The Karnataka High Court’s decision in the hijab matter has garnered widespread attention from all segments of society. However, the left-liberal cabal appears to be shattered by the discernment of a court of law ruling in a secular spirit. The prohibition of hijab in educational institutions not only protects the equality of status of students learning in schools and colleges but also reinforces the legitimate point of reasonable restrictions on Fundamental Rights under the constitution.
Swara Bhaskar, the “acclaimed” actor and “heralded” human rights activist, also appears to have booked a ticket in the same train of liberals criticizing and mocking the court’s order. Though her ‘intellectual brilliance’ cannot be questioned, she has often displayed it by exhibiting her low Intelligence Quotient. In a recent tweet, she reaffirmed that the degree of reasoning she employs is unfathomable to anybody other than some of the members of her left-leaning cabal.
In her tweet, she connects hijab restrictions at schools to the chapter in the Indian epic Mahabharata about Eklavya. She intentionally compares the denial of hijab in schools to Eklavya being denied training by Guru Dronacharya. Anyway, it is somewhat nice to know that at least she is reading some scriptures of the Hindu religion against which she never forgets to speak. However, her comparison and her understanding are completely dumbfounded in this case.
Eklavya was not denied training for any reason in particular. Dronacharya had his own reasons for refusing to teach him, or rather, for refusing to instruct anybody other than the Kauravas and Pandavas. Eklavya, as is well known, was a prince of the Nishada kingdom and he could not get trained by Dronacharya due to Dronacharya’s commitment to his kingdom, which made him duty-bound and loyal only to the Kauravas and Pandavas. It was in the best interests of his kingdom not to train anybody other than his princes.
Also, Eklavya learned archery in his own way, given the conditions of the time. When he encountered Dronacharya, he even paid the Gurudakshina (fees). Eklavya was a person of conscience who chose education and did not protest by holding placards on the side of the road. There is no comparison between the restriction on hijab in educational institutes and the refusal of Dronacharya to teach Eklavya archery. In fact, as the left keeps on harping about preserving individual rights, Dronacharya was well within his rights to refuse to teach Eklavya the art of archery. By drawing false equivalences, Swara is deviously trying to buttress her untenable argument that girls in institutes across Karnataka are denied education.
Drawing absurd parallelism and then exploiting them is the modus operandi of the global left-liberal ecosystem. The outpouring of rage in response to the hijab ruling, as well as the attempt to portray it as selective targeting of Muslim girls and women, are all a part of the same strategy—to mainstream Islamism and push towards a Sharia-compliant society. When the society revolts against such perverse practices, the left resorts to McCarthyism, which entails drawing false equivalences and using false allegations so that critics can be cowed into silence, if not obedience.
This is not the first time that Swara has resorted to drawing false parallels. She’s done it several times and at regular intervals. Her dedication to defaming Hindus has been highlighted several times in the past. One such instance can be referenced when, in 2021, she propagated fake news by labelling a criminal suspect as a Hindu and defaming the Hindu faith. She said that the perpetrator of the incident yelled Jai Shree Ram while perpetuating the offence, demonstrating Hindus’ intolerance. However, no footage of the incident was found, and the Uttar Pradesh government even filed a complaint against certain people for spreading misinformation. Swara, thankfully, was not mentioned in the FIR, but her role is clearly documented.
The haranguing following the hijab verdict is predicated on similar lines, with the whole left-Islamist ecology congregating and labelling this verdict as majoritarian and religiously particular. They even refuse to recognize the most fundamental fact that this judgment is made by a court of law, not by any other authority. These people are now claiming that they have lost trust in the country’s courts. Interestingly, just as the rubber on a slingshot returns to its original place after stretching, their trust in the judiciary returns immediately when a verdict favours their agenda. This is the same gang that expresses trust in the system when a member of their cadre is acquitted or given bail but rejects any legal ruling that contradicts their divisive and bigoted intentions.
The court has in the first place clarified that after hearing all the parties, it has come to the conclusion that hijab is not an essential practice in Islam and a school uniform is a reasonable restriction on the fundamental rights under the constitution. The court has nowhere stated or mentioned to deny education to any student for any reason. The order just made the point that one must adhere to the rules and regulations of an educational institution.
Surprisingly, if an issue falls on the left side of the court, the entire theatrics and chest-thumping around secularism subside. A nation-state is supposed to be secular at all times, but when it comes to specific goals that fit the leftist-Islamist agenda, the state should strip off its secular cloak.
Whatever the clamor, a sovereign, and secular state is not supposed to accept the view of a group of people comprised of persons like Swara Bhaskar, whose convictions are coloured by the Islamist ideology. Neither is the state bound to adopt Islamic principles. And, if one wants to wear a burqa or a hijab, a madrassa, which receives substantial funding from the public exchequer in the name of minority education, can be a viable option. Muslim girls and women who insist on wearing hijab/burqa can enrol themselves to madrassas or other Islamic seminaries where wearing a veil is not barred.
In fact, in solidarity with the Islamists who are bent on wearing hijab, even at the expense of forgoing education, Swara Bhaskar can perhaps don a burqa and walk to the local madrassa, in support of a deeply regressive practice and a symbol of sexist patriarchal oppression.