The Karnataka High Court upheld the ban on wearing of the hijab in classrooms, a ruling that could drastically fuel the ongoing marginalization of the minority community. The question therefore arises how far is the judgment, or for that matter the ban on the hijab, free from the fallacies.

The recent Hijab controversy, as you may call it, is not just about ‘

 of the Indian Constitution, it is explicitly stated that “

all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right to freely practice, profess and propagate religion, subject to public order, morality and health

”. Apart from being a democracy, India has always boasted about being a flag bearer of a unique form of positive secularism which remains very different from the 

 (the separation of the Church and State). With the increasing intolerance in the Indian society, a piece of clothing of the Muslim woman has invoked hatred and led to a nationwide debate. 

When all other religious symbols are allowed in the public spaces, why is it that

 has always been a target of this increasingly polarized society, they are often portrayed as ‘‘

’’, which often evokes vitriolic reactions against both 

. Such images of Muslim women as victims are also common in popular contemporary discourse in India. Colonialists describe her as exotic and sensuous, the proto-feminist pities her and wants to rescue her from her ‘

’ locked up in her cage waiting to be rescued by whoever was narrating her story be it the 

’ who is seldom asked about her own views but who is often judged. Thus divorcing the individual agency of their appearance and their religious practices, so as to discredit their views and create a discourse that establishes Muslim men as “

“. Hate, bigotry and apartheid are evident here.

The fact that the upholder of the fundamental rights —the state high court — has also upheld the ban has brought into light the many fallacies of the ban.

The court has passed the judgment that ‘

‘, but the statement itself has many fallacies. Let’s for the sake of argument say that hijab is not an integral part of Islam, but does the constitution specifically say that only ‘essential’ practices of any religion will be allowed? The court being the upholder of the constitution made an unconstitutional statement making it 

The state of Karnataka argues about uniformity in the dress in schools and colleges. The fact that they are going against the very context of India’s republican history and is trying to invoke a larger principle, the principle of uniformity built into the French construction of secularism, 

 – a negative form of secularism – is t

The Hijab-proscribing schools and colleges as well as government institutions have always made at least one sartorial exception based on religious grounds – the 

 that the Sikh boys and men wear. In fact, the Sikh turban has been allowed worldwide in global institutions and even in various armies across the world. It has in fact, challenged the shibboleths of laïcité globally. Therefore, the discriminatory practice where Patkas and turbans will be allowed but hijab remains banned becomes 

The discourse around the Hijab ban has raised concerns that the Hijab may not be a conscious choice of Muslim women who are far from ‘

‘. But this argument again completely ignores the fact that the right to Hijab is simply an extension of the right to bodily autonomy and reduces modernity to mere clothing. Also, the argument that the choice of a woman to expose her body is somehow considered inherently more independent and more ‘modern’ than her choice to cover it up is 

Hijab is not an essential religious practice

‘ remains very contested and debated, as what are the grounds on which this has been established? If it is being said on the fact that many 

 choose not to wear it, doesn’t mean it isn’t an essential practice. Let’s take an example of ‘Patkas’, many Sikh men choose not to wear it but it didn’t become a reason to prevent others from wearing it. There are married Hindu women who choose not to wear ‘

‘ but those who do haven’t been singled out for it nor have been targeted. But when Hijab is banned by a state and the High court upholds the ban, the bigotry of the government and the compromised state of the judiciary is out in the open for everyone to see.

On one hand the apex court cancels the blanket ban on something as trivial as firecrackers for 

 celebrations, but on the other hand a major religious practice followed by a large number of Muslim woman throughout the world faces a ban in a state in India. The country which has time and again allowed all sorts of religious symbols in public spaces, apex courts and even in the Parliament suddenly has a problem with Hijab.

This sudden vitriolic reaction towards Hijab therefore makes it very evident that it isn’t about Hijab but is a clear 

 one that intends to further marginalize an already vulnerable group.

The Fallacies of the Hijab Ban

The elections are approaching, and our country is sinking deeper into the swamp of hatred and communalism. Since the conference in Haridwar, where hundreds of Hindu religious leaders and political activists clad in saffron robes took an oath to turn India into a Hindu nation, there has been havoc in the entire nation. In the wake of the growing culture of hate and bigotry the question arises, how far does India do justice to the new sobriquet coined by PM Modi for India i.e., “the mother of all democracies”? Sadly, India is far from being a democracy. So what has India become?

 isn’t the most terrifying thing about contemporary India, but it is the formalizing and rationalizing of these actions and the total passivity on the part of law and order machinery in the face of such threats. India has long been flirting with the global swing towards the authoritarian-right and in recent years went a step ahead, innovating ways to make it a reality. The culture of impunity for peddling hate and India’s tryst with modern majoritarianism is nothing but a death knell for its minorities.

Modern majoritarianism is not covert; it is explicit and performative. It singles out a particular community, demonizes it as an alien, and then publicly makes an example of it. Majoritarianism follows the same precedent globally and can be seen in 

 of Muslims. There’s a brotherhood in bigotry and has nothing to do with reasons or logic; the only requirement is the existence of a minority, to hate.

Now, the question arises, is it a recent trend? Well, the answer to this is an unequivocal ‘

‘. The liberal elite is wrong to find themselves surprised at these ‘

‘ increase in hatred and at the change in the ideology of the majority. This change is not an overnight one, but has its roots in the networks of 

 that were constructed silently and efficiently for over a century now. It is the result of decades of dehumanization of Muslims by the biased police, who worked hard to paint a picture in the minds of the majority that Muslims are criminals and they need to be disciplined.

 remain behind bars for their speeches, one advocating 

 ways of protest and the latter calling for a 

, the shooter who opened fire in front of 

 and also openly called for the abduction of Muslim women, is out on bail. 

 and also called for genocide didn’t face any charges; whilst on the other hand, student activists such as 

, despite the absence of evidence against him, remains behind the bars under the charges of the draconian 

 campaign tactics have long focused on portraying Muslims as a threat to the future of Hindus and by extension to the nation, forcing Muslims to prove their patriotism. Muslims are not only being discriminated against, attacked violently and denied justice but are also continually being reduced to second class citizens. The prominent rise in religiously inspired nationalism and the growing hatred among the masses have led to a significant rise in 

 of the State. This is a dangerous trend which would lead to further ghettoization, disenfranchisement and marginalization of the minority community, creating fissures in the secular fabric of India and thereby leading to the establishment of a blood-thirsty majoritarian state.

It is just a matter of time when India’s majority community will see hundreds of 

 the German physicist who was distraught and helpless when his close Jewish friend and co-worker of three decades, 

 through the Netherlands. There will be hundreds like Otto Hahn, who will witness their friends and neighbours being prosecuted in front of their eyes. History will not be kind to all these people, as they will become enablers of this new Nazi state, they will become the facilitators of a massive genocide that is yet to come.

If there was ever a moment for India’s Opposition and its citizens to rally against this culture of hate, it is now. It becomes the responsibility of the majority to be an ally of the minority and raise their voices against the forces of hate and bigotry. It becomes their responsibility to assert and express that there’s no place for hatred and Islamophobia in India; only then can we achieve the idea of India which stood for democracy, co-existence and love.

A Death Knell for This Democracy

In recent times, the debate around nationalism and the question “Who is an anti-national?” has taken a centre-stage and the edifice of secularism is increasingly under strain from the extreme right. Therefore the debate is more firmly entrenched in popular cultural practices and cinema is one of them. Incidentally, the debate around nationalism and the present political atmosphere of the country has made Indian cinema develop an absurd and never-ending love affair with Islamophobia. Indian cinema, through ‘Sooryavanshi’, has achieved new heights of their love affair with Islamophobia.

Sooryavanshi is yet another Bollywood masala movie and is the latest in a long line of movies (Sarfarosh, Roja, Mission Kashmir) creating a narrative around ‘good Muslim’ and ‘bad Muslim’. It has a cliched storyline with a glorified Hindu police officer against a visibly ‘Muslim terrorist’. The movie also has a token Muslim police officer who is often a mute spectator and is used as an example of ‘good Muslim’ by Akshay Kumar’s protagonist. The movie has a collection of overused Islamic symbols on screen: the skull cap, the Azaan, the mosque and so on. There is a constant narrative of Muslims being appealed to and pleaded with to ‘not fall prey to religious discourse’ and ‘think rationally for the country’s good’ because, of course, they will side with religion and in extension with ‘terrorism’ unless a patriotic police officer doesn’t come and appeal to them.

The film also incorporates the dangerous “love jihad” conspiracy, which paints Muslim men as con-men who seduce or kidnap Hindu women or girls and convert them to Islam and later kill them in the name of ‘jihad’. Just when you think it couldn’t be more nauseating, a dialogue in the movie goes, “Jitni nafrat Kasab ke liye utni izzat Kalam ke liye” thus further emphasizing on the ‘good Muslim – bad Muslim’ narrative.

But it doesn’t end here, very much like the present scenarios where Muslim organizations are being hounded by the government, the film also goes on to show a Muslim scholar and priest who runs an organization as the mastermind of a terrorist network that receives funding from Pakistan. Despite such cliched storyline the movie has proved to be a blockbuster at the box-office and rightly so, because that’s what sells in today’s India. What is interesting to note is, Rohit Shetty’s unapologetic statement about the portrayal of Muslims. He is aware of what sells and is more into pleasing his audience than being honest.

The filmmakers of ‘Sooryavanshi’ don’t care about the implications of such nationalist hyperbole in popular cinema. They conveniently ignore that such portrayals lead to unabashed association of Muslims with violence and terror. It also indicates a collective suggestion of the community as a willing accomplice in terror and anti-national activities. It further places the Muslim community as either good or bad and aids in the vilification of a religion instead of terrorist acts.

However, the entire credit of increasing Islamophobia cannot be given to ‘Sooryavanshi’. Bollywood is often used as a tool to dehumanize religious minorities so as to prevent them from the offense of being public with their faith. Indian cinema is therefore often involved in stereotyping the minorities.

Muslims are shown as kohl-eyed, bearded and with skull-caps who are often terrorists and traitors. Or are portrayed as vicious rulers, invaders, and bigots with beast-like personalities who don’t know how to eat (read Ranveer Singh as 

). Muslim women on the other hand are seen as a tawaif (

” who is often oppressed and waiting to be rescued (

). Christian woman are portrayed invariably as non-virgins (

), drunkards (Julie, Bobby, Amar Akbar Anthony, David) and as smoky, weird-accented vicious villains (Robert, Peter, and various bosses of the ’70s films). The Parsis are eccentrics and speakers of absurdly-accented Hindi.

The connection between politics and cinema has been implicit yet intimate. Films have often served as a tool of propaganda given their unique appeal to the masses. Creating such imperfect narratives around characters belonging to a minority has far-reaching implications on the Indian society. Therefore, the Indian cinema has portrayed an image of a ‘

r’ for decades. Bollywood has been working on the psychological aspect of the masses through its conscious and unconscious biases by portraying Muslims as terrorists, invaders and villains that are killed by heroes in the end.

Unlike other art forms, cinema possesses a sense of immediacy and is capable of creating the illusion of reality while having the power to shape people’s perception of reality. They also possess the power of knowledge generation when it comes to depicting unknown cultures, places or histories. However, Indian cinema hardly accommodates Muslim narrative with honesty and proper research in place. With the entrenchment of 

, Bollywood seems to work towards constantly dehumanizing and othering Muslims. It perpetuates prejudices, stigma, and myths supported by the masses. Their attachment to culture, history, and politics is not portrayed by the mainstream cinema but instead, it focuses on crowd-pleasing content that appeases the contemporary majority.

The Habit of ‘Othering’ of Muslims in the Indian Cinema

Urdu, a language of the elite and the masses alike, a language that was once shaped by the poets and the peasants has now been alienated in its own homeland. Urdu now witnesses a sudden disavowal of a shared history and is pushed to the margins so much so that the language needs to prove its Indian-ness to be accepted. This time it is an advertisement which has led Urdu to face the wrath of hate, bigotry and ignorance.

                       Un shahron mein aaj Urdu be-naam-o nashaan thahri

                                    Aazaadi-e kaamil ka ailaan hua jis din

                            Ma’atoob zabaan thahri, ghaddar zabaan thahrI

The same cities where once Ghalib’s voice resounded

                          Have now disavowed Urdu, made it homeless

                           The day that announced the arrival of freedom

                   Also declared Urdu a cursed and treacherous language

                                              Sahir Ludhianvi

, has become homeless in its birthplace itself. The recent row over 

‘ (literally means celebration of traditions) for its Diwali collection led FabIndia to withdraw the ad.

’ ad. The antagonism against Urdu also led the 

 to call it an alien language and pointed out the use of Urdu, to describe Diwali, as a step towards ‘

‘. However, the ill-intentioned and ill-informed leader sadly didn’t have the right knowledge to understand the Indian-ness of the Urdu language. He would be surprised and even saddened to know that even his mother tongue 

 influence and therefore is very similar to Urdu.

Hindavi, Zaban-e-Dehli, Dehlavi, Dakkani, Rekhta

. It developed further as those who spoke Persian, 

This mixed language travelled out of Delhi with the movement of people as a result of the expanding sultanate. The language of Delhi reached 

 shifted his capital along with the entire population of Delhi to 

 made it their official language. It was in Daulatabad, 

 and their surrounding regions that Hindavi mixed with Marathi, Kannada and Telugu and their sister languages – eventually identified as 

In the 18th century, Dakkani travelled back to Delhi to evolve into Rekhta to become the language of poetry, while Hindi became the language of prose. However, Hindi was also written in the Persian script, just as 

 language but the script remained Persian.

The creation of two separate scripts (Devanagari and Persian) for the same language and instructing employees to use a particular script was part of the British’s divisive scheme. This policy was first put in place at 

 in the early 19th century. It was this scheme that created the fertile ground on which hate and bigotry against Urdu took their roots and birthed the strange idea of equating Urdu with Muslims.

Therefore Urdu, the language of Delhi, bifurcated into Hindi and Urdu. Thanks to the British instigation and the short-sightedness of petty politicians that Urdu was banished from the city itself after independence.

When the majority equates Urdu with Muslims, I say we both face the same fate in today’s India. Be it Muslims or the Urdu language, we both have become passengers of a ‘

‘. Where Muslims have to prove their patriotism, Urdu also has to prove its Indian-ness. Be it Muslims or the Urdu language, we have both become an alien in our homeland. Therefore, the state of Urdu can be aptly described by the following lines from an unpublished 

                       Bahut samhje the ham is daur ki firqa-parasti ko

                  Zubaan bhi aaj shaikh-o-barhaman hai ham nahin samjhe

                                Agar Urdu pe bhi ilzaam hai baahar se aane ka 

                       To phir hinduustaan kis ka vatan hai ham nahin samjhe

Articles by Sadaf Jawed

The Fallacies of the Hijab Ban

A Death Knell for This Democracy

The Habit of ‘Othering’ of Muslims in the Indian Cinema

Urdu – An Alien In India?

The Fallacies of the Hijab Ban

A Death Knell for This Democracy

The Habit of ‘Othering’ of Muslims in the Indian Cinema

Urdu – An Alien In India?