Communalism
Why it leaves me, a Left-Liberal, at odds with me, a Progressive Muslim Javed Anand https://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/supreme-court-verdict-on-hijab-split-wide-open-8207010/
Justice Dhulia noted the main thrust of his judgment was that the entire concept of essential religious practice was not essential to the dispute. The high court took a wrong path. According to him, it is ultimately a matter of choice and Articles 14 and 19. “The foremost question in my mind was the education of the girl child. Are we making her life any better?” He also held the view that the judgment in the Bijoe Emmanuel case “squarely covers the issue”. This refers to the 1986 ruling of the apex court that upheld the fundamental right of three school-going children from the Jehovah’s Witness sect to stand respectfully but not join others in singing the national anthem during the school assembly as it conflicted with the tenets of their faith. ..
The Liberal Me has no doubt that Justice Dhulia’s views are in consonance with constitutional values. But the Progressive Muslim Me fears that were a larger bench to subsequently rule accordingly, it would effectively strengthen the regressive sections among Indian Muslims...As is public knowledge, cutting across sectarian divides — Sunni, Shia, Barelvi, Deobandi, Wahhabi, Salafi, Maududian — virtually the entire Muslim clergy in India is of the view that hijab (niqab, burqa) is mandatory in Islam. The abstract principle of a woman’s freedom to choose, I fear, will feed into the it-is-mandatory argument; act as convenient cover for Islam’s patriarchs to keep, even push, women behind the veil...
Two, do Muslim girls studying in Muslim-run schools, 3-year-olds included, have the right to choose or they simply must conform?
In the event that the March order of the Karnataka High Court is struck down by a larger bench of the Supreme Court in the coming period, we might ponder on what students committed to Hindutva politics will make of the right to choose verdict. Classrooms becoming the new arena for competitive communalism? Muslim girls in hijab, Hindu boys in saffron scarves? Diversity, anyone?
Hijab Judgment of Supreme Court | सर्वोच्च न्यायालय का हिजाब पर फ़ैसला | Faizan Mustafa https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=83qGIZE0z70
Oct 14, 2022 Some comments on Youtube: Matir Manush We thank Dr. Faizan Mustafa as usual for his dedication to explain the matter of law to us with commitment and devotion. Justice Gupta expressed his opinion on the practice of Hijab with sincere reasoning. But we believe he failed to realize a simple matter.
Wearing Hijab is not harming or hurting anybody. It is not even disrupting the uniformity in the education places. But banning hijab is surely damaging one's freedom of personal choice. Banning hijab is shattering one's dream of education.
..justice Dhulia's verdict protect the integrity of our constitution. His judgement promotes the right of education of the girls. In other words the judgement of justice Dhulia is helping our girls to acquire knowledge which is very important for the nation. Our girls are a vulnerable group of people in the country. The judicial system should not and must not increase their vulnerability.
Rohit gupta New doctrines are laid down like trust doctrine, cross obligations and tolerance, laying down new dimensions of constitutional interpretation.
The question is of acoustomed to other way of living and there are countries, who have no school dress
Yazdy Palia I disagree with the line of reasoning. In their enthusiasm, the petitioner, the respondent and the judges, have not realised, that, the only issue in this case is
1. Does an institution, in India, has the right to frame their own rules?
2. Do the students and their supporters, have the right to impose their will on the institution created by individuals to educate children? It appears that all the three are competing with each other to violate fundamental rights.
[Hijab Case] Karnataka High Court judgment hurtful, deeply offensive: Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves argues before Supreme Court
.https://www.barandbench.com/news/litigation/hijab-case-karnataka-hc-judgment-hurtful-deeply-offensive-colin-gonsalves-argues-supreme-court "Parts of the judgment are deeply offensive to those who follow Islam, and it's contrary to at least three landmark judgments of this court", he said. He urged the court to consider remanding the case to the High Court for it to be heard again by a different bench reasoning that it did not conform to the kind of constitutional independence that it ought to have.
"I will show ten short points on how the judgment is on the perception of the majority. Where the minority point of view has been seen wrongly. It's basically a majoritarian judgment."
https://www.rediff.com/news/report/hijab-ban-we-are-not-interpreters-of-quran-says-sc/20220915.htm
The apex court, which was hearing arguments on a batch of pleas challenging the Karnataka high court verdict refusing to lift the ban on hijab in educational institutions of the state, made the observation after a counsel for one of the petitioners said the judgement under challenge is touching upon the Islamic and religious perspective.
"The one way is to interpret the Quran.... We are not interpreters of the Quran. We cannot do it and that is the argument raised also that the courts are not equipped to interpret religious scriptures," a bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and Sudhanshu Dhulia said.
The top court heard submissions of several lawyers, who appeared for the petitioners and argued on various aspects including the wearing of hijab being a matter of privacy, dignity and also autonomy, and whether the practice of wearing it is essential or not.
One of the advocates argued the way the high court interpreted the matter on Islamic and religious perspective was a 'wrong assessment'.
15/09/2022
read more
Hijab controversy now in Supreme Court | Prashant Bhushan | karnataka hijab news
13 Jul 2022
supreme court will hear the hijab issue next week as the judgement of Karnataka High Court Full Bench challenged by the petitioner which is delivered by Karnataka High Court in the hijab ban imposed by the Karnataka Government in educational institutions. The matter was heard by a bench comprising Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi, Justice Krishna S Dixit and Justice JM Khazi.
controversy in karnataka | conspiracy to divide indian | protest over hijab
हिजाब मामले पर कर्नाटका हाईकोर्ट में सुनवाई
The Anti-Hijab Campaign Is a Form of Cultural Cleansing of Muslims That We Ignore At Our Peril By Alishan Jafri and Sara Ather https://thewire.in/communalism/the-anti-hijab-campaign-is-a-form-of-cultural-cleansing-of-muslims-that-we-ignore-at-our-peril 
One of the important lessons from the history of the holocaust is that a cultural genocide often precedes a physical one. Nazi Germany attacked the religious rituals of the Jews, demonised their appearance and food habits, attacked synagogues and erased their livelihoods before the death camps came into existence
The position of progressives on all other acts of Muslim violence is more or less clear: They condemn it. But some progressives want to ignore the violence against hijabi women because this time around a supposedly feminist argument is being made by the perpetually aggrieved mob of aggressors.
Indian Express slammed for Islamophobic front-page ad, contributors register protest https://www.siasat.com/indian-express-slammed-for-islamophobic-front-page-ad-contributors-register-protest-2251201/
