"Hello,
friends!" "When I was in
school or college," 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. This is a hijab. This is a burqa. 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," and today's Blog is specifically focused on hijab only. "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 live example of it in this Blog,"
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 Blog 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. "If you
want to know more about them," "I'd
recommend some audiobooks on KUKU FM,"
"on Mahatma Gandhi, Swami Vivekananda, and Samrat Ashoka." You can understand their ideologies in detail
in those audiobooks. "KUKU FM is a
brilliant audio learning platform,"
on which you can find many such biographies and audiobooks. "Normally, their annual cost is ₹399 per
year," "but there's a special
discount now," "if you use the
coupon code DHRUV50," you'll get
50% off. "So for you, the annual
cost for their entire library," would
be ₹199 per year only. "All the
audiobooks on their platform," can
be accessed at this price. You can find
the link to it in the description below.
Let's return to the topic now. "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. "If you find this
example to be extreme," some
countries have moved much further into hard secularism. Like China.
"In China, churches are literally demolished," and the crosses are removed from the
churches. They've jailed thousands of
pastors. And it is being said that more
than 1 million Muslims in China "are
being sent to ""Reeducation Camps.""" To politically brainwash them. This is the extent to which the Chinese
government hates religions. "If we
look at the original definition of secularism," "that the government shouldn't interfere
in religion at all," "China
has gone in the other direction, so much so that" perhaps China can't be called a Secular
country anymore. 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." "I'd ask you this,
what do you think?" Which model
would be better for India? Should India
adopt the French model? Comment below
and let me know. "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 taken a plunge. 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.