There is a big hue and cry regarding the use of the Hijab by Muslim girls in schools in India. Arguments are put forth for and against the use of the Hijab.
People talk about the Constitutional guarantee, Quran, religious practice and freedom etc. But the main facts to be discussed are:
1. Nutritional aspect of this practice
2. Human rights violation.
The constitutional classes were enacted long ago considering the then-existing scenario. Also, the constitution framers had absolute faith in the integrity of the people in respecting the provisions. But they have become a matter for irrational arguments by the vested interests.
The constitution, if need be, can be changed to suit the present social situation and it need not be considered as rigid laws beyond modification. If laws are misused then we have to find out some remedial action to set right the problem. Citing the constitution for each and everything is against the very spirit of the constitution. Constitution expects some amount of honesty from society in its interpretation.
Application of common sense and ethics is required in the interpretation of laws. Mathematically minded people do not understand sociology. But it is seen that only people with mathematical and statistical acumen occupy positions of power. There is no wonder the issues get twisted from the sociological truth.
Hijab can affect the nutritional aspect of women. Lack of exposure to sunlight can seriously affect the synthesis of Vit. D. which predisposes them to various health consequences.
Ordering women to wear a kind of dress, probably against their wish, is certainly a human rights violation. A large-scale survey among women on whether they like to wear hijab or not is a must before discussing the problem.
Enlightening the community on scientific and ethical lines is absolutely essential. Law is not supreme. Only justice is supreme. It is seen that our lawmakers often talk of law of the land rather than justice. Only those who violate justice take the weapon of law for their defense. A great tragedy indeed!

Ezhil,
Agree !

If you dig a little deeper you will find that this controversy is really coming from a group of Hindu supremacist groups in the northern states of Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh where a group of Mulslim girls were locked out of their school for wearing headscarves with at least one attacked by a mob.

Both Hindu and Muslim fundamentalism have found fertile ground in the coastal districts of Karnataka, where Muslims form 15 percent of the population.

Locally, fundamentalist (Hindutva) groups began attacking women having a drink in a pub and later started to accost and attack even friends who were of different faiths. Meanwhile Hindu students have started wearing saffron scarves as another form of protest against hijabs.

The region has seen a rise in activities of those Hindutva groups and the targeting of the state’s religious minorities, mainly Muslims and Christians.

The Karnataka state assembly passed a law that effectively bans religious conversions, with the BJP government alleging that Christian missionary groups were conducting “forceful conversions” of Hindus.

It's not different from the action of hostile theocracies such as Afghanistan who enforce strict dress codes and India is politically heading in the same direction.

The nutritional argument is also nonsense in a country where headscarves and shawls are commonly worn.

Whoever dictates (whether Hindus or Islamists)unscientific and irrational dress codes as a sign of the religion they belong to is nonsense. It leads to immediate alienation from one another. Instead, people should follow the welfare dictates or tenets of their religion to distinguish themselves and need not do it by peculiar dresses.

The nutritional aspect discussed is real and the reader may consult any nutrition literature.

Religious fundamentalism/intolerance is dangerous at any time, and all major religions are intolerant, or have adherents who are so inclined. Often the culture of religion has been used to mask deeper political and economic issues within a society. The persecution of Jews throughout the ages has generally been portrayed as solely a religious issue, with the justified punishment of those not worthy in the eyes of God; "the crucifiers of Christ" argument, the truth is always somewhat more complex that simply religious dogma.

Religious squabbles in India between two groups of fundamentalists with centuries of enmity. Now, there's a surprise! Fortunately it is sweet Fanny Adams to do with us.

We already have Albooverseas trying to distract us from his ballsups with things that have no interest whatsoever to Australian voters; nobody cares about what goes on in India.