After hijab, turban row at B’luru college

Kumaran P. | NT

A new dimension has been added to the ongoing hijabsaffron shawl controversy after officials at a prominent college in the city reportedly asked a 17-year-old student if she could remove the Dastar (a turban worn by the Sikh community).

The college has written to her parents requesting them to follow the Karnataka High Court order asking students to follow the prescribed uniform of the college till the court ruling in the hijab case.

Gurucharan Singh, father of the 17-year-old girl told News Trail, “I guess the college has misinterpreted the High Court order. They called my daughter and asked her if she could remove the turban which she refused.

They then sent me a mail asking us to abide by the interim order of the court. I explained to them that it cannot be done as it is against our faith and culture.” “I was again called to the college and requested to abide by the court order. I told them politely that they have misinterpreted the court order. They have called me to the college on Friday too,” he added.

The college has however allowed his daughter to attend classes and there are no issues on the academic front. “In her 17 years of education, she was not asked to remove the turban anytime. Even when she was inducted into the student cabinet as president, she was wearing it,” he added.

According to college authorities, the turban issue at Mount Carmel PU College came to the fore when 12 students wearing hijab were asked not to wear it in classrooms on February 14. During a discussion with the administrators, the students pointed out that their co-student was allowed to wear a turban.

On February 22, a department official who visited the college for an inspection, discussed with students the need to attend classes instead of insisting on wearing the hijab. During this discussion, the girls are said to have again stated that one of their co-students was wearing a turban.

Sources from the state ministry of education said, “Wearing a turban is a constitutional right while the issue in the high court is different.” However, when NT reached out to the principal, there was no response.