To veil or not to veil…?
“It’s her choice.”
These three words are instantly recognizable for an Indian, it was uttered by an actress in a television show and instantly became a popular topic for funny memes and angry internet debates.
A couple of years later, India witnessed huge protests by people for women’s right to wear a hijab during the Karnataka Hijab Row. And the main argument of many protesters was, “It’s her choice”.
A few months after that, protests broke out in Iran after 23-year-old Mahsa Amini was detained by Iran’s Morality Police, and died under mysterious circumstances. The protesters were against the law under articles 638 and 639 of the 5th book of the Islamic Penal Code that makes veiling compulsory for women.
Again the main concern of the protesters was — “It’s her choice”.
The problem with the “it's her choice” argument is that it is easily refutable.
The rationale for a civil society that functions under established laws comes from “a social contract”.
When we are under a social contract, we give up some of our freedoms to the higher authority in return for peace and protection.
A constitution based on the aggregate morals of society is enacted, whose function is to be the soul of society and a reference point for laws.
The aggregate morality of each society or each country is different and comes from different sources such as culture, religion, and history. And hence, the laws of each country are different.
This is where the contrariety of hijab protests between India and Iran comes from. In Iran, the protest is against the law. Its goal is clear and easy to support. While in the case of India, “It was all about individual choice”.
Freedom of choice in every society comes with certain conditions.
For example, many countries do not allow homosexuality while some do. Among the countries that support individual sexual preferences, none allow pedophilia or necrophilia. A case can be made that liking a child or a corpse is an individual choice and must be respected, but it would easily be refuted as “harmful to society”.
The “harmful for society” or “morally wrong” is the rhetoric invoked by the establishment to suppress reforms.
The same is being done in the case of Iran.
And there is a long interesting history behind it.
Hijab was formally banned in Iran for six years from 1935 to 1941. The clergy and conservative women strongly opposed it and instructed women not to follow this rule.
Invoking “hisba” the classical doctrine, associated with the Quranic injunction of enjoining good and forbidding evil, refers to the duty of Muslims to promote moral rectitude and intervene when another Muslim is acting wrong. This wrong could as well be not wearing the veil.
The Shah was corrupt, and so for some women wearing hijab became a symbol of resistance against Shah Reza. After the revolution of 1979, the clergy seized power and Hijab was made mandatory in public. Again women protested on Women’s Day that year against this rule. So first they protested for hijab and later against it.
So, what do women want…“to veil or not to veil?”
The simple answer is that they don’t want to be forced to do anything by the law.
This is where the case of hijab protests in India is different. As women are not forced to wear anything by law. A few Muslim girls in a college were instructed to follow the uniform code of that particular institution.
As per section 133 of the Education Act 1983, it is mandatory for students of government colleges to wear uniforms approved by the state government. And each educational institution has been given autonomy to decide its rules and regulations, which includes uniform, the recitation of religious prayers, etc.
The dress code is strictly implemented in entrance exams for medical, engineering, government jobs, etc.
Allowing hijab against the rule of that college would lead to an anarchic domino effect and every hardline orthodox family would pressure their kids(mostly girls) to wear religious or so-called modest attires.
One argument can be laid that if Sikhs are allowed to wear a head covering then why not Muslim girls?
In this case, hijab would be permitted in every institution. But religious scholars would have to prove that hijab is an essential practice in Islam.
And interestingly, this has already been tried over fifty years ago in Afghanistan.
In 1959, Queen Humaira Begum of Afghanistan supported the call by Prime Minister Md. Daoud Khan for women to voluntarily remove their veil by removing her own. This was a big event in the history of women in Afghanistan, and it was also an intentional part of the women’s emancipation policy of the Daoud Government at that time.
This controversial step was met with indignation by the Islamic clergy, and a group of clerics sent a letter of protest to the Prime minister to protest and demand that the words of Sharia be respected. The Prime minister answered by inviting them to the capital and presenting proof to him that the holy scripture indeed demanded the chadri.
When the clerics could not find such a passage, the Prime Minister declared that the female members of the Royal Family would no longer wear veils, as the Islamic law did not demand it.
The issue of veiling and unveiling is hundreds of years old and many governments have tried to forcefully ban hijab, niqab, chador, paranji, etc.
The Soviet government under Stalin launched unveiling campaigns called “hujum” during the late 1920s in Central Asian countries in order to empower women and bring them into the workforce.
This decision faced backlash from hardliners.
Around 2500 women were killed in Uzbekistan in the first few years of the campaign for appearing without the traditional veil called paranji.
This included popular actresses and singers such as Tursunoy Saidazimova and Nurkhon Yuldashkhojayev. Both of them were killed by their own family in the case of honor killing.
Yes, honor killing is not just a phenomenon in Indian Subcontinent but has been happening all around the world.
Some countries have just left it far behind and buried it in history. Including the Central Asian nations that killed thousands of women for the unveiling, eventually, after a few decades saw a drastic improvement in women’s social and economic conditions.
While the countries that are still hell-bent on keeping their honor fused with women, their clothes and their bodies are at the bottom when it comes to female empowerment.
The case of Iran and Afghanistan are good examples. Both these societies were on the path of liberation of women but succumbed to the demands of conservative religious factions. And now one is controlled by the Taliban and the other by the “sophisticated Taliban” that is the Iranian government.
In the past, Burka, Hijab, ghoonghat, and hat were usually considered to be the attire of the elite Hindu, Muslim and Christian women. And hence other women in society wanted to adopt it. Western dress replaced these in the 20th century as the elite women became formally educated.
The ghoonghat, burqa, etc were recognized as a symbol of oppression.
The hijab and niqab became political symbols for a glorified past of Muslims after the 70s & 80s as a pushback to the Westernization of Islamic societies. This is exactly what happened in countries like Afghanistan, Pakistan, and the rest of the Islamic world as a result of growing Wahhabism. The act of veiling became associated with modesty and avoiding harassment.
An act of internalized elitism became an act of internalized misogyny.
The protest in India is distinct from that of Iran and difficult to support as a women’s rights movement because it could lead to empowering fanatic sections of all religions. They would use it to further their religious and political agendas. As one group in Karnataka wanted to attend college in saffron shawls.
Similarly, Hindu conservatives would force women to dress according to their demands. It could become detrimental for the students, mostly women. And a step backward from progress.
The path that our country and our people choose to follow must be cautious of history and clear about future aspirations. Because the path that society ought to take is not decided on the basis of the personal choices of each individual. Personal choices are never truly one's own but are influenced by multiple factors. Is every person empowered enough to truly make personal choices? Or are they affected by the surrounding noises…And to what degree would personal choices affect the future of society? As mentioned above, pedophilia is also a personal preference but it can’t be allowed because we don’t want to create a society full of pedophiles. Similarly, we don’t allow women to join ISIS and Al Qaida even if they want to.
The freedom of self-destruction is no freedom at all.
Emancipation is usually achieved when we reform our culture, families, and ourselves. It is a rebellion against a part of ourselves. We must be clear about our future aspirations and the type of society we want to build for women. A society with docile and compliant women would bear aggressive and insensitive men.
Thank you for reading this far.
It took weeks of research and contemplation to write this piece. Most of my research and findings could not be reflected in this article as it would become too long for an average reader.
If interested in reading further about this complex topic, I would suggest studying USSR, IRAN, Turkey, and China’s women’s empowerment programs.
If you are generous and rich enough, then…https://www.buymeacoffee.com/msgtoankitraj
