Sarkozy, Burqas and Secularism…

its amazing how fearful people are of doing anything that mohammedans may dislike.

underscores, in my mind at least, the death of ‘ahmisaawaad’ as a negotiating tool. India has not internalised this, and continues to hanker after one chimerical ‘peace process’ after another.

Lets leave it to the individual women from our society instead of religion or community forcing it.
Not burqa but I can see many girls/women wear head scarf in order to avoid the pollution and sunburn.

So it will be impractical to stop someone on religious terms but it should be accepted by the society (includes all religions).

Also whatever Mr.Sarkozy says is for his country and citizens of France are with him so outside Islam followers need not be offended.

“This is not said for Indian Muslims and we need not to worry about it” – Amir Kishti (Mumbai on Star Maza), Islamic Religion Studies Scholar.

Jai Hind!

For all Obama’s words on America protecting individual rights, within the American society is the powerful social pressure to assimilate or at least seem to assimilate. While European nations generally try to be tolerant of cultural differences and allow minorities to live with almost subnational identities (e.g. Netherlands, the Scandinavian countries and even Britain which tolerates Radical Islamic clerics trashing European culture on a regular basis), America doesn’t really tolerate that. The prevailing idea in America is still the melting pot, where people from all faiths and nations end up having similar ideas about democracy and freedom. The Americans don’t really like it when people dress differently or speak different languages. And regardless of background, every American celebrates all the national holidays–although many are in fact rooted in the Christian tradition. The public school education also reinforces this concept of immigrants coming to a better nation with better ideals. Americans forever tell themselves and everyone else that their nation is the best in the world. That is why America will allow people to wear the hijab while at the same time spying on mosques and Islamic charities supposedly to prevent funds to foreign terrorist organizations. This is also why it won’t bow down to pressure to ban Salman Rushdie’s books etc.

The question for us in India should be whether we want to follow the European model of minorities having strong sub-national and often anti-national identities, or we force them to assimilate and respect the dominant culture and religion. Let me end by saying that Americans would never tolerate the kind of evangelical activity from any other religion or Islamic extremism that we tolerate in India .

@K. Harapriya: “The question for us in India should be whether we want to follow … … ”

I really don’t think that there is any question on that??!!

Even the Europeans acknowledge *now* that their decades of appeasement in the name of tolerance (like we do in India) have brought them to a critical point where the society is at great stress for a massive divide across cultural lines. As a result countries like France, Denmark, Greece, Germany, Holland are waking up to the dangers of Islamization unlike in UK where its too late to do anything. In the entire west, there’s a growing consensus that the only way to accept immigrants is by (forcing) assimilation, something US has done well, at least till now.

Surprisingly, the Muslims don’t complain a bit in the US unlike in Europe, where they whine the most in countries that provide them with maximum freedom (UK>France>Holland>Denmark>Germany>Greece in that order). If one cannot force assimilation, then its better to close the doors like the Swis, Austrians or Belgium, etc have done.

As for India, well …. forget stopping Islamization of our society. Are we willing to fight terrorism?

@Ashwin Kumaraswamy: Well said! And to add further Sarkozy has enunciated to make clearer his worldview vis-a-vis Obama’s that two points need to be borne in mind: One, while individuals have freedom of practicing faith, no one will overtly exhibit any aspect of a particular faith in the carrying out of the state’s (read administration’s) duties or functioning – they will dress and behave secularly. And secondly, practicing faith is a personal choice and personal freedom (as in choice to practice) clearly wins hands-down when at odds with freedom of religion. No woman or child can be forced to wear any religious dress, it’s her personal choice and the state will protect that choice

To my mind it all really boils to freedom of religion versus fundamental human freedoms of moral, legal, social, economic, and individual types that are non-negotiable. Any sane head of state of a democratic government will say that individual freedom outweighs and out-values freedom of religion… One can practice one’s religion if it does not interfere with individual freedoms of others as well as of oneself.

No Comment.

Excerpts from Women behind the veil: Burqa secures dignity:

NEW DELHI: Many Indian Muslim women in cities and small towns can barely veil their disgust over French president Nicolas Sarkozy’s comments on the burqa. From the college lecturer in Mumbai to the young married woman in Bihar’s Munger to the student in Lucknow — all say the burqa is an article of faith, a pillar of support. “It is so embarrassing that a head of state can make such an ill-conceived statement. There’s simply no compulsion to wear a burqa,” says Jamia Millia geography professor Haseena Hashia, member of Muslim Law Board.

In a world where sexual-crime is rampant, the burqa denotes comfort, security and allows a woman her dignity, they say. Daughter of Nawab Jafar Mir Abdullah of Lucknow’s royal family, 26-year-old Mahruq, who is pursuing her BEd feels safer wearing a burqa to public places like Nakhaas, a crowded locality. “I feel protected from eve-teasers and anti-social elements as they don’t get to see me or my body,” she says.

“A covered body sends out a positive signal that says no sexual mischief will be tolerated,” says Moonisa Bushra Abedi, professor of nuclear physics in Maharashtra College in Mumbai.

When wearing a burqa, Aligarh-based doctor Bazigha Tabassum says she is ‘azaad from societal pressures’ and adds, “In a burqa, I’m my own person. ‘Chalta-firta’ strangers can’t give me the once-over.”

…For Muslims, modesty in dressing is not left to individual discretion. Women are urged to ‘protect themselves from evil elements’, says professor Hashia.

Link courtesy: BarbarIndian.

@ DD – you are being emotional in your outburst!!!

@AShwin
Unfortunately stupid people like those who are quoted above, cannot be tackled with reason. Its almost like they are saying, “We are stupid and proud of our stupidity” and start spouting flat earth theories.

@Patriot,
Could you please expound on “Do not like it? Do not work here, then.”? Whats “it” refer to in this case?

“Burqua is the symbol of subjugation for women”, the French president Mr. Sarkozy’s statement sparked a series of debate in the entire world. The Indian media is discussing it in a more relinquishing way than their French counterpart probably because we in India think more strongly about our religious identity. There is nothing wrong in being conscious about one’s religious identity but the moment it starts entering into state’s affair then we should follow their will. Last week I saw a few debates on that issue on some private Indian English speaking channels. I found a bit less rational the way some of our experts appeared and gave their opinions on television without really understanding the core issue specially the French polity as I believe.

Critics in India on a private channel said that Sarkozy should first try to create a society where women can feel safe and then they’ll themselves stop wearing veil. Mani Sahnkar Aiyar went one step a head who was a panelist on that program said that “what kind of president he is to jump on the conclusion before the enquiry commission would give their verdict whether wearing veil violated the right of a woman or not”. Here he may be right but then he went on to say that the Indian government (India being a second largest Muslim populous nation) should take up this issue with the French . Then the anchor jumped into by saying that our prime minister Dr.Singh had also taken up the issue of ban on the Sikh children wearing turban in French public schools, that’s how she actually supported such move if the Indian government takes up. Mr.Aiyar further moved one step ahead, and criticized French democracy by citing that how could they call themselves a country of “liberté, égalité et fraternité”.

I found a little strange such comments because it was coming from the side of an expert, secondly the gentleman was an ex-IFS who was supposed to understand the France’s way of secularism. Firstly we’ve to understand that Republic is much more important than democracy, latter exists and flourishes thanks to the former. And any head of state’s responsibility is to discipline its people when they see that a particular chunk of their people is going away from the main stream of population. Secondly, France has had a different and sometime one might say a more stricter way of following the rules of secularism ( laicité as they call it) which they feel very proud of doing. Its route lies in their famous French revolution period, still from there they cherished and nourished the value system of secularism. On the basis of that the state does not encourage or even recognize any particular sort of religious symbol or identity if a particular community tries to show in public because the state thinks that this way a sort of distinction or space is being created by that community people which in long term can go against the interest of the republic. So it’s better to discourage or even ban such distinctive (based on religious identity) features which are evolving and creating a separate society by ghettoization within a large national community. And if the value system of that ghetto group happens to go against the ethos and rules of the national community, then the state has to take corrective measures to bring back that separate society into the large national one through social inclusion , otherwise the presences and on-growing strength of that ghetto can pose a threat to the basic norms of the republic. In France’s case, exactly the same thing has been happening over a past few years, so Sarkozy’s statement was merely reflecting that alarming bell, and was hinting towards the possible corrective measures which his government will take to put things in order.

This is quite true that this does not really go with the democratic and multicultural ethos which says that everybody has the right to wear whatever one wants to. But if such freedom comes in the way of republic’s value of equality then the government should and does curb such freedom of right to safeguard republic this is merely to serve the long term interests of any nation as country. That’s why under Homeland security, former US administration had taken all the steps to ensure the safety of its citizens, and in doing so they had to suppress some fundamental rights of the people too, which was in the interest of the US republic but was not coherent with the US democray.

Finally I would like to say that Mr.Aiyar should voice his opinion in this regard after going through the politics of laicité of France, and then should pass a judgment. At the same time, if any Sikh or any Muslim comes to live in any western country be it France or Canada then they should follow the rules and regulations of that very country rather than asking their respective governments to let them wear the dress reflecting their religious identity. Once you live your country, and start living in a foreign land then you become a subject of that very land, you must abide by the law and constitution of that very country.

The Sikh position is unique. The Sikhs were originally Hindus (which included Muslim converts) who under Guru Nanak decided to worship one rather than many Gods. Their dress code was established under the Khalsa by Guru Govind Singh. I see in them the true martial spirits of the ancient Hindus. I have said that their ideals are one which we can as Hindus follow without fear or contradiction. Of course there is the serious matter of Khalistani idealogues who have sought to amplify differences but their brand of militancy is easily drowned out by the majority of Sikhs. Unlike with Islam, Sikh identity is laid down by their religion. This has had unfortunate consequences for them. What we have seen is that because images of Sikhs have been likened to that of Osama Bin Laden, they have borne the brunt of violant attacks in the West. Muslim men have however escaped such attacks because beards and turbans are traditional dress native to their country of origin which they have no need of observing on religious grounds abroad. My sympathies are with the Sikhs: it is no less possible for them to disentangle their religious beliefs as it was with the “immortal” Greeks warriors of the battle of Thermoplae. It would not be too much of leap for the French (and indeed the Americans) to make the Sikhs their own as the British have done to their considerable advantage. Our success as Hindus lie in having similar clarity and purpose and avoidance of each and every fad that has come our way on issues that really matter. That applies most critically in the area of religion and politics. The word “culture” itself means that it is something that needs to be nourished and grown with due deliberation, love and care. It is also supposed to be the better side that a civilisation displays to the world. The world will partake of it and even make it its own as it has with the ideas of democracy and justice, imperfect as they were when they first came to be explored by the ancient Greeks. I am less comfortable with lobbies (Christian, Hindu and Muslim ones) that have set themselves as protectors of culture because it is an object of such great national importance that it should be left in their charge. I am sure its because the BJP recognise its importance that it has made it the mainstay of its ideology in Hindutva: that by itself is not enough and I would take issue with its premise, contents and values which need to take account of the advance the world has made.

@ Shantanu:

“Conservatives have long pointed out — and liberals have long largely ignored — that there are real contradictions between liberalism and multiculturalism.
Source: http://tr.im/pTf8”

I went through the post cited by you – the author puts forth no evidence for this assertion.

Liberalism and multiculturalism actually go hand-in-hand, as liberals stand for freedom and choice. Conservatives would squash choice and force people to conform to their definitions and world view – so, the opposite is more likely to be true.

To substantiate his/her view, the author says this in one part of the post:
“Yet such state interventions can end up working against individual women. Last year, for example, a Moroccan woman married to a French man was denied French citizenship because she wore a burqa at her husband’s request. The ruling declared her “radical practice of her religion (and) behavior in society incompatible with the essential values of the French community, notably the principle of equality between the sexes.” According to the scholar Cécile Laborde, political parties, intellectuals, and journalists praised the decision almost unanimously.”

I think the author is too dumb so he misses the delicious irony of the fact that the cited example goes against his own view point.

Note that the woman did not *choose* to wear the burqah – she as *asked* by her husband to do so. One can debate endlessly as to whether she complied with the request of her own free will or not, but the fact stands that she was not going to wear one of her own free will. So, was the decision just? May be, maybe not – but, the liberals were right – there was no free choice in this matter. It is interesting that the “religious/racial identity” of the French man is not clarified – I would be willing to bet serious money that the man was a muslim.

So, let us be very clear – we, as liberals, stand for free choice. But, when we see a religion or state oppress its own, then we will stand up to it, and that is an expression of freedom and free choice as well.

And, given that children are indoctrinated into their faiths, brainwashed as it were, liberals should not back down in the face of illiberal faiths.

Sarkozy has done a stellar job in the service of liberty.

Cheers

@ SR:

While I would be the first to support anyone’s free choice to wear the clothes of their choice, the issue of burqas is complicated by the enforcement that happens in these families.

Would the Islamic community let us do a survey of the women, without any men present, about whether they like to wear burqas?

And, there is just way too much evidence of the dominating role that men play over women in Islamic societies – a very small example – women are not allowed to drive in Saudi Arabia? Why? Did the prophet bar them? That would be interesting!

While you are seeing the burqas in isolation, we see the illiberal tenets of Islam in totality – the day they free their women to do what they want, I will be at the forefront of the line supporting any woman’s free choice to wear the burqa.

Cheers

Here is a short Economist article on the issue:
http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13925890

But, what is more fun is all the comments that follow the article – don’t miss out Kaffirhindoo in the comments section – he is particularly good as is the commentator “Imright”.

Kaffirhindoo riffing on allah’s believer had me in splits …. and, was that you Kaffir?

Cheers

@Patriot,
Thanks much!! I guess I did not have my daily caffeine that day to read between the lines 🙂

Oh I forgot to mention the stellar of all Islam for Women Rights verse: 24:13 (Why did they not produce four witnesses ? Since they produce not witnesses, they verily are liars in the sight of Allah). So produce four witnesses to prove rape or your accusation becomes an admission of adultery. Hence, get stoned for it in case of Wahabi Islam. As per an estimate, 75% of imprisoned women in Pakistan (Land of Pure…yeah right!) are behind bars for being rape victims.

A suggestive read, “Voices behind the veil: The world of Islam through the eyes of Women”.

They can denounce all they want, but article 377 has been repealed. Unless some group challenges it and it goes to the Supreme Court (not quite familiar with the legal system). Or unless Congress/UPA comes up with a Shah Bano-like law to circumvent this repealing and appease the religious people, especially the minority vote-banks.

Jayadevan, your senioritis shows. Please take vanvaas and spare us your trollish behavior, instead of continuing your pathetic attempts to gather some chelaas who can carry on your “wisdom”. In old age, people get concerned about their legacy.

Here’s the fact which you ignore: when was the last time government did something to appease VHP or Arya Samaj? And I wouldn’t call it united – yes, all those groups are against repealing of 377, but that doesn’t mean they will unite together and join hands.

@Kaffir:

I just saw that the Delhi High Court has struck down Section 377 yesterday – the quotations you saw were from much earlier.

Great day for personal liberty. Now, let us see what the Congress does.

Cheers

@ Khandu –

It was the Delhi High Court that ruled on it, not the Supreme Court – but, I am sure the “aggreived” moral parties are going to appeal to the Supreme Court.

I think the Congress has been clever about this, with Moily first saying that 377 needs to go, and then coyly backtracking, citing more discussion are required – meanwhile, the Delhi High Court did their job (I wonder if they were tipped off? Congress, I mean).

And, the language in which the judgment has been framed makes it extremely difficult for any political party to now undo this – the HC has ruled that it is violative of fundamental equalities guaranteed to the citizens of India by the Constitution – if the Supreme Court agress, that is that. Because any legislation trying to undo this will be called ultra vires of the constitution.

So, July 2 will go down in India’s history as a great day for personal liberty. I also notice, with chagrin, that the Communist parties are the only ones who have come out in full support of the HC judgement. All the other parties are in hiding.

Meanwhile, “Baba” Ramdev finally dropped the veil and showed what a hidebound reactionary he really is:
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/India/Gays-not-part-of-Gods-plan-say-religious-leaders/articleshow/4731106.cms

And, oh, BTW, did you know, he had also claimed that he could cure HIV and cancer through yoga – I wonder why people still go to Tata Memorial in Mumbai ….. oh ye, people of little faith 🙂
http://www.ramdevyoga.net/cancer-cure-by-pranayam-swami-ramdev-yoga/

As he prepares for his entry into Indian politics, I worry for the future of India.

I came upon this site by chance while searching for Noam Chomsky’s views on India. Having read this thread which mostly contains posts by Hindu authors, who wax eloquent about how Islam subjugates women, they seem to have ignored the skeletons in their closets.

What practices of Hinduism do not subjugate women? The dowry system, not allowing widows to remarry, marrying off a woman to her husband’s brother in the event of his death, not dividing property equally among the daughters of the house, the dead (?) practice of sati.. I could go on and on.. but all you ‘holier than thou’ haters of Islam, why don’t you take a good, hard look in the mirror and then see if you can throw more stones at it after having done that..

@peacepipe,

What practices of Hinduism do not subjugate women? The dowry system, not allowing widows to remarry, marrying off a woman to her husband’s brother in the event of his death, not dividing property equally among the daughters of the house, the dead (?) practice of sati.. I could go on and on.. but all you ‘holier than thou’ haters of Islam, why don’t you take a good, hard look in the mirror and then see if you can throw more stones at it after having done that..
Let us see your charges one by one:
[a] Dowry system: A social practice, not a religious one. There was nothing inside the scriptures to endorse it. And not every Hindu accepts it in their marriage.
[b] not allowing widows to remarry: Perhaps you forgot (or do not know) that the re-marrying was legalized by British government because a Hindu Pandit risked everything in life to convince the government that Hindu Dharma supported re-marriage.
[c] marrying off a woman to her husband’s brother in the event of his death: Once again, practice existed in certain societies including certain tribes in eastern provinces whose religion was not always Hindu. Besides, if you say that this was supported by Hindu dharma, how would you say that re-marriage was prevented by Hinduism?
[d] not dividing property equally among the daughters of the house: A social rule, religion does not say anything about how to divide personal wealth; I would be glad to see a counter example with respect to Hinduism.
[e] the dead (?) practice of sati: I see. It is not dead now? It had to be alive, so that people like you can beat Hinduism, right?

If you think that Hindusim is all about a bunch of derogatory rules in medieval society, then there is no surprise that you can only see those who wax eloquent about how Islam subjugates women, they seem to have ignored the skeletons in their closets. We have not said that these rules never existed and we have never tried to say that they are not wrong. It did not take anyone but some Hindus to petition a foreign government to abolish most of these social rules. Their conviction was their ground in Dharma, not a foreign rule. This ability to do course correction is one strength of ours. We have not, however, tried to justify or suppress child abuse by man of clothes or did not scream about freedom of religion when a government takes away the religious norm that threaten individual freedoms (burqa). It is obvious who are trying to hide their skeleton in the closet. It is also obvious why such a comment had to be made on a thread related to burqa, a pathetic effort to divert the discussion?

At the end, you were trying to search for Noam Chomsky’s view about India? He is a liar per excellence and an apologist for criminals like Pol Pot. It is not surprising that you have these views. I am not even expecting you to come back and answer on my points. You are after all a Chomsky admirer, self-righteousness is a signature quality among your clan.

@Shantanu,
Chancelor Merkel appears to be saner and wiser than we give credit for. The comment shows that not everything has been lost in Europe.

@Sid, though Christopher Caldwell in his book “Reflections on the Revolution in Europe” (I’ve read some reviews, though not the book) suggests that given the demographic trends, it might be too late for Europe to turn the clock back.

@Kaffir,
I feel that demographically Europe still has a chance. The trouble is that whenever Europe became united to fight some external entity (crusades post 1000 CE and war with European Pagans before 1000 CE), it always did so under the banner of Christianity. Nothing else, even the color of skin that obsessed them so much, could not bind them. Once the long bind of Christianity is past the point of it’s strength and most of Europe accepted the separation of church and state, there is nothing that can prevent an ambitious politician to ally himself with external groups temporarily for his short term gain but jeopardize the long term interest of his successors.
Any external group that is focused and used to the idea of strict “us” and “them” can wreck havoc in such a divided society. Think of the British dealing with Holkars/Scindias/Rajputs and Sultanates in south and east. If we had been in that historical scenario, we would have discussed that few caucasian Englishmen had no demographic advantage in a land always populated by brown skinned Indians. Yet, it is them who ruled for two centuries by staying together and using shrewd strategies without ever worrying about moral dimensions. On the other hand plenty of ambitious kings and Sultans had their wet dream in using the British power against their enemies and then lost their power to them.
If Europe can not integrate itself along it’s cultural lines against the rising tide of Jihad, it is waiting for the similar fate in few decades.

Islam does not need to be dominant for Sharia encroachment of public and private space of an individual.

Shantanu recently noted that Halal foods were served to non Muslims without their knowledge. Just see how sensitive American and EU press has become to Islamic concerns. Editor and publisher of Danish Cartoons Flemming Rose noted if Sharia is incumbent of Muslims so be it. If drawing of prophet cartoons is not acceptable to Muslims, it is OK for them to not draw. But why should Sharia be imposed on non Muslims? Why should non muslims not draw Prophet Muhammad pictures? Sam Harris best seller ‘End of faith’ was rejected by over 20 publishers for fear of offending Islamic sensibilities. There are clear cases where cab drivers were not taking in customers with liquor or dogs. Not even the guide dogs. And people have been demanding segregation of PUBLIC pools. It is not irrational fear if host nation citizens decide to not accomodate such untenable demands.

So, there is clear evidence of creeping Islamization(Sharia) the professor chose to ignore.

Santanu,

If it is not a duplicate please do post it.

Thanks,
Mallika

Malavika, your words:

1. “There is a bit of scare mongering going on. There are quite a few assumptions made to come up with the statistics which say Islam is going to be the dominat religion in some countries like France”

2. “Islam does not need to be dominant for Sharia encroachment of public and private space of an individual.”

Exactly the point that Christopher Caldwell made, that it might be too late to turn the clock back, i.e. Islam will continue to have a presence in European countries and affect the life there.

Besides, Muslims don’t need to be in a majority in the country – they can be in majority in a specific city or a state (e.g. J&K) to cause problems. Or, in many instances, not even be in a majority in a specific city/voting area, viz. your examples of creeping Sharia.

Italy cracks doen on Romas(Gypsies).

It is this racist EU which used to give unending lectures to Indians. Meanwhile they don’t tolerate a little difference in skin color. They are even deporting Romas who are willing to assimilate. And we used to listen to these ????

“These are dark-skinned people, not Europeans like you and me,” said Riccardo De Corato, who is Milan’s vice mayor from Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi’s ruling party and who is in charge of handling the camps. He later added: “Our final goal is to have zero Gypsy camps in Milan.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/11/AR2010101106428.html