Indian cinema, the burqa has been a long-standing comedic device. Salman Khan, Sunjay Dutt and Arshad Warsi have all gone ‘undercover’ to confound the villain, woo the heroine and evoke laughs. The sinister aspects of the burqa have surfaced only recently, opening a debate that has been raging across the world for over a decade: should the face-veil be banned in the interest of national security? Sri Lanka banned the burqa after the bomb blasts that claimed 250 lives. France showed the way as early as 2010 and several European nations followed suit.
Serious discussion is underway in other countries on the extent and desirability of a burqa ban. Inevitably, India, with a vast population of Muslims, has been drawn into the debate. It started in two geographically distant locations: Kerala, where the Muslim Education Society banned the burkha in its colleges and Agra, where the mayor demanded a blanket ban. Liberal outrage against the idea was summed up by writer Javed Akhtar, who said that if the burqa was banned, the ghunghat should be, too. He makes a good point. If the argument is that face-covering makes the job of security forces tougher, then all forms of veiling should be banned.
However, the crux of the liberal argument is that banning any garment, particularly one that expresses religious or cultural beliefs, violates personal freedom. The counter-argument is that personal freedoms must be curtailed when the life and safety of citizens are at stake; this is part and parcel of the social contract. The personal freedom argument also doesn’t carry weight because it is impossible to ensure that women and girls are at liberty to decide whether or not they want to cover themselves. The 2016 hit movie Lipstick Under My Burkha makes the point that the burqa often serves as a repressive device that asphyxiates self-expression. The college-going girl finds freedom by abandoning her burqa and her anonymity. When delivering an impassioned speech against a fatwa on jeans in the college, she emphasizes that dress codes for women have always been instruments of oppression.
A more ticklish issue is that of the head scarf, which leaves the face uncovered. Should employers be empowered to ban it in the workplace, universities on their campus and community organisations in public places? Head-covering is not exclusive to Islam. At one time, Christian and Jewish tradition also decreed covering the head and hair of married women. Both Sikh men and women cover their heads in places of worship. There are important distinctions here. Head-covering among Sikhs is mandatory only in Gurudwaras and an overwhelming majority of Christians and Jews no longer follow the tradition. Many devout Muslim women also do not wear the head scarf. Those who do wear it, do so because the law demands it, or because of social coercion, or as a matter of choice.
The last group is probably in a minority, but is vociferous about their right to wear the head-scarf. Poster-girls for the ‘freedom’ argument include US Congresswoman Ilhan Omar and Olympic fencer Ibtihaj Muhammad. If Christians can wear a cross, why can’t they sport the hijab? The issue is complex, because the hijab is not just a fashion statement, like choosing to wear a hat. It is worn as a religious and cultural symbol. Even for liberated Muslim women who decide, of their own free will to wear the head scarf, purely as an assertion of identity, there’s no getting away from its original meaning of modesty and submission. This renders the head scarf obnoxious to many feminists, particularly because in some cultures, it sexualizes little girls.
Head-scarf votaries argue that if employers or universities ban them, Muslim women will withdraw from the workforce and eschew higher education. Either way, the patriarchy wins and the head scarf stays in place. But head-scarf opponents point out that it is unfair of the minority to impose its tradition on pre-existing traditions followed by the majority. As Kerala Muslim Education Society head Fazal Gafoor observed: “The culture of a particular country, their rules, those have to be obeyed….Why do you want to go and work in a Christian country? Don’t go there, go and work in Saudi Arabia. You can’t have the best of both worlds.”
Liberals tend to see stigmatisation of the burqa and the head scarf not as a gender issue, but as an attack on religious identity. In much the same way, they oppose the Bill banning Triple Talaq. Promoting gender parity, in their view, cannot be given greater weightage than preserving the freedom of the minority, even if that enables an oppressive patriarchy. From this perspective, Mirwaiz Umar Farooq’s initiative to dedicate Ramzan sermons in Jammu & Kashmir to women’s issues like rape, domestic violence, dowry and education and “encourage women to come out and speak”, is welcome. It may be too early to add the burqa and the hijab to the list, but hopefully, the Muslim clergy will address the issue in the not-too-distant future. To be truly effective, reform should ideally come from within.
The writer is a senior journalist with 35 years of experience in working with major newspapers and magazines.
She is now an independent writer and author.
