Veil Philosophy

Is “the Veil” just a piece of clothing for women? A woman of any culture of any century knows that she will be wrapped in veils of all sorts, some literal and some not so obvious. Veils are prevalent in almost all cultures throughout the centuries. It was pity when I saw a woman wearing very tattered, therefore, revealing clothes, carrying a load of bricks on her head, but still amazingly very conscious of her veil down to her shoulders. Then again it was religious awe, which struck me, looking at veiled women pouring into church. Wondering about it, I decided to take a deeper look at what drove women to hide their faces and along with it, their aspirations & sentiments.

I am a Zoroastrian woman and in my religion, women have to cover their heads during prayers. This is a latest trend, and in actual Zoroastrian Literature the rule is to cover the head all the time. The stringency of this rule in those times was so much so that even a strand of hair falling out of the covering would be considered as shameful and there are stories of women being denied cohabitation with their husbands or denied the right to rear their children for such a mistake. Wow!! I am thankful that such tortures do not exist anymore, at least not, where I live.

In the 1917 Code of Canon Law, it was clearly stated that women must cover their heads. Therefore, when St. Paul decreed that man was created for God and woman was created for man and, umm, somehow the veil comes into the picture. I did not quite get the connection, but it was long time back, 2000 odd years to be precise. So, women have been wearing the veil to show submission to authority, to God and men!

Sanskrit literature is replete with instances where women have to wear veils. It is not surprising to me that under the laws of Manu the status of women is completely dependent on the man. The various religious texts have got a bewildering array of proscriptions and rules for behaviour of women, all for modesty and chastity's sake. Scholars have mentioned how women have to dress, behave and generally conduct themselves in public, which was generally under a veil, figuratively and literally.

With the British rule and then following on with independence, many atrocious practices were eradicated from the “rule book” which slowly died away in real life as well. Although if one walks around in certain parts of the country it still looks like the dark ages to me as far as the status of women goes anyway. The Hindu woman, reasonably emancipated but still a long way to go yet compared to her western counterparts.

What about the Muslim woman? Growing up in Mumbai, I will remiss, if I do not mention the other great religion, Islam. Well, needless to say that is making most of the waves these days. Stories are circulating in the media about photographs of faces not being allowed to be taken for driving licenses in various states. Turkey, which is an Islamic country, has made it compulsory for girls to wear veils in schools. Imagine women getting acid thrown on their faces and threatened in ghastly fashions if they aren't veiled in Pakistan and Bangladesh. What do the scripture say about this?

Sura 24:31 in the Koran is the key to this entire debate.

The literal translation goes as follows: "And say to the believing women that they cast down their looks and guard their private parts and do not display their ornaments except what appears thereof, and let them wear their head-coverings over their bosoms, and not display their ornaments except to their husbands or their fathers... and let them not strike their feet so that what they hide of their ornaments may be known; and turn to Allah all of you, O believers! So that you may be successful."

This is the crux of the matter and reading this translation, its pretty clear that veiling is compulsory and the woman is not to show herself except to her husband or close relatives.

For a non-Muslim like me, the question that comes up is - Why is there such a huge hue and cry about veils when it comes to Muslim women? Lets see.. isn’t modesty and not the veil a requirement for all women. Reading the stories of the women who have freely and voluntarily taken the veil, it seems like their motivations range from a desire to be seen separate from the mass of other women, to portray their faith, to affirm it in a visible manner and in certain cases, to fulfill cultural traditions.

Needless to say, the veil for a Muslim woman is far more prevalent than the others. I am sure somebody will ask and has asked why this is so? Male supremacy? Religious statutes? Cultural traditions? Modesty? Chastity? Better people than me have tried to explain this. Pushing people to wear the “VEIL” is forcing one's religious beliefs down somebody's throat and may well give rise to oppression. This goes for all religions, your relationship with your god (s) is your own, you define it the way you want according to the degree of faith in your heart, but using the name of God to oppress women is cowardly and should be shunned, may your conscience be pricked.

Should the discussion end here on what women wear? Is this the only field where women are covered in veils? How about analyzing other aspects of life where a woman wears veils which are invisible to those who don’t have to wear them? In our society, whether women belong to the majority or the minority group, what is apparent is that there exists a great disparity in the matter of economic resourcefulness between a man and a woman. Our society is “male dominated” both economically and socially and women are assigned, invariably, a dependant role, irrespective of the class of society to which she belongs. A woman on her marriage often gives up her other avocations and entirely devotes herself to the welfare of the family, in particular she shares with her husband, her emotions, sentiments, mind and body. Her investment in the marriage is her entire life, a sacramental sacrifice of her individual self and is far too enormous to be measured in terms of money. This is perfect but this in no sense gives “men” the right to oppress women merely based on their earning capacity.

The history of humanity has been witness to the fact that the religion has been used as a facade to perpetuate violence against women from time perpetual. In my eyes, a nation that does not respect its women cannot be described as a civilised nation at all. Such a nation cannot grow and develop and will ultimately perish due to its own rudimentary and tyrannical dogma. Thus, the national consensus should concentrate on betterment of women by suitably empowering them.

Need of the hour:

This situation of gender discrimination requires an immediate attention of the society since the problem is societal in nature. The mindset of the society needs to be changed by both voluntary and involuntary measures. The law regulates the social interests, arbitrates conflicting claims, demands security of persons and property of the people, and is an essential function of the state.

Law as a corner stone of the edifice of "order" should meet the challenges confronting the society. The social impact of the crime, e.g. where it relates to offences against women involving moral turpitude or moral delinquency which have great impact on social order and public interest, cannot be lost sight of and per se require exemplary treatment. The government should refuse to extend the benefit of the remission to the convicts who have committed hideous crimes against women even while extending it to other convicts. Further, safety of women victims must also be provided so that they can effectively bring before the law the offenders. Thus, in holding trial of child sex abuse or rape, a screen or some arrangements may be made where the victim or witness do not see the body or face of the accused. Recording of evidence by way of video conferencing vis-a-vis Sec. 273 of the Indian Criminal Procedure Code is permissible under the law. These measures must be supplemented with suitable "empowerment measures" like reservations in jobs and educational institutions, financial assistances, etc.

The plight of the women, however, cannot be improved until they are duly represented in the "power structure" of the nation. In a democratic country like ours, the voice of women can be heard only to the extent they are sharing the power structure in the supreme governance of the country.

So may it be a veil of cloth or may it be the veil of precincts, boundaries & restrictions, I don’t date to despise those women who take it up voluntarily. However, I am concerned about a large chunk of women who are taking it up merely on basis of parental or societal pressures without an ounce of credence in their own beliefs and doubting whether they’d ever be lucky enough to liberate themselves of these Veils.

Bush Vs Democracy

When US President George Bush vowed in his second inauguration speech to break the traditional US policy of backing authoritarian regimes in the Muslim world, he may have heralded a new era.

Bush promised to support genuine democratic movements in the Middle East and elsewhere even if it meant dumping America's traditional friends and allies.

Democracy may indeed be the cure for most problems confronting the Muslim world. But the question is can the United States take the bold steps that are needed to give concrete shape to its promises?

Can it allow democracy to take its natural course in the Muslim world, given that across the region, from Lebanon to Egypt, Islamists are emerging as a political force that the West can no longer ignore?

Promotion of democracy in Muslim countries is likely to see the empowerment of those predominant political players who turn to Islam for inspiration and guidance in public life.

If Bush was serious in his commitment to democracy, he would tell his "friends" in the Middle East to allow truly free and fair polls, even if that means Islamists coming to power.

As Islamists move to center stage in many parts of the Arab world, it's time that the United States and the rest of the Western world accepted the idea of dealing with them as legitimate representatives of the people.

In the past century, the West has sided with dictators & tyrants as they victimized the Islamists. In Egypt, grave human rights abuses by successive regimes have been ignored by the West. In Algeria, the military prevented the Islamic Salvation Front from taking office after it swept the 1991 parliamentary elections - with the blessing of the West, which saw the rise of Islamists as a threat to its interests. The consequence was a decade-long civil war.

Democracy is a must:
As democracy has been mocked elsewhere in the Islamic world, the West has consistently looked the other way. No wonder many Muslims blame the West for the suffering inflicted by their dictators. Yet Western leaders appear surprised when Al Qaeda extremists attack Western targets.

If Bush wants to usher in a new era of democracy and peace in the Muslim world, he should be prepared to deal with Muslims' genuine and legitimate representatives. He would do well to recognize the fact that Islamists are emerging as the leading political players in the Middle East and engage them as such.