Comments (2)

By Ritwik Agrawal | August 13, 2010 2:36 am

The following is a guest post by Ishita Tiwary. Comments may be directed at ishtiwary26888@gmail.com

The burqa is an enveloping outer garment worn by muslim women in order to cover themselves when out in public. It consists of “jilbab” a loose body covering, the “hijab” which is the head covering, and the face veil known as the “niqab”.

Historically there is evidence that women, particularly Arabian and Persian women, wore this garment before the advent of Islam. Hijab is a requirement as ordained by the Koran, for both men and women, to dress and behave modestly in public. This requirement has been interpreted in many different ways by Islamic scholars and clerics all over the world.  For instance, the Koran has been translated by saying, “And say to the faithful women to lower their gazes, and to guard their private parts, and not to display their beauty except what is apparent of it, and to extend their headcoverings (khimars) to cover their bosoms (jaybs), and not to display their beauty except to their husbands, or their fathers, or their husband’s fathers, or their sons, or their husband’s sons, or their brothers, or their brothers’ sons, or their sisters’ sons, or their womenfolk, or what their right hands rule (slaves), or the followers from the men who do not feel sexual desire, or the small children to whom the nakedness of women is not apparent, and not to strike their feet (on the ground) so as to make known what they hide of their adornments. And turn in repentance to Allah together, O you the faithful, in order that you are successful”

The recent ban on the burqa by the French government has created a furor across the world.  Some have welcomed the move, stating that the ban upholds the principles of secularism and most importantly secures the right to dignity to a woman. While others have criticized it by deeming it as enforced assimilation in society, and stating that it is yet another instance of the perceived Islamophobia of the West.

The origins of “The Veil Affair” can be traced back to mid 90’s in France. In 1994, a memorandum- “Francois Bayrou memo” was issued, which distinguished between discreet religious symbols and ostentatious religious symbols such as the “hijab” which was sought to be banned in the public realm. A decade later in 2004, the French government passed a law on secularity and conspicuous religious symbols in schools, which in essence banned all ostensible religious symbols in public schools. The law basically upheld the principle of Laicite. The principle of Laicite basically means the separation of the church (or religion) and the state. In France, the government is legally prohibited to recognize any religion, but it does recognize religious organizations. In 2009, French President Nicholas Sarkozy commented that “In our country, we cannot accept that women be prisoners behind a screen, cut from all social life, deprived of all identity.”  Accordingly the French National Assembly appointed 32 lawmakers from right and left wing parties on a six month fact finding mission to look at ways of restricting the use of the burqa. On 26^th January the group delivered its report, and was in favour of banning the burqa in the public sphere.

The debate surrounding “The Veil Affair” can be surmised as such. Those who are for the ban, support it on chiefly two grounds- The Laicite argument and the Feminist argument. According to the Laicite argument, the wearing of the veil in the public sphere, distinguishes Muslim women from the rest and thus hampers the spirit of unity and secularism that the French Nation upholds. The feminist arguments points out the loss of identity of a woman who dons the veil as well as symbolizing the submission of women to men. Those against the ban point out that it yet another instance of rising Islamophobia in the west, that the woman has a right to choose whether she wears the burqa or not, and that this enforced secularism is a prime example of western patriarchy.

To me, the debate over the banning of the burqa by the French Government is much more than just upholding the principle of Laicite, or restricted to securing the dignity of a woman to just one nation, or the perceived Islamophobia. In essence the debate is and should be about the freedom and liberation of a woman, her dignity, and the right to her own identity, her body and finally the claiming of herself.

The donning of the burqa ensures the loss of identity for a woman. With only her eyes visible, the person observing her has no idea as to who she might possibly be. Is she young or old? Does she have short or long hair? How much does she weigh? Is her face happy or sad? Is there anything distinctive about her? How does she show her inner tumult or happiness to the world? Imagine living this reality everyday. Imagine looking at yourself in the mirror like this everyday. Perhaps an eerie sense of disassociation takes place, and perhaps as time passes by time ensures that this becomes habitual and normal.

The Koran talks about how modesty should be practiced by both men and women. Then why is it that it’s the women, who actually have to cover themselves from head to toe? Perhaps, it has got to do with the patriarchal setup of our society, where it is the responsibility of the woman to preserve the honour of her family. The burqa is not just a garment, but a garment that has religious weight attached to it. A woman who wears the burqa is also symbolically representing values such as Modesty, Piety and Piousness. By associating such loaded terms with this garment, the veil in essence desexualizes a woman, and takes away her right to her own sexuality, her own body.  In this case, religion supercedes individual liberty. It is something that most women, irrespective of their religion can identify with- The fact that women have always have to carry the weight of preserving honor of their family, by practicing modesty, and this is done through the means of curbing their sexuality.

From the above, it becomes clear how patriarchy uses sexuality as an instrument of control over women.  Symbols become very important, especially when it comes to exercising control. The wearing of the burqa symbolically shows that there is implicit recognition from a women’s side that she is subservient to a man.

In a democratic setup, it is the role of a secular government to takes steps that counter discrimination. The burqa is in essence against the basic dignity of a woman. It robs her of her identity, of the right to her own body and sexuality, and symbolically renders her inferior to man. In such a scenario, it is imperative for the secular state to intervene and take measure that counters this form of discrimination. Such steps will ensure, although controversy laden, and rightfully so, the upliftment of the status of women in society, a gradual change in the mindset of coming generation in their perceived attitude towards the burqa. At times, laws which seem to be unpopular and intolerant at first, can actually bring mammoth changes in not only the mindset of future generation, but also in trying to equalize the power relationships between different sections of society, in this case, it being between men and women.

Comments (6)

By Ritwik Agrawal | July 9, 2010 6:17 pm

A few days back, thugs belonging to a radical Islamist outfit called Popular Front chopped off the right hand of Prof. T.J. Joseph, a private college lecturer in Muvattapuzha in Kerala as “punishment” for the  ”offence” of hurting religious sentiments. The Hindu has covered this story in some detail.

Dilip D’Souza has raised some pertinent questions in this regard:

* Why the college management “apologised”.

* Why the Kerala government saw fit to issue “instructions” that the professor should be suspended.

* Why the college followed the government’s instruction and suspended him.

* Why the police lodged a case against the professor.

The following is worth noting as well:

T. Vikram, Superintendent of Police, Ernakulam Rural, who was camping in the area, said: “We have talked to church leaders to convince them that an all-out effort is being made to nab the culprits.” (as reported in The Hindu)

I don’t understand why the police needed to specifically assure church leaders that the perpetrators of this ghastly attack will be brought to justice? Surely these “church leaders” should have been incensed regardless of the religious affiliation of the victim?

Of course, this episode would not have even become a news story had the attackers not committed the tactical error of chopping off Joseph’s hand. As it is, they had him on the run. A little bit of shouting from the rooftops had ensured that:

1. Joseph was suspended from his job. In what capacity did the state Government instruct a PRIVATE institute to suspend an employee is not clear.

2. He was picked up and harassed by the police.

3. After getting out on bail, he went into hiding to escape frequent death threats. In response, the police put out a wanted poster for his arrest

Why exactly were the government and the police so keen to prosecute Prof. Joseph? Why were the charges of “hurting religious sentiments” believed at face value and not investigated properly? What constrained the government to apply the serious charge of “fomenting communal hatred” on the Professor? What about the concept of an educational institution being an open space? Why did the state not defend Prof. Joseph’s fundamental right to expression?

Maybe the secular, progressive and people friendly Left Democratic Front government of Kerala can provide some answers.

Comments (9)

By Ritwik Agrawal | September 15, 2009 6:24 am

The Telegraph (UK) reports that Jon Amiel’s film Creation, a British project about Charles Darwin and the theory of evolution has not found a distributor in America. The film, which has secured positive early reviews, has had no problem in securing distributors in other territories all over the world.

It may be recalled that America has witnessed an acrimonious debate on Darwin’s theory of evolution, which is widely accepted as the best explanation for the origin of life and evolution of various life-forms. Creationists in America refuse to accept Darwin’s theory as it clashes with ideas propagated by Christianity.

However, US distributors have resolutely passed on a film which will prove hugely divisive in a country where, according to a Gallup poll conducted in February, only 39 per cent of Americans believe in the theory of evolution.

Movieguide.org, an influential site which reviews films from a Christian perspective, described Darwin as the father of eugenics and denounced him as “a racist, a bigot and an 1800s naturalist whose legacy is mass murder”. His “half-baked theory” directly influenced Adolf Hitler and led to “atrocities, crimes against humanity, cloning and genetic engineering”, the site stated.

It is difficult to see this incident in isolation, given the increasing intolerance and jingoism shown by vast sections of the American media over the past few years, while covering matters as diverse as Iraq, health care and outsourcing.

It is also interesting that despite the election of Barack Obama, right-wing opinions seem to hold a great amount of sway over the country. This seems to rule out any hope of genuine “change”, at least for now.

For a society that prides itself on being free, America has touched a new low. One can only hope that sense will prevail and at least one distributor will show the guts to stand up for freedom of speech, in the land that is gave us Operation Enduring Freedom