I have occasionally wondered about the social, political and ethical quandary posed by a consideration of why Muslim women follow this custom of covering, veiling or totally or greatly obscuring their faces and in some cases the whole of their person and whether they should be weaned away from what seems to be a savage and barbaric custom, by means legislative or social or reformative.
Most of the time in the past, the burqa custom has been defended on religious grounds. Women wearing it have been considered to be following a religious tradition or exercising their religious rights however strange and absurd it may be to many others. Despite whatever reservations that modern morality may have with it, no democratic country till recently has attempted to address this issue from political point of view.
France has at last cast the first die in this effort by passing a law that debars this kind of masking of the face. Bans and proscriptions as they are wont to, have provoked all sorts of reactions. Curiously the most extreme reaction in opposing this ban has been from the liberal camp. This recent article from the 'The Hindu' titled "Sociality and the Burqa question" is one example of what I would term as the sophistry of liberal or progressive quibbling over definitions and interpretations of moral actions and is almost bordering on liberalist posturing. There is an almost new age like grand standing on whether covering the face is really a denial or withdrawing of identity and how it can be construed as negation of social interaction.
Particularly ridiculous is an attempt at a kind of Zeno's paradox from one of the questions posed by Alain Badiou. The article also makes a big deal of the term 'sociality' apparently coined by the European Court hearing the legal challenge to the case. This I believe refers to 'social interaction' and I think it is not unreasonable to suppose that this Muslim custom followed by women is a hindrance to interaction and social activity for all those who do not follow Islamic practices. And they are a substantial lot of people.
While one will have to grudgingly agree that governments and courts don't get to decide on everything and especially adjudicating moral and social matters is very problematic, yet somebody needs to start looking at this question. The comparison of burqa with public nudity is also not fair or reasonable, and neither are some other pathetic rhetorical posers of the article like:
"Why is sociality physical, and why is physicality religiously coded? Does an uncovered face translate into a good, non-Muslim human being? And does the Strasbourg judgment encode non-Muslim as good?"
Some of the comments responding to that article state very well the common sense and reasoned objection to the problems posed by the burqa custom that some liberals are defending by recourse to the argument of religious phobia. This is not only an invalid ground of argument but also a case of 'special pleading fallacy'. While countries like US, UK and India may not ban Burqa, but modern and progressive tendencies in these societies are concerned by this strange dress code that Muslim women are asked or coerced to follow. Majority communities in these countries or societies may not press for harsh legislative remedies for this, but will surely look askance at these women or totally ignore them. Whatever fancy new age interpretations may be made of what constitutes religious right and personal liberty, the test of social compatibility of certain customs and social mores will have to judged on a relative and collective basis.
However liberal and progressive that one may be, one cannot completely ignore the needs and demands of reformation. Can wearing of the kind of Muslim customary veils and cloaks be really considered as a practice of religious freedom or privilege that is worthy of defense in the name of liberty and personal choice. Is it really a personal choice of Muslim women or an imposition and diktat of their orthodox and conservative patriarchy?. One choice is to ignore scores of women who abide by this practice and get along with our lives and be totally indifferent to non-existent reform or change in the lot of Muslim women. The other option is to consider questioning the need for this kind of practice in the context of a changing world where most cultures seem to be amenable to change and adaptation.
The ban in France and its vindication by the European Court of human rights is an event that could be catalyst for that kind of reconsideration of many of the barbaric and inhuman aspects of Islamic customs and practices.
This issue involves the rights and freedom of Muslim women which the burqa and the purdah system denies to them. In my opinion, especially this article on Slate "In Your Face" tears to shreds all the nonsensically fancy arguments and post-modernist fetishism of pseudo liberals both in India and abroad.
Sure, burqa/veil is a regressive practice that should go away. I do believe this will go away when the general education level increases in societies. But I am not entirely sure if Govt can legislate and enforce a ban on it. This is different from other sorts of bans on what can be viewed as a religious practice. For example the ban on female circumcision that Hitchens alludes to in the article from Slate is illegal because it is forced on children who can not consent. If a consenting adult female wanted to be circumcised I do not think that would be illegal. Given that the state can not ban an adult from chopping of part of his/her body how can it ban him/her from hiding part of the body just based on what the state feels is in the best interest of the said adult?
ReplyDeleteOf course one can argue whether the adult female is forced/coerced into wearing a veil/burqa. But we will get no where with that line of argument if she claims she is not being coerced even if she is suffering from Stockholm syndrome.
The other argument for the ban, ie hinderance to social interaction, also seems like a non-starter to me. If you find it difficult to communicate with a veiled person then the problem is with you and not with the veiled person. You are not obligated to talk to them.
Of course sensible restrictions can always be imposed when it is absolutely necessary that facial features have to be seen like in a drivers license.
Capt.
DeleteTo be honest with you, I am not really sure whether in principle I am in support of the decision of the French govt. or not. In some senses this problem is paradoxical. Your point that increase in education and awareness will make an impact on this practice sounds reasonable. But in certain respects it seems like Islam and its irrationality are immune or resistant to the effects of education and social awakening.
Even in progressive Muslim societies, the burqa and naqab have given way to hijab, but some vestige of Muslim medieval barbarism still remains and women's advancement is through compromises that fall way too short of any liberation or real progress. The glacial pace of Muslim 'reform' is a problem for many other cultures and societies.
In all these reports, discussions and arguments, I have not seen figures of what percentage of Muslim women subscribe to these veiling practices. Is it 50%, 60%, 80% or 90%. If we were to know via surveys (like PEW) that 80% of the women follow burqa or purdah, will it not lead to a push for reform whether via legislation, or campaign or outreach. India I believe has the 2nd largest Muslim population in the world. Can't India take the lead in surveying our own Muslim women and place the issue in spotlight.
British in their times in India did electorate classifications by caste and race and communities and it used to be called communal awards. BR Ambedkar built on this exercise and asked for separate representation and other legislative remedies for Dalits.
This may seem an outlandish comparison, but We abolished caste via legislation and at that time there were protests that it was an interference into and infringement of Hindu religious rights from apart from other groups, the forbears of today's BJP!. Hindu code bill was another instance of legislative 'overreach' into Hindu religious domain, if we allow the overarching Hindu definition of everything being a dharma. No such attempt was made in case of Shariat and other Muslim personal laws since this issue was kid gloved saying that Muslim needs to be given time to prepare itself for reform and need to be made ready for it.
If other remedies do not work, that burden will have to be taken up by legislation.
Muslim society is still not ready for any kind of reform (Indonesia is an exception) and I doubt if it will be even after a 100 years. No society or culture really reforms unless and until it is jolted into it. Left to themselves, Islamic societies will never attempt any real reform, if history is any guide.
This (burqa ban) is surely a complex problem.
DeleteA quick solution would be a top down modernization approach, something similar to what Ataturk did in Turkey. But western world, particularly US, will not be thrilled by such an approach. While they love women rights they also love individual liberty and religious freedom. I simply cannot imagine a ban like the one in France working in the US. The opposition will be nearly universal if such a ban is presented in religion neutral manner, ie religious garb can be regulated by Govt. Both the right and left will oppose it. If this is not good for the US why would this be good for the rest of the world. Why not let the Muslim societies modernize at their own pace. Who knows they might leave the burqas behind sooner than you think on their own. Do a google search for "Kabul in 1970s" and look at the images. You might be surprised by what you see.
Ranganath,
Delete**Muslim society is still not ready for any kind of reform (Indonesia is an exception) and I doubt if it will be even after a 100 years. No society or culture really reforms unless and until it is jolted into it. Left to themselves, Islamic societies will never attempt any real reform, if history is any guide.**
Not sure about that. Turkey is another one, but modernization was achieved there through a heavy handed approach, ie a jolt from inside. There were also other Muslim societies that were on the path to modernization on their own but were violently interrupted by western powers. For instance, take a look at this piece. The author quotes the following from RAWA , an Afghan women's rights organization.
Under NSDD 166, US assistance to the Islamic brigades channelled through Pakistan was not limited to bona fide military aid. Washington also supported and financed by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), the process of religious indoctrination, largely to secure the demise of secular institutions. (Michel Chossudovsky, 9/11 ANALYSIS: From Ronald Reagan and the Soviet-Afghan War to George W Bush and September 11, 2001, Global Research, September 09, 2010)
Education in Afghanistan in the years preceding the Soviet-Afghan war was largely secular. The US covert education destroyed secular education. The number of CIA sponsored religious schools (madrassas) increased from 2,500 in 1980 to over 39,000 [in 2001]. (Ibid.)
Seems Afghanistan had reasonable secular home-grown institutions before the US started to meddle in Afghanistan. I am absolutely sure that US intentions were not to destroy the secular society in Afghanistan. It is just that they would not tolerate a Soviet friendly Afghanistan. And supporting the Afghan religious freaks via Pakistan seemed like a reasonable approach to counter the Soviet influence. Destruction of secular institutions in Afghanistan was just an unintentional consequence.
This is not to say that US can not be a force for good or should not play a role in building a secular society in Afghanistan today.
The only point I am trying to make is that it is unfair to claim that Muslim societies can not modernize and secularize on their own.
Here is an inspiring TED talk about local Muslim societies fighting against Islamic fundamentalists. I suspect this would have happened with or with out burqa-ban.
Capt
DeleteThanks as always for your interesting counter-points. I will review the links and get back to you soon.
**For example the ban on female circumcision that Hitchens alludes to in the article from Slate is illegal....**
ReplyDeleteI meant female circumcision is illegal. The ban on it is not illegal as I wrote in the previous post. My bad.
Ranganath,
ReplyDeleteHere is a related topic.
http://nirmukta.net/thread-1288.html
Would love to hear your views on this either here on your blog or on the nirmukta.net forum.
Another interesting link.
ReplyDeletehttps://kenanmalik.wordpress.com/2014/08/12/is-there-something-about-islam/
Ranganath,
ReplyDeleteWhat are your views on this?
http://freethoughtblogs.com/nirmukta/2014/09/17/the-muslim-face-on-policing-the-resistance-from-within/
Capt.
DeleteI have heard the mention of Ayaan Hirsi Ali, but am not familiar with her work. Anyway from what is written in the post, I would be on the side of people who believe that her voice needs to be heard.
I don't remember the author, there was a article in 'Free Inquiry' magazine about the harm that the faux leftist and liberal indulgence of Islamic feudalism does to women rights and gender equity in the Islamic world. I also disagree with this 'crying wolf' about Islamophobia, whenever any ideas of Islamic religion or culture are examined and attacked. To express an opinion, however strongly that Islam is generally very discriminating and antagonistic to women's choice, freedom and identity is not Islamophobia. It is true that Hinduism or Christianity is almost as antithetical to women's rights, but that does not exempt Muslim society from being exposed to the critical scanner. Any reformist outreach that is perceived as beneficial to Muslim women's interests in a modern and pragmatic sense will be received as an attack on that society's cultural space and privacy.
It is more plausible that people like Hirsi Ali know more about the problems of women is Islamic society and the warts of Islam than the leftists and liberals that want to be seen as the defenders of Islam against so-called imperialist or secularist overreach or intrusion.
Christianity has been subjected to a lot of critical inquiry over the last few centuries. They are kicking and screaming at it, but it cannot be escaped. So why should Hinduism or Islam in this case be given a privileged treatment and mollycoddled in the name of tolerance, privacy, cultural space and what not.
Yes there is Islamphobia in the world. But every critic of Islam is not an Islamophobe.
Thanks for your views on Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Though I do not think anyone should be barred from speaking I am not sure everyone has something positive to add to civil society. Here are some of the vile things she has said about Muslims and Islam.
ReplyDeleteShe wants Islam to be crushed completely by whatever means possible. Militarily if needed. There are more than a billion Muslims. If they refuse to give up Islam what would Ali do? The final solution.
She recommended that west should actively take an interest in converting Muslims to other religions.
She does not want Muslims to have the right to run religious schools in the west. Nothing wrong with that position if other religious schools (catholic /Jewish) are also banned. But no she only wants to ban Muslim schools.
Now what really is the difference between her and Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter.