Mangaluru college downplays hijab row, says students were aware of dress code before admission

coastaldigest.com web desk
June 25, 2018

Mangaluru, Jun 25: Hours after a bunch of burkha-clad girls staged a protest in front of St Agnes College in the city today against ban on headscarf inside classrooms, the principal downplayed the issue and justified the rules.

In a statement issued to the media, Sr Dr M Jeswina AC, principal, said that her college is a minority institution catering to women’s education in particular.

“We respect every student who chooses to study here. The management has framed rules and regulations to maintain order and discipline. Accordingly the college rule states that the students are not permitted to wear headscarf inside the classroom only. However, we have no objection if they wear it outside,” she clarified.

“The students and their parents are aware of this rule before seeking admission in our college. Yet a few students have gone on a protest without even submitting memorandum,” she said, adding that if there are any issues with any student, the management will settle the matter with the students and their parents.

Also Read: Mangaluru: Burkha-clad CFI girls protest in front St Agnes College over hijab ban

Comments

Abdul Aziz she…
 - 
Tuesday, 26 Jun 2018

I was surprised with these people who run educational institutions since long, and the management not understand the rights of Muslims women, that is also simple wearing scarf as it is a moral and religious rightrs of muslim women,and girls,  it covers the chastity  and aura of  a girl ,a mother , and as well all women,  but why these nuns are discriminating with muslim community only,  by the way why they cannot work without their scrafs inside school or college,  Every muslim women is a spiritually religious to wear scraf or cover the chastity with the scarf ..complare to few nuns only wear scarfs since it is their religious rights.

I am asking the management of college to  settle the matter peacefully .

Irshad
 - 
Tuesday, 26 Jun 2018

No one is abusing her, but for the decision what she has taken is just showing her personality whether she is a angel or simply a common woman who is making a religious chaos between two Community. Respect each others community is what we learn from from Masjid and Church. But here this is going some other way.need to stop before the situation is worsened

mohammed
 - 
Tuesday, 26 Jun 2018

I request all the muslim students to wear the same dress what the madam is wearing - problem solved..

Abdul Ahad
 - 
Tuesday, 26 Jun 2018

Shocked to read brainless comments from Muslims. Muslims cannot build an institution like St Agnes College in Mangalore. But they talk about their rights in Christian and Hindu managed colleges. What a tragedy. May Allah grant good sense to Muslims so that they realize their foolishness.

Peacelover
 - 
Tuesday, 26 Jun 2018

Never expected such a drity mind set opinion form a religious  preacher. She  can wear full hijab and Muslim students not permitted.  It is well clear to understand what time of human being she is and what is her intention.

Dodanna
 - 
Tuesday, 26 Jun 2018

Check her passport how many times she visited isreal

Thanseer
 - 
Tuesday, 26 Jun 2018

Dear Management 

 

When you are implementing any rule's, it should be such that you should be following it. If your principal herself is wearing then how ethical is that to stop the students wearing it. 

Hijab is for to cover the modesty and not for exposing.!! Please respect each others propsective.

Anaswara M
 - 
Tuesday, 26 Jun 2018

Sr Dr M Jeswina AC is not a divine woman. She is an angel. Those who mock her must be extremists or anti-social elements.

Kabeer Nasir
 - 
Monday, 25 Jun 2018

One more Threat for Indian Democracy by the Principal of St. Agnes College Mangalore, Sr Dr M Jeswina AC. 

If the Principal can wear the Scarf, then why Shouldn’t the Students.

Again why its Double standard and what is the Method behind this policy. 

Common, once again we all indian’s should BIGOT this policy of St Agnes College Mangalore.

i donno hu ur. but i felt ur comment on the issue of head scarf as funny. as hijab for men and women is farl or compulsory den u need to follow it. to be a citizen of a country u must follow the rules of that country. similarly if u want to be a muslim u need to follow the rules of islam. otherwise u r not called one.u can say that islam is in heart need not show in hijab. when imaan is in heart then definitly hijab will be der otherwise u need to check ur imaan not alter the rules of islam.

 

Abdulbaseer
 - 
Monday, 25 Jun 2018

Principal Mam can wear fully covered headscarf. But students (muslim) can't...

Fadi
 - 
Monday, 25 Jun 2018

Dear All 

this is the height of hypochracy ..... she herself opt for it , and say you dont wear it ???// in Quran its mentioned ..''Do not preach unless you follow it ''

Sandeep
 - 
Monday, 25 Jun 2018

Dear Sister Dr. Jeswina

How can You prevent and take this decision being in a headscarf? Interestingly you preach this and practice proudly and roam around the world wearing such dress code which you and your institutions are opposing other community. May I ask you on behalf of society with all due respect to your valuable service to the education, what kind of justification you are putting forward to media and seeing students attend classes ignoring their constitutional demand. Dear Sister, will you implement and make it mandatory same rules for students who are wearing a similar dress which you are into? If not this approach will be called communalism or fascism (Sorry for using such words). 

Irshad
 - 
Monday, 25 Jun 2018

Dear Principal, Institutions are not at all allowed to restrict a students religious practice at any place inside the campus. In front of the constitution your college rules will fall down and your college rules should be modified. Look at the hypocrisy you are playing with the students. You will enter the class with your scarf on. And you want a particular community student to remove it? What kind of justice it is.No education institutions are even allowed to impose uniform system for students. We condemn your act. Just don't drag this issue more, please behave mature

 

DUMA
 - 
Monday, 25 Jun 2018

Catholic run schools and colleges always do like this. 

Arif
 - 
Monday, 25 Jun 2018

I am not sure whether there is male teacher in this college, if yes, then the women have right to observe hijab inside the classroom as well. No rules is bigger than the personal right guaranteed to individuals living in India. If this principal mam have right to observe her personal hijab inside her cabin, then Muslim women also should be given their rights.

Navaz
 - 
Monday, 25 Jun 2018

easy solution, let Muslim students accepts the principal madam dress code, in this matter, let it teacher will be role model for students, accept it 

maaz mahi
 - 
Monday, 25 Jun 2018

dear college management and student,
as soon as i saw people discussing and sharing the views regarding the ban of women scarf in the college auditorium, i too wants to share some views and ideas related to this. as far as college rules and regulation is concern ban of scarf is acceptable. but if we follow the rules and regulation  of my lord it is unacceptable.

student should first contact pricipal regarding whatever issues they. and it the liability of the management to solve the issue in favour of the student because whatever issue they are raising it is the issue to uplift the women rather degrading.  hoping the maangemnt to solve the issue in favour of student.

Peacelover
 - 
Monday, 25 Jun 2018

In Islam, men have an obligation to God and to women to observe hijab. I imagine a conversation between someone teaching the Quran and a guy as follows:

 

Teacher: Don’t stare at women.

 

Guy: But she’s wearing revealing clothing!

 

 

Teacher: Why are you staring? Stop.

 

Guy: But it’s revealing.

 

Teacher: Why-are-you-staring?

 

Guy: Uh…

It’s that simple.

 

If a guy chooses to accept Islam, Islam says he must observe hijab. The Prophet Muhammad’s directives further affirm this view. He admonished men, “Be chaste yourselves, and women will be chaste as well,” again putting the primary burden of hijab on men.

 

This point was again illustrated when the Prophet rode with his companion Al Fadl bin Abbas. A woman described as strikingly beautiful approached the Prophet to seek his guidance on some religious matters. Al Fadl began to stare at her because of her beauty.

 

Noting this, the Prophet Muhammad did not scold the woman for dressing immodestly or revealing her beauty. Instead, he “reached his hand backwards, catching Al Fadl’s chin, and turned his face to the other side so that he would not gaze at her”. Thus, the Prophet Muhammad once more established that the primary burden to observe hijab rests on men.

Aysha Tanisha
 - 
Monday, 25 Jun 2018

Ughhhhh. Individual choice yes. But college has certain rules. You don't want to follow the rules, you don't join that particular college. Also, Islam is a very beautiful religion. Let's not make it all about the Hijab.

ayes p.
 - 
Monday, 25 Jun 2018

All students (irrespective of religion) should obey collage or school rule.

missionary school management are allowing sisters to wear their dress similar to Principal dress but they are restricted to hijab.

Marthanda
 - 
Monday, 25 Jun 2018

There is no comparison between student and principle..

 

Good Boy
 - 
Monday, 25 Jun 2018

Rules are only followed by the students.

Fathima
 - 
Monday, 25 Jun 2018

Prici mam… whatever u are wearing is a perfect Hijab in Islam. Kindly allow Muslim girls also to wear the same in classroom. 

JC Lobo
 - 
Monday, 25 Jun 2018

Hahahahhah.. what a pic!!!! She can wear headscarf but Muslim students can’t wear!!! 

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
March 1,2020

Tumakuru, Mar 1: A leopard killed 30-month-old kid when she was playing outside her home in Baichnehalli village in Hebbur Hobli in Tumakuru district, police said on Sunday.

Police said that the deceased has been identified as Chandana. The incident happened on Saturday evening.

Forest and police officials visited the spot. A case has been registered in this connection.

Karnataka Minister for Forest Ananda Singh issued a shoot at sight order for the leopard which killed a 30-month-old boy while playing in front of his house on Sunday.

Speaking to newsmen after visiting the Bichenahalli where the kid was killed, he said that the operation will begin on Monday. The kid was dragged by the leopard and killed Saturday night.

Earlier also the same leopard had killed five-year-old child in the district, he added.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
January 11,2020

Bantwal, Jan 11: Seven people were booked for organising protest without taking permission or intimation, police said on Saturday.

The alleged accused were identified as Nandavar Juma Masjid President Basheer, Khateeb of the Masjid Abdul Majeed Darimi, Gram Panchayath President Mohammed Shareef Nandavar, former President of Masjid Majeed, Arif Nandavar, Mustafa and Abubaker.

They have been booked for allegedly organising protest outside Nandavar Juma Masjid on Jan 10 afternoon without intimation to police or obtaining permission.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
February 19,2020

Bengaluru, Feb 19: Pointing out that there was a deliberate attempt to cover up police excesses by implicating innocent persons at whim, the Karnataka High Court on Tuesday granted conditional bail to 21 people who were accused by police of involving in violence during the protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) in Mangaluru.

Allowing the bail petitions of Ashik and 20 others from Udupi and Dakshina Kannada districts, Justice John Michael Cunha said the overzealousness of the police is also evident from the fact that FIRs were registered under Section 307 of IPC against the persons killed by the police themselves.

“In an offence involving a large number of people, the identity and participation of each accused must be fixed with reasonable certainty. In the present cases, the identity appears to have been fixed on the basis of their affiliation to PFI and they being members of the Muslim community. Though it is stated that the involvement of the petitioners is captured in CCTV footage and photographs, no such material is produced before the court showing the presence of any of the petitioners at the spot, armed with deadly weapons,” the judge noted.

In the statement of objections filed by the State Public Prosecutor-I, it was stated that there was a hint of Muslim youths holding protest on December 19, 2019, opposing the implementation of CAA. Prohibitory orders were clamped in that connection. This assertion indicated that the common object of the assembly was to oppose the implementation of CAA and National Register for Citizens (NRC) which, by itself, was not an “unlawful object”, the judge pointed out.

‘Pics show cops throwing stones at crowd’

Justice Cunha also said the material collected by the investigators did not contain any specific evidence regarding the presence of any of the petitioners at the spot. On the other hand, omnibus allegations were made against the Muslim crowd of 1,500-2,000, alleging that they were armed with weapons like stones, soda bottles and glass pieces. The photographs produced by the SPP depicted that hardly any member of the crowd were armed with weapons, except one of them holding a bottle. In none of these photographs, police station or policemen were seen in the vicinity, the judge noted.

“On the other hand, photographs produced by the petitioners show that the policemen themselves were pelting stones at the crowd. The petitioners have produced copies of the complaints lodged by the dependants of the deceased who died due to police firing and the endorsement made thereon reveals that even though the law required the police to register independent FIRs in view of the specific complaint made against the police officers making out cognizable offences, the police have failed to register FIRs. This goes to show that a deliberate attempt is underway to cover up police excesses by implicating innocent persons at the whims and caprice of the police,” the judge observed.

In the wake of counter-allegations against the police and in the backdrop of their failure to register FIRs based on complaints lodged by the families of victims, the possibility of false and mistaken implication could not be ruled out, the judge said. In these circumstances, it would be a travesty of justice to deny bail to the petitioners and sacrifice their liberties to the mercy of the district administration and police. The records indicate that a deliberate attempt has been made to trump up evidence and to deprive the liberties of the petitioners by fabricating evidence. None of the petitioners have any criminal antecedents, the court said.

“The allegations levelled against the petitioners are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. There is no direct evidence to connect them with the alleged offence. The investigation appears to be malafide and partisan. In the circumstances, in order to protect the rights and liberties of the petitioners, it is necessary to admit them to bail,” the judge said.

The petitioners were arrested and remanded in judicial custody after the anti-CAA protests on charges of being members of an unlawful assembly, armed with lethal weapons, attempting to set fire to the North Police Station in Mangaluru, obstructing the police from discharging their duties and causing damage to public property, etc., on December 19 in violation of the prohibitory orders. They moved the High Court as their bail pleas had been rejected by a sessions court in Dakshina Kannada.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.