The Burka or the headscarf is perhaps the most controversial
of apparels worn in the world today. It is upheld by several traditionalists as
well as ordinary Muslims, and continues to be one of the most frequently worn
robes among Muslim women. Fashioned differently in different parts of the Muslim
world, from a simple headscarf in Iran and Turkey to a stringent head-to-toe
cover in Saudi Arabia, this custom has been criticised by several progressives
and reformists everywhere. Interestingly, the Burka has also faced strong
criticism from the Christian and Hindu right wing elements, and governments in
France, Belgium and the Netherlands have banned the practice altogether. Now,
with the rise of the social media propelled ‘alt-right’ in today’s age, the
movement to get the Burka banned seems to be getting steady momentum, with
Germany also proposing similar legislation. In such a politically volatile
atmosphere, it is only fit that only a healthy debate should be allowed to
dictate the terms of our society’s discourse.
Enough has been already written on how the practice of
wearing the Burka came into being, how it has continued over the centuries, and
how its affects the status of women in our society. Yes, it can conclusively be
said that there remains no scientific reason or human necessity today which
demands this practice. Apart from the continuation of traditions or customs,
there is no purpose that the Burka serves. Its critics, however, claim that the
robe itself is a form of suppression and misogyny, with the its sole purpose
being to ensure the subservience of women to men. This is a very good argument,
and those in favour of the Burqa have been unable to provide any convincing
counter-narrative.
I agree with the critics in their analysis of the problem,
but I stand vehemently opposed to the solution they propose(a ban). A ban on
the Burka, I am convinced is ill-conceived, and its implementation even
self-defeating on two levels.
One:
True ‘good governance’ implies that the government’s job is only to ensure the
implementation of the country’s constitution, and to uphold the rule of law.
This in itself is one mammoth of a job. The government should have no business
in interfering in matters which cause no detriment to the constitution or the
rule of law. I make this point for the government’s non-intervention
particularly in this case, since the adherence to this social practice results
in no direct infringement of a woman’s fundamental rights, and neither brings
into jeopardy her physical or mental well-being as defined by law. While I do agree
that the Burka is undesirable, it is the job of a vibrant civil society, and
not the ruling government to ‘reform’ (actually intervene in) people’s lives.
This is certainly not a thumb rule, and the government indeed must act if there
is real damage or injury if being caused. Over the past two hundred years, the
Government of India (both imperial and representative) has been benevolent in
its abolishing of widow-burning or sati, child marriage, and female
foeticide, among many other abominations. After a dispassionate and critical
analysis, one would agree that wearing the hijab as a custom, however unwanted,
cannot match the criminal consequences of these other evil practices. Hence the
government should only stay away from this matter.
Two:
The implications of such a ban. The proponents of such a ban are under the
impression that a ban would ‘liberate’ Muslim women from the clutches of the
generally misogynistic and patriarchal societies that they are a part of. They
overlook the simple fact that no ban on any clothing can solve the real
problem- the society itself. This ban, in fact, would make the problem much
worse, as it would take away the little mobility and freedom that women from
such close-knit communities have in the first place.
I can explain my case with a simple example: the Muslim women who frequent a jogger’s park in my neighbourhood (Scottish Garden in Mahim). After around 8PM, when most of the regular crowd leaves, the largest demographic left in this park is that of Burka clad women. Mostly homemakers, they come to the garden in search of some fresh air and a refreshing walk. Do the proponents of the Burka ban (so called reformists) really think that if a ban is implemented, that these poor women would still have the freedom to leave their houses for an evening walk? In all probability, their families would ensure that they remain confined even those few precious hours that they today have to themselves (notwithstanding while wearing a Burka). My heartfelt question to the proponents of the ban is, what right do you have in stealing the few hours of freedom that these women enjoy today?
 |
| 'Freedom' |
