Hijab-wearing women are often seen as religious and moral. However, in some countries, the law requires women to cover their heads in public, which many see as religious or moral policing. 

The policing became so oppressive and brutal in Iran that it allegedly took the life of a young 22-year-old girl. 

The protest against this ruthless implementation of the dress code has further led to the violence and killing of more than 260 protestors. 

The slogan behind Iranian protest is “Women, Life & Freedom”.

 In Iran, the Hijab is compulsory for women in public places. The law, introduced in 1983 after the Iranian Revolution in 1979, requires women to cover their heads and bodies. 

Since required by law, women are forced to wear the Hijab out of fear of imposition from the government’s police. Then, over the years, there was family pressure and social stigma that, got imbibed as culture in society.

 “ 

... over the years, with family pressure and social stigma, Hijab got imbibed as culture in society

In some other countries, such as Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, and parts of Pakistan, head covering, including the whole body, is compulsory for women in public places. However, in other countries, like Turkey and Egypt, the Hijab is not mandatory. 

As a result, they have become part of the fashion dressing, and the creative industry has taken over this new market segment.

• Tale of Two Sacred Cities - Jerusalem & Banaras 

In certain countries, the law requires women to cover their hair in public; in others, there is a debate about whether to ban the Hijab altogether as they feel they are being forced to comply with an archaic rule. 

In addition, it is seen as a symbol of religious oppression, particularly of women.

While some women may wear a head covering out of religious convictions, many choose to wear Hijab to show commitment to their religion. 

They argue that it allows them to assert their identity in society. By choosing to wear Hijab, they assert their right to practice their religion freely and without interference.

Some believe that head covering should be optional, as it is a personal choice that should be left up to the individual woman. However, others believe that head coverings should be mandatory, as they help to protect women from objectification and give them a sense of modesty and safety.

The debate over the Hijab is often connected to broader discussions. 

For example, what are religion’s role in society and the relationship between traditionalism and modernity? Importantly, there is also a debate about the state’s role in implementing the religious practice.

Religion has always been a touchy subject. It is something people hold close to their hearts and often base their entire lives off it. So, when someone tries to change or challenge religious practices, it is bound to create disruptive arguments.

What is going wrong with Hijab or, more so, with the face coverings? Finally, we will discuss women’s headcovers from three major world religions: Islam, Christianity, and Hinduism.

WHAT IS A HIJAB?

The Hijab is a headscarf worn by Muslim women, mainly as a symbol of modesty and religious faith. In recent years, the Hijab has become controversial, with some arguing that it oppresses women and limits their freedom. 

In addition, it is argued that the Hijab symbolises oppression, and requiring women to wear it publicly violates their human rights.

However, many Muslim women see the Hijab as a positive choice to express their religious identity and protect themselves from unwanted attention. 

They also believe it is a woman’s religious choice and that the state should not mandate what a woman can or cannot wear.

HEADCOVERING AND QURAN

The Quran, the holy book of Islam, does not explicitly require women to wear the Hijab. But, some verses educate women to dress modestly and cover their bodies.

The Quran states that Women should cover their hair and chests, but it does not mention the “Hijab.” However, many scholars interpret that Women should wear a hijab in public.

Although there is no mention of punishment for Women who do not wear a hijab, some Islamic countries have implemented hijab laws.

There are a variety of opinions surrounding the hijab law in the Quran, with many debating whether it is truly a religious obligation. However, the reality is that the Quranic verses that discuss Hijab are open to interpretation.

Surah 24 An-Nur, verse 31, states, “And tell the believing women to lower their gaze and guard their chastity, and not to reveal their adornments except what normally appears.

 Let them draw their veils over their chests and not reveal their ˹hidden˺ adornments except to their husbands, their fathers, their fathers-in-law, their sons, their stepsons, their brothers, their brothers’ sons or sisters’ sons, their fellow women, those ˹bondwomen˺ in their possession, male attendants with no desire, or children who are still unaware of women’s nakedness. 

Let them not stomp their feet, drawing attention to their hidden adornments. Turn to Allah in repentance altogether, O believers, so that you may be successful."

https://quran.com/24/31

In Surah 33 Al-Ahzab verse 59, the Quran states why women should not publicly reveal their beauty except what is necessary.

It states, “O Prophet! Ask your wives, daughters, and believing women to draw their cloaks over their bodies. In this way, it is more likely that they will be recognised ˹as virtuous˺ and not be harassed. And Allah is All-Forgiving, Most Merciful”.

https://quran.com/33/59

Some religious scholars argue that the verse refers to a physical covering of the body, such as a veil, while others believe it is more about modesty and behaviour.

There is a saying – “you are what you wear”. Perhaps, Quran is implying it.

How did the element of restriction between men and women come into play?

Surah 33 Al-Ahzab verse 53 states, “O believers! Do not enter the homes of the Prophet without permission, ˹and if invited˺ for a meal, do not ˹come too early and˺ linger until the meal is ready. But if you are invited, then enter ˹on time˺. 

Once you have eaten, then go on your way, and do not stay for casual talk. Such behaviour is truly annoying to the Prophet, yet he is too shy to ask you to leave. 

But Allah is never shy of the truth. And when you ˹believers˺ ask his wives for something, ask them from behind a barrier. This is purer for your hearts and theirs.

 And it is not right for you to annoy the Messenger of Allah, nor ever marry his wives after him. This would certainly be a major offence in the sight of Allah.”

https://quran.com/33/53

There is an argument that the concept of the Hijab is often misunderstood. In the context of the Quran, the “Hijab” refers to the “barriers” that should exist between men and women.

HEAD COVERING IN CHRISTIANITY

Religion, culture and traditions often dictate how women must dress, which is especially true in Christianity.

Head coverings have been a part of Christianity since the religion’s earliest days, and the practice is still followed by millions of believers worldwide.

In many traditionally Christian societies, head coverings are seen as a symbol of modesty and subservience to the Church and God. It is a sign of submission, meant to remind women of their place in the hierarchy of the Church. 

As in the New Testament, 1 Cor 11:2-16, Paul instructs women to cover their heads in Church as a sign of respect for God and husband.

“Every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is the same as having her head shaved. For if a woman does not cover her head, she might as well have her hair cut off…” (1 Corinthians 11:5,6)

In the Greco-Roman culture, married women were required to cover their head, when leaving homes. It was a message to others on the street about their marital status. 

Covering was to broadcast a message in public that she is a devoted and upright wife. Different cultures in Europe have required married women to cover their head and hair.

Today, if some societies are following this vintage rule, we know, it is at least twenty centuries old.

Also, on muted occasions like funerals, many Christian communities require women to cover their heads to show respect. All Christian weddings require the bride to wear a veil. Though it is an occasional head covering, the origin comes from the same religious practice.

HIJAB AND WIMPLE

There is a common misconception that the Hijab, or head covering worn by Muslim women, is analogous to the head coverings “Wimple” worn by Christian nuns. However, there are important distinctions between the two.

For one, the Hijab is not mandatory for all Muslim women, except in some countries. In contrast, Catholic Christian nuns must wear head coverings to symbolise their submission to God.

 In addition, they see head covering as a way to imitate the Virgin Mary and other biblical figures.

In most cases, women who choose to wear the Hijab do so as an expression of their faith. For nuns, however, the wimple is more than just a religious symbol; it is also a sign of their commitment to celibacy.

Nuns have covered their heads for centuries as a sign of modesty and devotion to God, but it has not raised any debate of oppression, women’s exploitation or international controversy like the Hijab.

Wimple remains an undisputed integral part of the Catholic nun’s tradition.

HINDU GHUNGHAT

While veiling and head covering are typically associated with Islam or mostly Abrahamic religions, it is not exclusive to that religion.

Women in India have been subject to numerous restrictions and limitations throughout history. One such restriction is the practice of wearing a ghunghat or veil. 

While the origins of this practice are unclear, it is typically associated with Hinduism and is most commonly observed in North India.

The ghunghat is a traditional piece of clothing worn by Hindu women. A scarf or dupatta covers the head and face, leaving only the eyes visible.

Although women in Hinduism have the freedom to choose whether or not to cover their heads and faces, the practice of face covering prevails strictly in many parts of India. 

They may veil for religious reasons, or they may do so as a sign of respect for elders or authority figures. In some cases, women veil to symbolise their modesty.

In recent years, much debate has been surrounding the ghunghat, with many women arguing that it symbolises oppression and degradation.

There is no doubt that the ghunghat restricts women’s freedom and choice. Women who wear a ghunghat limit their ability to interact with others or participate fully in society.

 In addition, the practice reinforces patriarchal values and promotes gender inequality. While no law mandates the wearing of the ghunghat, its use still remains popular in many parts of India.

Interestingly, no single law or scripture requires Hindu women to veil and head covering.

In Valmiki’s Ramayana, there is no mention of head covering for women. In Hindu scriptures, Queens and other women were present in public without any constraints.

या न शक्या पुरा द्रष्टुम् भूतैः आकाशगैः अपि |

ताम् अद्य सीताम् पश्यन्ति राज मार्ग गता जनाः || 2-33-8

puraa = earlier; yaa = which Sita; bhuutairapi = even beings; aakashagaiH = going through the air; na shakyaa = could not; drashhTum = see; adya = today; taam siitaam = such Sita; janaaH = people; maarga gataaH = walking on road; pashyanti = are seeing.

“Even people walking on the road can see Sita, who could not be seen earlier by beings going through the air.”

Artefacts found by archaeologists in India dating back to the Gupta, Sunga, and Hoysala periods show that women were not always depicted with their heads covered. Instead, hairstyles, braiding, hairpins, and head jewellery were of utmost importance. 

Hoysala temple sculpture mirrors an emphasis on delicacy and craftsmanship by focusing on depicting feminine beauty, grace and physique.

There has never been a head cover in the tribal areas of India, especially in the East of India.

So, how did the Ghunghat come to the Indian subcontinent?

Mostly, the ghunghat is prevalent in the northern and northwestern parts of India. These were the region where the invaders like the Mughals had influence. 

As aggressors, the women were vulnerable to crime by the invading armies. To prevent soldiers from abusing or kidnapping women, covering the women when outside their homes became a practice.

When did this practice change its form to a tradition? The timelines are blurry.

The Islamic rulers hardly influenced South India. Hence, head cover is still not in practice, neither as tradition nor religion.

It may be a coincidence that a culture of bride kidnapping in middle-east Asia still exists. For example, in Kyrgyzstan, the groom kidnaps a girl. 

He keeps her in his house until an acceptance ceremony is concluded. After that, the bride’s parents are informed and are forced to accept the marriage.

If culture has travelled alongside the invaders, which it did to the Indian sub-continent, this culture of bride conquest is a crude form of the Indian tradition of Baraat (marriage procession). 

In this practice, the groom rides a horse to the bride’s house as if conquering his bride. The tradition and essence of Baraat still continue in the Indian sub-continent.

What started as protection from the invader’s brutality in Asia and the Indian sub-continent has become a deep-rooted culture. 

Women have been treated as an object of restrictive practices and item of loot that needs protection. Unfortunately, the mindset continues in the 21st century too.

WOMEN’S EXPLOITATION

There is much debate surrounding the issue of wearing a Hijab, wimple, ghunghat or any other form of body covering as a form of women’s exploitation.

Those who claim it is a form of women’s exploitation argue that women are forced to wear these garments by their fathers, brothers and husband and are not given a choice. 

Even women who were once subject to oppression later are the ones who are now the harsh imposers.

They also argue that women who do not wear hijabs are often discriminated against and face bias from their families and communities.

Times have changed.

No longer women are kidnapped from the street like a loot. The protection required is of different category, which relates to 21st century. 

There are human rights that people know about, thanks to the internet. Only a theoretical knowledge about this modern concept is empowering enough.

Modern society is also moving towards individualism. It means that no one will be bothered until asked for. Respect for law and demand to be law abiding is on the rise. 

Therefore, the element of protection using body covering has faded from the streets. Hence, it’s time to drop the reasoning of “protection” from women clothing.

Rather, industrialisation and consumerism require people to display their talent and charisma to grow. Optics is essential in all field of this modern world of competition. 

No brainer, it would require dressing (both men and women), along with many other traits, to attract right attention.

Any face or body covering tries to reinstate the primitive belief, that men are perverts, and a woman needs to be completely covered to protect herself from predatory eyes. 

Sadly, it is partially true. Even in the 21st century, crime against women remains a global issue, whether in war or peace. It is not the other way around.

If covering bodies was a solution to protect women, one ugly fact still remains. In the modern society of the west, where liberalism strongly dictates women’s dress, crime against women is reasonably much the same as in the restrictive society. 

The degree of women exploitation, gender inequality and discrimination may vary statistically, but still, ills significantly exist everywhere. Hence, it doesn’t matter whether women cover or not.

Religion is a deeply personal matter, and each woman must make her own decision about whether or not to cover her head. But ultimately, it is how we interpret religion and how religious practice is imposed on the followers.

Then there are cases in India where the students want to wear Hijab to school. It can be considered a rebellious move to oppose the rising right-wing dominance on religious matters.

 The government of India wants to investigate if there is a larger conspiracy to Islamise India by promoting the Hijab.

In a landmark judgement in March of 2022, the Karnataka High Court declared that wearing Hijab is “not an essential religious practice”. It means that Islam can still function without Hijab.

Although this judgement is appealed in the Indian Supreme Court, the arguments remain highly persuasive.

While some governments may require the Hijab, religious authorities in their respective countries (officially) do not mandate it. In contrast, wearing head coverings is an essential part of Christianity though not required by any government.

Probably this could be the reason for the controversial treatment of similar head coverings like the Hijab, Wimple and Ghunghat.

If the state does not interfere with the dress code, leaving it to the choice of the women, there will be less dispute. In doing so, the issue women face covering will move from a draconian law, infringing women’s freedom, to a restrictive tradition requiring critical review. 

In addition, it will give more liberty for people to interpret and choose this practice.

In a world increasingly becoming aware of liberal norms and secular lifestyles, protecting religious freedom is more important than ever.

Thus, it is not the head covering or dressing that defines the role of the Hijab, Wimple, or Ghunghat in society. 

Rather, it is a mix of religion, culture, tradition, fear, protection, indoctrination, law, state and a conflict for dominance, all rolled up in complexity, defined by history, bearing heavy on woman.