Quotations for Consideration

“…there is a kind of confusion in your looks which your modesties have not craft enough to colour”– William Shakespeare

Key Concepts

• Humans have evolved a keen sense of perception and recognition of facial expressions which provide greater communication ability than just the words. Even an infant recognizes faces and expressions.
• Words can lie but faces can’t.
• Can one deny others the right to equitably assess the veracity of one’s words?
• Customs of Dressing at particular time or in a particular context may not always be apt in other contexts or at other times.

The Burkha denies the others the facial recognition that is essential in these modern times of urban living and extensive travel. This is well proven by the many incidents and Bollywood stories where even men have worn the Burkha, for nefarious reasons, to disguise themselves to escape detection. Something that cannot really be acceptable amongst those living in communities larger than isolated and small tribal groups.

France and some of the other European Countries and even countries elsewhere, are banning the use of Burkha. This has led to strong reactions from the Fundamentalist Islamists as allegedly being against their religious tenets and a restriction of their rights to practice their religion as they deem fit. Though it is arguable whether at all the Quran intends for such coverage when it calls only for dressing modestly. Also, the definition of modesty varies from time to time, place to place, culture to culture and context. What may be seen as modest on the beach or while participating in sports activities, may not be considered modest at a formal occasion.

However, one major aspect, which has nothing to do with religion, of the wearing of the Burkha has escaped due consideration. This is of the effect it has on the ability of people to communicate properly with the Burkha wearer.

In Society, proper and unambiguous communication is essential for good relations and understanding.

Sociological studies have demonstrated beyond dispute that proper and unambiguous communication requires not only clarity in the spoken words, but also, in an understanding of the tonal nuances and reading of facial expressions and of the body language. In fact, it has been determined that the spoken word and tone conveys only about 35 percent of the total communication, with the facial expressions, especially around the eyes and mouths, conveying about 60 percent of the communication and the body language the rest. It is therefore evident that in order to properly understand a communication it is essential that one be not only able to hear the words and the tone that they are spoken in, but also, dearly see the expression and body language that accompany such words.

Paul Ekman (see www.PaulEkman.com) trains people (Diplomats, Judges, Police, Business and other Negotiators, Teachers and other such Officials) to recognize micro expressions, emotional signals that flit across a face in less than a third of a second. Because these emotional signals are spontaneous and made unconsciously, they offer a clue as to how a person actually feels at that momentdespite
whatever contrary impression she/he may be trying to project vocally. Lies usually involve this sort of emotional deceptiveness demanding extra cognitive and emotional effort from neural circuitry and are reflected in involuntary micro expressions which can be recognized by the observer, even if sub-consciously.

The Burkha or veil, and to an extent even goggles or sunglasses, deny the other person the opportunity to recognize such signals. This can lead to miscommunication (in a Police station, School, Hospital and Community Meeting etc.). In a Court this could even lead to miscarriage of justice. In any case this is not equitable communication.

Hence, any Authority, who has to react to the answers to their questions by their ability to judge the stress and anxiety of a suspected perpetrator of a Crime, is well within their rights, to ask the persons to be questioned or observed, to show their face and remove any Sun-glasses, Veils or Burkhas.

Such rights to be able to see and recognize the full breadth of communication has also, to be available to any person who has to interact meaningfully with those who so seek to mask their eyes and faces. The fact that where wearing a Burkha is common, the rights of a woman to bear witness is severely curtailed, is perhaps not only a denial of equal rights but also, an implied indication of the recognition of such a deficiency in communication.

This makes it evident that the said Countries are well within their rights to ban the Burkha in all Public places, especially as there is no real reason to say that this is a requirement of their religion. It is really only a matter of personal choice and as such can only be exercised in ways that do not curtail the equal rights of others in the Society one chooses to live in. Banning the Headscarf or Hijab, which leaves the face uncovered and unconstrained, has perhaps no such justification, especially as there is no objection in these countries to the Nuns of Christianity covering their heads / hair. Though the extent of the covering and nature of the interactions of Nuns with others and the larger number of other Hijab wearers when compared to the very few Nuns, who may also, be identified by the colour and style their hair covering, again makes the Hijab questionable. Ofcourse, in a Non-Muslim, Non-Christian country, both can we consider as unacceptable.

Members of any recognized Organization or Institution such as, Schools / Colleges, Security / Police / Armed Forces, which call for a uniform style of dress, cannot claim any right of individual choices as being above that of that Organization or Institution. After all, to join such an Organization or Institution or School is a voluntary decision taken by the individual, with full awareness of the Rules applicable therein.

However, the general claim to be different and therefore by inference to be better, even if only by dress, language and behaviour, than the people of the country one chose to live amongst, is not really tenable. Personal, cultural and religious customs should be limited to personal and community spaces. Ofcourse, one can always again choose to go back to where such habits are generally the rule and would thus make one more comfortable. The choice is always ones to make for oneself, but not one’s to dictate to others in their country. This issue is being made more controversial by those having anti-India interests and for political reasons.

It is worth recalling how Turkey, now called Türkiye, gave up the Burkha. When the Turkish leader Kemal Ataturk sought to modernize Turkey, the people protested saying that the Burkha was the traditional dress of their women folk prescribed by their religion and they would not let their women folk wear modern European dresses. Ataturk refused to be drawn into any religious controversy. He achieved his objective by saying that their women folk could wear whatever they pleased but that it was compulsory for all Prostitutes to wear a Burkha, soon the Burkha practically disappeared from Turkey. There after Türkiye, and even many other self-declared Islamic countries, did not insist on the Hijab and the Burkha. In-fact, in many such countries the dressing fashion is far more liberal than in India and hence any such claims as being based on religious customs are not tenable. Ofcourse, today Turkiye, having returned to being an Islamic Republic, is again insisting on the Hijab and to an extent even the Burkha.

Conclusion

Proper recognition and identification and proper and comprehensive communication are essential elements of life in the modern world of urban living and extensive travel. The Burkha, and to some extent even the Hijab, denies all this to the other and hence, the need to reconsider the acceptability of such dresses. Islam does not call for such a way of dressing, it only calls for modesty and that varies from time to time and place to place based upon the climate there and at many times on the customs and culture of others living there.

JAI BHARAT! – JAI HIND!

Pages: 1 2