THE BURQA: ERASING A WOMAN OR SIMPLY A PIECE OF CLOTHING?

The burqa brings with it a set of issues, which present a challenge to modern societies. Divides exist not only among common people or political leaders, but even among Muslim women themselves. The debate is more among the educated Muslim women though, on whether their counterparts ought wear the burqa or not, while the illiterate Muslim woman in say Afghanistan, donning her burqa each morning is a matter of habit than anything else.

An interesting argument took place between a young Muslim journalist and another lady on the Cairo subway. The woman wore a burqa, while the girl only donned a headscarf. On being asked why she didn’t wear a burqa, the girl asked back as to whether the headscarf was insufficient. To this the woman asked: “Would you choose an unwrapped piece of candy or one that came in a wrapper?” The girl shot back: “Women are not candy!”

This is one of the principal arguments against the burqa, of how it strips a woman off her identity and it is a ‘prison.’ While the orthodox view portrays the woman as a ‘precious stone’ that must be hidden in order to prove its worth, in accordance with Islam, a growing section now believe that there is nothing in Islam that requires turning females into shapeless, faceless zombies. This emerging view realizes that the burqa turns the woman into a mere object, without a human identity. Medically as well, the use of a burqa has been seen to be harmful as burqa-wearing women lack sufficient amounts of Vitamin D and are at serious risk of rickets.

It is true that good sense calls for modesty itself to be modest. But every woman should espouse her own ideas of modesty. The burqa is often a choice for many women. In Afghanistan, even after the Taliban has been removed many educated women continue to wear the burqa. For them it is a means of protection that provides a sense of security in dangerous times. A woman on the street without a burqa is seen as fair game for any sort of male overtures, and may be cursed, assaulted or even kidnapped. Until the security situation improves, women feel that hiding behind a burqa is the safest bet. Another reason it is still worn their by choice is because it affords a measure of privacy. Women who have been reduced to begging or washing clothes or other such jobs can hide themselves from their relatives etc. As far as suppression of sexuality is concerned, it is clear that sensuality is not alien to Muslim women and even the women who hides behind a burqa in public, possesses sensuous clothing etc. which she uses within her marital abode. It is hence argued that the burqa is only to ensure that pleasure and sexuality, are not be displayed promiscuously for all to see. The question of suppression of women’s voice is also contended when one sees burqa-clad Iranian women protesting against their countries political state on the streets. Whether these arguments hold true for all Muslim women is however still a matter of debate.

Another issue is whether a burqa is an indication of the woman not wanting to interact with people, or wanting to be different from others. But writers find these claims unfounded as well. They argue that persons can communicate over the internet or over the telephone without seeing the face of the other person and so invisibility of the face is not a sign of unwillingness to talk. Similarly people like Punks, Goths, Cross-Dressers etc. pride themselves on being different, but are not felt to be unapproachable. This is hence more of a stereotype of the woman behind the veil, and is often cited as being part of a larger Islamophobia in the 21^st century.

The strongest claim today against the Burqa is certainly its place as a security threat. When even Michael Jackson donned a burqa to escape being seen, there is no doubt that this is an effective way for wanted men to escape detection. Also it is not possible to have proper identifications of women wearing burqas unless they remove them and allow themselves to be photographed. Again the argument before the Michigan Supreme Court that a burqa-clad woman cannot be properly judged while deposing in Court, if veiled, is also a valid concern.

Thus there are valid arguments on both sides of the debate. It is clear that when enforced, as by the Taliban, the burqa can become a terrible tool for subjugating women. At the same time, its advent as part of Islamic religious insignia is established and there are several women world-over who wish to wear it. The essential element is the freedom of choice, for the woman will choose based on her own assessment of benefits and harms, whether they be physical, social or spiritual. Else the burqa always remains as the erasing of a woman for some and a piece of clothing for others.

Lead India!

[Note: this post was later published in The Examiner, a weekly magazine]

Its not as if we've never been hurt by terror before. Mumbai, is in fact one of global terrorism's pet projects, right from the 1993 blasts to 21st century attacks on buses (ghatkopar), city landmarks (gateway), markets (zaveri bazaar) and the city's lifeline: trains (7/11). We've been bruised and often battered only to wake up and have to get started afresh the next day, even as that cliched "fabled mumbai spirit" rides of the tongues of our leaders. But this time it was different. Not just a bruise or a battering; no, this city was brought to its knees by 10 men for 3 and a half days!
There is so much anger, protests and calls for change abound in the aftermath. But we wonder if it will last and more importantly, change anything? After all there is so much rot, so much to do, in a state which was left without leadership in the most crucial days after the attack because a political party needed to appease it allies.
There is not an inkling of doubt in my mind that the political class in the country is utterly useless and left in their hands, this country will be doomed to an eternal mediocracy in whatever we do. Whether its our security, development, roads or whatever, we'll always be just that little bit short, whether compared to China or others or in general.
So if we really need change, then just who is going to bring it in? We, the citizenry, educated or otherwise have to stand up and be counted. A mere lip service of "yes we can" won't do, its a dedicated and sustained effort to purge out years of rot that will bring real change.
In fact, one of the principle arguments I have stuck to is that we can't keep saying we are going to demand answers from the powers that be. Its about time that we start scripting those answers. We, especially here in Mumbai need to not just go out and vote but ourselves get involved in the political process. You can clean a place far better when your in it, then forcing it from outside. The real question we must ask ourselves is: how many of us will file our nominations for the 09 General Elections and the 2010 State elections? And believe me, its not impossible. In fact its a great misconception to think that caste and class politics in India will always prevent an honest man from getting elected. Today's India looks at the work you do and the Delhi, MP and Chattisgarh election results bear testimony to that. And if a black man with "Hussain" for a middle name could get elected as America's President, I don't see why a Rising India can't do the same.
I honestly believe that beyond the banners, vigils and compensation doled out to the victims of this attack, the greatest vindication for their sacrifice we can make is to overhaul this existing system, which was the real terrorist that killed them. We need a leadership that will actually build a better tomorrow for all our people, and not just keep promising one at election time. If we channelize these energies and resources that have been galvanized post 26/11 towards such changes, led by the right people, we surely can. If we believe that one rotten apple spoils the lot of good ones, then one good politician can surely spur goodness in the rot around him. It starts with ONE: to take up the mantle and LEAD INDIA !!

Our Manic Media

Oh, the media have had it good this week. There have been two horrific murders, speculation of fuel price hike, the UPA government's anniversary and what not. The homicides in particular have been the media's darling(s) of the week. First there was the gruesome murder of a 14 year old girl in Noida, a baffling case, with a whole lot of twists and turns. Then, there was the killer love triangle in Mumbai; hot starlet, her fiance and her male friend, Karan Grover, who ultimately paid with his life. The disposal of the body was even more blood-curdling, the body having been cut into 300 pieces, stuffed into bags, and then taken in a car a few hundred kilometers away where it was finally burnt.
No doubt these murders are quite shocking. But its the alacrity with which the media have turned these into sensational headlines that worries me. For instance, today, the Noida police at a press conference stated that they believe that the father of the victim is himself the murderer and are proceeding to chargesheet him. The television crews went wild at this "Breaking News" (how often have we heard that cliche) and began their "live and exclusive" coverage, never mind that ten other channels were doing the same thing, its still "exclusive" it seems. And it went on and on, with special dedicated shows, opinions of the neighbours, psychologists and what not. But just for once did they stop to think that this is just an accusation? The man isn't convicted yet! According to natural law, he is innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. There are still so many gaping holes in the police theory with so many unanswered questions. And wasn't it the same police who a few days ago said it was the domestic help who was the murderer, only to have egg on their face later, when he was found dead on the terrace, also a victim of the same crime. But the manner in which the whole story is being presented in the media will influence most leigh persons into beliveing that it is the father who undoubtedly killed them. This is a "trial by media", which is completly prejudiced to the accused, who has a right to a fair trial. The media must exercise restraint and responsiblity instead of looking only at viewership numbers and TRPs.
The other case in point comes from the Mumbai murder. One of Mumbai's most prominent tabloids ran a front page on the parents of the Mumbai victim and their grief, acrimony as well as desire to see the killer. The headline read "Just Let Us See His Face Once". A blatant case of using one man's grief for another man's gain. There is no logical connection between this story and the investigation into the murder. It is merely sensationalism. Following the victim's parents to the police station, observing their conduct and describing thier emotions. This is better placed in a reality television show. Just what is it doing on the front page of a newspaper? Such a practice simply defies common sense. Everyone knows the parents are inconsolable. That is rather obvious when someone's child dies naturally, leave alone being murdered. Why it must be showcased in this manner is a question that begs answer.
One of the great things about this country is the huge amount of freedom given to the media. It facilitates greater transparency and connectedness with issues concerning the public. Freedom of course, gives power. But with great power, comes even greater responsibilty. Our media would do well to remember that.

Scared?

Personally, I've always admired Dr. Manmohan Singh. He's a fantastic personality; humble, dedicated and astute. An economic whiz, Dr. Singh completed his fourth year as head of this UPA coalition recently. But he has had his share of critics, especially among the opposition who have always questioned the independence in his decision making. And they continue to do so.
Some time ago, I would scoff at these critics. But off late there is some case to be made to the contrary.
The first is this continuing see-saw on the Indo-US nuclear deal. Its reached a state where every other day we hear foreign minister, Mr. Pranab Mukherjee saying the deal is on, following which minor turbulence begins to arise in the coalition's aircraft, with leaders (especially from the Left) squirming in their seats, only to then have the pilot (Dr. Singh) or his co-pilot(Mr Mukherjee) assure the country that this aircraft will stay in the air till 2009. But why must this government parry so, always afraid of a crash landing? Will 60 odd MPs hold the country to ransom? Why cant the government just take the Left head on, and confront it for once about its flawed policies(in Bengal particularly) and double standards at the state and central level? The government seems to be bullied too easily, and is just plain afraid to challenge the Left and call its bluff. Everybody knows Election 09 is going to throw up a hung parliament. And the 'secular' Left can't be seen joining hands with the 'communal' forces. Which leaves them with only one mainstream party to tie up with: the Congress! But the Congress just doesn't want to take any risks of political fallouts in an election year. National interest be damned!
Another illustration of this political cowardice is seen is the handling of the Olympic Torch Run and Tibet protests. Yes, China drubbed us in the '62 war. But does a war loss mean eternal subservience? One certainly hopes not! But the government's splendid efforts to stub all protests and ensure the 'sanctity of the torch' reek of subservience, which isn't expected from a nation that wants to be a global superpower. Moreover, we, being the world's largest democracy, ought to have immediately lodged strong protest over China's brutal suppression of human rights in Tibet. But we were too busy doing it ourselves right here in our own land, and that too on their orders! And lets not forget the 2 am summoning of our Chinese envoy, Nirupama Rao, after Tibetian protesters stormed the Chinese embassy in Delhi. Yet our government just wagged its tail in delight after China 'graciously' thanked India for its co-operation. Reduced to a faithful pet, weren't we?
Now most recently, Pakistan has upped the infiltration and cross-border firing in Kashmir. But the government treads cautiously, not surprisingly. There are only niceties all around with 'Peace Process' and 'Composite Dialogue' being the buzzwords, even as our jawans vociferously fight off infiltrators each day.
Its not that I'm suggesting we go the American way and just invade people we don't like. But surely, given our new found economic vibrancy, and global recognition, we can at least be seen to be stern in our replies (all verbal mind you), instead of this newfangled policy of 'cowardice'. It was always supposed to be 'you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours' right? Then how come we're the ones doing all the scratching...

Of Rights And Wrongs

[Note: this post was later published in The Examiner, a weekly magazine, dated 21st June]

Our constituion provides us with the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression, movement, occupation, religion, privacy and other such freedoms which epitomizes the democracy that we are. Further, our constitution provides for Courts, meant to ensure the Rule Of Law and protection of Rights. But with every passing day, we see that these very protectors of rights, our esteemed judges, move forth to protect their own rights with intense alacrity. Not that thats wrong in itself, but if such protection means the denial of rights to others, then certainly it merits some inquisition. Recall Oliver Wendell Holmes famous line, "The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins."
Our judges, fairly said, have been swinging their fists quite wildly of late. The most recent case in point is of their misuse of official trips for some extra vacation time. Now every one is entitled to a vacation, especially our terribly overworked judges, but surreptitiously so, and out of tax payer's money, is certainly taking things a little too far. Thats not what Freedom Of Movement means, is it?
Our judges also actively shield details regarding their appointments, perks and what not from the RTI ambit. Whether by calling themselves "constitutional authorities", utilizing some petty technicality, or simply a plain categorical "no", our judges have defended their right to privacy most astutely. But no one is particularly happy by this resolution. The simple question that begs answer here is: "what are you trying to hide?"
Unfortunately, the more they try to ward off this unwelcome curiosity, the more it increases, quite like a leech. Our manic media will go any lengths for a scoop. And these days, the nouve` no-fear policy in our media has meant there is no cowing down to any threats from anyone, contempt of court included.
All this has meant that our judiciary, which was and argubly still is considered the aam aadmi's sole saviour from political petulance , has somewhat lost face in the public arena. The common man is disillusioned as to why his designated "protectors of rights" must throw their weight around so.
Its time for some serious introspection among our judges. They must stop denying information through these "independence of judiciary" cliches that are so often thrown at us. They need to clean up their act, address the concerns, and of course, open up their files, so that the country can see all that it wants too. Now that will truly mark the upholding of a Fundamental Right: The Right To Know!

The New Age Connection

[this article was published in a weekly magazine called 'The Examiner'. Its about the modern day phenomenon of social networking.]

Way back in 1876, Alexander Graham Bell uttered these famous words, "Mr. Watson -- come here -- I want to see you," on an instrument that put on track a communications revolution: the telephone. Fast forward to 2007, the humble telephone is passé; communication revolves around e-mails, video chats, SMSes and most recently: social networking websites.
A social networking site is an online place where a user can create a profile and build a personal network that connects him or her to other users. In the past few years, such sites have rocketed from a niche activity into a phenomenon that engages millions of internet users. Facebook has more than 52 million active users with an average of 25,000 new registrations per day! These websites epitomize the digital age, where the need to personally meet and greet is nullified, as one can easily communicate with persons thousands of miles away at the click of a mouse.
There are several reasons for use of these websites. Orkut’s demographics reveal that 62.95% of its users are “here to make friends,” while 19.10% are “here for dating.” Most teenagers, who constitute 63% of these site users, say that such sites help them “manage” their friendships. These sites are also used for making new friends, and there are even instances of people having found they’re soul-mates on such sites. One can also upload ones photos and videos here for the world to see. In fact, Facebook users upload over 14 million photos daily. Aside from this, the option to blog and form communities on such sites provides people with a platform to voice their opinion on various issues. To illustrate, there are already 7 communities formed on Orkut related to the emergency in Pakistan, the largest having 370 members already!
And its not just the young teens who are hooked on to these sites. Many adults too have been bitten by this social networking bug. Parents too have gotten innovative and often join these sites in order to keep tabs on their kids and they’re socializing habits.
But as always there are two sides to every coin. These sites have faced their fair share of flak. The explosive growth in the popularity of these sites has generated concerns among some parents, school officials, and government leaders about the potential risks posed to young people when personal information is made available in such a public setting. There have been various cases of abuse reported on these sites in spite of stringent setups to detect and eradicate abuse. It is important therefore that users are careful with whom they interact, especially since identities of persons can be easily concealed or faked on these sites.
Such sites being used to disseminate hate messages and political propaganda through communities have also posed a problem. Defamatory remarks posted on Orkut about Chattrapati Shivaji had resulted in mini-riots in Pune and Navi Mumbai.
Another disturbing trend has been addictions to this cyberworld. For many users, checking their accounts has become an automatic and compulsive behaviour, logging on over 20 times a day. Experts thus emphasize the importance of planning the amount of time spent online, and finding other ways of staying in touch with friends, to prevent addiction.
It is also said that the increased use of such sites has compromised face to face contact and set people in a virtual world of sorts.
Still, the pros outweigh the cons. Anything that lets you find your friends of yesteryears, share your pics and thoughts and connect with friends all over the world, that too for free, will continue to be popular. This new age connection is here to stay!

Life And Its 'Working'

[this is an essay that was published in a book called " The Right, The Wrong And The Dividing Line ". The book was forewarded and released by the then President Of India Dr. Abdul Kalam. The piece deals with work ethics and life.]

Physics says that a body does work, only if the force applied causes displacement of the body on which it acts. This implies that if a man is standing still, carrying a load on his head of even thirty kgs, he is doing no work. This is indeed flabbergasting; thus we humans have our own definition of work. For us, work is anything that requires us to put in effort in order to get a task accomplished. Generally working tires us.
There are many angles from which people look at work. Human’s approach to work is so diversified, that some proudly comment on this being a mark of individuality among us. It proves that all humans are different in their mindset; else everyone would look at work and working, from the same perspective. Our work is basically, a presentation of our capabilities.
We, of course, work with a purpose. This again varies form person to person i.e., it is subjective. Some work for personal satisfaction, some work for the betterment of society while some work for the deterioration of society. But the majority of people work, in order to earn money. Even though money is not required to buy a single necessity of the soul, nothing hurts people so much as the loss of money. The fact remains that everyone works for a reason, a goal that generally helps him or her in one way or another.
For many, work is the essence of life that helps fill what would have otherwise been an empty pail in their lives. Such people don’t look at work as monotony. For them, work helps pick up the pace, not slow it, in the race of life. It thus comes as no surprise that such people are optimistic & content with their lives. Then there are those for whom work is no more than a compulsion, the sole method of putting bread on the table. They hate working and are least bothered by what others have to say on their carefree approach to life. And then there are the middle-men, the people who sit on the fence, those whose lives are like a patch of gray in a painting of black & white. For them the glass half filled is best as it is, they choose to neither fill it nor empty it. They say at times that work is enjoyable, helpful etc. and, later they grumble that work is a pain in the neck. However, the best job always goes to the person who can get it done without passing the buck or coming back with excuses.
But what ever the approach may be towards work, it is necessary and important that we maintain our work ethics. Whether work is a boon or a curse, we must treat the job and co-workers with respect along with maintaining a certain code of conduct and a thought for society and the country.
Ethics is the science of morals in human conduct. In other words, ethics refers to the rules of conduct of a human being. Work ethics defines the moral principles or character to be maintained by a human being when working. Unfortunately most workers today forget about ethics due to greed, selfishness, lust etc. To illustrate, I would like to share the incident with our local milkman: Our milkman was friendly and honest. He earned a fair bit, but perhaps that didn’t suffice for he began to resort to cheating us to increase his profit. His modus operandi was simple: add water to the milk to increase the quantity. When we complained about the quality of the milk, he would say that he could not be blamed ‘if the cows gave watery milk.’ In this way, at least for a while, he made easy money.
Clearly our milkman has no work ethics whatsoever. He prefers to cheat his customers by giving them low quality milk in order to earn a bigger profit. He would rather lie to his customers than earn an honest living. Voltaire said ‘To be good only to your self is to be good for nothing.’ Obviously our milkman does not seem to think so.
Work Ethics may be compressed into a standard set of rules, applicable to all workers, regardless of what their work is, or their financial state. Honesty is the primary ethic. Honesty gives birth to many other ethics, it is the foundation stone to a better society. It pays large dividends.
Another fundamental ethic, especially in work, is selflessness. The main reason for dishonesty, hatred & anguish whilst working is due to our self-centered attitude. “Me, myself & I” is the principle applied at work by most people. “How much will I gain or lose” is the first question that pops up. What happened to the society, the country & our infamous patriotism? To be patriotic need not mean that one must risk his life on the frontier. Sparing a thought for a fellow countryman, discarding selfishness, and adopting selflessness can show just as much, if not more, love for the country. And even if there is no patriotism within us, then surely there must be love and concern for mankind as a whole. After all, ‘our true nationality is mankind.’ If we replace the ‘Me, myself & I’ with a ‘Service before self’ attitude, mankind will undoubtedly progress. As John Ruskin put it, ‘When love and skill work together, expect a masterpiece.’
Even when we make it to the top, we must remember work ethics. Work ethics are universal, not sidelined for labourers and clerks. Ability may get you to the top, but it takes character to keep you there. Most of the CEOs and managers today freely insult and torment their employees. Often these employees are sacked without rhyme nor reason. Power is abused when it is exercised without mercy. Thus we must believe that there is always room for improvement in our work, and then we will look to improve ourselves instead of others.
Thomas Edison famously said, “There is no substitute for hard work.” Honour lies in honest toil. God himself lends aid to the worker. Hard work never goes unnoticed nor unrewarded. There is a tale that illustrates this:
A king decided to test his subjects. He had a huge boulder planted on the middle of a busy road and watched from a distance as hundreds of people passed by the boulder. They cursed and complained, but no one attempted to move it. An old woman who was passing by, seeing the inconvenience it was causing tried to push it to the side. She struggled as the others just looked on, and finally managed to push it away. Just beneath where it originally stood lay a purse full of gold coins and a note, which read ‘to whomsoever moves this stone.’ She got a just reward for her efforts.
The wealth of a country is its working people. But this wealth serves no purpose, if it is wrongly earned. Maintaining Work Ethics is essential for a peaceful society and the key to a better future. George Eliot had said, ‘Our deeds determine us, as much as we determine our deeds.’ We all have ability. The difference rests in how we use it. If our work is good then fitting rewards will follow, maliciously attempting to attain these rewards is thus unnecessary. Good work speaks for itself, and when it does, no one should interrupt.