Were students of a UP college forced to take off the burqa? Here’s what we found

A newly-enforced uniform at a government college in UP’s Moradabad is in the eye of a storm after protests by the Samajwadi Party’s youth wing and media reportage alleging that students wearing the burqa were not allowed to enter the institute. Amid allegations that the move stripped Muslim women students of their right to religious freedom, authorities at the Hindu College maintained that the uniform was necessary to prevent the entry of outsiders.

The uniform – white shirt and gray trousers for boys and gray kurta and white pyjama for girls – has always been in place but never enforced. However, after an attack on a faculty member by alleged outsiders, college authorities said they announced that it would be strictly enforced from October 15 last year – compliance has only been ensured since January 1 this year. 

However, a section of students, led by the Samajwadi Party’s youth wing launched a sit-in outside the college gates in the first week of January, alleging that Muslim girl students were being asked to take off their burqa at the entrance and this made it difficult for them to attend classes. But authorities at the college denied these allegations and claimed that a room near the entrance was always allocated for this purpose – they said this was subsequently also named as “changing room” amid the controversy in January.

“I am not supporting this protest. The girls who are coming in a burqa have been given space by the college administration. They never said that we should come without a burqa. They just said to take off the burqa and then enter college. They haven’t put restrictions on hijab,” said Iqra, a first year M Com student.

She said they had been asked to fill out a form consenting to this uniform at the time of admission, and that girl students and their families feel much better about the lack of outsiders on campus.

Atoofa, another student, alleged that protesters are “outsiders” and are wearing a burqa just to avoid identification.

However, several Muslim girl students who wore the burqa were also part of the protest. They could not be reached for comment. 

The college’s chief proctor AP Singh said there is “no dispute” now. He claimed there was a “misunderstanding” about students being told to take off their burqa at the gate and this news was “broadcast everywhere”. “A changing room has been made for this,” he said, adding that the college decided to strictly enforce the uniform after professor AU Khan was assaulted at the college entrance by alleged outsiders around six months ago.

“We have no problem with the burqa. If the students wear it to the college, take it off in the changing room and enter in their dress, who will have a problem? This rule has been enforced strictly since January 1. Some youngsters from outside protested against this, got their photos clicked, politicised it, and walked away,” said Singh, adding that the uniform is for both girls and boys.

College principal and professor Satyavrat Singh Rawat said the uniform is part of the code of conduct and students and their parents had signed a form about the same during admissions. He said there are 12,000 students in the college and the step has been taken only to stop the entry of “outsiders” and “rising hooliganism”.

“The protesters are not college students. We don’t have a problem with anyone, they can wear scarves or helmets but the uniform is compulsory. The burqa has to be taken off in the changing room. Ultimately, we have a problem with those who don’t want to wear the uniform.”

Was the move legal? 

Uttar Pradesh Higher Education Minister Yogendra Upadhyaya said, “The authority to enforce a dress code lies with the principal.”

M Com student Mehak Ansari said, “When there is a changing room then what problem is there with taking off the burqa? It is a falsehood that they are being made to take off the burqa on the road. I wear a burqa to college myself.”

Madhu Mansha, another student, said, “Anyone used to enter the college before as there used to be no ID card checks but now ID is also checked. Now only those with ID cards and the uniform can enter.”

Professor Anand Kumar, who teaches defence studies at the college, said a section of the media ran “misleading stories”. “They wrote that hijab was banned but they don’t know the difference between hijab and burqa. I have been teaching here since 2001.”

Kotwali SHO Viplav Sharma said, “The dress code has remained at the college since long. The media is running misleading news stories saying that the burqa is the issue when nothing of the sort is there.”

However, the protesters, including the Samajwadi Party’s youth wing, alleged that some students were forced to take off the burqa when the changing room was not set up.

Aslam Chaudhary, the district president of the party’s youth wing, and an alumnus of the college, said they only objected to students being compelled to take off the burqa and “never resisted the uniform”. “When there was no changing room here, the girls were made to take off their burqa at the gate. It does not feel right. Our demand was that students should be allowed to wear the burqa to their classrooms and then they can change and go inside. But since they have made the changing room at the gate, our demand has been fulfilled.”

Chaudhary said they had submitted a memorandum to demand a changing room. The memorandum, filed on January 18, does not mention a changing room, but demands that Muslim girls be allowed to enter class in burqa.

SP youth wing’s national secretary Durga Sharma said they had only demanded that “they implement the dress code if it is in the university guidelines”. “When the issue was highlighted, they made the changing room…now that the changing room is there, we have no problem.”

A similar controversy had erupted over the hijab in Karnataka’s Udupi last year. It subsequently led to protests, counter-protests, barring of Muslim students wearing the burqa from several campuses, litigation and several court orders.

The Supreme Court delivered a split verdict in the case last year and the matter is yet to be heard by a larger bench.