The issue of unveiling should not become a political weapon!

Mohammad Arif Ansari
Contact: 9572908382

In the Muslim societies of the Indian subcontinent, particularly in India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh, the hijab, burqa, or scarf worn by Muslim women is not just a social tradition, but a part of their religious, cultural, and personal identity. In these societies, women observe purdah in various forms. Some wear a full burqa, some wear a scarf with a jilbab, some keep their face uncovered, and some wear a niqab. Similarly, many Muslim women are serving in fields such as education, medicine, and other professions, where they have to work with men and women without a veil. Islam has provided accommodation for all these forms, considering the intention, modesty, and circumstances. However, in the current era, when sectarian sensitivity is at its peak, the dress of a Muslim woman is no longer just a personal or religious matter, but has become part of a political narrative.

In such an environment, discussions about a woman's veil often overlook her dignity, safety, and autonomy, which is an alarming trend that promotes mistrust in society. The incident of Dr. Nasrat Parveen, a Muslim woman, being appointed in Bihar, has become a symbol of this changing environment. Chief Minister Nitish Kumar publicly removing the niqab of a Muslim woman doctor is not just a personal act, but has raised political, social, and moral questions. The question is not whether the niqab is obligatory or not, but whether an empowered person has the right to forcibly intervene in the dress of an adult, educated, and dignified woman.

The strong reaction from the opposition, the sensationalism of the media, and the debate on social media have further complicated the matter. As a result, there is a fear that such incidents may become a justification for anti-social and anti-Muslim elements to harass veiled women. A careless act at the state level can create an atmosphere of insecurity and fear at the lower level, which can have far-reaching consequences.

In the light of Islamic teachings, if we look at the hijab and niqab, a very balanced and wise picture emerges. The Holy Quran has commanded both men and women to lower their gaze and adopt modesty, which proves that the responsibility of modesty is not solely on women. Women have been directed to cover their breasts and limit their adornment, while in Surah Al-Ahzab, the jilbab is mentioned so that women can be recognized and not harassed. The important thing is that the Quran does not explicitly make it obligatory to cover the face, but rather allows it according to circumstances. The Hadith of the Prophet (peace be upon him) also presents this balance, where permission is given to keep the face and hands uncovered, and in some cases, to cover the face.

It is clear that Islam provides convenience and protection to women, rather than imposing coercion or making them a spectacle or a subject of controversy. In the current Indian context, the issue is not limited to religious interpretation, but is linked to state behavior and social psychology. When sectarian elements receive direct or indirect state patronage, such incidents become examples. Muslim women are already targeted on issues like hijab, education, triple talaq, and identity. In such an environment, if those in power make a woman's veil an issue, it sends a message to the general public that a Muslim woman's private life and religious choice are not respectable.

The consequence can be that veiled women may face more harassment, ridicule, or violence on the street, in offices, hospitals, or educational institutions. It is the responsibility of a democratic state to protect the weaker sections, rather than increasing their fear. State neutrality is the foundation of social harmony. It is also a fact that Muslim women are a diverse class. Some wear the veil to escape religious extremism, some for spiritual comfort, some due to family tradition, and some simply as a personal choice. Similarly, many Muslim women do not wear the niqab and adapt well to modern professional environments.

Islam has accommodated all these forms, but society has often tried to confine women to one category. When a woman's dress is linked to her ability, character, or patriotism, it is not only an injustice to women but also a misinterpretation of religion. The real issue is not a woman's dress, but the misuse of power, intolerance, and sectarian mentality. If these issues are not addressed, the damage will not be limited to one community, but the entire society will be affected by instability.

In such delicate and complex circumstances, the most basic question is what strategy Muslims in India, particularly in Bihar, should adopt. First, it is essential to understand that the current political environment is not just a moral or religious issue, but is deeply connected to power, authority, and electoral politics. The opposition in Bihar is currently very weak, fragmented, and facing a leadership crisis, so it is unrealistic to expect a strong moral or political stance from them.

On the other hand, it is a historical fact that Nitish Kumar, despite all his weaknesses and contradictions, has maintained some protective walls for Muslims in Bihar, whether it is control over riots, minority welfare schemes, or symbolic secular narratives. In this context, reacting impulsively to a single incident can be detrimental to Muslims themselves. It is also important to note that questions about Nitish Kumar's health and mental balance are already being used as a weapon in the political arena.

During the 2025 Bihar Assembly elections, not only the opposition but also elements within the NDA have been making sarcastic and meaningful attacks on him. In such a scenario, it would be more prudent to view this incident not just as a moral lapse, but as part of a larger political game. The scene where, on one hand, Union Home Minister Samrat Choudhary (BJP) was trying to stop Nitish Kumar from pulling off the niqab, and on the other hand, Health Minister Mangal Pandey (BJP) was seen smiling, suggests that this incident may not be a coincidence, but could be a milestone in future political maneuvering.

It is not unlikely that the BJP might later use this incident to declare Nitish Kumar morally or mentally unfit for the chief minister's post. In such a situation, the most important thing for Muslims in Bihar is political acumen, patience, and collective wisdom. Neither should this incident be trivialized nor should it be blown out of proportion to the point where it becomes a weapon in the hands of sectarian forces.

Muslims should keep their reaction within constitutional, civilized, and legal boundaries, and raise the issue on a principled basis through civil society, intellectuals, women's organizations, and human rights platforms, not just through emotional slogans, but through dialogue, writing, and democratic pressure, so that the issue moves towards a sustainable solution and broader social justice.

It should be clear that forcibly interfering in a woman's dress or religious identity is unacceptable, whether it is done by any political party, office, or center of power. The most important thing is for Indian Muslims to understand that if this issue is limited to a Muslim woman's niqab today, it can spread to any other religious or social identity tomorrow.

Therefore, instead of presenting themselves as just a victimized group, Muslims should come forward as guardians of democracy, the constitution, and citizen rights, so that their role in society can be seen as constructive, responsible, and principled. If the Muslims of Bihar act with wisdom instead of emotions, prioritize long-term security over immediate political gains, and address their issues within a broader democratic context, they can not only mitigate the negative effects of this incident but also establish themselves as a wise, organized, and decisive force in the upcoming political storm.

This strategy will promote interfaith dialogue, legal awareness, training of young leadership, and peaceful democratic participation.