Alright! Time for a controversial thread. Recently #KarnatakaHighCourt released its verdict about the #HijabBan & the status was the ban should persist. What does it really stand for?
I have an anecdote. I don't know which class, but I distinctly remember an illustrative depiction of a conversation between a Sikh & a common man.
Sikh wasn't wearing a helmet & the common man asked why? Wouldn't you be charged? Sikh said as he was wearing a turban, he could not be charged.
Cool story, but what does it mean? Well, in the context of the #HijabVerdict, the statement goes as follows “Hijab is not essential to Islam." But according to my understanding, a turban is an essential part of Sikhism.
Alright! No issues till now. Hijabs are banned as they are not essential. Turbans are allowed as they are an important part of the religion. But why were the Hijabs banned?
It's too ambiguous. But this is what I understand; Hijabs violate the integrity of the public law & the uniformity of the uniforms. What is that supposed to mean?
So Turbans, Tilaks, etc. don't? Also, as in the case of the anecdote about the convo b/w the Sikh & the common man, is religion important that public & personal safety?
I am no one to decide what to wear, what to ban, & what violates public law & safety... But, this religious segregation when the same can be said for other groups where the laws aren't enforced doesn't make any sense.
This might be controversial, but according to *me*, either complete freedom to wear with distinct identification methods to really protect public interest should be the key or the implementation of the #UniformCivilCode be of paramount importance.
But here's the thing. Are you really free under the #UniformCivilCode?
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
