(1 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)
Loading ...2,724 views
To start with, credit where it is due. The picture of a veiled woman I posted a few days back was taken by Mirjam, a fine photographer from Netherlands who visits India regularly and has a great photo-gallery at Flickr. While scouting for pictures that could be used as header images for this blog, I chanced upon a picture Mirjam calls Black & Green. I requested for his permission to use it at the blog but his answer was quite a surprise for me. And that is why I posted the image here to get comments from the readers. In retrospect, I think the question I asked was too ambiguous and that is why there were very few responses.
Coming back to the woman in the picture, she is not Rani Mukherjee (though her eyes definitely suggest so as one reader pointed out). She is not any other actress wearing a Muslim dress. The fact is that she is not even Muslim!
Her name is Papu and she is from the Bhopa community in Rajasthan. She even has her own website, the Papu Photo Project, made by Mirjam and his friends. A little about her from the website:
Papu is a member of the Bhopa tribe, and lives with her family in the desert state of Rajasthan (India). Accompanied by her husband Chotu, who plays the Ravanhatta, a type of violin, they roam the streets of Pushkar, singing their traditional songs. [Papu.nl]
and this important objective of the project:
Basically, the thought behind our Papu Photo Project is this: on the one hand we have the beauty of Papu, who sustains her family (last year she gave birth to a fourth child) as an impromtu photo model. On the other hand, we have nameless women who forever lost their beauty through violence inflicted upon them by their husband and mother-in-law. Women who, because of insufficient dowry, have been purposely set afire and are killed and mutilated for life.
The Papu Photo project is meant to support the work of Duniya Foundation, which among many other things, provides reconstructive surgery for dowry victims (see photos left column), circulates information, organizes educative street theatre and public debate etc. Moreover, we run a small health clinic cum social centre in Nagwa, a low income area in the city of Varanasi. This building serves as a refuge for women in distress as well. [Papu.nl]
After finding so much about the picture I realized how much we are governed by stereotypes. As soon as I saw a woman with her face covered with black veil, I immediately presumed that she is a Muslim woman! That partly explains the distasteful and factually incorrect remarks made by Pratibha Patil, UPA nominee for President, about the purdah system in India. Speaking at a function organized to mark the 467th birth anniversary of Maharana Pratap Singh, she said that the purdah system was introduced to the Indian society to protect women from Mughal invaders. She also added:
Now that women are progressing in every field, we should morally support and encourage them by leaving such practices behind. Today we are citizens of free India. There is need to put a stop to such practices. That alone will ensure real respect for women. [Khabrein.info]
There are two issues here:
- She has got the history wrong.
- She has got her issues mixed up.
As expected, the criticism of her remarks has been severe, both from the academicians and the politicians. The voices coming from the Indian Muslim community have been too confrontational though. A lot has already been written and discussed about the historical inaccuracies inherent in her statements. Just a couple of quick points:
- Purdah system was already in place in the Hindu society before the Muslim invaders
- Mughals were not really invaders in the true sense of word as they settled here and were much different from Ghazni et al who came to loot and plunder
- There was a Muslim rule in India for 400 years before Mughals
- The purdah system in the Hindu society was mostly internal between house patriarchs and daughter-in-laws
The most troubling aspect of her remarks is the confusion between hijab and purdah (may be I will write a separate post on this one) and suggesting that it should be done away with to help women progress in the 21st century. This point is being protested by the Muslims the most and even they seem to have confused the issue. I am not sure why she chose to make such sweeping statement but I can surmise. She is seen as a the establishment’s candidate and is widely perceived to have no standing of her own. But she is a woman and the first woman ever to have a serious chance of being the President of India. Therefore, since day one she has marketed her nomination as a big step for women empowerment. May be she got a little frustrated with all the negative publicity she has been receiving and wanted to make a point. I think what she was trying to say was that women should not be forced into seclusion as it devoids them of many opportunities that the new India has to offer. The real message, however, got lost in the ensuing brouraha.
Oh, by the way, Papu wears a veil to protect herself from sand.
{ 3 trackbacks }
{ 17 comments }
Mohib, Always a pleasure to read your posts.
In my opinion, pardah as a sysem is not desirable. System means society interfering in a person’s personal matters. Of course pardah as a personal choice is perfectly ok.
Use of veils by women in different customs/ religions is very interesting topic. I find the example from Holland particularly interesting and a good case for discussion.
Individuals should have the freedom to wear and not wear what ever they want. It is unfortunate that there is such a controversy regarding veils in the western world and that women visitors to Saudi Arabia are forced to wear veils.
Having said that, there is societal factor that people who advocate individual’s freedom of choice should factor in this discussion.
In the case of Holland they found that there are some Muslim women who wear veil- the black head to toe type (there are many muslim women in Holland who work and contribute to the society). These women have not being getting jobs. Now they have the right to wear whatever cloths they want to and the employers have the right to employee only those who wear what is good for the business. For example many people would not be very happy to be served in a restaurant by women veils (for that matter men in veils!). Many are not very comfortable if the waiters serve in their bikinis- not every one is rushing to the nearest Hooters.
So when the employment agencies put these women for an interview the result is the a rejection. And it is fine. It is their choice. They have the right to follow their religious principals and if that does not help them to get a job it is fine.
The trouble starts when they come to collect their social benefits- including unemployment benefits, medical benefits (emergency medical in the US, normal medical in socialist economies of the west). Social benefits are funded with tax payer’s money. So a tax payer, who works hard and makes sacrifices on so many fronts like family etc. to make a living, does not usually take this situation with kindness. Have mercy for the poor soul.
So while individuals exercise their individual freedom to patronize any of the different religious dogmas (which I feel they have the right to do), they should also exercise the responsibility to see to it that they do not burden others who do not approve of such a living.
Vichara,
I am not aware of tax system in US or Holland. I was just wondering whether taxes have increased in the recent past because there has been a huge influx of velied women in these countries.
Reagarding jobs, well I don’t think any veiled woman would try to get jobs which requires to shed her veil. There are enough jobs in the market…at least in India
Sharique
Neither is there a huge increase in the atrocities against Muslims in India. It is pretty normal steady scale, would I argue? That those affected are very small as a percentage? No, I can not. Atrocities are what they are and it does not matter if it is a very small percentage of the 120 million. Similarly a social benefit policy should be fair. And unfair policy can not be condoned since it is a very small percentage or because there has not been any increase in the unfairness.
Regarding women in veil, while they have the right to be in veil, and you have the right to support that, others have the right to campaign against that practice- I feel it is inhuman and plain aesthetically pathetic.
I think the people inside the veil are more beautiful and pleasing to look at than those inside veils- whether it is my mother, daughter or my lovely wife. I recognize your right to agonize over that fact.
And as a tax payer I have the right to campaign against any government policy that in my opinion subsidizes any religiously inspired living style.
Example in India:
I have met a number of Muslims in Kerala (the state is about 27% Muslim) who do not prefer those professions for their girls that require them to be in a room with a man (there are some conditions like the door open/ close whatever sickening details). So they do not prefer them to be nurses- it is a 3 year graduate program. And nursing as a profession has such a huge demand not just in India but around the world. It is such a prestigious profession in the USA. And very few Muslim women take it. (Now I know there are a few Muslim women who have taken it and I salute all nurses. It is such a great profession)
Compare it with the Christians in Kerala. They have such a huge number of nurses in their community and the whole community has gained so much. They are also minorities (about 23% of the state).
Contrast this with the demand/ initiatives towards providing reservations for Muslims. Of course not all Muslims are demanding that and nor all Muslims are opposing that.
So one has to ask if the life style choices of Muslims in India are also a contributing factor to the backwardness (some people site government reports that say it is backward, and so they need special support) of the community?. Of course there are other societal factors like attitude of majority community towards them, day to day discriminations etc.
And I think yes. And I am only saying that under such circumstances my tax money be not used for subsidizing any such religiously motivated living. Not just for Muslims but for any other group.
Yes, even if it is just the smallest fraction of the tax money.
Yes including the government spending (government pays for the teachers and the 50% of the seats are meant for students from the minority community) on colleges and schools run by minority communities.
I am only saying that you have the right to live anyway you want, and I have the right to demand that that way not be subsidized by my tax money.
The Bauls of Bengal are another sect of people that defy stereotypes.
As for veils, I find it hard to imagine women being comfortable in the head-to-toe kind – especially in the summers. Also, regarding the issue of veils in the workplace, companies, especially in the west, ideally like to hire people who blend with their co-workers. And fitting in with your colleagues is a vital aspect of corporate culture and personal growth. You can’t hire someone who is going to make others in the workplace feel uncomfortable. Of course, you have to be respectful of religions, cultures, etc. Even just the headscarf kind of hijab would do. But you probably would agree that the other kind is likely not the best suited for a workplace.
Vichara
you raised an issue which is more than just a discussion about veiled women. only that you presented it in a very small universe .. this issue pervades all instances where ‘personal choice of living’ or ‘religiously motivated living’ is applicable.
as triple said the choice of wearing a veil must be personal rather than imposed and no one has a right to restrict their choices or benefits due to their way of living.
when it comes to jobs there are personal choices made ..it is not limited to only veiled women. people take up jobs which they think are suitable to them , and they have a right to do that. how many married women(irrespective of religion) will take up night shift jobs here in India . it is their personal choice not to accept any job like that … that doesn’t mean they cannot benefit from any govt policy. there are jobs which are suitable to them and they have the right to decide whatever is suitable for them.
you say backwardness of muslims in India is due to their lifestyle choices. muslims are not backward because of the veil or because of any of their lifestyle choices. the girl who wears a veil is as good at learning and getting educated as are others who dont wear veil, and she has a right to choose what jobs are suitable for her … a right which her counterparts in other religions enjoy without being termed as backward..or without getting complains of taking undeserved share in someone’s taxes. none of the muslims ‘lifestyle choices’ stop them to go and get good education, what stops them is poverty and lack of awareness .. that is where government help is going to make difference. something you seem to oppose. there are communities which get govt help in terms of reservation in educational institutes and jobs..and they do enjoy the freedom to choose kind of jobs are suitable for them.
everyone has a set of jobs they think are suitable for them .. and they accept only to work in those jobs.. this is common for all and not just for muslims. if any one else does benefit from govt policies even after their freedom to choose.. then muslims also have a right for these benefits.
i dont know about the minority institutions elsewhere .. but none of the minority professional colleges in Andhra pradesh get any aid from government.. and here is a different perspective about the 50% reservation of seats. ‘ to educate one muslim student the minority college has to support a general quota student’s education ‘.
how much we should control the govt policies because we pay tax is certainly a matter of debate.. and this control if any and if not done in a sane manner.. is going to create chaos if all want their tax money to be spent according to their personal opinions .
“as triple said the choice of wearing a veil must be personal rather than imposed and no one has a right to restrict their choices or benefits due to their way of living”
I agree that it is a matter of personal choice. But what about my right? My right to influence the way my tax money is spend? If my tax money is to be spend on treating smokers? supporting women in veil? Hell no.
“when it comes to jobs there are personal choices made ..it is not limited to only veiled women. people take up jobs which they think are suitable to them , and they have a right to do that. how many married women(irrespective of religion) will take up night shift jobs here in India . it is their personal choice not to accept any job like that … that doesn’t mean they cannot benefit from any govt policy. there are jobs which are suitable to them and they have the right to decide whatever is suitable for them.
you say backwardness of muslims in India is due to their lifestyle choices. muslims are not backward because of the veil or because of any of their lifestyle choices. the girl who wears a veil is as good at learning and getting educated as are others who dont wear veil, and she has a right to choose what jobs are suitable for her … a right which her counterparts in other religions enjoy without being termed as backward..or without getting complains of taking undeserved share in someone’s taxes. none of the muslims ‘lifestyle choices’ stop them to go and get good education, what stops them is poverty and lack of awareness .. that is where government help is going to make difference. something you seem to oppose.”
No problem. Be my guest. Take any work you want and do not work at all. No any religion no problem. I am only saying you should not be supported by my tax money. We are campaiging so that a majority of people take that stand.
I am not saying they are backward. It is a government commission that said they are backward. And they now want reservations based on that! Not me, no I do not want them to be backward nor have reservations.
Eventhough I find your comments that they lack awareness and that they are steeped in poverty very interesting.
“everyone has a set of jobs they think are suitable for them .. and they accept only to work in those jobs..”
Okay lets all shut down and wait for the job we all like. Until then we can live on benefits!! What an fantastic idea. So who is going to pay for the benefits? So what is the plan? All those who are waiting for their job of liking life of those who slog?
“i dont know about the minority institutions elsewhere .. but none of the minority professional colleges in Andhra pradesh get any aid from government.. ”
This is as per the supreme court ruling. Period. It is applicable every where in India.
“how much we should control the govt policies because we pay tax is certainly a matter of debate..”
There is no debate here. We want to control as much as possible.
“and this control if any and if not done in a sane manner..”
Not to apply any control as it is happening now is insane.
“is going to create chaos if all want their tax money to be spent according to their personal opinions ”
This is what I call the “Pakistani argument”. “If you do not give me money it will lead to chaos/ terrorism”. Well some of us are sick of this argument.
Decades of pandering to such threats have lead to this chaos. Can be show some back bone please?
vichara
you say
[quote post="271"]This is what I call the “Pakistani argument�. “If you do not give me money it will lead to chaos/ terrorism�. Well some of us are sick of this argument. [/quote]
i dont understand what made you say this…if each one of us had control over how our tax money is spent (i do pay my taxes regularly) then at worst there can be millions of different opinions about how to spend it…as many as there are taxpayers in the country.. and thats y it would lead to chaos, by chaos i meant this and not terrorism.. i hope you got it right atleast now. How did you reach this idea that ‘if you dont give money it will lead to terrorism’.
[quote post="271"]Decades of pandering to such threats have lead to this chaos. Can be show some back bone please?[/quote]
read my comment once again .. and tell me if there is any threat in that.
Musafir
That is why we have elections. We try to elect the parties that implement polies that we think is good for the country. Lot of us are trying to influence to the way tax money is spend. We are trying to mobilise a majoriy that seeks to avoid tax money being spend on subsidizing religion inspired living. It is a matter of getting a majority. In doing so I am trying to explain my idea and you yours.
You said “…. is going to create chaos….”. I took it as a threat to create chaos if the money not spend the way you like it to be. If you did not mean it I accept your point.
If it was a threat then I am saying that it is very similar to the way Pakistan manages its relation with US- give us money, weapons, support or you will see an increase in terroisim.
Great debate, guys. Keep it up! We need such informative and dispassionate discussions.
Here in the US, I’ve seen women wear hijab (scarf covering hair and neck) and niqab (though with the face uncovered) but not burqa. I think it would be really difficult for a woman here in the US to wear a burqa outdoors when mingling with other people, and will probably alarm a lot of people who will make instant judgments based on that.
As I’ve mentioned in another post, I think it’s best a woman’s personal choice and should never be forced on her. If she is living and working in a Western country, she may have to compromise by wearing a hijab depending on the job conditions and the rules/laws of the country.
My questions is: if it’s men who are so unable to control their impure thoughts and emotions, why don’t they wear a burqa?? That also will solve the problem of them having impure thoughts. Why expect others to wear something when it is one’s own emotions and thoughts? One must take responsibility for one’s own thoughts/emotions – asking women to wear niqab or burqa because I’m having impure thoughts is simply sexist. It makes someone else unfairly responsible for my feelings.
And, to turn this around, aren’t women capable of having impure thoughts when they look at a man’s face, eyes, hair? So, by the same logic, if women should cover up, then men should also wear a burqa. Let’s see how well that goes. Or, do women’s feelings and thoughts don’t matter?
And, it’s not a choice between
a. burqa being modest, and
b. everything else (that is, no hijab/burqa) being immodest.
One can still dress modestly without wearing hijab, niqab or burqa.
Muslim women say they wear the hijab to be ‘modest’ and to focus on ‘inner beauty’. What they do by wearing the hijab in the United States is to stick out like a sort thumb and draw attention to themselves. It says, for all intents and purposes, ‘look at me! I’m wearing a hijab! I am a devout Muslim woman! look at me! look at me!’ There is nothing ‘modest’ at all about wearing a hijab in the United States. For the vast majority of these women, if they did NOT wear a hijab, no one would give them a second look. Pop a hijab on and they are suddenly the center of attention! It’s all about standing out and craving attention from others.
John,
!!??
What an insane logic?
You are right John!
You know, Hindu married women wearing sindoor and mangalsutra also stand out in crowd; so they should stop wearing them. And all Indian women wearing sari-s also stand out; so, they should wear only skirt and top. And all sikhs wearing turban also stand out; so, they should not wear turbans. And many muslims sporting beards also stand out, so they should stop having beards. And many brahmins putting sandalwood tika on their forehead also stand out; therefore…..
Hey whatever happened to ‘unity in diversity’?
I think what one wears is his personal choice but he must be prepared to face the consequences of his choices. I think the taxpayers money has to be spent that no one community benefits from it , while everybody generally benefits. I think reservations is a completely ridiculous idea and is a far cry from a meritocratic society, which is what India should become. It is simply unfair to those that are denied jobs because of such reservations.The point of Muslim nurses is interesting and should be looked closely. It does point towards the fact that some part of the backwardness of muslim society can be attributed to the choices they are making and the gap that exists in thier thinking. Why they dont compete with the christian nurses is something they should look at. Is it because of social pressures within thier society, or some sort of religious mindset? These need to be answered and dwelved upon.
Achal:
[quote post="271"]I think what one wears is his personal choice but he must be prepared to face the consequences of his choices.[/quote]
What do you mean by consequences of his choices? A Sikh being discriminated against in employment in New York Transit System on account of him wearing turban is okay with you?
Relax dude. No need to get worked up.
What I meant was that if a muslim woman wears the burqa and does not get the job say in a restaurant (Which the restaurant owner feels he is entilted to as it can effect his business, the same point that vichara raised) she cannot complain about such things and term it as discrimination. Just like she has a choice to wear or not to wear, the employer has a similar choice.
Comments on this entry are closed.