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.
Questioning religious practices will break religion, civilisation: SC in Dawoodi Bohras case
New Delhi (PTI): The Supreme Court on Thursday remarked that if individuals start questioning certain religious practices or matters of religion before a constitutional court then there will be hundreds of petitions questioning different rituals, leading to the breaking of religions and the civilisation.
The nine-judge Constitution bench is hearing petitions related to discrimination against women at religious places, including the Sabarimala temple in Kerala, and on the ambit and scope of the religious freedom practised by multiple faiths, including Dawoodi Bohras.
The bench comprises Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justices B V Nagarathna, M M Sundresh, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Aravind Kumar, Augustine George Masih, Prasanna B Varale, R Mahadevan and Joymalya Bagchi.
The Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community filed a PIL in 1986 seeking the setting aside of a 1962 judgment, which had struck down the Bombay Prevention of Excommunication Act, 1949 -- this law made excommunication of any community member illegal.
The 1962 Constitution bench judgment said, "It is evident from the religious faith and tenets of the Dawoodi Bohra community that the exercise of the power of excommunication by its religious head on religious grounds formed part of the management of its affairs in matters of religion and the 1949 Act in making even such excommunication invalid, infringed the right of the community under Article 26(b) of the Constitution."
Senior advocate Raju Ramachandran, representing a group of reformist Dawoodi Bohras, submitted that a practice which is conducted in response to secular and social actions of an individual cannot be the subject of Constitutional protection under Article 25 of the Constitution and consequently cannot be a ‘matter of religion’ under Article 26 of the Constitution.
Ramachandran told the court that a practice which may have a religious aspect but also significantly and adversely impacts fundamental rights is not immune to restriction under Article 25 of the Constitution or Article 26 of the Constitution.
Responding to the submission, Justice Nagarathna said that if everybody starts questioning certain religious practices or matters of religion before a constitutional court, then "what happens to this civilisation where religion is so intimately connected with the Indian society".
"There will be hundreds of petitions questioning this right that right, opening of the temple, and the closure of the temple. We are conscious of this," she said.
Adding to the response, Justice Sundresh said, "Every religion will break and every constitutional court will have to be closed.
"If the dispute between two entities are allowed then everybody will question everything. In your case there may be a civil wrong committed to you but in another case, another member will say I don't agree. It is regressive. To what extent can we go in a country like ours which is progressive and on the move is the question," he said.
Justice Nagarathna went on that what sets apart India from any other region is that "we are a civilisation" despite having so many pluralities and diversities?
Asserting that diversity is the country's strength, she added, "One of the constants in our Indian society is the relationship of human beings -- man, woman and child -- with the religion."
"Now, how a religious practice or a matter of religion is questioned, where it is questioned, whether it can be questioned, whether it has to be a question within a denomination for a reform or whether the state will have to do or you want the court to adjudicate upon all these aspects. This is troubling us.
"What we lay down, is for a civilisation that is India. India must progress despite all its economy, everything there is a constant in us. We can’t break that constant. That is what is troubling us ," she said.
Ramachandran replied that India is a civilisation under the Constitution and therefore nothing which goes against the grain of constitution can be continued in a civilised society.
He said that's where court's task come in and "it can't throw hands" and say there will be so many petitions.
