It is often unsettling to see many Muslim women in a Burkha with a niqab, i.e. a face veil. Many are forced to dress thus, some others resign to the dictates and yet a few are too willing to follow the suit. The religious structure that compels this kind of dress code argues that it is mandatory to dress modestly. This injunction is interpreted severally as just a head scarf or a full hijab to the extremities of a niqab. At the ground level, therefore it becomes more of a social code where every social group (and there are several) evolves its own set of rules and a mechanism of enforcement. Conforming to these rules is thus to retain or some time assert one’s social identity. I am much too aware that many veiled Muslim women I encounter in a ladies compartment of my local train have willingly accepted the dress code; most are young college going girls or educated office goers. One may even sense a high moral ground kind of attitude that comes over people when they adopt religious customs.
I find it awkward that I will not recognize them if I meet them again as all I have seen is a tight oval window revealing the front of the face and some times even less- just the two eyes peering from a slit. The burkha surely divests them the dignity and identity of an individual.
Why then, I am arguing against the French President’s desire to ban the burkha? Mr. Sarkozy has denounced the garment as a sign of women’s subjugation. Surely, he is right. Then why complain?
If a garment can represent women’s subjugation, then, burkha is not alone.
What about the good old Indian saree? Some of my Marwari friends in Panvel where I live are compelled to wear only sarees by their ultra traditional families. Surreptitiously changing into a salwar kameez when they visit a friend or go out of town is their idea of indulging in a forbidden pleasure. I remember, in my own Gujarati family, for my mother and aunts wearing the saree in a non-Gujarati fashion itself was an act of defiance against the traditional values. For these women, letting their daughters-in-law to wear a ‘Punjabi Dress’ is akin to a major revolution. But you can’t catch them dead without a dupatta. The term used to justify these traditions is ‘maryada’ which literally means ‘limits’. Women must remain within certain limits. The most commonly enforced limits are in the sartorial realm as it is the most outward manifestation of status. So, why not liberate all these women by banning sarees and dupattas? There are people out there who do feel that wearing a saree is a sign of backwardness. Where does this leave someone who wears a saree out of choice as they think Punjabi dress as alien as pants? What if Sarkozy declares it as unwelcome in France.
My objection is against compelling women what they must wear. I object in equal measure against dictating what they can’t wear or judging them by what they choose to wear. Women always have to be told, they can’t decide for themselves.
Finally, why just ban a head scarf? Why leave out fancy hats? Why not liberate HRH Queen Elizabeth II who never appears in public with her head bare?
Sunday, June 28, 2009
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Konkani Muslim Wedding and Sarkozy
Yesterday was my husband’s cousin’s Konkani Muslim Wedding at the Haj House near VT station. The men were dressed more or less the same- Pant and Bush Shirt- in simple style and subdued colours. The two men who have a central role to play in a Muslim wedding were dressed a little differently. The groom had a more flamboyant blue shirt on with a corduroy jacket that was promptly removed after the brief ceremony. The Bride’s father had a black coat and a black fur cap (a bit like what Farooq Abdullah wears) on. When the Kazi who was the only bearded man in the hall (and a few others) began to recite the Kalma, the groom donned a white skull cap which was clearly a last minute and unco-ordinated inclusion in his wedding attire. A couple of elders on the stage placed their handkerchiefs on their head. The rest tried to look as solemn as they could with their bare heads. The groom’s father was walking up and down, giving catering instructions on his mobile phone while his son was reciting his wedding wows. It can’t be more humdrum and matter of fact than this.
The scene among the other sex was different. The women were a motley mix. At the middle of the spectrum were the normal Konkani Muslim women of our family- clad in a Banarasi saree and gold Mangalsutra sans bindi. There was a section of women clad in black burkhas- maybe very distant relatives as neither I knew them nor was introduced to them. Then there was this bizarre lot who was dressed in zhakpak salwar kameez and wore shiny imitation jewellery. Among all this, you wouldn’t have missed a huge number of women dressed in Banarasis, mangalsutras with bindis on their foreheads. They were the more family than friends Hindu friends of the family and long standing neighbours, greeting our aunt with the muslim hug. As if this was not enough, you also had my husband’s Bohra Muslim aunt clad in a bright coloured and intricately embroidered Bohra burkha known as a rida.
In short, men and women dressed as they pleased or as they understood/ interpreted the tradition. I did not see any consciously defined uniform pattern. This is how it should be: Let people be. Let them choose for themselves. Give them the freedom to follow their traditions or reject them, as long as they are not causing harm to others.
What would Mr. Sarkozy have made out regarding the Muslim sartorial tradition if he was a guest at the above wedding? He has created a stir by proposing a ban on burkha in France.
How can any state dictate what people should not wear? I am sure there are anti-nudist laws in France, meaning one can not go about completely naked in public, meaning one has to wear some clothes at least. That being the case, who decides the upper limit? Personally, I can’t understand why some Muslim women choose to wear a sac like garment with a face mask. I don’t get the logic of modesty implied here. I also don’t understand the stark contrast in the way men and women dress at the Oscar award ceremony, for instance. Now, either the women must be freezing to near death or the men must be slowing stewing inside their penguin like uniforms. You don’t go about advocating bans on some things you don’t like or understand.
Compare some universities in Uttar Pradesh banning girls from wearing jeans with the French government banning burkhas. Both acts are equally dubious even though the former seems to be imposing restrictions on women while the latter seems to liberate them from restrictions. At a deeper level they commit a similar folly.
I wish both the state and the church would leave people alone in matters of personal choices.
The scene among the other sex was different. The women were a motley mix. At the middle of the spectrum were the normal Konkani Muslim women of our family- clad in a Banarasi saree and gold Mangalsutra sans bindi. There was a section of women clad in black burkhas- maybe very distant relatives as neither I knew them nor was introduced to them. Then there was this bizarre lot who was dressed in zhakpak salwar kameez and wore shiny imitation jewellery. Among all this, you wouldn’t have missed a huge number of women dressed in Banarasis, mangalsutras with bindis on their foreheads. They were the more family than friends Hindu friends of the family and long standing neighbours, greeting our aunt with the muslim hug. As if this was not enough, you also had my husband’s Bohra Muslim aunt clad in a bright coloured and intricately embroidered Bohra burkha known as a rida.
In short, men and women dressed as they pleased or as they understood/ interpreted the tradition. I did not see any consciously defined uniform pattern. This is how it should be: Let people be. Let them choose for themselves. Give them the freedom to follow their traditions or reject them, as long as they are not causing harm to others.
What would Mr. Sarkozy have made out regarding the Muslim sartorial tradition if he was a guest at the above wedding? He has created a stir by proposing a ban on burkha in France.
How can any state dictate what people should not wear? I am sure there are anti-nudist laws in France, meaning one can not go about completely naked in public, meaning one has to wear some clothes at least. That being the case, who decides the upper limit? Personally, I can’t understand why some Muslim women choose to wear a sac like garment with a face mask. I don’t get the logic of modesty implied here. I also don’t understand the stark contrast in the way men and women dress at the Oscar award ceremony, for instance. Now, either the women must be freezing to near death or the men must be slowing stewing inside their penguin like uniforms. You don’t go about advocating bans on some things you don’t like or understand.
Compare some universities in Uttar Pradesh banning girls from wearing jeans with the French government banning burkhas. Both acts are equally dubious even though the former seems to be imposing restrictions on women while the latter seems to liberate them from restrictions. At a deeper level they commit a similar folly.
I wish both the state and the church would leave people alone in matters of personal choices.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)