Motive: 3. Developing undercover

In a recent legislative ruling, the French Government banned the burqa. The action fuelled debate whether human rights was supported or violated. Some have applauded the stand - in fact, we hear that other European countries are considering following suit. In the opinion of others, like with the deportation of the Romany, the nomadic gypsy tribes of Eastern Europe, the French government agencies lack empathy and understanding of the issues of migrant minority groups.

Many perceive the dress as religious attire for Islamic women. However, it is not mentioned as such in the holy books; rather people are exhorted to dress modestly, which interpretation is left to the individual, as should be the case today.

In Western eyes, the burqa is symbolic of the resistance to change and integration into the mainstream culture of the land. Its persistent usage is taken as a get-in-your-face exhibition of cultural differences. Besides, with the rise of terrorism, the burqa is now a security risk. Citing ‘religious immunity’ from body searches and photographs, terror-mongers have used the dress to escape detection and also to transport arms and bombs strapped to the body.  

Fadela Amara, French secretary of state for urban policies and herself a Muslim, says:

The burqa confiscates a woman's existence. By and large, those who wear it are victims. I favor banning this coffin for women's basic liberties. The burqa is proof of the presence of Muslim fundamentalists on our soil and of the politicization of Islam.

As a woman of Muslim origin, who obviously is well integrated into the system and now a part of it, perhaps her perspective carries weight. However, in catalysing change, is it necessary to be cruel to be kind?

In times gone by, might was right, and wars were a constant threat. Aggressors tended to target women for capture and defilement to bring their opponents to their knees. It was then logical to cloister women for their own and the community’s protection. Hindu women started to wear the veil against foreign invaders. Muslim womenfolk eventually adopted the burqa for much the same reason. The accepted customs of a particular age have been carried forward unchanged through the ages, although the times and circumstances have obviously changed.

Yet have they? In the minds of immigrant family elders, who have just arrived on alien shores, fears of being overcome by ‘foreign’ cultures remain, of being invaded and assimilated psychologically. Decisions to travel west to the lands of plenty are generally based on economic numbers.  Only much later do cross cultural issues and stark differences with the countries of origin hit home. For a people brought up on religious stories and cultural parables, it is difficult to accept close interactions with ‘kafirs’, those of other communities.

The men fail to thrive in unfamiliar circumstances, and dominance over women and children become their only way to cope with alien surroundings. They seek to prevent the loss of cultural identity; to protect the women in the way it was done in the past – through cloistering. In the mind of the patriarchal community, the burqa is the protective veil to shield ethnicity from rapacious eyes of other men. Perhaps as a response to the cultural domination in some Western countries, new generations are taking to the dress as a show of solidarity with their origins.

As in earlier times, women find that the war of words between men, are being fought over them. The women at the centre of the controversy being ordered to put on a dress or take it off are not being consulted in the matter. The point here is that it is not the women who lack confidence in new surroundings. In the female psyche, adaptability is built-in.

The girl child is taught from an early age to survive in whatsoever circumstance she may find herself in. She learns to bear oppression along with the children to perpetrate the marital lineage, since all this is her lot.  Yet it is her gender identity that is suppressed and repressed, including the simple freedom of the choice of dress.

In an article published elsewhere, The Diva writes:

Government polices may have contributed to racial, religious and ethnic divisions… it does nothing to correct people’s opinions, beliefs and implicitly prejudiced theories (that actually guide their actions.)

And further:

Immigrant women have severe limitations to work through… Often they are the hostages with few alternatives. Westerners need to accept that immigrant women sometimes wear traditional dress – sari, hijab, etc – to blend within the (ethnic) community, to not draw attention (or retribution) to themselves.

Women of patriarchal ethnic cultures, especially those not blessed with the necessary education, status or affluence to open doors, are used to the odds being stacked against them. It does not stop those who are determined to succeed. Adversity stimulates creativity, and under cover of the traditional garb, they  may be developing to make a new life for themselves and their children in their adopted country - not through revolution, but a quiet social evolution. In this sense, these immigrant women are further disadvantaged by the ruling. They are now exposed, to become easy targets for the community's ‘moral police’ empowered for honour killings.  

References for this post:

1.      Guitta, Olivier. “Why France is right about the burqa”. globalpost.com. Global Post. February 26, 2010       

2.      The Diva. “Protection of the veil” twmacademy.com. The Working Manager Ltd. Undated.