Read Time: 09 minutes
The Counsel, however, did accept that what Aurangzeb did was wrong, and should be condemned, but believes that Akbar shouldn't be kept out of the purview. He asked the Court to take note of the ‘major historical developments’ that took place during Akbar’s reign. And how sufism, Surdas', Kalidas' contribution was at its peak, while the region was otherwise hijacked by Brahmins.
Today marks the 7th day of the Hijab hearings in the Supreme Court, and each day is witnessing a different tangent from which a 'hijab' should be allowed. A Bench of Justice Hemant Gupta and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia was hearing the matter. The arguments that originally started (on Day 1) with establishing ‘hijab’ as an essential religious practice, then moved in the direction of interpreting the Quran in the right sense (which is believed, that the author erred in originally), to establishing it as a right to dignity, to profess and propagate religion, as an instrument of protecting the modesty, and then as a practice to express one’s individualistic faith and belief. The line of argument then further went for ‘hijab’ to still be allowed, even if not an ‘essential religious practice’, considering one’s own choice and it being a ‘religious practice’. Here the sudden drop of ‘essential’ from the baseline is to be kept an account of.
Senior Advocate, Dushyant Dave, as had mentioned, took over post lunch and continued till the Bench rose for the day. He will continue with his arguments tomorrow as well. A series of Constituent Assembly Debates were read out before the Court, today.
The initial opening argument stated that the uniform is not even a question here, while the question actually is, that they were wearing something ‘extra’, apart from the uniform. It was strongly highlighted that India saw many outsiders in the country, who came, conquered and even settled in the country. And that we were resilient enough to accept the varied cultures and traditions that the different communities brought along, then should ordinarily as a practice not object to the subject (hijab) now. Hinduism was set as an example, which accepted Jains, Buddhists, even after being the oldest of the religions.
He then went ahead stating that, Islam could never really conquer us, apart from Aurangzeb. And that we only look at him, while we draw a parallel. Although he did accept that what Aurangzeb did was wrong, and should be condemned, but believes that Akbar shouldn't be kept out of the purview. He asked the Court to take note of the ‘major historical developments’ that took place during Akbar’s reign. And how Sufism, Surdas’, Kalidas’ contribution was at its peak, while the region was otherwise hijacked by brahmins.
Dave, in line of love-jihad, then glorified Akbar’s marriage with Jodha, for consolidation with the Rajputs, where he still allowed all the women to worship their deities, as they were Krishna Bhakts. While on the other hand during the period when Ashoka ruled, it was only after killing 50000 brahmins, people started to embrace Buddhism and accepted it.
Accentuating the 5000 years liberalisation period, he further stated that “there have been more than 10000 suicide bombings in the world but only 1 in India, Pulwama, that is something to be considered”.
He further stated that ‘the minority has placed their existence in the hands of the majority’, and that ‘minorities can be an explosive force which if erupts can destroy the social fabric’.
Jerusalem was referred to, stating how it is extremely orthodox, but that is what they feel and believe in, and there is nothing wrong about it. The effort was made to bring Jerusalem in line with India, and thus asked the Court to follow the pattern.
Subsequently ISKCON’s ‘beautiful’ propagation of the religion was referred to, to buy the context from.
However, the most interesting submission was when the Senior Advocate referred the Court with a phrase, “tum he ho maata, pita tum he ho, tum he ho bandhu, sakha tum he ho”. Which meant that the Top Court is the only authority who can stand in between such executive orders (referring to the original GO prohibiting hijab in schools). And in the proceeding arguments, the Counsels and Dushyant Dave himself, contended that the Court is neither eligible nor competent to interpret the scriptures, and thus the matter.
With the eyes set for tomorrow, and Aurangzeb, Akbar and the likes to be inferred from and referred to, what will be the arguments tomorrow? What more lies ahead? Tomorrow will be a slightly better day, to answer.
Please Login or Register
