New Delhi: It all began with a tweet about the anti-hijab protest at Tehran’s Islamic Azad University describing the veil as a symbol of oppression, classism, and misogyny.
And now public historian-cum-influencer Ruchika Sharma finds herself at the centre of a stormy ideological battle among the liberal voices in India. She has been waging a lone battle against a volley of angry people on the social media platform X.
Anti-triple talaq warrior Zakia Soman calls it the Great Liberal Conundrum. And the hijab as choice vs oppression is at the heart of it all.
In just the past week, Ruchika Sharma – a PhD from JNU and a recent Fellow at the University of Essex in the UK—has been called an islamophobe, hypocrite and slut-shamed for her opinions. And most of this is coming from those who position themselves as progressive. By Sunday night, her critics were tagging Delhi Police and calling her blasphemous. ‘Arrest Ruchika Sharma’ became a hashtag.
“The hijab is a symbol of patriarchy. But given the circumstances in our country, liberals would prefer to take a softer stance toward Muslims,” Zakia Soman
Her trial on X isn’t the only one. But it has become symptomatic of a larger distortion in Indian public debate of late. Many who praised the Iranian protest have been similarly criticised. From triple talaq to hijab to polygamy, any public conversation about Muslim women’s rights and freedom in recent years is silenced as punching down on a community at a time when they are besieged with rising Hindutva politics.
“The hijab is a symbol of patriarchy. But given the circumstances in our country, liberals would prefer to take a softer stance toward Muslims,” said Zakia Soman, Indian women’s rights activist and founder of the Bharatiya Muslim Mahila Andolan. She calls it the political reality of the times in India. “In normal times, they would have defended women’s rights. But for them, the bigger issue right now is opposing majoritarianism. Yet the time for gender justice is never right.”
On 3 November, Sharma tweeted about a student in Iran who was harassed by her university’s morality police over her “improper hijab”. The student didn’t back down—instead, she stripped down to a bikini and roamed the campus. In her tweet, Sharma said she was proud of the woman.
The tweet received backlash not only from religious zealots but also from liberals. The hijab has become a lightning rod for the liberals and feminists, causing an ideological split. Some critics are daring Sharma to address regressive ideas within Hinduism with equal fervour, others urge her not to dictate what women should wear, while another group argues that their real fight is against the majoritarian Hindu state. They say that Sharma is providing ammunition for pro-Hindutva voices to use against Muslims and Islam.
Sharma calls the pro-choice liberals “hypocrites” and that her critique of the hijab comes from a “historical perspective”, rather than any vague anti-Muslim sentiment.
“The idea is that hijab as a practice is oppressive. Just because a woman loves wearing a hijab doesn’t make the practice less oppressive. Like ghoonghat, some women will say that wearing ghoonghat is a choice. Does that make ghoonghat less oppressive?” asked Sharma in an interview with ThePrint.
Also read: I am shocked Indian ‘liberals’ aren’t supporting Iranian woman Ahoo Daryaei protesting hijab
Sati, hijab, Manusmriti
“This is probably the loneliest I have ever been since I have spoken against hijab,” Ruchika Sharma
Two years ago, Sharma started making videos on history titled ‘Eyeshadow and Etihaas’. Her videos cover topics ranging from the history of sati to Manusmriti: 16 disturbing verses on women to myths about the Indus Valley Civilisation. Her videos aren’t typical, boring history lessons; instead, she gives makeup lessons while discussing inconvenient truths of history. This unique approach has earned her around 24,000 subscribers on YouTube.
In her video on the history of sati in 2023, she addresses the misconception that Sati was a matter of a woman’s choice, calling it absolutely wrong. She talks about how, according to the Mahabharata, Hindu god Krishna’s queens—Rukmani, Saibiya, Hemavati, and Jambavati—committed sati upon his death. Sharma had to face the backlash of many Hindus over the video.
But back then, she had liberals on her side. Now, the journey has become much more lonely and no one has come out to support her openly. “But I think this is probably the loneliest I have ever been since I have spoken against hijab. A lot of my fellow academics from JNU who were my peers, nobody has said anything in my support,” she said.
In March 2022, the Karnataka High Court upheld the ban on hijab by the educational institutes. Sharma, who is vocal about women’s issues and calls herself a feminist, had attacked the Karnataka government for “failing women and denying them their fundamental right to education”.
She said her tirade against oppressive practices is consistent, no matter which religion they belong to. But in the shrill debates that follow, this nuance is often lost.
When she attacked Hinduism, her critics challenged her to take on Islam too. Now that she has called out hijab, she is being dared to attack the Hindu faith. She has spent the last few days reminding people on X that she has, in fact, criticised Hinduism too.
International sexual and gender-based violence activist Mariya Salim recalled being intimidated during a visit to Iran for not covering her hair properly. And she said that her friends in Iran admire the bravery of women who protested against the morality police on the university campus and so does she, but they also fear for her safety.
However, Salim, whose work takes her to different countries, said that she believes in standing against all forms of discrimination and threats, without any selective support.
“I fully support a woman’s right to choose not to wear the hijab, but I also strongly back the rights of women who wear the hijab and are denied access to education because of that choice.”
Invisible burger in the sky
“Being an atheist doesn’t empower you to ridicule anyone and especially, at a time when India is going through communal fascism,” historian Ashok Kumar Pandey
Ruchika Sharma is not only a historian and a feminist; she is also an atheist. Her six-day-long social media debate on hijab took a new turn when she replied to a comment, referring to those who believed in the “invisible burger in the sky” – a reference to god. This sparked an immediate and intense backlash. They said she had made a negative comment about Allah and tweets with the word ‘blasphemy’ began appearing on her timeline. Anonymous Twitter accounts began asking for her location to “settle scores”.
Sharma coined the term “invisible burger in the sky”, inspired by the philosophy of Russell’s teapot, introduced by 20th-century philosopher Bertrand Russell. Many atheists have used this construct to attack religion with similar phrases like flying spaghetti monster and invisible pink unicorn.
“This is not the first time. In the past, I have used the same burger argument against Hindus too. This is my argument against the idea of god and I am not going to do any lip service to any god or religion,” she asserted.
One of her most vocal critics on X has been Darab Farooqui, a film writer, who calls hijab a choice and opposes Sharma’s comment on Allah, asking her to acknowledge her upper-class privilege.
In one of his tweets, Darab Farooqui asked Sharma to also mock a Hindu god, saying that she only has the courage to mock Allah. In another tweet, he asked her to “tone down her saviour complex” saying that he had read her op-ed and couldn’t find any real criticism of Hindu gods.
“I want her to acknowledge her educated, upper-class privilege. If the words used by Ruchika against Islam were used by a Muslim against a Hindu, that person would have landed in jail,” Farooqui told ThePrint.
For many, Sharma’s comment on religion has diluted her hijab argument. Historian Ashok Kumar Pandey said that if you call god “burger in the sky,” it overshadows your argument about the practices of that religion and lends weight to intellectual debauchery.
“Being an atheist doesn’t empower you to ridicule anyone and especially, at a time when India is going through communal fascism,” Pandey told ThePrint.
Sharma calls the last six days as a harrowing ordeal. And she is planning to scale back public history classes. She said that India is not ready for public history.
“Now, I understand why academicians in India barely engage in public history because it isn’t valued at all. No one cares, it’s only fodder for one community against another, and whichever community gets angry with the history you’ve shared will bay for your blood,” Sharma told ThePrint on a phone call.
But before she takes a step back, she will post a video giving a historical perspective on hijab. And she doesn’t care if people call her a “bad historian”, she believes that “people need to know the history”.
Summarising her last six days, Sharma said that now she will think twice before talking about any other religion.
“What’s happened to me speaks volumes. After the threats, I’m afraid. Next time, I’ll think twice before discussing other religions, maybe, other than Hinduism,” she said.
(Edited by Ratan Priya)
No bias media source will promote this article