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?
No comments:
Post a Comment