In yet another stark display of ideological inconsistency and religious appeasement, the CPIM-led Kerala government has come under fire for its intervention in the recent hijab controversy at St. Rita’s Public School in Palluruthy, Ernakulam. A day after tensions erupted over the school’s refusal to allow an eighth-grade student to wear a hijab, Kerala’s Education Minister V. Sivankutty overruled the school’s uniform policy, directing them to permit the student to wear the religious headscarf.
The school, affiliated with the CBSE and run by the Latin Catholic Church, had enforced a uniform policy agreed upon by all parents at the time of admission. However, following a dispute between the student’s father and the administration, the issue rapidly escalated into a public controversy. Ironically, it was later resolved through dialogue, with the student’s father stating clearly:
“My daughter will continue to study at the same school following the uniform. I don’t want to see the issue being exploited by certain quarters.”
Despite the resolution, Education Minister Sivankutty intervened directly, ordering the school to allow the hijab, citing the student’s “educational rights” and deeming the school’s actions “unconstitutional.” This sudden action, taken even after the matter was privately settled, has been perceived as an unnecessary provocation driven by political motives rather than concern for the child’s welfare.
Furthermore, the minister accused the school of expelling the student, which the institution has denied. The school’s petition to the Kerala High Court revealed that the real issue arose when the student’s relatives and others stormed the campus, allegedly manhandled staff, and raised slogans—causing panic, especially among kindergarten students. The school remained closed for two days due to security concerns. The High Court subsequently granted police protection, acknowledging that the situation was spiraling into communal unrest.
The court also reaffirmed its earlier judgment in Fathima Thasneem v. State of Kerala, which upheld the right of educational institutions to enforce uniformity through dress codes, even when it comes to religious attire. Justice N. Nagaresh observed that while individual rights are important, they must be balanced against the institution’s right to maintain discipline and secular norms.
However, what has truly outraged many observers is the double standard being blatantly employed by the CPIM government in Kerala. While the Left government is quick to invoke constitutional rights in favor of one religious group, it has often been openly hostile or indifferent when it comes to Hindu sentiments and institutions.
For instance, CPIM leaders have regularly indulged in anti-Hindu rhetoric, portraying Hindu practices and beliefs as regressive or communal. Temples have been placed under stringent state control, while the government has opposed traditional Hindu practices like the Sabarimala pilgrimage rituals, dismissing centuries-old customs in the name of progressiveness and gender equality, even when such interventions were widely rejected by the devotees.
Contrast this with the proactive stance taken in the hijab case—overruling a Christian minority-run school’s policy, even after the issue was resolved and the father expressed disinterest in further agitation. The duplicity is glaring: Hindu institutions are expected to forgo their customs in the name of modernity and secularism, while Islamic religious symbols are defended in the name of constitutional rights—even within secular educational spaces.
Additionally, the fact that a Christian school has been caught in the crossfire further underscores the dangers of this selective secularism. The CPIM’s intervention has effectively pitted two minority communities—Christians and Muslims—against each other, a deeply irresponsible move in a state already grappling with rising communal sensitivities.
Critics argue that this trend is symptomatic of the CPIM’s broader political strategy: appease certain vote banks while vilifying others, especially the Hindu majority. The government’s repeated reluctance to stand up for uniform policies or secular practices when it comes to Islamic demands has set a precedent that undermines institutional autonomy and social cohesion.
Meanwhile, the Hindu community continues to face systemic discrimination and neglect under the CPIM regime. Whether it’s the desecration of temples, misuse of temple funds, or biased educational content, the anti-Hindu undertone in Left governance has been a consistent concern. Ironically, the same leaders who quote the Constitution to defend hijab in schools were the first to dismiss religious sentiments when thousands of Hindu women protested to preserve temple traditions at Sabarimala.
This episode at St. Rita’s School is not merely about one student or one dress code. It reveals the CPIM’s ongoing ideological hypocrisy—where secularism is invoked selectively, religious freedom is conditional, and institutional autonomy is sacrificed for short-term political gains.
In conclusion, the Kerala government’s action in this case raises pressing questions:
Does institutional discipline matter less than political optics?
Is secularism now a tool for selective enforcement, based on religious identity?
Why does the CPIM continue to vilify Hindu practices, yet bend over backward to accommodate others?
Until these contradictions are addressed, incidents like the hijab row at St. Rita’s will continue to fuel public resentment and further polarize communities in a state once known for its social harmony and high educational standards.