Ramakrishna Ashram supports lawyer representing Muslim students in hijab row
The Ramakrishna Ashram in Karwar has slammed the hijab controversy raging in Karnataka’s educational institutions as “unnecessary and not in the interest of peace and harmony”. They also came out in support of the senior advocate Devadatt Kamat who has been targeted by right-wing groups for representing Muslim students in the case.
The lawyer had been attacked for citing Islamic scriptures to defend the Muslim students, who have filed a petition in the Karnataka high court, to fight for their right to wear hijabs in schools and colleges.
The ashram’s top priest Swami Bhaveshanand said in a statement that there is an “unnecessary” discussion going on about the dress code of Muslim girls in schools/colleges. And that he is “pained” to see this “raging controversy” being waged at different levels of the society.
“This is certainly not in good taste, and, in the interest of peace and harmony in the society,” said Swami Bhaveshanand. But what pained him more was how the name of Devadatt Kamat, a senior advocate in the Supreme Court, is being dragged into this controversy simply because he represented a party in the court as an advocate.
The lawyer is being attacked fpr supporting a cause against the Hindu religion because he represented the Muslim students in court. This perception, according to the Swami is absolutely “uncalled for and baseless”.
Also read: Viral video shows students offering namaz in class in Dakshina Kannada district
A lawyer representing a client in the court is doing his professional duty and fulfilling a responsibility. “It cannot be branded as a cause against the Hindu religion,” added Swami Bhaveshanand.
The advocate’s antecedents were devout followers of Ramakrishna Vivekanand philosophy, he said terming the attacks on Kamat as “unjustified and orchestrated baseless propaganda” perpetrated by some “unscrupulous elements”.
On Thursday (February 13), Kamat had argued in front of the three judge bench of the Karnataka high court that religious headscarves were part of the culture of Muslim students and this right cannot be impinged upon.
But on February 5, the Karnataka government passed an order exercising its powers under Section 133(2) of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983, which allows the state to issue directives for government educational institutions to follow. In 2013, under this provision, the state had issued a directive making uniforms compulsory for education institutions.
Referring to this 2013 directive, the latest directive specifies that a headscarf is not part of the uniform and is not an essential religious practice for Muslims that can be protected under the Constitution. The order cites three different high court judgements to hold that banning the headscarf is not violative of fundamental rights, particularly freedom of religion.
But Kamat had argued that a person’s fundamental right is held hostage by the college development committee. The government order (GO) says the prohibition of headscarves is not a violation of Article 25 but the GO is not as innocuous as the state government says it is, pointed out Kamat.
He also cited verses from the Quran which said that it was obligatory for the girls to cover their heads before anyone other than close family members.
The hijab controversy broke out in Karnataka in late December when a group of Muslim students belonging to a government college in Udupi protested over not being able to wear the hijab. There were counter protests by other students who started to wear saffron scarves and the row snowballed into a major controversy as incidents of violence started to emerge in certain areas in the state. This led to the state government quickly shutting down high schools till Monday (February 14) and colleges till Wednesday (February 16).
