The burqa is an enveloping outer garment worn by muslim women in order to cover themselves when out in public. It consists of “jilbab” a loose body covering, the “hijab” which is the head covering, and the face veil known as the “niqab”.

Historically there is evidence that women, particularly Arabian and Persian women, wore this garment before the advent of Islam. Hijab is a requirement as ordained by the Koran, for both men and women, to dress and behave modestly in public. This requirement has been interpreted in many different ways by Islamic scholars and clerics all over the world.  For instance, the Koran has been translated by saying, “And say to the faithful women to lower their gazes, and to guard their private parts, and not to display their beauty except what is apparent of it, and to extend their headcoverings (khimars) to cover their bosoms (jaybs), and not to display their beauty except to their husbands, or their fathers, or their husband’s fathers, or their sons, or their husband’s sons, or their brothers, or their brothers’ sons, or their sisters’ sons, or their womenfolk, or what their right hands rule (slaves), or the followers from the men who do not feel sexual desire, or the small children to whom the nakedness of women is not apparent, and not to strike their feet (on the ground) so as to make known what they hide of their adornments. And turn in repentance to Allah together, O you the faithful, in order that you are successful”

The recent ban on the burqa by the French government has created a furor across the world.  Some have welcomed the move, stating that the ban upholds the principles of secularism and most importantly secures the right to dignity to a woman. While others have criticized it by deeming it as enforced assimilation in society, and stating that it is yet another instance of the perceived Islamophobia of the West.

The origins of “The Veil Affair” can be traced back to mid 90’s in France. In 1994, a memorandum- “Francois Bayrou memo” was issued, which distinguished between discreet religious symbols and ostentatious religious symbols such as the “hijab” which was sought to be banned in the public realm. A decade later in 2004, the French government passed a law on secularity and conspicuous religious symbols in schools, which in essence banned all ostensible religious symbols in public schools. The law basically upheld the principle of Laicite. The principle of Laicite basically means the separation of the church (or religion) and the state. In France, the government is legally prohibited to recognize any religion, but it does recognize religious organizations. In 2009, French President Nicholas Sarkozy commented that “In our country, we cannot accept that women be prisoners behind a screen, cut from all social life, deprived of all identity.”  Accordingly the French National Assembly appointed 32 lawmakers from right and left wing parties on a six month fact finding mission to look at ways of restricting the use of the burqa. On 26^th January the group delivered its report, and was in favour of banning the burqa in the public sphere.

The debate surrounding “The Veil Affair” can be surmised as such. Those who are for the ban, support it on chiefly two grounds- The Laicite argument and the Feminist argument. According to the Laicite argument, the wearing of the veil in the public sphere, distinguishes Muslim women from the rest and thus hampers the spirit of unity and secularism that the French Nation upholds. The feminist arguments points out the loss of identity of a woman who dons the veil as well as symbolizing the submission of women to men. Those against the ban point out that it yet another instance of rising Islamophobia in the west, that the woman has a right to choose whether she wears the burqa or not, and that this enforced secularism is a prime example of western patriarchy.

To me, the debate over the banning of the burqa by the French Government is much more than just upholding the principle of Laicite, or restricted to securing the dignity of a woman to just one nation, or the perceived Islamophobia. In essence the debate is and should be about the freedom and liberation of a woman, her dignity, and the right to her own identity, her body and finally the claiming of herself.

The donning of the burqa ensures the loss of identity for a woman. With only her eyes visible, the person observing her has no idea as to who she might possibly be. Is she young or old? Does she have short or long hair? How much does she weigh? Is her face happy or sad? Is there anything distinctive about her? How does she show her inner tumult or happiness to the world? Imagine living this reality everyday. Imagine looking at yourself in the mirror like this everyday. Perhaps an eerie sense of disassociation takes place, and perhaps as time passes by time ensures that this becomes habitual and normal.

The Koran talks about how modesty should be practiced by both men and women. Then why is it that it’s the women, who actually have to cover themselves from head to toe? Perhaps, it has got to do with the patriarchal setup of our society, where it is the responsibility of the woman to preserve the honour of her family. The burqa is not just a garment, but a garment that has religious weight attached to it. A woman who wears the burqa is also symbolically representing values such as Modesty, Piety and Piousness. By associating such loaded terms with this garment, the veil in essence desexualizes a woman, and takes away her right to her own sexuality, her own body.  In this case, religion supercedes individual liberty. It is something that most women, irrespective of their religion can identify with- The fact that women have always have to carry the weight of preserving honor of their family, by practicing modesty, and this is done through the means of curbing their sexuality.

From the above, it becomes clear how patriarchy uses sexuality as an instrument of control over women.  Symbols become very important, especially when it comes to exercising control. The wearing of the burqa symbolically shows that there is implicit recognition from a women’s side that she is subservient to a man.

In a democratic setup, it is the role of a secular government to takes steps that counter discrimination. The burqa is in essence against the basic dignity of a woman. It robs her of her identity, of the right to her own body and sexuality, and symbolically renders her inferior to man. In such a scenario, it is imperative for the secular state to intervene and take measure that counters this form of discrimination. Such steps will ensure, although controversy laden, and rightfully so, the upliftment of the status of women in society, a gradual change in the mindset of coming generation in their perceived attitude towards the burqa. At times, laws which seem to be unpopular and intolerant at first, can actually bring mammoth changes in not only the mindset of future generation, but also in trying to equalize the power relationships between different sections of society, in this case, it being between men and women.

Readers would hardly need reminding of the far-sighted legislation that imposed a blanket ban on smoking in public places. Every major college and university now have big boards that declare them to be no smoking zones. Of course, this has caused all professors in say, JNU to give up smoking overnight. If there exists a place where this glorious objective has not been achieved then that is a lacuna of implementation. Of course, there could be nothing wrong with the law itself, even if it is making law breakers out of all us.

Or we could take the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 which somehow applies to Delhi and which bans the sale of alcohol to those under 25 years of age. I feel tempted to repeat the oft quoted line about being mature enough to vote and drive at 18 …

The latest such initiative comes from the Women and Child Development Ministry. This department has already given us controversial legislation like the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act and the Dowry Prohibition Act, which though noble in spirit, are overly susceptible to misuse. Earlier this year, the Ministry saw a change of guard when the last minister lost her Lok Sabha seat. There was  some hope that her successor will not display excessive zeal but would instead focus on deliverables.

This time, though, the Ministry has outdone itself, thus sending out an emphatic signal that it will continue to battle common sense regardless of changes at the top.

So what has happened? The Times of India reports that the Ministry is “piloting” a legislation that will make it possible for the authorities to penalize and even jail parents who beat their kids. In fact, it goes beyond that as the “comprehensive” draft bill, which not surprisingly, has been drafted after consultations with “civil society” seeks to prevent the abuse of children by parents, schools, day care centres, workplaces etc etc. It even seeks to cover ragging.

Of course, any effort to strengthen the legal framework to deal with child abuse is laudable, but some salient features of the proposed legislation require closer examination:

The proposed punishment for the first offence is one year imprisonment or a fine of Rs 5,000 that can be raised to three years’ imprisonment for a second offence with a fine of Rs 25,000.

Maybe I am reading this wrong. But the above seems to say that if ever this law is passed and implemented [which in India, as noted above, are two very different things] then any reasonably well off parent can get off by paying a paltry fine. However the same amount can be backbreaking for any of the country’s countless poor people. Maybe I ought to have more faith in our police system, but I cannot let go off the idea that this gives yet another tool for unscrupulous policemen to harass and torture the poor. Might it be that  the “civil society” activists who have consulted on the bill missed this insignificant detail?

The draft bill says, “Whoever intentionally inflicts physical penalty on a child for disciplinary purposes shall be punished for the offence of corporal punishment.”

Whoever means “family member, school, relatives, neighbours, friends, educational or care giving institutions, prisons and homes set up under the Juvenile Justice Act.” Again, maybe it’s just me but this seems awfully broad ranging. What will happen in case of a fight between two children, say one who is 14 and the other 17 ? Maybe the aggressor could be sent to one of our homely juvenile justice homes, which we can expect to be homelier still once this bill has been cleared.

It is obvious that the proposed bill is yet another act of over-zealousness which seeks to achieve social objectives by force of law, rather than investing in necessary social and cultural reform. It will be non-implementable, because of its sheer impracticality. That does not bother me as much as the fact that unlike the equally stupid anti-smoking law, the proposed bill has inherently greater scope for misuse and harassment.

Dilip D’Souza has raised some pertinent questions in this regard:

* Why the college management “apologised”.

* Why the Kerala government saw fit to issue “instructions” that the professor should be suspended.

* Why the college followed the government’s instruction and suspended him.

* Why the police lodged a case against the professor.

The following is worth noting as well:

T. Vikram, Superintendent of Police, Ernakulam Rural, who was camping in the area, said: “We have talked to church leaders to convince them that an all-out effort is being made to nab the culprits.” (as reported in The Hindu)

I don’t understand why the police needed to specifically assure church leaders that the perpetrators of this ghastly attack will be brought to justice? Surely these “church leaders” should have been incensed regardless of the religious affiliation of the victim?

Of course, this episode would not have even become a news story had the attackers not committed the tactical error of chopping off Joseph’s hand. As it is, they had him on the run. A little bit of shouting from the rooftops had ensured that:

1. Joseph was suspended from his job. In what capacity did the state Government instruct a PRIVATE institute to suspend an employee is not clear.

2. He was picked up and harassed by the police.

3. After getting out on bail, he went into hiding to escape frequent death threats. In response, the police put out a wanted poster for his arrest

Why exactly were the government and the police so keen to prosecute Prof. Joseph? Why were the charges of “hurting religious sentiments” believed at face value and not investigated properly? What constrained the government to apply the serious charge of “fomenting communal hatred” on the Professor? What about the concept of an educational institution being an open space? Why did the state not defend Prof. Joseph’s fundamental right to expression?

Maybe the secular, progressive and people friendly Left Democratic Front government of Kerala can provide some answers.

As they always do, albeit in the short scheme of things.

Why won’t they? When the other side ["the good side"] lacks dedication, focus and passion? The cynical herd of sheeple are assured victory when the Good Side treats  enterprise as that damned entity, E-C-A.

and there is but one dividing line, just one, and that is between those who go so far and no further, and then there are those who DO go further, who take that final step. the risk takers versus the rest. the passionate versus the herd.

And where do i find myself? in the former class, struggling to emerge as a sentient being. shackled this way, in a prison worse than black water, or indeed any other colour.

You may tell me that it is only the short scheme of things, but till the time we live, it’s only the ephemeral passing moment that matters, and after we are gone, who gives a fuck?

yea, and now will live the pretense, the veneer of interestedness in idly sitting on the posterior enjoying the trappings of comfort. but I will go back and fight, another day, smarter and stronger than before. always.

It may be recalled that America has witnessed an acrimonious debate on Darwin’s theory of evolution, which is widely accepted as the best explanation for the origin of life and evolution of various life-forms. Creationists in America refuse to accept Darwin’s theory as it clashes with ideas propagated by Christianity.

However, US distributors have resolutely passed on a film which will prove hugely divisive in a country where, according to a Gallup poll conducted in February, only 39 per cent of Americans believe in the theory of evolution.

Movieguide.org, an influential site which reviews films from a Christian perspective, described Darwin as the father of eugenics and denounced him as “a racist, a bigot and an 1800s naturalist whose legacy is mass murder”. His “half-baked theory” directly influenced Adolf Hitler and led to “atrocities, crimes against humanity, cloning and genetic engineering”, the site stated.

It is difficult to see this incident in isolation, given the increasing intolerance and jingoism shown by vast sections of the American media over the past few years, while covering matters as diverse as Iraq, health care and outsourcing.

It is also interesting that despite the election of Barack Obama, right-wing opinions seem to hold a great amount of sway over the country. This seems to rule out any hope of genuine “change”, at least for now.

For a society that prides itself on being free, America has touched a new low. One can only hope that sense will prevail and at least one distributor will show the guts to stand up for freedom of speech, in the land that is gave us Operation Enduring Freedom

Then a friend introduced me to Cool Toad, which is a pretty good resource for bollywood songs – old and new, but it doesn’t have much of a rock collection.

Today I found salvation in the form of Booster, a fantastic site where you can stream and download [free of charge] mp3 versions of millions of songs cutting across genres. And there are no irritating banner ads to distract from the experience.

This is how the internet should work – breaking down barriers to information and art.

Jaswant Singh's Controversial Book

Over the last week, there has been much brouhaha over Jaswant Singh’s new book titled Jinnah: India Partition Independence

The former BJP leader has tried to argue that Jinnah was a secular man who was “pushed” towards communal politics due to the inflexible attitude of senior Congress leaders.

This basic contention fits in well with the old RSS/BJP approach of using any stick to beat Nehru and other Congress leaders, and hold them responsible for all of India’s ills.  Jaswant Singh advocates that Jinnah’s recommendations to the Motilal Nehru Committee (demanding special concessions to Muslims) should have been accepted back in 1929. Singh contends that had this been done, Jinnah would have never orbited towards communal politics.

It is amusing to see a senior (now former) leader of a Hindu nationalist organization like the BJP advocating concessions to Muslims. One can well imagine what the RSS and Hindu Mahasabha response would have been (in the 1930s) had Jinnah’s recommendations been accepted by the Congress. For some reason, I can clearly hear “minority appeasement” echoing in my head.

I’ve always found it incredible how RSS/BJP sympathizers, who otherwise profess a deep hatred for Jinnah and his muslim communal politics, hold that if only Nehru had overcome his personal “greed” and allowed Jinnah to be prime minister, then partition would have never occurred.

These people set no store by the popular will of the people of India, who elected the Congress by record margins in all polls conducted till then. The Congress was the largest political organization in the country [by far], Gandhi was the tallest leader, and Nehru was both a tall leader and Gandhi’s handpicked nominee. None of these things seem to make any impact on the immune-to-logic grey cells of the Hindu nationalist crowd.

This is probably because inspite of public protestations to the contrary, I suspect that the RSS/BJP and their cohorts feel quite comfortable with Jinnah. Believing as they do in identity politics, they deem it natural for a muslim to speak for muslims, as a hindu must speak for hindus. It is incomprehensible for them to see Gandhi, Nehru and other hindus speaking for the minorities, and minority leaders Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan speaking for an inclusive nationality.

Thus, what has done in Jaswant Singh is not his exoneration of Jinnah, or putting the blame on Nehru. The seasoned politician that he is, Jaswant Singh must have realized that holding Sardar Patel equally culpable for the partition of the country would seriously ruffle feathers in the “parivaar”. Over the years, the RSS and its fronts like the BJP have successfully wrested Patel’s legacy from a stupor-ridden Congress, which seems to have forgotten it ever had leaders other than the “first family”. Patel’s aggressive nationalism and “iron man” image fits in well with the RSS idea of India.

In this light, one can well imagine the fury of RSS leaders. Jaswant Singh was identified as a very senior BJP leader, and organizationally speaking, it was extremely irresponsible of him to “tarnish” Patel with the same brush as Nehru, when the RSS has for years been trying to appropriate the former and demonize the latter.

To put it simply: in the RSS fantasy world, Nehru was a Europeanized brat, who tricked Gandhi and wrested the PM-ship to satisfy his personal greed, which led to the partition of the country. Patel was the good samaritan who had to bow down to pressure from Gandhi, but who nonetheless did unparalleled work in unifying the country. Jaswant Singh effectively shows Nehru and Patel to be working together, as a team, and not at cross purposes as the RSS would wants us to believe.

When the BJP says that Jaswant’s contentions are against it’s core ideological beliefs, this is what it is alluding to: a senior leader cannot undermine the years of ideological work done by committed RSS pracharaks, and consequently leave the parivaar in an indefensible position.

Politically speaking, if Jaswant Singh had not been expelled, then the self-styled “Chotte Sardar” Narendra Modi would have been taken to the cleaners by the Congress in Gujarat. Patel is a highly respected leader even outside his home state, and one can well imagine the BJP’s discomfort had it not taken prompt action by expelling Mr. Singh.

Thus, I find it incredible that the media [both print and broadcast] has been typifying the BJP’s action as intolerant. It is amazing that The Hindu faults the BJP for expelling Jaswant Singh, but didn’t bat an eyelid when Somnath Chatterjee was expelled for defying party orders. The latter didn’t even question his party’s core beliefs in marxism-leninism!

The BJP is right in expelling Jaswant Singh because a senior leader cannot publicly question his party’s view of history – that puts the entire ideology under a cloud of doubt.

I completely agree that Mr. Jaswant Singh should have freedom of expression, and thus I think it is reprehensible that his book has been banned in Gujarat [for I believe that no book should be banned], but as far as being member of a political party goes, he cannot continue being a member of a party unless he accepts it’s core ideological position.

To sum it up: it is right to expel jaswant singh, but wrong to silence him.

(click image to enlarge)

Apple Iphone

I love the Apple Iphone. It is a device high on ease of use, features and style. It perfectly blends great looks with usability.

I have always wanted to own one of these beautiful devices. Now, after much cajoling and coaxing, I am in a position to buy an iphone and attain digital nirvana.

The problem: my present phone [a very battered Nokia] has all but died and I need to find a new cell phone soon. The latest model of the Iphone, the 3GS [S stands for speed] hasn’t been launched in India yet. The 3GS adds a lot of nifty features to what is an already great device.

Why exactly the 3GS is not in India escapes me, considering this is the second largest cell phone market in the world. Still, Apple has been hinting that the latest and greatest Iphone will hit these shores sometime this month.

You wouldn’t think so, given that their is zero publicity for the device, from either Airtel or Vodafone - the two companies which are allowed to sell Iphones in India.

Given that I (urgently) need to buy a new phone, and I want that phone to be an Iphone, I have two options – either buy the model currently available in the market [and run the risk of being outdated within a matter of days] or wait for a few more days and buy the 3GS as soon it hits the Indian market.

Having decided on option 2, I have been scouring the web for any news related to the imminent arrival of the 3GS. The Airtel and Vodafone websites have zilch. Apple promotes the 3GS on its India site but doesn’t talk of a release date. The web has failed me as a source of credible information.

Worry not, I tell myself, and start working the phones. “We don’t sell Iphones in India – contact vodafone or airtel”, the Apple dealer in Delhi informs me [somewhat rudely]. I get similarly pleas of ignorance from the two service providers.

Finally, I drag myself down to the large Vodafone store in CP.

Me: I wish to make inquiries about the Iphone

Clerk [must be some kind of "executive"]: keval inquiries, ya khareedna chahtein hain ? [do you just want to inquire, or are you interested in buying?]

Me: khareedna hai [I want to buy]

C: I have only 16 GB model available.

Me: 3GS ? (hopefully)

C: no, 3G

Me: When would 3GS be available ?

C: No idea.

Me: You have absolutely no clue ?

C: None (rudely)

Me: Look here, my phone is broken, I want to give you 30000 bucks for a new phone, the least you can do is share with me any information you might have on the iphone

C: It might take 3 months

Me: but apple has said it will come in august!

C: 3 months. You buy 3G

Me: What if I buy it and then next day 3GS becomes available, I would be wasting my money.

C: In any case, I sell blackberries [produces different blackberry models for my perusal]

Me: let’s see [halfheartedly, after all I had not gone to buy a bloody blackberry]

C: Iphone data transfer plans from Vodafone are very expensive (!!). You should go for blackberry

At this point, a terrible thing happens [even worse than not getting an Iphone] – the man sneezes. thrice. without the use of a handkerchief.

Needless to say, I beat a hasty retreat from the store.

Getting home, I pounced upon a bunch of Tulsi leaves – traditional wisdom suggests that tulsi is a miraculous remedy for all kinds of influenza. Well, I’d  choose tulsi over tamiflu anyday!

Michael Kordahi has developed an interesting tool called Blind Search

With Blind Search, a user enters a search query and sees three different set of search results, from Google, Yahoo! and Microsoft Bing – the catch is that the user is not shown which search engine is associated with a given set of results.

The idea is that a search engine’s effectiveness should be evaluated independent of reputation.

Use it – the results may be revealing for those who rely exclusively on Google for their search needs.