I wrote an article yesterday rebutting Omar Abdullah’s charge that the Kashmir Files is full of lies and noted that I was expecting these type of reactions from the ‘Liberals’ ‘Secularists ‘. I expected nothing less. First deny the facts, then abuse.
The same thing I have been expecting from these Learned Liberals on the Hijab Row. But what is unique in this case is, the secularists have gone to the extent of advising the high court how they should decide a case. The court is expected to have ‘Empathy’.
The court is expected to reasonably accommodate! ‘Between ‘reasonable accommodation’ and ‘reasonable restriction’ on the hijab,the court ordered the latter. That’s a travesty, because the Constitution-makers envisaged primacy for individual liberty and rights, above the rights of the State to curb them. The court may have sufficient ground to say that wearing of the hijab is not an essential religious practice. Indeed, even if it were, it should be measured against the touchstone of constitutionality.’
What nonsense. If Courts were to have empathy, what are laws for? Where was this empathy factor when the courts said it can not order for a judicial probe into Kashmir Pandits killing and Exodus?
These students, that a group, have suddenly decided to wear hijab,all together, on one fine day! Coincidence! Why the writer has not noticed the court’s observation about ‘ Hidden Hands’?
Writer of this master piece on Empathy is Sri. Arvind Narrain.( Spelling not mine) It is not irony.More Loyal than the King.
The High Court of Karnataka has delivered a judgement in Resham vs State of Karnataka that is singularly lacking in empathy. The petitioners before the court included the young Muslim women from a government PU college in Udupi who had been arbitrarily shut out of their own college by their own teachers in a video witnessed by people around the world. However, the court delivered a judgement of cold-blooded legalism that, without a word of commiseration for their suffering, went on to snuff out the rights of the young people before it to privacy, dignity, religious expression and, most fundamentally of all, to education…….This was not a dispute that involved balancing the rights of the individual over the rights of the community, as the court would have us believe. There was no young Muslim woman before the court asserting that she wanted to attend college without the hijab but was prevented from doing so. In the absence of any factual dispute between the individual right to expression against a community norm of wearing the hijab, the Government of Karnataka, in a duplicitous act of benevolent patriarchy, claimed to represent the concerns of Muslim women who don’t want to wear the hijab. The court sanctified this claim.Hijab row verdict: A grave constitutional wrong
The Karnataka High Court’s judgement on the petition by some Muslim girl students on the hijab issue is flawed and disappointing. Most of the issues the court deems to have settled need to be reviewed at the highest judicial level. Instead of settling the issues, the judgement has raised more questions. Between ‘reasonable accommodation’ and ‘reasonable restriction’ on the hijab, the court ordered the latter. That’s a travesty, because the Constitution-makers envisaged primacy for individual liberty and rights, above the rights of the State to curb them. The court may have sufficient ground to say that wearing of the hijab is not an essential religious practice. Indeed, even if it were, it should be measured against the touchstone of constitutionality. But the Constitution does grant all the relevant rights that are enough to accommodate a headscarf in an institutional uniform – the right to religious freedom and practices, the right to freedom of expression, the right to privacy, the right to education. It is only by a very restrictive interpretation of these rights that ‘reasonable accommodation’ could have been denied. Hijab verdict: ‘Reasonable accommodation’ lost out to ‘reasonable restriction’
The Karnataka High Court has suggested the possibility of some ‘unseen hands’ behind the hijab row to engineer social unrest and disharmony. The court also expressed dismay over the issue being blown out of proportion.Karnataka High Court says unseen hands at work to engineer social unrest and disharmony