Desicritics Comments on A Veiled Insult

Comment by commonsense

Tue, 17 Jun 2008 03:18:22 EDT

SS, yes, yes! somehow, jawaharlal nehru keeps getting in the way....

Comment by smallsquirrel

Mon, 16 Jun 2008 21:00:33 EDT

common, babe... last time. JawaharA... is a WOMAN... what's your mind-block with that one? :)

Comment by commonsense

Mon, 16 Jun 2008 19:07:01 EDT

Anamika, Covering the face sucks big time! No dice I agree, and not just when entering a bank. BTW, I read that in Canada female member of some Christian fundamentalit sect insists on getting driver's license but but want to cover their face while being photographed for it. Temporal saheb, is this true? Forget the name of the sect. Is it multiculturalism gone nuts?

Comment by commonsense

Mon, 16 Jun 2008 19:06:54 EDT

Anamika, Covering the face sucks big time! No dice I agree, and not just when entering a bank. BTW, I read that in Canada female members of some Christian fundamentalit sect insist on getting driver's license but but want to cover their face while being photographed for it. Temporal saheb, is this true? Forget the name of the sect. Is it multiculturalism gone nuts?

Comment by Anamika

Mon, 16 Jun 2008 17:40:24 EDT

Ritu: "Are we being over-sensitive given the sexual repression connotation of the burqa? Have you ever thought of the possibility that women could consider the burqa like just another garment? Cumbersome yes, but just another garment?" Ever wonder why when its "cumbersome" garments that involve ridiculous amounts of physical discomfort and limited mobility, they are always for women? Whether these be bondage heels or the burqa? But beyond the frivolity and universality, the burqa (and here this is more about the full niqab rather than the robe cum hijab) is by contemporary standards very problematic - simply as it obscures the face of the person I am supposed to deal with. I personally have ZERO problems with women who live in harems and are "maintained" by their men, be they fathers/brothers/sons or husbands. What I do NOT agree with - simply as yet another feminine garment choice - is a teacher, or lawyer or bank cashier or policewoman (or indeed an actress) insisting that somehow wearing a niqab is EXACTLY the same as wearing any other garment and therefore appropriate. There is no "polite" way of saying this but sorry, no dice. You can't have it both ways...

Comment by commonsense

Mon, 16 Jun 2008 14:04:08 EDT

Ritu: "@ Jawahara : I like you point #2. Burqa as empowerment!. It more than demonstrates that the traditional lines we draw are almost always from our own viewpoints and sensibilities and may not represent the full picture." Ritu, but Jawahar is ripping up this idea of the burqa as empowerment....as he rips the burqa too...

Comment by Ritu

Mon, 16 Jun 2008 11:10:43 EDT

#10 Ledzius Touche! :) @ TBS : An engaging post, very well written and provides an interesting angle to the whole burqa embroil. @ Jawahara : I like you point #2. Burqa as empowerment!. It more than demonstrates that the traditional lines we draw are almost always from our own viewpoints and sensibilities and may not represent the full picture. A good example is this whole burqa issue that has been cropping up on DC. I haven't managed to go through all the comments, so I apologise if I am repeating an already expressed opinion. My take is that TBS is missing the larger picture. The larger picture is this that most people are very strongly tied to their religious and traditional practices and rituals. So much so that the original reason for the practice is lost over time. People do it, because it is done. It is not a statement, just a way of life. To me the woman in the tube wearing a burqa is not too different from my mother continuing to wear Indian clothes even when she travels out of the country. She has no ideological problem against western wear, yet it just not in her comfort zone. There are times when you don't particularly care for a tradition but it's just too much a part of your skin. The burqa effect is also not too different from the other thread the case of the desi expatriate not letting go of what we(and what we perceive the western world would) consider strange. For someone who has applied Chameli ka Tel all their lives, leaving their hair without oil is very difficult to let do. However conspicuous they might be. So many desi girls from traditional backgrounds continue to wear a bindi over their western clothes. What is the difference between them and our burqaed friend? Are we being over-sensitive given the sexual repression connotation of the burqa? Have you ever thought of the possibility that women could consider the burqa like just another garment? Cumbersome yes, but just another garment?

Comment by temporal

Sun, 15 Jun 2008 11:05:04 EDT

ana: agree - such delusional cuckoos help spread phobias their twisted interpretation is an insult to everyone's intelligence on a lighter note aaja pyare, paas humare aaja pyare, dikhaja re jalwa apna, dikhaje re

Comment by Anamika

Sun, 15 Jun 2008 06:37:12 EDT

"i couldn't be neutral towards somebody who had her face completely covered. i would refuse to teach!!" Lucky you! UK rules are too messy and refusing to teach is really not an option for most of us. Btw, re having face completely covered - isnt that what TBS's piece was about and NOT about a woman canoodling in public (which is what a lot of people here seem to think its about). ;-)

Comment by Ledzius

Sun, 15 Jun 2008 00:30:14 EDT

Or as Forrest Gump would say, "Stupid is as stupid does".

Comment by Morris

Sat, 14 Jun 2008 23:27:28 EDT

There is no need for TBS to feel insulted. She is free to wear whatever she wish to. He should simply feel sorry for her for wearing niqab. If she was coersed then for not having her free will. And if she chose to wear it on her own free will then for carrying all that "baggage" which is not necessary.

Comment by commonsense

Sat, 14 Jun 2008 18:54:27 EDT

oops, i couldn't be neutral towards somebody who had her face completely covered. i would refuse to teach!!

Comment by Anamika

Sat, 14 Jun 2008 15:16:27 EDT

CS: "A lot of my students are indeed burqa-nashin, but honestly i couldn't care less as long as i can see their face for identification purposes. As in, I'm completely neutral." But then you're talking of the hijab and not the niqab. I was speaking very specifically (and should have been more precise - apologies) of women students who wear the full niqab at university. Then you can't identify them or indeed ask them to remove the niqab. At our university its a very problematic scenario. We have students insisting on wearing a full niqab in creative writing, theatre or performance studies classes when the whole point of these is trust-building and working with other people, which is frankly a bit difficult with a niqab. A colleague in theatre studies had one such student last term who announced (unsolicited) in a full on Broomie accent that she never removed her niqab in public. When it came to the group presentation, few other students wanted to work with her - and then of course as far she was concerned it was about "racism" and not the fact that she was showing them disrespect. A lot of other students in the class felt it was disrespectful, especially as trust-building is one of the key components of theatre studies (and acting in general), not to mention it was a bit difficult for the tutor to assess her performance for the course without seeing her face! Basically it got to the point where the tutor and most other students felt it was a piss-take on her part. She did - unfortunately - more for the cause of Islamophobia than anything else.

Comment by commonsense

Sat, 14 Jun 2008 11:32:26 EDT

Anamika: ""Quite ridiculous as the burqa is meant to ensure that a woman does not call attention to herself. But by wearing it in the middle of London, the woman is going precisely against this principle. Wouldn't a simply dressed woman in jeans and jumpers be - in completely Koranic terms - a "better" Muslim by not drawing attention to herself than one who cloaks herself in a burqa?"" Good point vis-a-vis attention. Didn't think of it this way. However: ""And I have to agree, that wearing a burqa in London does make a specific point re: men and their sexuality."" Not entirely sure about this; maybe you are right. My take: as long as there is no law against specific attire....of course that does not mean that TBS has no right to reflect on the implications of specific attires. His piece is of course, a very thoughtful and reflexive one. And no TBS, I do not accuse you of calling for a ban on the burqa. (Although it was done by the Shah in Iran....). A lot of my students are indeed burqa-nashin, but honestly i couldn't care less as long as i can see their face for identification purposes. As in, I'm completely neutral. As long as they don't start trumpeting the superiority of their culture etc....that is a red-flag (as you can tell by now!!)....but then such discussions are unlikely in physics, unless they start talking about the thermal and radiation-protective properties of their attire.... It is Swift who I believe said, ""Passion and fashion cannot be governed""....assuming that the burqa in its specific incarnations, is certainly fashion too, in a manner of speaking....

Comment by Anamika

Sat, 14 Jun 2008 11:11:27 EDT

Thanks TBS - I think that is a necessary distinction that you make on "freedom of expression." CS: I dont think the issue was TBS getting offended by the couple. At least thats not what I read. I think the issue is what the choice of burqa in a land where it is not the norm says about men surrounding Ms. burqa-nashin. And I have to agree, that wearing a burqa in London does make a specific point re: men and their sexuality. If I were a man, I would be insulted as well. On a related note, I find the whole burqa thing quite absurd. The university where I teach has quite a few of these burqa-nashin types - all second and third generation British-born who wear it for "political" reasons. And of course then they proceed to tell all other Muslim "sisters" how they are not being "good" Muslims. Quite ridiculous as the burqa is meant to ensure that a woman does not call attention to herself. But by wearing it in the middle of London, the woman is going precisely against this principle. Wouldn't a simply dressed woman in jeans and jumpers be - in completely Koranic terms - a "better" Muslim by not drawing attention to herself than one who cloaks herself in a burqa?

Comment by commonsense

Sat, 14 Jun 2008 10:54:12 EDT

TBS, Methinks you are just a sensitive soul. The couple did not mean anything personal against you, but being a sensitive sort, who are we to tell you what you should or should not take personally?

Comment by The Buddha Smiled

Sat, 14 Jun 2008 09:09:11 EDT

Anamika, Thanks for saying something that I forgot to in my own article. I at no point am disputing the woman's RIGHT to wear a full niqab - if at the end of the day, she wants to do that, she should have the full freedom to do so. In the very same spirit, I as an individual have the full freedom to react to the statment that she makes in so far as what it says about me. But at no point in the article, or indeed my normal life, do I suggest that there should be a ban on a full veil. As a (possibly facetious) example, its like saying that the National Front has the right to go around calling people niggers and coolies - I will not stop them from saying that unless they try to start hanging the objects of their hatred from trees, but I do reserve the full right to react to their statements.. Live and let live - but call me names, and expect a response! :) Peace, all.

Comment by temporal

Sat, 14 Jun 2008 07:38:54 EDT

ana: re: last para "business as usual" ;)

Comment by commonsense

Fri, 13 Jun 2008 13:26:59 EDT

anamika, true!

Comment by Anamika

Fri, 13 Jun 2008 03:37:59 EDT

TBS: Agreed. But just as I would be angry on behalf of a friend who was insulted by a random stranger, I find myself getting angry about this idea too. :-) CS: I dont think the nudist colony logic is quite the same. The whole point of that is that it is a specifically designated area (although people taking pictures is really quite disgusting and inappropriate). The point is also not as Ruvy makes that niqab-ed women are walking about common or not and therefore about the beholder. Most Indians have grown up with that a common sight (and most of them will not be found canoodling with a man in a public place) It is about an apparently "liberated" - and given the way London Muslim community(ies) work, most likely, highly politicized - woman choosing to publicly make a statement about herself and the society she lives in. And yes, she has the full right to do so - thankfully not living in sharia state! or indeed Saudi where she would be stoned for all sorts of reasons - another person has ALSO the right to be insulted by the insult embedded in that statement.

Comment by Ledzius

Fri, 13 Jun 2008 03:02:42 EDT

"To clarify and possibly reiterate a bit - I'm all for freedom of personal choice, but at what point does a personal choice that impinges on another person become an issue? That is what I am trying to investigate." I cannot fathom why you think her niqab impinges on another person, unless you are concerned that she might have a bomb or even a knife hidden under it (but that doesn't seem to be the issue according to you). If she considers strange men as a threat, it only speaks volumes about the men in the society she comes from, and, frankly speaking, I agree with her on that.

Comment by Ravi Kulkarni

Fri, 13 Jun 2008 02:38:27 EDT

Dear TBS, Great article. I have sometimes thought about women, not just the veiled ones, who perceive ALL men as threatening. But thankfully, most women are not like that. There is another angle to muslim women who make a statement by wearing hijab/niqab. It is all fine and dandy to protest against islamophobia. But at the same time there are many in the islamic world who force their women to dress in a certain fashion while keeping them within the four walls. These statement makers also encourage these misogynists. Regards, Ravi Kulkarni

Comment by Ruvy

Thu, 12 Jun 2008 17:06:13 EDT

Try the introspection sometimes; its amazing how much in our lives can be illuminated by it. As for encouraging people to buy shekels, I can't really see the economic value in that - the Israeli economy doesn't have the fundamentals to support a higher exchange rate against the USD. There is a reason I do not introspect more. I've seen too much of myself in my "inner mirror", and do not like what I see at all. While it is never too late to change, it is, for me at any rate, too late to undo damage done.

Comment by commonsense

Thu, 12 Jun 2008 16:57:02 EDT

TBS: ""And as someone with a strong aversion to all humans below the legal drinking age"" hey, we have something in common!! is there a term for the likes of us? i mean, we have "misanthropist", "misogynist" etc. etc, but does somebody know a term to describe who do not particularly like kids? (Clarification: I don't actually dislike kids, but I always try to steer clear of them. And not necessarily because I cannot share a beer with them....)

Comment by The Buddha Smiled

Thu, 12 Jun 2008 16:15:23 EDT

Blokesablogin: Suggest you read the article a little more closely. I wasn't upset by the sight of a couple in the throes of passion; I was upset by the sight of a woman in full veil and what I inferred it said about the wider society she lived and operated in, and what is implied about me as a member of that society in close physical proximity to her. And as someone with a strong aversion to all humans below the legal drinking age, I can't imagine how seeing a child would have made me react more positively! To clarify and possibly reiterate a bit - I'm all for freedom of personal choice, but at what point does a personal choice that impinges on another person become an issue? That is what I am trying to investigate. Ruvy in #17: Try the introspection sometimes; its amazing how much in our lives can be illuminated by it. As for encouraging people to buy shekels, I can't really see the economic value in that - the Israeli economy doesn't have the fundamentals to support a higher exchange rate against the USD. Still beatific!