Slap of the hijab

A woman punches a man and he starts thinking about the Quran. Right? You know the script. And I have got so used to my daily fix of “Just look at Islam” in my mailbox from the Hindutva folks that I seriously worry about them. They seem to be reading everything specifically aimed at showing up Islam as bad.

Now, here is something from the Toronto Sun . Columnist David Menzies was doing ordinary things:

I was at Yonge-Dundas Square with my nine-year-old son. We ate pizza. We drank bubble tea. And I used my new Canon camera to take photos of this neon shrine.

And then evil descends on him:

Suddenly, a woman wearing a hijab ran toward me. She was part of a group that included two women wearing full face-covering burkas. She was screaming: "We are Muslim! You do not take pictures of us!" (Odd. I can't find the "no photos" rule in the Qur'an.)

Of course, like all liberals – and most certainly unlike Muslims who only read the Qu’ran with a few fatwas – he has speed-read the book and knows there ain’t no such digital restriction. Yup, the Muslims had digital and other cameras centuries ago and were photographing camels and date trees.

Rather conveniently, too, the hysterical woman was in hijab and not full face burqa, unlike the other two. Or how else would the writer see her react and write this heart-wrenching piece?

I informed the lady I was in a public square in a democracy. I can actually take pictures of whomever I please.

No. You cannot. There is something called privacy. The Tutsi tribals object. Westerners object. Indians object.

And then: Ka-pow! Her fist collided with my face. Worse, she almost knocked my new camera from my hands.

My son and I were then surrounded by a mob of about 20 people, many of whom were speaking Arabic. One kept demanding I surrender my camera to him.

It was surreal. Was I in Toronto - or Riyadh?

Right. He assumes that this would happen in Riyadh. Has he been to Riyadh? Suddenly in the neon shrine a mob gathers and they have to be Arabic speaking.

But there was a sliver of hope. Eye-witnesses:

The 50-something couple, originally from Syria, told the police they had observed the entire affair and my allegations were true. The couple said they understood Arabic and knew what the mob was saying.

The token good Arab appears to be witness against the bad guys. He does not tell us what the mob was saying. Were they all saying the same things? You know, the uniform Arab reaction?

After the officer took my statement, he went over to the offending woman. Another constable was inexplicably miffed I was (legally) taking photos in the first place. The irony: Just above our heads a Toronto Police Service sphere was videotaping the activities.

Clearly, he does not know the difference between security cameras and personal use ones. It is polite to ask if it is okay to take pictures of people. Or, is he trying to say that since two of the women were fully veiled they had no business to protest? The point is that it can be seen as flaunting/ridiculing a particular image.

The officer interrogated the woman. She was still hysterical. Good. The constable would encounter firsthand what I had been forced to deal with earlier.

Just look at the use of “good”. Had she not been so hysterical, he might not have an op-ed case. Had she not punched him would he have understood her position better? There are women who might object because such photographs infringe on their space. Would he react in a similar manner if a woman from another culture had taken umbrage?

The cop walked back to me. No charges would be laid, he said, because he believed the woman's story - namely, she was merely trying to knock the camera out of my hands.

Well, she could have wanted the camera out of the way too. He said so at the beginning. Ask the paparazzi.

He is on a different trip:

The fact we have Islamists living amongst us who despise western values isn't news. But surely you can't just sock someone in the mouth.

Well, apparently you can - as long as the intent of the aggressor was merely to inflict property damage.

Right. Taking pictures is now a western “value”. How tinged with moral righteousness this is and ironically as a response to moral righteousness. It is now about Islamists “living amongst us”. How many of them are there? Hasn’t he bothered to visit Gerard Street and seen that not all Muslims are Islamists, although this term ought to be shorn of its blanket negative connotation.

The Toronto cops did the right thing. Because a democracy does not give people the carte blanche to intrude. A hijab wearing woman in Malaysia wanted to take a picture with me because we struck up a conversation. I too reciprocated.

He may be technically right about taking pictures, but so is she. There is also the gender angle. But since the 'victim' is on one track, here's a thought:

Let a typical Muslim man aim his camera at a woman in the West and see what happens.

End note:

We have discussed KAC and Ghulam Nabi Fai and the yadda yadda about the whining by the majority Kashmiris. The Pandit groups had rejoiced over his arrest. Here is a report to give another side that shows that the lobbying is there also from the other side:

Influential Democratic Congressman Frank Pallone has introduced a resolution in the US House of Representatives, condemning violence against the Kashmiri Pandits. The resolution takes note of militancy, lack of religious freedom, and human rights violations in the valley. It also insists that terrorist infrastructure in the region must be dismantled and ultras should be held accountable for their action.

Whose burden is the burqa?

Those who object to the “moving prison” say nothing about men displaying the physical assets of trophy wives in a consumerist paradise.

If anyone is benefiting from the Islamist idea, specifically the veil, then it is the western elite or the westernised liberals among Muslims. I might have been a part of the latter given my mode of dress, speech and general deportment. I choose, instead, to play devil’s advocate. The reason is that the debate over whether a woman has the right to cover her face and body has become a western discourse. Its validity is reduced partly due to its being co-opted by an alien yardstick and partly because, ironically, it uses the religious paradigm to justify the ban on the veil.

The Quran does not prescribe it, the Prophet did not enjoin it and so on go the arguments. That is not the point anymore, and incidentally men too follow certain dress codes. It is beyond religion and one must understand that the Muslim world, and even the Arab world, is not of one kind. Therefore, discussing anything in such uniform terms reveals paucity of insight. I’d like one single commentator to discuss this issue without bringing in Islam and then let us watch the fun.

Contemporary society has many areas of darkness and every religion is rediscovering its roots. The rediscovery probably has nothing to do with the essence of the faith. The Pat Robertsons often go well with TV dinners for those rushed for time and prayer. Patriarchal paranoia too would be justified if it also took into account how non-Muslim societies choose to treat their women where they are subtly left out of mainstream political and social opinions. Why is the West obsessed only with Islam?

This is an extension of the old xenophobia. Some are upfront and brand others as terrorists or suspects; the others go the other way and play patronising angels who understand the ‘pain’ of the Muslim woman. In France, where the veil was banned on April 11, a very small percentage of its Muslim population wears the veil. Why is the rest of the female population not considered in the arguments put forth? Does the fact that some women defied the ban not reveal that they cannot be herded into an ignorant, backward stereotype?

When the Bill was first being considered Andre Gerin, a Communist Party legislator, had said, “Today, we are confronted by certain Muslim women wearing the burqa, which covers and fully envelops the body and the head like a moving prison”. His 57 colleagues had signed a document that stated it amounted “to a breach of individual freedoms on our national territory”.

Whose individual freedom is it? I may personally not wear the veil but I do not think any woman doing so is infringing on my freedom. If the religion of France is secularism, then it does not as a matter of course mean that no religious choices can be made. Secularism is not atheism. If the issue is regarding security risks, then the government must make it clear that certain checks will be mandatory, but to sneak in ethical arguments is vile.

It is also extremely offensive to question veiled women who believe they feel empowered. Like grand vigilantes, the anti-veil group thinks it is important to probe the basis of such a choice. As a stand-alone poser it is legitimate, but then how many women have access to equal opportunities in the workplace or rights even at home? Those who object to the “moving prison” and contend that male insecurity puts a wife or sister behind the burqa say nothing about men who feel secure having trophy wives and displaying them for their physical assets in a consumerist paradise.

There is a belief that the veil defines a woman completely. It does not, just as a skirt or a lipstick does not. Whether they choose to wear loose ‘tents’ or scarves with tight clothes is only one of the choices they make in life, as much as others do things to please their partners, peer groups or societal trends. The people who can ensure that no one is forced to wear what she does not want to are those who understand the construct and not imposers who come with their own moral values garbed as liberalism. A true liberal is not offended by others and most certainly not afraid that she cannot bond with a face behind a niqab. With botox and cosmetics, not to speak of public facades, what about the masks we wear?

(c) Farzana Versey


The images are posited to emphasise the exaggerated positions and draw home the point that there are several layers between the two aspects.

Published in Countercurrents, April 25, 2011

The condom and the lady president

Right. So before Crezendo, the condom, could reach its climax and play its role of providing “ultimate pleasure” the Madhya Pradesh government has decided that Indians can only use the rubber for family planning and not for pleasure. And has ordered an investigation! Wonder who will be on the investigating team and how they will judge....

The product has got a vibrating ring and therefore qualifies as a sex toy which is supposedly banned in India. I say supposedly because everything is available.

Isn’t a condom a personal choice? Why should the government care whether a baby is not conceived by means of a staid simple sheath or one that vibrates? Who is the government to interfere in the business of what two adults choose to do with parts of their bodies and their desires?

If this is what they call wrong, then ban cellphones that have the vibrating mode function…they can provide pleasure. Ban those little massagers that send a shiver down your spine.

This is so silly. They ban a product by an Indian company whereas such imported stuff can be easily bought. Instead of encouraging local initiative they want to just force their version of morality. I suppose they can then blame the foreign hand for those shaky moments when couples are just protecting themselves, not just to prevent babies from being born but as a safety measure against diseases.

Immature little people.

- - -

Pratibha Patil has gone and messed up her chances. At a meeting in Rajasthan she said the purdah was used to protect women from the Mughals during the era when they ruled. Of course she is wrong to say it, not because of what is getting everyone hot and bothered: Oh, how can you say this, the veil existed way before during the Mauryan period, yadda, yadda…

I’d say she is wrong because what were all those hot-blooded Rajputs doing if they could not protect their women from lascivious Mughals? And what about those brave Rajput women?

Come on, Pratibha tai…don’t let me down. I almost broke the TV screen when the editor-anchor of this news channel said something about you catering to the lowest common denominator. Boo! I shouted. I still think you should be there and I don’t care if Sonia Gandhi held you by the hand. If you will allow me, I too shall hold you hand.

Just don’t start those veil thingies. I don’t care, but people will use it – the mullahs, the politicians, the liberals.

Behind the veil

I saw this funny sight yesterday. I was at the traffic light near Dr. Ambedkar's statue. Riding pillion on this snazzy bike was this woman in a burqa, only the slits making her eyes visible. This is not a regular sight in Mumbai. She was holding on tightly to the guy riding the bike.

It was obvious he was her husband. They were a young couple. What surprised me was this guy. He was wearing tight crotch-flaunting jeans; he had a diamond ear stud, his hair had blonde streaks and was gelled back and he wore trendy shades. Everything about his demeanour was shouting for attention. I wanted to roll down the glass and shake him up, give him a piece of my mind.

How could he so callously want his partner to be all wrapped up and project himself so? Did he not imagine that she might like to have some freedom of movement? It has become so convenient these days in resurgent and born-againism to say that women are 'finding' themselves in such clothes. This may be true in some cases, but often it suits the men perfectly.

This time, the traffic and ennui prevented me from 'interfering'. On an earlier occasion, I had. At the time I also had a proper reason -- he was ogling at the group of us. So, I asked him why he had put his own woman behind the veil. He had the audacity to say it was for safety reasons. I told him, "Instead get all the men like you to cover their eyes. The moment you have some shame, then all women will be safe."

Some men are such cowards. They fear their own kind...