BENGALURU: There are two alternative ways to look at a secularist approach — One law that applies to all, despite diversity; or equal freedom to all to respect that very diversity. The ongoing issue of school uniforms falls within this dilemma – one uniform for all students in a particular institution, or allow students to wear what they want within their socio-cultural boundaries.
With the uniform issue grabbing media attention over the last few months, it has become vital to understand where exactly the idea of uniforms for schoolchildren came from. The focal point of this will be the Karnataka Education Act of 1983, particularly Section 133(2), which has been cited multiple times to designate uniforms or dress code in educational institutions by the Karnataka government.
However, the Act itself does not mandate any kind of dress code or uniform, with educationist K E Radhakrishna saying that uniforms became popular in Indian schools somewhere between three to four decades ago. “The purpose of uniforms and the reason they were introduced was to have a sense of different identities. It was initially used by private schools to distinguish themselves from each other and to have a qualitative and quantitative competition,” Radhakrishna told TNIE.
According to him, the uniform gradually became both a status symbol in schools and an equaliser to prevent poorer students from being targeted due to their economic status. Following this, government schools also started adopting uniforms, both in part to act as an equaliser and also to compete with private schools. In his experience as a faculty member of Seshadripuram College, and later as its principal, he says that dress codes were never mandated.
United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund (UNICEF) education specialist Sheshagiri KM Rao echoes similar views saying that in his days as a PU student, uniforms and dress codes were not the norm, being a relatively newer aspect of education in Karnataka. “There are, however, exceptions made for minority institutions, where the right to practice their religion in educational institutions run by them is a protected right under the Constitution,” he said, citing his experience as a student of Baldwin Boys High School, run by the Methodist Church in India.
However, a public school, Rao says, is considered a secular space. “This can be interpreted in two ways — either by removing all religious symbols in schools to ensure complete uniformity, or allow students to wear clothes that are not considered indecent, since a secular school should not be concerned with the religious practices of a student unless it is considered offensive to other students in terms of indecency,” Rao said. Further, he said that in his experience as a specialist, he had visited thousands of government schools where pictures of gods of learning were put up, stating that it had always been common practice.
Radhakrishna said that he was in favour of doing away with uniforms as their purpose had been corrupted over the years. “The uniform was introduced with good intentions, it stood as a symbol of preventing caste disparity and to establish equality in schools. It later became a symbol of status, but now, it has become an instrument for politically volatile individuals to take advantage of.” He added that the need for uniforms had also reduced, stating that they were necessary to ensure equality 40 years ago, but India had come a long way in terms of access to education, which is no longer considered a status symbol.Both educationists agreed that there needs to be a minimum guideline for promoting decent clothing in educational institutions, but the need for uniforms had long passed.
Citing the 1992 case that led to Article 21 (A), which declares education for children between the ages of 6 to 14 a fundamental right, Sheshagiri Rao says the Supreme Court had equated the right to education with the right to life. “The court had stated that the right to education is no less than right to life and failure to guarantee it would lead to a limiting future prospects that would impact quality of life severely,” he said.
Several education experts have stressed that uniforms can be mandated in schools up to Class 10 and done away with in the later years to allow students transition into dressing cultures for various careers where uniforms are not mandated.
“Many private education institutions are given the discretion to decide and prescribe uniforms, and students and parents are aware of the uniform rule at the time of admissions,” reasons one academic, unwilling to be named. “So, if wearing a particular uniform is an issue for them on the grounds of social or cultural factors, they are free to take admission in an institution which does not make wearing of
uniforms compulsory.”
Highlighting examples where uniforms are used in other sections of society, Radhakrishna said, “Uniforms are used by defence personnel or police to establish an identity, corporate higher-ups may have a dress code, but people, including civil servants, do not wear uniforms.”
Arguments In
Favour of Uniforms
Arguments
Against Uniforms
STATUS IN DIFFERENT STATES
What the Karnataka ACT says
The State Government, on February 5, issued an order “invoking Sec 133 (2) of the Karnataka Education Act-1983, which says a uniform style of clothes has to be worn compulsorily. The private school administration can choose a uniform of their choice.” The order also said that in colleges which come under the Karnataka Board of Pre-University Education, dress code prescribed by the College Development Committee or the administrative supervisory committee must be followed. If the administration does not fix a dress code, clothes that do not threaten equality, unity and public order must be worn.
Under Section 133 of the Act, the government reserves the right to issue appropriate directions to schools and colleges to ensure maintenance of public order.
As per the rules and Notifications under the Karnataka Education Act, 1983, every recognised educational institution may specify its own set of uniforms. Such uniform, once specified, shall not be changed within a period of five years. A notice should be provided to change uniform. Purchase of uniform and books from the school or a shop etc., and stitching suggested by the school authorities, shall be an option to the students and parents.