculous reasons. I see it not just as a religious issue but one where ones personal space and rights being violated. I’m a Christian from Kerala and even though I don’t live in India, the day there’s someone deciding for me that I shouldn’t be wearing a cross on a chain around my neck, is the day I would feel India is just some middle eastern country pretending to be a democracy. We need to support gender equality and our woman. I do agree that if the law decides that hijab should be banned in schools, then we shouldn’t stop there. The Sikh turban, the thread and religious symbols Hindus wear and the cross on chains Christian’s wear and even the caps that Jews wear even though they are a few in India should all be banned.
I just hope the courts sees reason to support woman who want to wear hijab and do what’s right.

This must have really touched a raw nerve for you to make your first post after 10 years. You provide some great points.

Congrats on your first run. Hopefully many more to come!

 

[Stewie]

Quote Originally Posted by chrismatt83 View Post
I’m just appalled by some of the deluded Indian posters here, completely agreeing to the ban on woman wearing a hijab in schools with ridiculous reasons. I see it not just as a religious issue but one where ones personal space and rights being violated. I’m a Christian from Kerala and even though I don’t live in India, the day there’s someone deciding for me that I shouldn’t be wearing a cross on a chain around my neck, is the day I would feel India is just some middle eastern country pretending to be a democracy. We need to support gender equality and our woman. I do agree that if the law decides that hijab should be banned in schools, then we shouldn’t stop there. The Sikh turban, the thread and religious symbols Hindus wear and the cross on chains Christian’s wear and even the caps that Jews wear even though they are a few in India should all be banned.
I just hope the courts sees reason to support woman who want to wear hijab and do what’s right.

Well said, sir.
As a Pakistani Muslim living in the US, every time I read about these tragic blasphemy related killings or discrimination of minorities, it hits home and I feel the same way.

One feels the pain when one is in those shoes onself. Its sad some of the indians here, in spite of living and working in the west or outside India, do not really see the tragedy in these situations.

Rather than standing united against oppression of all sorts, whether its in your country or otherwise, they just want to toot the horn of their government probably because the political party they support is in power.

Its shameful, really!

 

[CricketCartoons]

Well said, sir.
As a Pakistani Muslim living in the US, every time I read about these tragic blasphemy related killings or discrimination of minorities, it hits home and I feel the same way.

One feels the pain when one is in those shoes onself. Its sad some of the indians here, in spite of living and working in the west or outside India, do not really see the tragedy in these situations.

Rather than standing united against oppression of all sorts, whether its in your country or otherwise, they just want to toot the horn of their government probably because the political party they support is in power.

Its shameful, really!

Indians are supporting hijab ban not because they want to humiliate muslims or to show them their place, but to include them in the mainstream, so that muslims and hindus dont look any different, and they look equal in every aspect. Promoting hijab is promoting divisiveness. Can't believe a wise poster like you cannot see behind this manufactured controversy, the inclusive and all welcoming stance of making minority look and feel like majority, vs the divisive stance of keeping minorities detached from the mainstream and look and feel like a minority.

 

[Colorblind Genius]

Indians are supporting hijab ban not because they want to humiliate muslims or to show them their place, but to include them in the mainstream, so that muslims and hindus dont look any different, and they look equal in every aspect. Promoting hijab is promoting divisiveness. Can't believe a wise poster like you cannot see behind this manufactured controversy, the inclusive and all welcoming stance of making minority look and feel like majority, vs the divisive stance of keeping minorities detached from the mainstream and look and feel like a minority.

Another display of shameless bigotry.
Start with Sikhs taking their turban off in schools.

 

[Itachi]

I find it hilarious that a state's courts are deciding requirements of one's religion. Whats next? They are going to tell Muslims the direction to Kaba is wrong?

By that token, why is blesphemy been decided by Pakistani courts and not some arbitrary competent religious scholars?

Court should not have any saying when it comes to religion by your logic.

 

[Salma_T]

Still going, doesn't matter how you put it is discrimination and needs to stop! Funny how it has only come up against Muslim women (the target of all bigots globally who while trying to "free them" continue to oppressed them)

 

[Salma_T]

I’m just appalled by some of the deluded Indian posters here, completely agreeing to the ban on woman wearing a hijab in schools with ridiculous reasons. I see it not just as a religious issue but one where ones personal space and rights being violated. I’m a Christian from Kerala and even though I don’t live in India, the day there’s someone deciding for me that I shouldn’t be wearing a cross on a chain around my neck, is the day I would feel India is just some middle eastern country pretending to be a democracy. We need to support gender equality and our woman. I do agree that if the law decides that hijab should be banned in schools, then we shouldn’t stop there. The Sikh turban, the thread and religious symbols Hindus wear and the cross on chains Christian’s wear and even the caps that Jews wear even though they are a few in India should all be banned.
I just hope the courts sees reason to support woman who want to wear hijab and do what’s right.

A post by an Indian minority I think this seals it, today Hijab tomorrow the cross!

 

[Salma_T]

Indians are supporting hijab ban not because they want to humiliate muslims or to show them their place, but to include them in the mainstream, so that muslims and hindus dont look any different, and they look equal in every aspect. Promoting hijab is promoting divisiveness. Can't believe a wise poster like you cannot see behind this manufactured controversy, the inclusive and all welcoming stance of making minority look and feel like majority, vs the divisive stance of keeping minorities detached from the mainstream and look and feel like a minority.

The same country that is split along caste lines in the Hindu faith....the nation is an example of divisiveness....don't try and paint it as inclusiveness.

 

[CricketCartoons]

The same country that is split along caste lines in the Hindu faith....the nation is an example of divisiveness....don't try and paint it as inclusiveness.

I never denied that there is division. All I am saying is that Hindutva (RSS-deltacron variant) is trying to remove these divisions by its inclusive agenda. If muslims don't look feel and sound like muslims, there will not be any islamophobia, and hence no bigotry. Don't know how anyone in their right mind can oppose this.

 

[cricketjoshila]

I’m just appalled by some of the deluded Indian posters here, completely agreeing to the ban on woman wearing a hijab in schools with ridiculous reasons. I see it not just as a religious issue but one where ones personal space and rights being violated. I’m a Christian from Kerala and even though I don’t live in India, the day there’s someone deciding for me that I shouldn’t be wearing a cross on a chain around my neck, is the day I would feel India is just some middle eastern country pretending to be a democracy. We need to support gender equality and our woman. I do agree that if the law decides that hijab should be banned in schools, then we shouldn’t stop there. The Sikh turban, the thread and religious symbols Hindus wear and the cross on chains Christian’s wear and even the caps that Jews wear even though they are a few in India should all be banned.
I just hope the courts sees reason to support woman who want to wear hijab and do what’s right.

A Christian from Kerala. You do know that christian missionary school in kerala banned the hijab and even the court sided with the school.

The sikh head covering is protected by a ruling of the supreme court.

Hindu thread is worn inside the shirt. Unless one is strip searching students that wont be visible. Missionary schools dont allow even a small tika to be applied by hindu students. And i am fine with this. If i want to study in an institution i follow their rules. Why will a Christian institution promote muslim hijab or hindu tika?

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

A Christian from Kerala. You do know that christian missionary school in kerala banned the hijab and even the court sided with the school.

The sikh head covering is protected by a ruling of the supreme court.

Hindu thread is worn inside the shirt. Unless one is strip searching students that wont be visible. Missionary schools dont allow even a small tika to be applied by hindu students. And i am fine with this. If i want to study in an institution i follow their rules. Why will a Christian institution promote muslim hijab or hindu tika?

This ruling must be outdated by now in light of the crackdown on Muslim women hijab ruling. Indians must demand a review of Sikh priveleges to flaunt their religious identities so publicly and with little regard for Indian secular sensibilities.

 

[Itachi]

This ruling must be outdated by now in light of the crackdown on Muslim women hijab ruling. Indians must demand a review of Sikh priveleges to flaunt their religious identities so publicly and with little regard for Indian secular sensibilities.

Muslims can give petition. There's no restrictions on giving a petition.

 

[James]

All

Mods have reviewed this thread overnight and we unanimously feel that the discussion has been consistently veering away from the original topic and has got somewhat out of hand.

Please now bring the thread back to order between yourselves.

Further actions will be taken going forward against posters who do not comply with the above.

Thanks

 

[RexRex]

A post by an Indian minority I think this seals it, today Hijab tomorrow the cross!

That is outright false from [MENTION=130594]chrismatt83[/MENTION]. I studied in a christian private school in Kerala and you couldn't wear any chain, even if it had a cross. I had one and wore it inside my shirt. No religious symbols were allowed and everybody looked the same, which was a good thing.
Young people can be cruel and single out individuals who look different and even ostracize them, leading to subtle bullying or groupism. Its not their fault, its just that everybody is immature at that age without any sense of history about discrimination. Most people develop a stronge sense of justice and awareness in college.

 

[RexRex]

There are many issues on which you can blame the ruling BJP party for religious bias but this is definitely not one of them.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Muslims can give petition. There's no restrictions on giving a petition.

If secular priniciples bar individuals from flaunting religion in public via religious garb, then it should be barred regardless of petition. Muslims would not expect equal and fair judgment from Indian courts considering the hostility towards them as compared to Sikhs.

A simple and equitable solution would be to take religious bias out of the equation.

 

[Itachi]

If secular priniciples bar individuals from flaunting religion in public via religious garb, then it should be barred regardless of petition. Muslims would not expect equal and fair judgment from Indian courts considering the hostility towards them as compared to Sikhs.

A simple and equitable solution would be to take religious bias out of the equation.

Since the religion is the root cause, then why not weed it (the concept) out instead of circumventing rules to accommodate it?

Why any one has to be Muslim or Christian or people from any other religion? Isn't "I am a human" enough?

 

[smkk]

There are many issues on which you can blame the ruling BJP party for religious bias but this is definitely not one of them.

Please answer that why now this issue have been raised after 7 years in power?

When now, during interim elections of multiple states(most importantly in the biggest state UP).

Anyone who are following Indian politics, knows that BJP had been trying to communalize this election between muslim and hindu issue, based on which they are vying for the supports of majority population.
(remember 80% vs 20% debate)

Fortunately they failed to do that. But now they brought out this hijab issue from Karnataka, and then gearing up to support from all the states where BJP is in power. How can anyone overlook the timing of this issue?

As I said earlier, one party is holding an entire nation hostage, in order to gain power. If BJP is not behind this then who else?

 

[Stewie]

By that token, why is blesphemy been decided by Pakistani courts and not some arbitrary competent religious scholars?

Court should not have any saying when it comes to religion by your logic.

But this is India, a secular democratic state. In Pakistan, which is an Islamic Republic, these laws regarding blasphemy are already made. The court simply reviews the evidence to see if blasphemy was committed. They dont sit there debating religious laws.

I am just sharing facts on the ground, not my personal preference for them. Personally speaking, I would want separation of church and state. But Pakistan is maligned a lot by you lot for being a "theocratic, military dictatorship" and you guys like to toot your horn about being a "secular democracy". With that being said, I felt this is ironic whats going on and needs to be highlighted. Either you decide India is turning into a theocratic Hindu state or you fix your democracy. Simple!

 

[CricketCartoons]

But this is India, a secular democratic state. In Pakistan, which is an Islamic Republic, these laws regarding blasphemy are already made. The court simply reviews the evidence to see if blasphemy was committed. They dont sit there debating religious laws.

I am just sharing facts on the ground, not my personal preference for them. Personally speaking, I would want separation of church and state. But Pakistan is maligned a lot by you lot for being a "theocratic, military dictatorship" and you guys like to toot your horn about being a "secular democracy". With that being said, I felt this is ironic whats going on and needs to be highlighted. Either you decide India is turning into a theocratic Hindu state or you fix your democracy. Simple!

Minority rights are needed in a theocratic nation, so that their interests of the weak are safeguarded from the tyranny of the majority. It is not needed in secular nations, because progressive secular nations like India treats every citizen equally, so there is no need for special laws safeguarding any minority. Simply, there is no concept of majority and minority here.

 

[Stewie]

Minority rights are needed in a theocratic nation, so that their interests of the weak are safeguarded from the tyranny of the majority. It is not needed in secular nations, because progressive secular nations like India treats every citizen equally, so there is no need for special laws safeguarding any minority. Simply, there is no concept of majority and minority here.

lol.. very well said, so I guess I can come over for a delicious beef nihari at your place then? I would be more than happy to help you slaughter the cow, skin it and help with cooking nihari if you can guarantee my safety. No special laws protecting the cow, I am sure....

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Since the religion is the root cause, then why not weed it (the concept) out instead of circumventing rules to accommodate it?

Why any one has to be Muslim or Christian or people from any other religion? Isn't "I am a human" enough?

That is my point. Why not apply that logic to Sikhs who ask for special privelege to openly flaunt their religion by wearing religious garb?

 

[Itachi]

That is my point. Why not apply that logic to Sikhs who ask for special privelege to openly flaunt their religion by wearing religious garb?

Why you are asking me? I am not the one who is making policies.

As I see it, religion is the root cause of most violent clashes in human history. It is better if it didn't exist in the first place.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Why you are asking me? I am not the one who is making policies.

As I see it, religion is the root cause of most violent clashes in human history. It is better if it didn't exist in the first place.

I'm answering the points you raised, if you don't want them answered then write an essay and publish it on a blog, don't join a message board and enter into discussions.

 

[MenInG]

A group of powerful Kuwaiti parliamentarians had demanded of the government of Kuwait to put an immediate ban on the entry of any member of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) of India into Kuwait.

The eleven parliamentarians wrote a letter to the Speaker of the National Assembly about atrocities being committed by the ruling BJP in India against the Muslim minority.

In a tweet on the social media platform Twitter, they said “We can’t sit back and watch Muslim girls being publicly persecuted they said. Time for the Ummah to unite.” They said female Muslim students were being stopped from entering educational institutions in Hijab.

Kuwaiti activists gathered in Irada Square in Kuwait City last week to support Muslim women in India following a ban on hijab at schools and colleges in the southern Indian state of Karnataka.

The women’s wing of the Islamic Constitutional Movement also staged a protest at the Green Island’s parking in front of the Indian embassy in Kuwait in support of Muslim women in India following the ban on hijab in schools.

A day ago, Singapore Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said that “almost half” of the parliamentarians in India's Lok Sabha — the lower house of parliament — have criminal charges against them.

“Nehru's India has become one where ... almost half the MPs in the Lok Sabha have criminal charges pending against them, including charges of rape and murder,” Loong said.

Loong made the comment in Singapore's parliament on Wednesday during a debate about accusations of lying levelled at a member of the opposition. He did add, however, that many of the charges were politically motivated.

Indian media reported that Singapore's ambassador had been summoned to the foreign ministry to explain. The Indian ministry declined to comment but an official there criticised what the Singapore leader said.

"The remarks by the prime minister of Singapore were uncalled for," said the official, who declined to be identified. "We have taken up the matter with the Singaporean side." Loong's office said it had nothing to add.

 

[Romali_rotti]

A group of powerful Kuwaiti parliamentarians had demanded of the government of Kuwait to put an immediate ban on the entry of any member of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) of India into Kuwait.

All colorful words, but nothing will come out of it.

The Saudi and UAE Arab leaderships are fully backing Modi and the BJP...

Kuwait is not as big a player as far as BJP is concerned..

 

[chrismatt83]

Indians are supporting hijab ban not because they want to humiliate muslims or to show them their place, but to include them in the mainstream, so that muslims and hindus dont look any different, and they look equal in every aspect. Promoting hijab is promoting divisiveness. Can't believe a wise poster like you cannot see behind this manufactured controversy, the inclusive and all welcoming stance of making minority look and feel like majority, vs the divisive stance of keeping minorities detached from the mainstream and look and feel like a minority.

Can you re-read this statement and honestly claim that there’s nothing wrong with it. What if the minority doesn’t want to look like the majority and wants to keep their own individual cultural identity that they’ve received from their parents. Let me remind you that the holocaust started by inciting racial divisiveness by picking on one group over their looks and heritage and eventually isolating them. So what’s next , once the Muslims have truly reformed by you’re definition, are you going to get the Christian’s to stop wearing a cross.

 

[Itachi]

Can you re-read this statement and honestly claim that there’s nothing wrong with it. What if the minority doesn’t want to look like the majority and wants to keep their own individual cultural identity that they’ve received from their parents. Let me remind you that the holocaust started by inciting racial divisiveness by picking on one group over their looks and heritage and eventually isolating them. So what’s next , once the Muslims have truly reformed by you’re definition, are you going to get the Christian’s to stop wearing a cross.

The racial discrimination started with obligation of Jews to wear yellow star badge to make them distinguish from rest of the people.

What is happening in India is exactly opposite where one won't even be able to distinguish minority from a majority and vice versa.

You example hurts your argument more than you would expect.

 

[Colorblind Genius]

The racial discrimination started with obligation of Jews to wear yellow star badge to make them distinguish from rest of the people.

What is happening in India is exactly opposite where one won't even be able to distinguish minority from a majority and vice versa.

You example hurts your argument more than you would expect.

You didn't answer the actual question.

What if the minority wants to preserve their actual identity in a peaceful manner? Do you understand the concept of diversity?

And again, why don't you start with Sikh turban?

 

[Itachi]

You didn't answer the actual question.

What if the minority wants to preserve their actual identity in a peaceful manner? Do you understand the concept of diversity?

And again, why don't you start with Sikh turban?

Minority, majority or whatever the entity is, they can maintain their identity as long as it doesn't get conflict with part III of Indian constitution.

We have lots of tribes in North east India where many customs were banned since it doesn't fall in line with Indian constitution.

For us Indians, the nationality takes more importance than religion. The Indian Muslim community has time and time reminded Pakistan that whatever issues they may face, it's a domestic issue and Pakistan or rest of the Muslim community doesn't need to put their head in to it. Yeh ghar ka maamla hain, isko ghar ke andar hi rakhenge. That's what they stated during CAA and now.