I THINK French President Nicolas Sarkozy has not visited a convent of late. If he had he would have noticed nuns in wimples and robes. Would he call the dress worn by nuns “a sign of subservience, a sign of debasement”? In the first presidential address to the French parliament in 136 years, Sarkozy chose to call a dress willingly adopted by many Muslim women all over the world as a sign of subservience and degradation. The burqa or abaya, as it is known in Saudi Arabia, is a body robe. What covers the head and face is called niqab. But it is not a question of semantics, because Sarkozy meant a head-to-toe dress when he referred to the burqa. Sarkozy was right when he said the burqa – the particular type of dress – was not a religious issue. Islam asks its followers – men and women – to dress modestly, and so do all religions. The Islamic concept of hijab is not only physical but also moral. It tells men to lower their gaze in front of women other than their wives and other close relatives. It tells women to be mindful of their gait and garments. The debate here is on two counts: the issue of morality and the freedom of choice. Who is indecent and spoils public morals: a burqa-clad woman or the one in a bikini? Those, who are brought up on moral values which teach respect for women and not maintain that they are not mere objects of desire or enticement and mannequins for public display, will say a woman in a bikini is indecent. But those who have grown up seeing scantly-clad women around them, will find a woman in a burqa objectionable. So it all boils down to your perception which is a result of your moral values. There is no point praising a Picasso painting in front of a visually-challeneged person. However, we can discuss the issue of a person's freedom of choice. France is a liberal country. Liberté, égalité, fraternité (Liberty, equality, fraternity) is the French national motto. So how can a country which prides itself on protecting liberty and equality discuss in its parliament an issue which is an infringement on one's freedom? If a woman in a mini skirt is not an issue of debate in France, then why is a woman in a burqa objectionable so long as she does not affect public order? Ask any woman covered head-to-toe in the black robe, whether the dress has been forced on her or she is wearing it by choice? The answer in all cases will be the latter. Women of high moral values prefer to cover their modesty. In his speech Sarkozy said: “In our country, we cannot accept that women be prisoners behind a screen, cut off from all social life, deprived of all identity.” How can Sarkozy pass judgement on others? The burqa does not curb freedom. Covered women do go about daily chores unhindered. Hindered are those who look at the burqa as a symbol of subservience. The burqa does not deprive a woman of her identity. On the contrary, it gives her an identity: an identity of being modest in an indecent crowd, an identity of boldly following her choice amidst a howl of protests, an identity of being true to her faith and culture. It is strange that something which is moral is being looked down upon while immorality and indecency are being promoted!
