RESTRICTING RELIGIOUS SYMBOL IN EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS

Mustafa Khan,

Integral University, Lucknow

In Indian society religion is very deeply rooted it plays a very important role in every Indian citizen's life and many times religion intersects with education in a manner that sparks debate on many topics and one of these topics which is in trend is about restriction of religious symbol in educational institution. The basic concept behind establishing school uniforms among students is to promote equality and protection against discrimination based on religion, race, caste, and socioeconomic status. Symbols like turban, hijab, or crosses are visible representations of religious identities which become a challenge in balancing religious freedom with the principle of secularism in state-funded educational institutions.  So if we talk about the British raj the East India Company tried to delink religious education from the schools and came in conflict with missionaries and Hindu or Muslim religious leaders. According to Education Despatch 1854 secular education must be provided by schools that receive grants from the state. The question of religious education was hotly debated in the constituent assembly, which resulted in a discussion of Article 28, which restricted state-funded institutions from establishing religious instruction and gave exemptions to a certain type of institution. Article 28 had various debates surrounding it in the constituent assembly on one side there was argument which were against religious instruction at all cost and on the other side wanted institutions to be able to impart such.

Constituent Assembly and committees’ recommendations

Many amendments, particularly those relating to removing the clause ‘maintained out of the state funds’ as a requirement, were made. Argument by Dr B. R. Ambedkar is that the article should not allow other institutions which are not funded by the state to impart religious instructions, on the other side the argument by Sardar Hukum Singh is that the purpose of this article is to not safeguard the state’s funds but to establish the secular spirit of the constitution. Now, if we talk about educational policies and acts, the most preliminary legal discussions around religion in educational spaces post-independence were carried out in 1960 by two Sri Prakasa committee 1959 and the Kothari Commission of 1964(1). The Sri Prakasa Committee proposed “objective, comparative and sympathetic study of all important religions of India” According to the committee dissemination of knowledge of all Indian religions in educational institutes would lead to a better understanding of one’s own faith. The difference between religious education and education about religions was provided by kothari commission in 1964. The Kothari commission report present that owing to the ban placed on religious instruction in schools and the weakening of the home influences which in the past often provided such instructions children are now growing up without any clear idea of their own religion and with no chance of learning about the others.  

Freedom of Religion

Indian secularism is known as positive form of secularism because it treate each and every religion with respect and bound state to protect and provide environment so that citizen can enjoy freedom of religion. But many instances show that government is not protecting minorities of India. As we know the peaceful protest by students and Indians of all faiths against government's discriminatory citizenship law ended up with the 2020 February attack in delhi and after that many illegal detention of students take place by the delhi police. During that protest and after that protest many BJP leaders and supporters blame protesters especially Muslim students of conspiring against national interest. After this peaceful protest that ends up in February a new peaceful protest started by farmers of various faiths for protesting against governments new farm laws in November 2020, this protest also suffer accusations from BJP leaders and their supporters on social media of having a “ khalistani” agenda. Now if we look at the National Education Policy (NEP) of 2019 some of their sections violating the spirit of secularism and one of the section is 4.6.8 titled Ethical and Moral Reasoning which talks about the concept of basic ethical reasoning, traditional Indian values of seva, ahimsa, swacchta, satya, nishkam, karma etc will be inculcated in the stdents. This striking use of sanskrit in expressing some Indian traditional values symbolises inclusion of Hindu, jain, and Buddhist religious traditions, but the same cannot be said for Islamic and Cristian religious traditions as well as the Adivasi. The biasness of NEP is visible in its policies which explicitly exclude Islamic and Cristian traditions from all discussion which also violate the spirit of secularism.

These types of imposition breach Article 19 of the Indian constitution according to which all citizens have the right to freedom of speech and expression.

Hijab ban controversy

On January 1, 2022 some Muslim women students of the government pre-university college Udupi stopped from entering the college premises in hijab and the reason behind this is that college administration were adhering to Karnataka government guidelines after which many other student start protesting with those Muslim students and one 31st January student filed petition at the Karnataka high court challenging the ban after which on February 5th Karnataka government issued an order under Karnataka education act 1983, that order prescribe uniform for all students to wear in the state run educational institution, this order was challenged on 7th February at the Karnataka high court after which the Karnataka high court delivered an interim order reopening the schools and colleges on 10th February.

The 3-judge bench of Karnataka high court on 15th march upheld the hijab ban in the state educational institutions after this All India Muslim Personal Board filed an appeal of Karnataka High Court decision at the Supreme court. The bench of Supreme Court delivered a split verdict upheld the ban stating that it applied equally to students from all religions. We all know that in society children learn about the role of religion not only through formal religious education but also by observing how public school and authorities treating religious expression. Many times, in the absence of religious curriculum the school implicitly convey messages about which religious expressions are acceptable or marginalised. This issue needs serious attention from educators, policymakers, and stakeholders to ensure a fair and thoughtful approach to religious symbols in educational institute.

Important Cases

There have been many cases that used Article 28 for both ways defending their stance or grounds of a decision violating it. The first is D.A.V College Etc vs State of Punjab & Ors, 5th May 1971, which talks about the problems faced by D.A.V College because of its affiliation of it with Punjab University. The college argued its right to preserve Hindu teachings under Article 29 of the Indian constitution and asserted that Hindus are in the minority in Punjab. The college opposed being compelled to incorporate the teaching of guru Nanak in its curriculum as required by Punjab University under the Punjab Reorganisation Act, despite receiving government funding for the college. The college argued that this imposition violated Article 28(1) which restricts religious instruction in institutions wholly funded by the state. The court announced the judgment in favour of D.A.V. College and allowing them to retain their curriculum without adopting Gurmukhi script and Punjabi language. Therefore court permitted continued state aid and affirm college minority rights within the state. The second case is Ms. Aruna Roy 7 Ors v. Union of India & Ors, In this case the National Curriculum Framework for School Education (NCFSE) of 2000 was challenged, NCFSE mandated value education according to the petitioner the manner of providing value education blurred the lines with religious instruction thus contravening to article 28(1). Aruna roy argued that the framework imposed religious values on government funded school and if made compulsory would infringe article 28(3) by forcing students to participate in that. Initially NCFSE’s implementation stayed by the supreme court due to concerns over its “saffronisation”. As demanded by the petitioner NCERT revised contentious sections, it resisted obtaining central advisory board of education approval. The court Lifted the stay finding no constitutional breach and allowed NCERT framework to proceed without CABE approval.

Conclusion

India is a democratic country and we all proudly practice a positive form of secularism which is defined as: respects all religions and protects the rights of religious minorities and not just the separation of state and religion. The constitution of India provide secularism that ensures that state does not favour any particular religion while simultaneously protects individual freedoms and religious expressions. However recent issues such as restriction on religious symbols in educational institutions shows that how disconnect we are with the constitutional ideals of secularism.

In conclusion, respecting religious diversity along with maintaining the separation between religion and state needs constant commitment to the principle of positive secularism. India needs scrutinized policies for such sensitive issues to continue to be a beacon of tolerance and inclusivity in a world marked by religious and cultural diversity.

Reference

1. INDIAN KANOON, https://indiankanoon.org/doc/60799/,12.11.24

2. THE FREE PRESS JOURNAL, https://www.freepressjournal.in/india/except-hijab-now-all-religious-symbols-will-be-allowed-in-schools-aimim-chief-asaduddin-owaisi-after-karnataka-hc-verdict, 12.11.24

3. Nibir Deka, Assam Government Directs Schools to Allow Religious Symbols, The Daily Guardian https://thedailyguardian.com/assam-government-directs-schools-to-allow-religious-symbols/#google_vignette 12/10/24

4.. Scott C. Supporting the Right to Wear Religious Symbols: The Importance of Perceived Commitment to the Nation; doi:10.1017/S1755048322000141; Politics and Religion; 16(1):90–109.; 2023

5. Rangarajan, R., Sharma, U., & Grové, C; Inclusion and equity in India’s new National Education Policy (NEP): an analysis using the Context Led Model of Education Quality.; doi: 10.1080/13603116.2023.2295907.; International Journal of Inclusive Education,; pp. 1–21; (2023).

6. notes.saralupsc.com D.A.V. College, Jullundur vs. State of Punjab (1971) Summary for UPSC Polity Notes June 25, 2024 https://notes.saralupsc.com/d-a-v-college-jullundur-vs-state-of-punjab-1971-summary-for-upsc-polity-notes/#:~:text=The%20D.A.V.%20College%2C%20Jullundur%20vs.%20State%20of%20Punjab,to%20which%20the%20state%20can%20regulate%20their%20functioning.

7. LIVE LAW; https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/hijab-ban-supreme-court-split-verdict-karnataka-religion-fundamental-right-article-25-211510; 15.11.24