Isn’t wearing Hijab the religious right of Muslim women If Yogi Adityanath can wear saffron, why can’t Muslim women wear hijab?

Podcast:

Question:
Isn’t wearing the hijab a religious right of Muslims? And isn’t it similar to Hindu girls wearing bindis or mangalsutras?

Answer:
At first glance, it might seem that wearing a hijab is similar to wearing a bindi or mangalsutra. However, the two are not exactly the same, and here’s why:

1. No Right is Absolute

Every right comes with limits. One person’s freedom ends where it starts to infringe upon the rights, freedom, or safety of others.

In the case of hijab and especially the burqa, certain security and social concerns have emerged. For example:

• In parts of Europe, there have been cases of shoplifting and theft committed by individuals wearing face-covering veils. The face covering makes it difficult to identify them through security cameras.
• Some men have misused the burqa to enter women’s areas with the intention to harass or molest.
• Even terrorists have used such garments to conceal themselves and carry out attacks.

This doesn’t mean all who wear burqas are threats. But the potential for misuse is significantly higher than with items like bindis or bangles, which don’t conceal identity or allow for similar abuse. So, equating the two is not accurate.

2. Multiple Identities and Responsibilities

As individuals, we don’t belong to just one group. We simultaneously belong to:

• a religious community,
• a gender,
• a nation,
• an educational institution, etc.

Each group we belong to comes with certain expectations and responsibilities. One cannot impose the customs of one group (such as religious dress) onto all other groups they belong to.

If an educational institution has a uniform dress code, then simply belonging to a religious community doesn’t override the institution’s right to enforce that code. Otherwise, it’s not just a matter of rights—it becomes a conflict of rights:

• What about the rights of the administrators?
• The vision and standards they want to uphold?

Rights cannot be viewed in a one-sided manner. A balance has to be maintained.

3. Consistency Across Institutions

If the state chooses to overrule the dress code of a Hindu-run educational institution to permit hijabs, then, for consistency, it should also override:

• Catholic schools where Hindu girls are often not allowed to wear bindis or bangles.
• Institutions where there is open or subtle disapproval of Hindu symbols, pressuring students to conform.

Will the state intervene in these cases too? If not, then selectively overriding institutional autonomy in one case becomes questionable.

4. Is Yogi Adityanath Wearing Saffron the Same as Girls Wearing Hijab?

This is another comparison made by some. But there are three key differences:

i. Legality
There is no law preventing a chief minister from wearing saffron. If there were and he violated it, then it would be a matter of legal scrutiny. But currently, he is not breaking any dress code.

ii. Security & Identification
Saffron robes do not conceal identity. A burqa or face-covering hijab does. That makes hijab a security concern in specific contexts, unlike saffron clothing.

iii. Personal Consistency
Yogi Adityanath has been wearing saffron long before he became a political leader. It is part of his lifelong monastic identity, not a sudden political statement.
In contrast, the sudden insistence by some students to wear the hijab—especially when they hadn’t previously done so in school—raises concerns that it is politically motivated, not purely devotional.

Conclusion

This issue goes beyond personal religious rights. It touches upon:

• Institutional autonomy,
• Security concerns, and
• The balance of rights in a diverse society.

While personal faith should be respected, institutional rules, social safety, and equal standards across communities also deserve respect. A responsible solution involves acknowledging nuances and avoiding selective enforcement or politicization of religious symbols.