Al Haqeeqa
The hijab, or veil worn by Muslim women to cover their heads, has gained fresh attention with the onset of protests in Iran. These protests were sparked after a 22-year-old girl, Mahsa Amini, died in morality police custody. Months before the Iran hijab protests, the Indian state of Karnataka barred Muslim girls from entering colleges, leading to protests and the filling of petitions in the high court and Supreme Court against the state order. In European countries like France, the issue of hijab wearing Muslim women’s public appearance has always been seen as problematic and contrary to popular culture. This topic has always generated debate about the authenticity of hijab being an essential part of women’s freedom, the imposition of it as a curtailment of women’s liberty, and sometimes as part of a liberation movement to equalise and educate women about taking control of their bodies. However, what everyone forgets is the agency of those women who practise it or do not practise it, and there is no force that anyone can exert to make women choose either of the paths. The constitutions and laws binding people as citizens only safeguard the freedoms and existence and associated liberties. One such essential freedom is the right to dissent, disagree, and fight for individual rights. In countries that do not have such explicit codifications, people contend for infringed freedoms enjoyed by those who live in democracies.
The case in point is to put forward a comparison of the fight for rights by Muslim women in Iran and India. Iran has a hybrid system of governance with a parliament and a president supervised by a clerical component. The Islamic theocracy shapes the laws and rules of public conduct. Therefore, people enjoy fewer freedoms and rights, particularly the right to dissent. It implies that the law is repressive and aggressive in imposing a top-down model of conduct on the general population, though there are secular components that provide for the inclusion of ethnic minorities like Azerbaijanis, Kurds, Mazandaranis, and Turkmens, etc. The current protests are led by women who have become uneasy with the top-sown imposition of public morality and the brutality of the clerical establishment. Besides this, the issues of corruption, political suppression, and economic mismanagement have been the longest-running issues of public discontent. The protests have led to a crackdown, the imprisonment of hundreds, and the deaths of more than 50 people. Such a system leaves less scope for justice and liberation from stricter laws.
In the Indian case, the pluralistic makeup is preserved by constitutional laws supervised by a robust judicial system. There is a wider scope for dissent, and people are entitled to disagree with the decisions of the government and register their discontent through protest. The farmers’ protest, the CAA-NRC protest, and the protests against the Hijab ban are examples of the robustness of the system. The Muslim women’s led protests and the filling of the petition in the Supreme Court of India describe that Indian women enjoy agency to challenge any kind of imposition. The Indian Supreme Court is currently deliberating on the issue of hijab and will certainly deliver a reasonable judgement vindictive of women’s empowerment. One of the judges has highlighted that it is a matter of choice falling under the purview of articles 14 and 19 of the Indian Constitution and any kind of intervention should not impinge on basic rights like the right to education.
It is necessary to recognise the rights and freedoms of women who face countless challenges on a daily basis, and attempts should be made to listen to them. How they want to define themselves should be respected, and institutions should respect these ideas. The Iran episode has shown us that Indian women enjoy better democratic rights, freedom and equality. They have the right to dissent and rule of law is absolute in India which is often strengthened by the impartial rulings of the higher judiciary. Without falling for the protest culture, lets repose our faith in the Indian judiciary.
