The debate around women’s clothing, particularly when linked to cultural or religious meaning, is reduced to the binary of choice and coercion or freedom and patriarchy. It becomes a versus debate. While these questions could be important for political and social discourse, the current one is controversy involving Bihar Chief Minister where he was seen lifting his arm to a Muslim woman Hijab When handing over appointments to AYUSH doctors, asks us to ask a far more fundamental question about this incident:
Does a man, regardless of his power, age or political position, have the authority to touch or reveal a woman’s purdah or hijab without her consent?
Choices, constraints and the many truths women live with
For some women, regardless of religion, ghoonghat/hijab/purdah is undeniably an imposition imposed on them by their community, culture, society and religion against their will. Some women choose this of their own volition as a shield against the persistent male gaze, which is often sneaky, scary and uninvited. While other women view it from the perspective of carrying on a legacy, a tradition with which their mothers and grandmothers lived, they associate it with dignity rather than subjugation.
Source: FII
But none of these perspectives justify the core of the current controversy, since it is not about women’s clothing but about men’s demands.
The question no one wants to answer: Who gave him the right?
The question that those defending Nitish Kumar must answer honestly is:
If the woman in front of him had been a Hindu woman celebrating Purdah, would it have been acceptable for him to touch and expose her, even in a mocking or joking manner?
Would any society justify a so-called “grandfather-like” figure who, under the guise of humor, publicly lifts a woman’s veil without her consent?
No matter what religion you are, if you answer “no,” the defense completely collapses.
The more disturbing part of this incident, however, was not just the act itself, but also the collective reaction, or lack thereof, of those present. Ministers and senior political leaders standing next to Nitish Kumar laughed at it and chose to look away instead of acknowledging it or apologizing. This silence is no coincidence. It’s complicity.
The silence that enables: Complicity is not neutral
The thing about complicity is that it thrives when power protects power. When people close to power treat misconduct as humor, their signal to society is interpreted as if the victim’s consent is negotiable if the perpetrator is an influential person. The laughter that followed showed that it was just a normal joke from Nitish Kumar, which was not only damaging but also an acknowledgment that a woman’s dignity can be put on hold, weaponized or dismissed for political reasons.
The dangerous thing about this complicity is that such public normalization of wrongdoing creates a ripple effect.
The dangerous thing about this complicity is that such public normalization of wrongdoing creates a ripple effect. Putting Bihar Chief Minister Brijbhushan Singh, Giriraj Singh etc. on the podium as exemplars, when they are reported to mockingly violate the modesty of women without any consequences, boys at all levels justify their similar behavior and call it humor and not humiliation.
Source: FII
Accountability should be triggered not by analyzing the level of outrage the act provokes, but by principles. Political parties and leaders who claim to uphold the safety and dignity of women cannot shift their responsibility to technicalities and the ambiguity of their intentions that are so interpreted. They must understand that refusing to condemn, correct or even acknowledge the wrongdoing of such acts that lead to such public incidents does not reflect their neutrality, but that silence expresses their consent.
The law is clear, but society is not.
However, Indian law is far clearer than public discourse. Our system recognizes the concept of Pardanashin women. In March. Kharbuja Kuer vs Jangbahadur Helter (1963)The Supreme Court recognized that Pardanashin women live under social constraints that limit their free interaction with the outside world and that the law must therefore ensure that their autonomy and consent are not compromised. In criminal law Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Section 74 criminalizes the use of criminal force or physical acts against a woman that violate her modesty without consent Section 79 punishes words, gestures or behavior that aim to violate a woman’s dignity or invade her privacy. The absence of approval itself constitutes the crime.
Our Constitution guarantees the right to dignity, bodily autonomy and privacy under Article 21 as interpreted by the Supreme Court in several judgments. A woman’s clothing, be it a sari, a dupatta, a veil, a purdah or a hijab, is an extension of this autonomy, and even touching her clothing without her consent is considered a violation. Article 14 of our Constitution establishes the principle of equality. However, equality depends not only on the absence of discrimination, but also on all men being responsible for their actions, regardless of their status or stature. Otherwise, equality becomes performative theatrics and does not lead to real justice.
However, equality depends not only on the absence of discrimination, but also on all men being responsible for their actions, regardless of their status or stature.
Indian jurisprudence has affirmed in several judgments that silence in the face of wrongdoing can mean not only moral failure, but also legal failure. In Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997)The Supreme Court ruled that it is the duty of institutions and individuals in positions of authority to actively prevent sexual harassment and not just refrain from committing it themselves. While the Vishaka The ruling focuses specifically on workplaces, its principle is broader and those in power have a positive obligation to intervene.
Beyond the hijab: the true test of a constitutional democracy
The decision of the victim in this case to file an FIR against Nitish Kumar is bold. She has also decided not to accept this government post as BJP MP Giriraj Singh has spoken condescendingly about it, which also seems to be a necessary measure. But the disturbing thing is that she had to go through it. She was appointed government councilor. A doctor because of her own merits and not out of charity. But powerful men flaunting their machismo without consequences is very unfortunate.
Source: FII
Therefore, the question for us as a society is whether we are prepared to protect a woman’s right to bodily autonomy and her right to decide what she wants to wear. The question we face is also about the complicity of powerful people who publicly denigrate women’s modesty and not only get away without consequences, but also support and legitimize the culture in which those in power feel entitled to touch, mock and hurt, because if that is the case, it should concern us all.
Yakshna Sharma, Delhi High Court lawyer and social activist working on gender equality and public policy issues. She had also contested the DUSU elections for the post of NSUI secretary in 2023.