Skip to main content

BURQA BAN-AN APT STEP??

THE BURQA IS NOT A RELEGIOUS SYMBOL, BUT A SIGN OF SUBSERVIENCE AND DEBASEMENT"
-Sarkozy, the French prez.

So we see that according to the French President, Mr. Nicholas Sarkozy, burqa means something which “imprisons the women behind a screen cut off from the social world and deprived of all identity.” and that is how he justifies the ban on burqa in France as this is not the" French idea of freedom". Keeping apart what others have to say about this step of Sarkozy (that it’s a political opportunity for sarko), the outcome of this ban would be feminist and secular. Good for the women who are forced to wear them. After all if “all men are born free, how is it that women are born slaves??"- Mary Astell.
But on the flip side, lots of women willingly wear the veil. They see the veil as a garment liberating them from the male gaze. So it’s a bit unfit to assume that all women who wear the veil are being forced to do so. Many of them even do it as it’s in their religion.
Thus we see that the situation is extremely complex. As already the famous social commentator Faisal al yafai said last year,-
"Muslim women who choose to wear the veil (not all do) often claim that they are reappropriating their own bodies from the public sphere. The veil is complex. At various times it has been seen as both -an instrument of male oppression and of female liberation."
So we, the onlookers who are still deciding which side to vote for must realize that either we should totally eliminate the idea of feminism from our dictionary or we should forget about secularism where every religion is allowed to flourish without interruptions with all due regards. There exists no third option for such a problem, except WAIT, WATCH AND ACCEPT.

Comments

Ayesha Parveen said…
Hi Mahesh!

A thought-provoking post. I just want to bring up one point: why is it that only some women think they need to protect themselsves from the stares of men? Don't men too need to protect themselves from the stares of women?

Women, down the centuries, have been socially-conditioned to believe that they need to hide themselves. The burqha is a symbol of such lack of self-confidence, in my opinion.

A person, male or female, wanting to stay hidden from the world, denounces social life and becomes a hermit.

I know women who wear the burqha because it is a family-tradition and they do not have the courage or the means to go against a tradition they don't believe in .

I also know some women who wear the burqha but would do anything to get male-attention :)

So, why the sham by wearing the burqha?

Best wishes, and have a nice day :)

Ayesha
July 5, 2009 at 7:50 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Cutting people off isn’t strength—It is a trauma response

Your ability to cut people off and self-isolate is not a skill you should be proud of—It is a trauma response Cutting people off and self-isolating may feel like a protective shield, but it is often rooted in unresolved or unhealed trauma and an inability to depend on others. While these behaviors seem like self-preservation, they end up reinforcing isolation and blocking meaningful connections. Confronting these patterns, seeking therapy, and nurturing supportive relationships can help break this unhealthy cycle. Plus, a simple act like planting a jasmine plant can symbolise the start of your journey towards emotional healing. Why do we cut people off and isolate? If you’re someone who prides themselves on “cutting people off” or keeping a tight circle, you might believe it’s a skill—a way to protect yourself from betrayal, hurt, or unnecessary drama. I get it. I’ve been there, too. But here’s the thing: this ability to isolate yourself is not as empowering as it may seem. In fact, i...
Post a Comment
Read more

Epitome of Equality

First of all This is not to demean any religion.. I am a Hindu by birth, but yes I respect all religions .I offer my daily prayers , fast on holy days , but there was something that was disturbing me . God as per me was a Friend, someone who was by my side always , someone who was a dear friend , but this is not what everyone else thought , for others he was the Judge who gives his verdict always and punishes anyone and everyone . Walk into any temple and you would see , if you have money , you will be treated in a way as if you are the ONLY disciple of the God . I have had too many experiences where I was treated as a second class citizen in the temple . Why? Well I could not afford giving thousands as donation. This is not how it should be , God looks at each one of us with the same divinity .As I mentioned God for me is a friend, so tell me, do we chose friends based on their bank balances? Do we give our verdict on them ? then how can God do it? I know many of us would ...
32 comments
Read more

Does India need communal parties?

I think, it was Tan's post on this blog itself, Republic Day Event, where this question was raised. My answer. YES. we need communal parties even in Independent, Secular India. Now let me take you, back to events before 1947. When India was a colony of the British Empire. The congress party, in its attempt to gain momentum for the independence movement, heavily used Hinduism, an example of which is the famous Ganesh Utsav held in Mumbai every year. Who complains? No one. But at that time, due to various policies of the congress, Muslims started feeling alienated. Jinnah, in these times, got stubborn over the need of Pakistan and he did find a lot of supporters. Congress, up till late 1940's never got bothered by it. And why should we? Who complains? No one. But there were repercussions. The way people were butchered and slaughtered during that brief time when India got partitioned, was even worse than a civil war scenario. All in the name of religion. And there indeed was cr...
40 comments
Read more