A Veiled Threat

Compared to the average person grown up in the west, it was perfectly commonplace for me in India to see men and women dressed in myriad different styles of attires and headgears. In that colorful parade of people donning widely varying garments of traditional and western fashion, there were also veiled women, most of them Muslims.

Although none of my Indian Muslim friends or acquaintances wore the veil or dressed in any way different from non-Muslims, in parts of old Delhi and other cities with sizeable Muslim populations, it was not uncommon to see women in full veils and burqas (or niqabs).  I cannot remember any significant social contact with veiled women but they were a common enough sight in city buses, trains, in bazaars and on the streets. Despite my exposure to the veil and the burqa from early childhood, I must confess that I still feel vaguely uncomfortable in their presence. Not the head scarf, not turbans, not long dresses covering the body from neck to ankle - but a face hidden behind a veil, which lets you see just a pair of eyes (even those are sometimes hidden behind twin windows of netted fabric) has a disconcerting effect on me. There is a palpable feeling of being at a disadvantage when the other person can scrutinize your face but you can't see hers.

British foreign minister, Jack Straw recently created a firestorm by stating that he is made uncomfortable in the presence of veiled Muslim women constituents who come to meet with him in his office.  He didn't say that the women are breaking any law or that the veiled women are more likely to be radicals or terrorists. He expressed his opinion that "the all-concealing veil is a barrier to human interaction." Predictably Straw is being assailed by Muslims and some non-Muslims, including cabinet colleagues for his comment which is being interpreted as prejudiced and insensitive.

The Muslim community is at a crossroads vis-a-vis the rest of the world. Numerous controversies have erupted in recent years resulting from real and perceived insults and threats to Muslims at the hands of non-Muslims. I was ambivalent about the furor over the Danish cartoons because I suspected mischief. I was unimpressed by the Pope's comment about Islam and subsequent apology because I detected  hypocrisy. But I am with Jack Straw on the veil. The unease with the veil goes beyond "learned" cultural differences as is evident from my experience and feelings. It goes to the heart of human to human interaction.  Razib of the Science Blog, Gene Expression  has a valid explanation for why Straw may have been expressing his honest feelings and not indulging in political manipulation of a sensitive issue. Razib says and I agree that:

"Occasionally people will laugh at the fact that "you can't see them, but they can see you," but I think this highlights a basic psychological reality: we are highly dependent on facial expression in interacting with each other. Our species has a gestalt ability to recognize and perceive emotion in faces. This is innate, it isn't learned, we're born with it. I offer that the hijab, which only covers the head, or a turban, or a some other such distinctive garment, are not as disturbing because the face is still visible. Fundamentally, while some types of clothing are markers of distinction and difference, the veil is one which forces a separation between two human beings on a very deep level. The interaction between a veiled and unveiled individual is fundamentally asymmetrical as one individual can still absorb all the critical facial information while the other goes "blind." When veiled women lived mostly in seclusion in pre-modern times this was not a great consideration, as they went unveiled amongst themselves, but today some veiled women assert the right to a public life, in the professions, and what not. And so of course new problems emerge. Can you imagine the sort of debate that would erupt if a veiled woman asserted the right to enter a poker tournament? "

Many Muslim women in Britain are outraged by Straw's statement about the veil and have taken their protest to the streets.  One of the more telling comments from an outraged woman was:

"The Muslim community does not need lessons in dress from Jack Straw, any more than it needs lessons in parenting from John Reid," said Nazreen Nawaz, a spokeswoman for Hizb ut-Tahrir, a radical group that says it seeks pan-Islamic rule through peaceful means."

Ms Nawaz wants to spread pan-Islamism in which I presume she would expect women to adopt the veil perhaps even against their wishes.  But Mr. Straw's view that women should discard the practice is heinous?  Does Ms Nawaz even see the irony of her words and her philosophy? 

It is important to note that Straw has defended the practice of Muslim women to wear the head scarf. His problem is with the veil. He explains, -- "wearing the full veil was bound to make better, positive relations between the two communities more difficult".  Straw was asking women to consider showing the mouths and noses which could lead to true "face-to-face" conversations with constituents, enabling him to "see what the other person means, and not just hear what they say".

What's wrong with Straw's statement?  Is it always inappropriate for an "outsider" to criticize religious and cultural practices of others in deference to their sensibilities?  What about female circumcision?  Female feticide? Dowry?  The now defunct but cruel practices of feet binding in China and widow burning in India came to an end partly due to the efforts of "foreigners." Brave souls within the community were emboldened to fight those entrenched and horrendous traditions due to the moral support from "outside" the community. It is a well known fact that when a religious community turns inwards and to extreme orthodoxy, its members are more afraid of their own co-religionists than they are of any outsider.  Inhuman, degrading and medieval practices and human rights violations in the name of religion must then be questioned by "others" because insiders often will not speak  out. Sometimes it takes an "outsider" to point out the B.S. and the inconsistency of one's entrenched beliefs.

Here is a link to the description of how different European nations deal with the veil and the Muslim dress code.

Comments

[Sujatha]

Ruchira, you're risking a purchased fatwa for this blog entry ;)

Could it be that Mr.Straw has some security concerns that he doesn't want to publicize and hence all this gobbledygook?

As a lighter aside, how in the world could Bollywood have had such musical 'masterpieces' such as 'Mere Mehboob' and "Chaudhavin ka Chand' without the confusion engendered by the niqab?

[Dean C. Rowan]

So many issues in one post of moderate length! Cultural relativism, tolerance for religious practices, political manipulation, biological determinants of psychology... Yikes. I'm with you, Ruchira, when it comes to accepting the validity of outsider criticism of tightly sealed insider conduct. The "honesty" of Straw's remarks is not the most relevant factor here, as it does little to help us to measure the extent to which they reflect a more generally experienced discomfort. But I am skeptical about the explanatory value of Razib's remarks. Are blind people less capable of "interacting" than those of us with vision? I don't doubt that facial expressions can signal meaning, but so can other sorts of gestures. Meanwhile, all sorts of equally fundamental asymmetries obtain in our interactions--think of the absurd convention that a man in a suit and tie has greater authority than somebody in some other mode of dress.

[Ruchira Paul]

Sujatha: Your point about security concerns may be a real one. After all, miscreants hiding behind burqas is not unheard of .

Dean: In the matter of the blind, I really cannot speak with any authority. But my gut feeling is that the blind are indeed somewhat handicapped in so far as they cannot "read" facial expressions. However, we have also heard that those who have lived without sight for a long period, learn to hear vocal inflections better than the sighted and compensate with their ears what they cannot see with their eyes.

If I were Jack Straw, I would offer to speak to veiled constituents from behind a screen or with my back to them. A bit Wizard of Ozish and rude but it will be a level playing field.

Sarcasm aside, I firmly believe that the imperialistic hubris of the Bush administration and the mischief by the Saudi Wahabis have added to the paranoia within the Muslim community. The fact that Bush has conducted his policies with a messianic fervor and overt religiosity, impedes any attempt at a rational discussion on such matters.

[PIAW]

Ruchira,

Great post.

I don't find Razib's argument particularly compelling. To me, the issue is very simple: if hiding behind a veil is so hot (no pun intended) - why don't the men also don a veil???

It is all about access and control and it is pathetic when women take up the defense of a practice that so severely limits their lives. What is even worse is the hypocrisy inherent in a) first choosing to live in a liberal society and then b) criticizing that liberal society when its liberal ways hit too close to home. If Islamic law and Islamic ways and Islamic culture are so hot, and the liberal society is so intolerant/intolerable, why not celebrate them in the home country?

Ultimately, there are two great tragedies in these occasional storms in a teacup:

1. Otherwise open and accepting (going beyond tolerance) people like me no longer feel sympathetic to the "plight"/cause of these chest-thumpers. Pan-Islamic bah! I shut down the moment I hear even a mention of these dreams of grandeur. I am hardly a practising Hindu - but far be it from me to roll over and concede even an inch to those who are in pursuit of a pan-Islamic anything.

2. These chest-thumpers are becoming caricatures of themselves. They make it so easy to get them all riled up! Surely, if theirs is such a better way, they can come up with more compelling and persuasive arguments than the ones that Ms. Nawaz advanced?!

[ana]

Ruchira,

Great post! And no, Nawaz most likely does not see the irony behind her philosophy.

I spent a good part of my life in a country where seeing veiled women was commonplace, and I agree, there is something uncomfortable about not being able to see a person's face when you're talking to them. It was particularly disconcerting in the very hot summers when you'd see these thick layers, and you'd wonder if a benevolent ooparwala really wanted these women to melt in the heat of these veils and long coats.

Some of these Muslims who take to the streets really do themselves no favors by getting all riled up about the cartoons, the Pope, or Straw's remarks on the veil. It is as PIAW says, they are becoming caricatures.

PIAW, there is an ethnic group in North Africa where the men veil themselves, rather than the women. The name escapes me right now. Perhaps you've heard of them.

[Ruchira Paul]

Yes, the heat -- the merciless heat of Asian summers. PIAW and Ana both refer to that.

The veil loving women in England who are so outraged by the attack on their modesty, forget that thousands of other Muslim women have no access to air conditioners or even ceiling fans in many cases. They ought to find out what it is like to live on the Indian subcontinent, in Afghanistan or in the poorer neighborhoods of the middle east, bundled within this all encompassing "tent."

After the Taliban were temporarily unseated, thousands of Afghan women breathed freely (literally) because they were once again able to step out of their homes without the punishing burqa. They described their years beneath the torturous veil that the Taliban coerced them to endure. They spoke of heat exhaustion, headaches and the general feeling of suffocating confinement, both physcial and mental, that they experienced. Sadly enough for them, the Talibs are back and so is the burqa. Those self-righteous women in England are doing them no favor.

[razib]

PIAW, there is an ethnic group in North Africa where the men veil themselves, rather than the women. The name escapes me right now. Perhaps you've heard of them.

tuareg.

[Sujatha]

Interesting commentary by an anthropologist of Egyptian extraction

Salman Rusdie weighs in on veils.

[ana]

thanks, Razib. :)

[Venky]

Mukul Kesavan has an interesting take on the veil at http://telegraphindia.com/1061012/asp/opinion/story_6857141.asp

An excerpt

"Obstacles to face-to-face conversations depend on what you’re used to and therefore comfortable with. Straw is probably undistracted by tiny skirts and plunging necklines but it might be harder for an Asian MP, accustomed to more covered-up women, to concentrate on a constituent’s problems if her every move revealed (in his prudish mind) inches of intimate skin. If he asked her to cover up (knowing Asian men, that’s a stretch, but this is a thought experiment) for the sake of more focused communication, I expect he’d be denounced for infringing her right to wear what she pleased."

[Ruchira Paul]

Venky:
Kesavan's article is very interesting - I actually agree with him more than I disagree. An unusual choice of clothing, even when it sets us apart from the majority should not necessarily invite derision or pigeon holing by the "beholder" as Kesavan points out.

I made a few similar observations myself about my own exposure to a whole range of attire that I grew up seeing in India. But in case of the burqa, the discussion for me, really goes beyond Kesavan's university classroom or Jack Straw's urbane office setting.

Burqa is a piece of clothing which has been and is still being used to exercise undue control over women's autonomy in large parts of the world. The Taliban's use of the burqa as a weapon to submit women to their wishes is a glaring example. Many Afghan women DO NOT want to wear it and prior to the Taliban's rise to power, did not. Remember the incident a few years ago, in Saudi Arabia, during a school fire, little girls were pushed back into the burning building by the morality police because the girls, in their panic had forgotten to put their veils on while attempting to escape! Those dead girls were between 10 and 13 years old.

When a piece of clothing becomes such a visible instrument of oppression and control over a whole group of human beings, it becomes an odious symbol - beyond tradition and personal comfort.

The women in England for whom it is merely a choice of asserting their identity, ought to appreciate that fact in solidarity with those for whom it is a symbol of degradation.

One more point. With the traditional burqas worn in India, Pakistan and Afghanistan, you CAN'T see the eyes of the wearer. I am surprised that Kesavan didn't notice that. Why else does he claim to be more disconcerted by dark glasses than by the veil?

[Mariam]

It's against the Islamic teaching to wear veil or hijab. For further info. see Women Dress Code in Islam.

Some people are twisting the facts in their favor. I've seen White converts wearing hijabs or veils for attention. I am a big believer of freedom but please someone tell them not in the name of religion. We should raise an awareness where Mosques caretaker should be made mandatory to learn about Islam before starting it to teach to their followers.

[audrey]

This was an excellent post. Like you, I have no problem with the hijab or turbans or any other form of Muslim dress. However, I have to say I think the burqa is not only isolationist, but is a custom that has been instituted into some Muslim practice through the desire to control women. When women choose themselves to live in a such a state of isolation, I can only think that they are severely misguided and at some level convinced of their inherent difference in equality not just to men, but to non-Muslims. I grew up in the Middle East and was surrounded by many Muslims, most of whom didn't choose to veil themselves completely from view. I tend towards the extremely liberal side in most of my arguments, to the extent now that I sometimes question whether or not I espouse views that are irrationally politically correct. On this issue however, I am prepared to stand up and say that I think the burqa is an antiquated form of sexist oppression and that women who freely choose to wear it are truly living under some kind of false consciousness. I would venture to argue as well that a great deal more Muslim women living in the West are 'freely' choosing to don this complete veil as opposed to those such as the Afghani women living under the Taliban who were forced into their veils and who continue to be now due to the religious fervour of their fathers, brothers and husbands. It is the most insulting kind of religious declaration to laud the values of a dress code in a free country when so many of your less fortunate kindred have had it thrust upon them.