Saswati Halder, the head of the English department at Kolkata’s Jadavpur University, was directed to proceed on leave until the end of January. This decision was taken on 6th January, a Tuesday, by Vice-Chancellor Chiranjib Bhattacharjee.

The action followed an incident during an examination held on 22nd December, when two students were asked to remove their hijabs due to suspicion of cheating. According to the information available, the students were allegedly frisked by Halder along with a research scholar to ensure that no electronic or other cheating devices were concealed.

This development occurred just one day after a committee set up by the university to examine the allegations recommended that the department head be relieved of her responsibilities while the inquiry was ongoing. The Vice-Chancellor later stated, “Professor Halder applied for leave for personal reasons. The leave application has been accepted,” attempting to present the move as voluntary. However, reports indicate that she made this request “under pressure” and that the leave period extended from 7th January to 30th January.

An official familiar with the matter explained the sequence of events in detail. “The head of the English department was called to the VC’s office at 1 pm on Tuesday and was asked to go on leave until 30th January. The VC reportedly told her students were firm in their demand to remove Halder from her responsibilities until the probe was over. So it is better for her to go on leave,” the official stated. This clarification suggested that the decision was influenced heavily by student pressure rather than administrative neutrality.

The chairperson of the inquiry committee, Syed Tanveer Nasreen, also shared her observations. She revealed that one of the students who appeared before the West Bengal Minorities Commission claimed that several questions asked during the interaction were “offensive.” Nasreen added further context by saying, “When asked about such questions, the teacher said she did this out of naivete.”

Colleague questions the university’s decision

A senior professor from the same department described the situation as deeply “unfortunate”, particularly because Halder was sent on leave even before the committee had submitted its findings and recommendations. The professor pointed out, “She apologised to the students belonging to a particular community for subjecting them to frisking. She has been frisking students like any other teacher, regardless of their religious or community identity. Still, she was ready to apologise. However, the university administration forced her to go on leave.”

The colleague stressed that Halder was only performing her assigned responsibilities, as preventing unfair practices during examinations is a basic duty of invigilators. She warned of the broader consequences, saying, “If this goes on, then no one will be ready to carry out the job of frisking. Halder has been left traumatised over the way she was made to go on leave.”

It was also revealed that Halder had already scheduled a meeting of the department’s Board of Studies for 8th January. Referring to this, the professor explained, “She requested the VC if she could go on leave after the meeting but was asked to take the leave from Wednesday (7th January) itself.” The same teacher further recalled the emotional toll on Halder, stating, “Halder was extremely disturbed and succumbed to the pressure. She came to the department after meeting the VC, conducted an exam and wrote the email, applying for leave until 30th January.”

How the controversy unfolded

During the university’s two-day convocation, certain female students from the arts faculty, associated with the Students Federation of India (SFI), the student wing of the Communist Party of India (Marxist), displayed a poster accusing members of the English department of “Islamophobia.” Around the same time, some students from the department submitted a written complaint to the Vice-Chancellor, alleging that Muslim girls were harassed and selectively targeted in the name of strict invigilation.

The complainants claimed that such actions violated their classmate’s constitutional rights and amounted to profiling based on religious identity. In response to these allegations, a six-member delegation from the West Bengal Minorities Commission visited the campus on 30th December. The delegation met with the Vice-Chancellor, the registrar, and student representatives to gather details about the incident.

The commission’s chairman, Imran Ahmed, took a strong stand on the matter. He stated that asking students to remove their headscarves was “completely wrong” and unacceptable. He further asserted, “Such incidents appear to involve deliberate profiling and such actions have no place in an academic environment.” Ahmed also suggested that Halder should remain away from campus until the internal inquiry was completed to ensure fairness and objectivity.

Following the backlash, Jadavpur University constituted a three-member fact-finding committee and instructed it to submit a report within one month. Despite this, protests continued, with accusations that the university had violated the fundamental rights of students. West Bengal Education Minister Bratya Basu stated that the department had taken the matter seriously and would respond appropriately after receiving the minority commission’s report.

Meanwhile, the Jadavpur University Teachers Association urged the administration to formulate a clear policy on exam invigilation. In an internal note circulated among faculty members, the association emphasized the importance of “mutual respect between teachers and students” while also raising concerns about cheating and unfair practices during examinations.

Additionally, the association argued that the nature of the inquiries was objectionable with respect to the students’ religious beliefs and stated that Halder should apologise. The English department’s Board of Studies echoed this recommendation.

Halder responds to the allegations

Saswati Halder firmly rejected the accusation of Islamophobia. She maintained that the steps taken during the examination were solely due to suspicion of cheating. She explained that another student wearing a hood assisted in checking whether an earbud was concealed.

Halder further clarified that two other students wearing hijabs, including one student with a disability, were not asked to remove their headscarves because their conduct did not raise any suspicion. She stated that the student who was asked to partially remove her hijab was escorted to a vacant adjacent room, and only her female batchmate was present to assist her, ensuring privacy and dignity.

Hijab disputes across India

The debate surrounding the hijab is not new and has surfaced repeatedly across different parts of India. These disputes are often accompanied by claims of Islamophobia and are used to bypass established rules, provoke unrest, and turn minor issues into major controversies. A similar incident occurred last year at Saint Rita’s Public School in Palluruthy, Kerala, run by the Latin Catholic Church. The school had to shut down for two days after a disagreement escalated into a communal issue.

The controversy began when a student arrived wearing an Islamic headscarf, which was not permitted under school rules. Her parents, along with six others, reportedly created a disturbance and demanded that she be allowed to wear the religious attire. The Left-led state government intervened, directing the school to comply with the demand. Education Minister V Sivankutty instructed the institution to allow the hijab, overriding the school’s authority to enforce its uniform policy.

In 2022, another major controversy erupted in Udupi, Karnataka, when Muslim students were barred from attending classes because their hijabs were not part of the prescribed uniform. The students responded by wearing burqas and launching protests. They later admitted to consulting the Campus Front of India (CFI), an organisation linked to the now-banned Popular Front of India.

During the legal proceedings, the students’ lawyers cited “Sharia Law” in the Karnataka High Court, arguing that the hijab is an essential religious practice. The court, however, ruled that it is not an essential part of Islam and upheld the uniform as a reasonable restriction. The verdict was criticised by left-leaning groups and later challenged in the Supreme Court of India.

A year later, a similar incident took place at Koroimura Higher Secondary School in Tripura’s Sepahijala district, where Muslim students defied school rules by wearing hijabs. Hindu boys protested by wearing saffron kurtas. The headmaster, Priyatosh Nandi, intervened and directed all students to adhere strictly to the school uniform. He stated, “After a meeting with teachers, I recently directed all students to attend school wearing a proper uniform. However, girl students from the minority community said they cannot follow this directive as wearing hijab is a religious belief.” The situation escalated when a tenth-grade student and his associates vandalised Nandi’s office.

The same year, protests were witnessed outside NG Acharya & DK Marathe College in Mumbai’s Chembur area over the institution’s dress code. The protests began after girls wearing burqas were denied entry for not complying with uniform rules. Principal Vidya Gauri Lele explained, “We held a meeting with parents on the 1st of May to go through this new dress code policy. Everything, including the prohibition on the burqa, the hijab, scarves, and stickers, had been announced. Everyone had agreed to the dress code at the time. However, they are currently protesting.”

Police intervention eventually led to a resolution. The college administration later clarified that students could enter the campus wearing burqas, hijabs, or scarves but would need to remove them in the restroom before entering classrooms and could wear them again while leaving.

Over the years, the hijab issue has repeatedly been used to challenge institutional rules, raise allegations of Islamophobia, invoke Sharia law, and portray uniform regulations as attacks on religious identity. Incidents across different regions of the country show a consistent pattern, with the episode at Jadavpur University being the latest addition.

Islamophobia: A convenient label to deflect accountability

The term “Islamophobia” has increasingly been used as a broad label by Islamist groups and their leftist supporters to group all criticism or enforcement of rules under one category. This approach often creates controversies where none originally existed. This explains why Jadavpur University, known for its strong liberal and far-left political environment, rallied around the veil, despite global instances where its enforcement has led to the suffering and deaths of Muslim women, from Iran and Afghanistan to several Western countries.

This episode also highlights how a teacher performing her duties faced sustained pressure, harassment, and was eventually compelled to take leave. Given the prevailing climate of minority appeasement in West Bengal, the likelihood of Halder receiving a fair and unbiased inquiry appears slim. The action taken against her now looms as a warning to other educators who may hesitate to enforce rules in the future.

Such fear could discourage teachers from conducting proper checks or asking Muslim students to comply with established norms, potentially leading to increased cheating and erosion of institutional discipline. The present case has set a troubling precedent and, regrettably, has further empowered elements that thrive on controversy rather than accountability.