women's clothing; The conflict between the government and the citizen
The banning of veiled students and teachers from entering Azerbaijan's schools in September and October this year has brought an old dispute to the forefront of the news. Observers and critics ask whether the government can decide on the clothing of citizens in the name of secularism, religion or public order.
Ambassador Arjan; Yalda Azarpi - Preventing veiled students and teachers from entering Azerbaijan's schools in September and October this year has brought an old dispute to the forefront of the news. Observers and critics ask whether the government can decide on the clothing of citizens in the name of secularism, religion or public order. Why do governments turn veiling into a political issue and what is the standard for separating politics based on citizen rights from ideological coercion?
The government of Azerbaijan has spoken about the regulations of covering schools and secularism. Critics, however, say that the new regulations lead to the restriction of the hijab and deprivation of education. The range of protests and media reactions show that the issue is not only the shape of school uniforms; Religious freedom, the right to education and the limits of the government's authority are among them.
This incident can be compared with the experience of countries that have restricted religious clothing and countries that consider certain clothing mandatory. Are banning hijab in the name of secularism and forcing it in the name of religion two sides of the same issue? Are all types of coverage restrictions equally harmful? The experience of different countries shows that the answer to this question is not simple regardless of the law, the scope of implementation, the consequences and the possibility of individual choice, and yet, the common issue is: <Who has the right to decide about the body and clothing of a citizen?
First, we will examine the countries that have restricted or banned the hijab, and then we will look at the countries that have mandatory hijab or mandatory covering regulations. In each section, the origin of the policy, consequences and contradictions are briefly reviewed and then we reach a comparative summary and solution.
Countries that have restricted or banned hijab are: Azerbaijan, Turkey, France, Belgium, Austria and India.
The countries that carry compulsory covering or official covering regulations (public areas such as government centers) include Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan and Iran.
Azerbaijan; Secularism according to the government
The current conflict in Azerbaijan started with the new rules of clothing in schools. An amendment approved in September 2026, referring to the principle of secularism, limited coverage inconsistent with school regulations; However, he did not consider the ban to be explicitly aimed at hijab. After that, there were reports of preventing the entry of veiled students and teachers, protesting and boycotting classes. The government and the ruling party emphasize the observance of uniforms. Critics, however, say that the implementation of regulations threatens religious freedom and the right to education. If secularism leads to the removal of religious symbols, it will distance itself from the principle of neutrality of the state and will become the imposition of a pattern of covering.
Türkiye; Retreat from the historical ban
The restriction of the hijab in Türkiye is rooted in a strict perception of secularism, which excluded religion from public institutions after the establishment of the republic. This policy became controversial especially since the 1990s and after the intervention of the military in politics, in universities and government institutions. In some cases, veiled women faced obstacles to continue their studies or professional activities. Since 2013, the government of Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has lifted hijab restrictions in large parts of the state apparatus, although exceptions remain. Turkey's experience shows that banning religious veils can lead to educational and job deprivation, and lifting the ban does not automatically guarantee that the government will stop turning veiling into a tool for political competition.
France; Prohibition of religious symbols in the banner of secularism
In 2004, France passed a law banning the use of overt religious symbols and clothing in public schools. This law was formed in a context where its supporters considered it to be a defense of secularism and the neutrality of the educational environment, and its opponents considered it to limit the freedom of Muslim students, especially veiled girls. Of course, the scope of the law is limited to public schools and it should not be considered a general ban on the hijab in French society. However, this issue has implications beyond coverage. A student may make a choice between maintaining the cover of belief and attending school, and this question is raised, does the neutrality of the government require the students' disbelief?
Belgium; Different restrictions in the same country
Contrary to the image that is sometimes presented, Belgium does not have a uniform and nationwide ban on wearing the hijab in public spaces. The coverage regulations in public schools and different institutions are different depending on the region, educational network and employer. Some schools have banned obvious religious symbols, and this decision has repeatedly become the subject of protests and legal disputes.
The argument of the supporters is based on the neutrality of the public institution and the prevention of religious pressure. Critics say a blanket ban could limit Muslim women's access to education and employment. The case of Belgium shows that decision-making in different institutions does not necessarily resolve the conflict and sometimes confronts citizens with different and uncertain rules in similar situations.
Austria; From symbolic politics to legal challenges
In recent years, Austria has turned the hijab into one of the topics of political controversy. The ban on the headscarf for girls in primary schools was raised on the grounds of protecting children and defending secular values, but the Austrian Constitutional Court overturned the law in 2020 on the grounds of discrimination against religious groups.
The issue of hijab in Austria shows that even a law that is justified under the pretext of child protection and equality may in practice target a specific group. Supporting children should not be an excuse to deprive them of education or impose cultural identity. The fair standard is for the government to prove a real danger and link the restriction to a clear and proportionate necessity.
India; Hijab, school and identity politics
The hijab controversy in the Indian state of Karnataka escalated in late 2011 and early 2022, after Muslim students protested against being barred from entering classes wearing the hijab. The state government emphasized on the uniform and discipline of education. The protesters considered this decision a violation of religious freedom and discrimination against the Muslim minority. In October 2022, two judges of the Supreme Court of India gave different verdicts in the case and the matter was listed for further hearing. Therefore, the dispute should not be considered resolved with a final and nationwide ruling. The importance of this example is in the connection of covering with religious polarization and nationalism. When clothing is a sign of group loyalty, students are drawn into the arena of adult political competition.
Saudi Arabia; Gap between legal obligation and social pressure
For years, Saudi Arabia had a reputation for strict restrictions on women's clothing, with public custom and religious institutions prescribing the wearing of the abaya and conservative dress code. With the social reforms of the Muhammad bin Salman period, the severity of some restrictions was reduced and the traditional requirement of abaya was also reduced; However, regulations regarding inappropriate clothing in public places are still in place. The question is, does the reduction of official pressure mean complete freedom of choice, or do social norms and the possibility of confrontation still limit the scope of women's choices?
Iran; Legal coercion and social resistance
[Mandatory hijab in Iran was implemented not immediately after the 1357 revolution, but after the events of 1960 and in the Islamic Penal Code. Before that, it was applied only to the offices and educational centers, but after the dismissal of the first president and the events of 1960, it spread to the public arena, and because the atmosphere of the country was affected by war and armed rebellions, civil activists did not have much opportunity to publicly react.
This policy has been associated with warning, disciplinary action, punishment and pressure on businesses for decades. Mahsa Amini's death following her arrest in the hands of Ershad sparked social protests in September 1401 and turned the hijab issue from a government requirement into a broad symbol of individual freedom and the relationship between the government and society. The spread of disobedience was such that the face of the public space changed [while the parliament passed a resolution to fine girls and women who were considered violators and with many amendments, it finally became a law, but the president of the medical profession, in his capacity as the head of the Supreme National Security Council, declared that this law was not enforceable or that his government was unable to implement it, and the highest security institution actually approved his opinion in order to prevent tension in the society and repeat the bitter experience of Mahsa.]
Afghanistan; Covering, a pretext for controlling women's lives
After the return of the Taliban to power in 2021, the restrictions on women's clothing were again on the agenda. The government decree of May 2022 emphasized covering the body and introduced the burqa as a desirable covering. The August 2024 Law on Prohibition of Prosperity and Prohibition of Prohibition also established more restrictions on women's clothing and presence in public space. The implementation of these regulations is not the same in different regions, but reports indicate pressure, harassment and restrictions on women's movement. The issue of women's clothing in Afghanistan is not independent of their education, employment and social presence, and it is part of a wider structure that limits women's independence.
A comparative look at these countries reveals two facts. First, the governments try to regulate the coverage by referring to different values from secularism and educational order to religion and ethics and public. Second, the result of such policies depends on the legal context, the intensity of implementation and the possibility of protest. Banning the hijab in school, forcing hijab in the street, and restrictive regulations on covering in organizations and institutions do not have the same scope and consequences, and equating them hides the real differences, but all of these cases carry a common question: does the government make a necessary and proportionate intervention to maintain public order, or does it impose its cultural and ideological preference on the citizen?
The most important commonality of all these countries is the transformation of the female body into a stage for the display of political authority. In one country, a woman is forced to abandon the state-sanctioned covering, and in another she must accept it. In both situations, personal choice is the test of loyalty. A person shows with his clothes which political or cultural order he follows. This logic reduces women from citizens with rights to the subject of public policy and judgment.
The solution is to abandon double standards. If religious freedom and the right to choose clothing are valuable in one country, it should not be considered unimportant in another country because of the religious identity of its citizens. Coverage provisions should be clear, limited and objectionable. The government must prove the necessity of any restriction and show that the legitimate objective cannot be achieved by a less intrusive method. Schools should focus on equal access to education, security and avoiding coercion instead of removing students from class. In the work environment, safety standards and job description should be separated from political and cultural preferences.
The events in Azerbaijan are a reminder that secularism is the guardian of freedom only when it prevents the government from imposing beliefs, not when it deprives citizens of expressing their identity. Just as the religious government should not impose religious clothing on all people, the secular government should not use religious clothing as an excuse to exclude people from the public space. The ultimate criterion is to preserve dignity, equality, access to education and freedom of choice. The freedom of clothing means when a person can wear or not wear, without his clothing becoming a license to be deprived, humiliated or punished [and naturally, in every society, clothing is subject to custom].