Pallu and hijab are same, they are part of India's culture and history: K'taka JDS Chief CM Ibrahim
Bengaluru, Sep 20: Karnataka JD(S) President C M Ibrahim on Tuesday drew comparisons between 'pallu' (loose end of a sari, worn over one's shoulder or head by women) and the hijab and said they are part of India's culture and history.
He said pallu was part of former Prime Minister Indira Gandhi's attire and is now also worn by the President of India.
"Hijab is pallu on the head, some call it hijab and some call it pallu. In Rajasthan, Rajput women don't show their face and they cover it with ghunghat, will a law be brought against it? will those women be declared as Muslim?" Ibrahim said in response to a question.
Speaking to reporters here, he said, "there was pallu on Indira Gandhi's head, there is pallu on the head of the President of India. Is the ghunghat on their head a PFI conspiracy? Having a pallu on the head is the culture of India, history of India."
"It (pallu) was on Kitturu Rani Chennamma's head, whether you call it hijab or pallu, it is the same. Some say 'paani' in Hindi, while others call it water in English...but water is water. Names change according to a language, why do you give it a religious angle?" he asked.
The former Union Minister was reacting to BJP national General Secretary C T Ravi's tweet on the picture of Congress leader Rahul Gandhi walking with a hijab clad young girl and accusing him of "glorifying hijab".
"From patronising a controversial Christian Pastor to glorifying the Hijab, Congress co-owner Rahul Gandhi is doing everything to prove that he and his party survive on "appeasement politics". Bharat Jodo Yatra is nothing but a COMMUNAL YATRA to save the sinking "Fake Gandhis," Ravi tweeted.
Ibrahim's comments came on the day, when Karnataka government told the Supreme Court that its order that kicked up a row over hijab was "religion neutral", launching a strong defence of the state and blaming the PFI for the controversy it claimed was part of a "larger conspiracy".
Insisting that the agitation in support of wearing hijab in educational institutions was not a "spontaneous act" by a few individuals, it said the state government would have been "guilty of dereliction of constitutional duty" if it had not acted the way it did.
The state government had, by its order of February 5, 2022, banned wearing clothes that disturb equality, integrity, and public order in schools and colleges. The order was challenged by some Muslim girls in the high court. It had also led to widespread protests across the state.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
CJI's advice to aspirant: Join the bar, become a lawyer, don't hanker for judicial services post
New Delhi (PTI): She came to the Supreme Court seeking a re-evaluation of her paper in the examination for joining judicial services as a magistrate. What she got instead was a rejection — and a candid confession by the Chief Justice that he too had wanted to join the judicial services in his youth but was advised by a senior judge to become a lawyer instead.
A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi on Friday dismissed a plea filed by Prerna Gupta, the judicial services aspirant.
As Gupta pressed her case, the CJI intervened and said, "Let me share my personal story and I hope you will go happily as we cannot allow your petition."
He recounted his time as a final-year law student in 1984 when he wanted to become a judicial officer. As per requirement, he cleared the written test and was set to appear for an interview.
Judicial services is one of the two routes to become a judge after initially joining as a magistrate in lower court and thereafter rising through the ranks to become judge in a high court and possibly the Supreme Court.
The other route is to join the Bar, which means becoming a lawyer, and after building a reputation be picked from the Bar to become a judge at a senior level.
By the time the CJI's exam results came out, he had started practising at the Punjab and Haryana High Court when he was called for the interview.
The senior-most judge on the interview panel happened to be a judge before whom he had recently argued two significant matters.
"One of the matters was Sunita Rani vs Baldev Raj, where he had allowed my appeal in a matrimonial case and set aside the decree of divorce granted by the District Judge on the ground of schizophrenia," he noted.
Before the interview could take place, the judge called the young Surya Kant to his chamber and asked, 'Do you want to become a judicial officer?'
"I said 'yes.' He immediately said, 'Get out from (my) the chamber.'"
The courtroom fell silent as the CJI Justice described his initial heartbreak.
“I came out trembling. All my dreams were shattered. I thought he had snubbed me and that my career was over,” the CJI said.
However, the story took another turn the following day and the judge summoned him again, this time offering a piece of advice that would change the trajectory of his life.
“He said, ‘If you want to become (a judge), you are welcome. But my advice is, don’t become a judicial officer. The Bar is waiting for you,’” Justice Surya Kant recalled.
The CJI said he decided to skip his interview and didn't even tell his parents at first, fearing their disappointment, and instead chose to dedicate himself to his practice as an advocate.
“Now tell me did I make a bad right or bad decision,” the CJI asked and the litigant lawyer left the court with a smile on her face despite her case being dismissed.
Encouraging the petitioner to look toward the future rather than dwelling on the re-evaluation of a single paper, Justice Surya Kant said, "The Bar has much to offer."
