Karnataka hijab row: ‘Absurd judges can decide...’ Owaisi's 15-point argument

In a 15-tweet thread Owaisi explained why he believes the verdict is problematic, including what he said was the violation of fundamental rights with regards to practising one's religions.

AIMIM chief Asaduddin Owaisi wrote a long thread on Twitter on Tuesday to express his disappointment over a Karnataka High Court verdict that said 'the hijab is not essential practice in Islam'. Owaisi began the thread by underlining his 'right to disagree' with the ruling and that he hoped appeals would be filed in the Supreme Court not only by Muslim organisations and petitioners but also other religious outfits. The order, he said, violated fundamental rights to freedom of religion, culture, freedom of speech and expression.

AIMIM MP Asaduddin Owaisi. (PTI)

In a 15-tweet thread Owaisi explained why he believes the verdict is problematic, including what he said was the violation of fundamental rights with regards to practising one's religions. "If it is MY belief and faith that covering my head is essential, then I have a right to EXPRESS it as I deem fit. For a devout Muslim, Hijab is also an act of worship," he wrote.

"It’s time to review the essential religious practice test. For a devout person, everything is essential and for an atheist nothing is essential. For a devout Hindu Brahmin, janeu (the sacred thread worn by men) is essential but for a non-Brahmin it may not be," he explained as he questioned 'the absurdity of judges deciding the 'essentiality''.

"Not even other people of the same religion have the right to decide essentiality. It is between the individual and God. State should be allowed to interfere in religious rights only if such acts of worship harm others. Headscarf does not harm anyone," he pointed out.

He also called out what he said were double standards by the government at home and abroad. "When Ireland’s government changed the rules for police uniform to allow (wearing of) hijab and turbans (for Sikhs), the Modi government welcomed it. So why double standards... Hijab and turbans of the (school or college) uniform's colours can be allowed."

He also put forth arguments on the issue of 'uniformity' in schools - the reason cited by the various educational institutions in Karnataka (and as the controversy rumbled on, in other BJP-ruled states) to defend the decision to not let students wear a headscarf in classrooms.

"The excuse being used is that uniform will ensure uniformity. How? Will kids not know who’s from a rich/poor family? Do caste names not denote background?"

"What does the uniform do to prevent teachers from discriminating? Globally the experience has been that reasonable accommodations are made in school, police and army uniforms to reflect diversity."

In conclusion Owaisi wrote of his hopes that the judgment would not be used to 'legitimise harassment of hijab-wearing women', although he indicated he feared otherwise.

"One can only hope and eventually be disappointed when this starts happening to hijab-wearing women in banks, hospitals, public transport, etc."

Earlier today the High Court in its verdict said: "We are of the considered opinion that wearing of a hijab by Muslim women does not form part of the essential religious practice in the Islamic faith... we are of the considered opinion that prescription of a school uniform is only a reasonable restriction, constitutionally permissible, which the students can not object to."