AT PENPOINT
There seems to be a movement among Muslim women that is akin to feminism, but does not seem to have adopted any of its goals, which is rooted firmly in the Islamic faith but which takes ownership of what it commands. Most immediately the viral video of a young Muslim girl in a burka, defying BJP goons booing her, may also have a message about what is happening to Muslims in today’s India, but it shows that there is a new sprit among Muslim women, especially when it is taken with what is happening in France.
France has imposed a ban on religious symbols in public places, which has led to a ban on the hijab in football grounds. A group, Les Hijabeuses, has launched a challenge against this last year, and has won the support of the French gender equality minister. It should not be forgotten that France has seen rioting by its immigrant population, which consists of both North Africans who are all Muslim, and of equatorial Africans, who include a large number of Muslims among them.
Amid all the uproar about what the Karnataka incident, it may have escaped notice that Muskan Khan, the burka-clad girl in question, arrived at her college on a motorscooter, and her ordeal began from her college’s parking lot. So the girl clearly wanted to both wear a burka and not just attend college, but go to college on a scooter. Similarly, in France, there is a group of girls who both want to play football, and to do so while wearing the hijab headscarf. (In fact, that is how the gender equality minister has supported them: she has pointed out that headscarves are not forbidden on football pitches.
It is worth mentioning that France was the original home of the Enlightenment, and India the home of Nehruvian secularism, which had its roots in the Fabian socialism he imbibed while being educated there, and which spawned the Indian experiment in multi-communalism which the BJP seems to want to end. The challenge being posed in these countries seems to reflect one type of reaction by a persecuted minority. One response is to assimilate. Another is to assert one’s (p4rsecuted) identity more than before.
Here both incidents seem to reflect both. Riding scooters or playing football are acts of assimilation. But wearing a burka or a hijab would be acts of assertion.
One of the most symbolic moments of Muskan Khan’s defiance came when she raised the ‘Allahu Akbar’ slogan in reply to the hecklers against her. Traditionally, that was the Muslim battlecry, which women did not have to give, because they did not take part in jihad. Now they do.
Another thing about minorities is that wearing a hijab or burka is not something that can be imposed by male relatives. The prevalence of an anti-covering sentiment in that society makes it impossible to impose the burka on anyone deciding she doesn’t want to. Therefore, the decision to wear a burka or the hijab would be a personal decision rather than a familial one.
It would be based on personal conviction rather than social pressure.
It is worth noting that Muslim societies may well approve of covering, but in one is scooter – or cycle-riding an activity approved of or common, nor is football (or any other sport) a common game. There has now been some movement in Muslim countries on women’s sports, mainly because of pressure from the global governing bodies responding to feminist pressure, rather than because of either sporting or feminist pressure of indigenous origin.
Afghanistan under the Taliban provides apposite examples. There was much public hand wringing about Taliban cruelty towards girls, by forbidding them from getting an education. Sometimes, the rhetoric of some made it seem that the purpose of US intervention was not revenge for 9/11, but the plight of the Afghan girl. One of the first things the Taliban did when they returned was close girls’ schools and restrict them in universities. Around the time of the Taliban takeover, the Afghan women’s football team collectively left the country, because they feared for themselves under the Taliban.
Those Western feminists whose hearts bled for Afghan women have apparently not said anything about Muskan Khan’s right to an education, or Les Hijabeuses’ right to play sports. It is almost as if their wearing of a burka or hijab put them outside of the pale.
Muslim countries seem to have the same dichotomy. On the one hand, there is freedom to cover. On the other hand, covering is seen as a little backward, a little rural. The example of the rapper Eva B, who hails from Lyari in Karachi, and who performs in a niqab, is counter to this image, but the equation remains. One Muslim country saw the hijab banned, Turkey, but there has been pushback there, with the result that hijab is making a comeback. It is significant that the first place for a battle was at educational institutions.
That some form of covering has been ordained is agreed. Yet what covering has been ordered is not. It should be remembered that this is one aspect of Muslim societies that has been attacked perhaps the most by critics. It has been pointed to as the main example of how Muslims refuse to adapt to non-Muslim societies. The other main problem is seen as their observance of dietary laws and their teetotalism. Covering is quite often abandoned, and there are many Muslim countries which would not understand Muskan Khan’s problem.
Feminism has been influential to the extent that the issue of covering is no longer cultural, but has become an issue of belief. Prayer is a belief issue, not a cultural one. The culture may accommodate prayer (such as by manufacturing special prayer rugs), but if someone prays five times a day, it is not because he or she is practicing a cultural rite, but because he or she believes that some benefit will accrue. Similarly, when a woman decides to cover, she is not doing so in obedience to some cultural or familial norm, but because she believes it has been ordained for her by the Almighty.
There has been some argument from BJP supporters that the hijab ban was actually to save oppressed Muslim women from something opposed on them. There has been a strong rejection of this view. Muslim women have argued that no one is forcing them to do anything. Non-Muslim women argue that it is a matter of choice.
Muslim women (or at least some) seem to have grasped the reality that, along with men, they are believers who have to come to terms with the Almighty and His orders as independent agents. In a way, they have rejected the entire feminist argument by their perception that the patriarchs of the patriarchy will be judged too. Also, they seem to have rejected the male-female dichotomy that underlies the feminist narrative.
One of the most symbolic moments of Muskan Khan’s defiance came when she raised the ‘Allahu Akbar’ slogan in reply to the hecklers against her. Traditionally, that was the Muslim battlecry, which women did not have to give, because they did not take part in jihad. Now they do.
If Hindutva goons find this frightening, they should. “Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned” wrote Congreve, the Restoration dramatist, as they will find false their assumption that Muslim women do not have minds of their own.
