There are two rationales for banning the burka. One is the security-related concern, and the second is the “social integration” standpoint.
First, to take the case of the western nations such as France that banned the burka in public, it’s not believable that security was the only reason that the full-face cover for Muslim women was banned in that country. There is a major concern in France that French Muslims are not integrating, and it’s a concern that is echoed across most other European nations. Across the Channel from France, it’s remembered that Tony Blair was, as they say, for a long time banging on about how Muslims should integrate with society in Britain, meaning that they shouldn’t stick out by insisting on continuing their esoteric religious practices.
But does that mean that there is no security-related issue as all that surrounds the matter of burka-wearing? Probably there was such a concern in Europe, particularly after the Bataclan concert attacks in East Germany and the Stade de France and other attacks in Paris.
However, coming at the problem from a security-related standpoint, and coming at it from a national integration standpoint are two different things altogether.
The national integration standpoint is essentially a racist standpoint when it’s boiled down to the basics – and Tony Blair, known for his wanton invasion of Iraq, for instance, is capable of some type of racism, though couched in appropriate terms such as “national integration”, “national security”, etc.
But security is an emotive issue as well. Even when there isn’t sufficient rationale to ban the burka on grounds of security, people work themselves up into a frenzy over security-related issues that are connected to burka-wearing, when an attack of the nature of Bataclan happens.
Yet, there is a fine distinction. When France’s Nicolas Sarkozy banned the burka, it was not for reasons relating to security; it was because he thought the garment was a violation of women’s rights. He said as much, and the ban continues to this day, even though Sarkozy is long gone and now disgraced.
There is then one aspect that’s very clear. European burqa bans have taken place for reasons that essentially have nothing to do with security, and if any European nation finds fault with Sri Lanka for banning the burqa for reasons related to security, there is something terribly wrong with that reasoning that screams double-standard from the very get go.
The currently bruited about Sri Lankan burqa ban, which is still only being contemplated, is in a different context. It was recommended by a commission that went into the reasons behind the horrendous Easter Sunday attacks. There isn’t reason to believe that a commission is Sinhala-Buddhist chauvinist. Its members were ordinary apolitical folk, and among them were a good number of dispassionate judges who were used to dispensing justice on an equitable basis as their profession demands.
But the response in some sections of Muslim society among the so-called elite opinion-making class at least has been to lash out at the decision on the ban, which, it is understood, is not official yet as it had not been mandated by gazette.
There is something strange – rather disingenuous – about this type of almost Pavlovian reflex reaction to lash out at a burqa ban that has, when all things are considered, been advised by an impartial, apolitical Commission of Inquiry.
It’s queer, to say the least, that such strident responses are forthcoming at this juncture, when on the other hand the reaction soon after the Easter Sunday attacks was diametrically opposite and much more conciliatory.
If readers would remember, social media at that time was fairly filled with posts of various Muslim women with their men standing by tearing off their burqas in full view of the cameras. These videos were accompanied by effusive pledges to forgo the burqa in the national interests, and in the interests of solidarity with the rest of the country’s ethnic groups.
There were no intellectual commentators lashing out at that time, and on the contrary, the opinion-makers were also suggesting various ways to curtail Muslim religious activities that could be seen as being dangerous by the other communities. For example, there was general consensus at that time that the madrasas should be regulated.
So what gave between then and now? Does the effluence of time cause Muslim intellectuals to spring back to a more pugnacious mode, compared to the accommodating tone they struck when the horror of the Easter attacks were still fresh in people’s minds?
Though the opinion-makers referred to would rigorously contest it, one postulate about their positions then and now, and the contrast, would be that they act differently when they are dealing with a United National Party (UNP) government at the helm of affairs.
True that in the first flush of the attacks, they were shocked and reflexively struck a reconciliatory tone because that’s the only one that would have been tolerated by a community that was outraged by the Easter Day carnage. But even as the days went by, there was not much by way of protests against a burqa ban that became the default position in society almost as a matter of course.
It’s legitimate to suspect that the UNP being in power had something to do with it. When the right-wingers are in power, the Muslim business classes fall into default support mode – at least most of them in Colombo do.
The conclusion from this post-Easter-attack reaction is that the burqa can be done away with after all; it’s not deemed indispensable, in most cases, with the majority of the Muslims at least.
It’s being furiously argued now that the burqa has nothing to do with security, but even if technically that was deemed to be true, the Easter attacks engendered a certain sense of “othering” and paranoia about the Muslim community, and certainly the elements in it that were by virtue of the dress code, etc. associated rightly or wrongly with “extremism”.
In the background of all that happened in the country, this outcome, though undesirable, was to some extent at least inevitable. If the French – or at least the French leadership – was so prejudiced as to ban the burqa for no apparent reason, it is hard to expect that in Sri Lanka there would be absolutely no reaction to dress codes that sometimes arouse visceral fears in people. Those fears may be irrational, but it would also be irrational to completely wish them away too.
Now we are here at this particular conjuncture when a commission report has recommended a burqa ban. The Government may or may not follow through, but already there are various emotive reactions to the ban – some rather uncomplimentary and others somewhat laudatory.
It would have been good to have never had this debate at all, but it’s a part and parcel of life in a multicultural society to have some of these frictions rearing their head once in a while. The trick would be to keep the adverse reactions stemming from them to a minimum. If there is a burqa ban eventually, perhaps it could be one that is in place for a certain interval in time, and no more. Or after some time in which such a ban is in force, perhaps the sections of the Muslim community that want no such ban would have got used to life with such a ban in place. On the other hand, that may be a wishful thought!
But at least the call for the ban must be seen in perspective. The Muslim community, which was very accommodating and self-effacing in the immediate aftermath of the Easter attacks because everybody was shell-shocked by their severity at that time, perhaps shouldn’t now suddenly be seen to be so revolted by all this talk of a ban. The ban may or may not happen, but the idea to make it happen took place within a certain context. That doesn’t mean such a ban is inevitable and would soon become a reality; but if it does, it doesn’t mean it would be forever either. As for race relations, there would inevitably be some sticking points in a multi-ethnic society, but the trick is to keep them from boiling over.
(The writer is a former Editor-in-Chief of three national English language publications and a practising Attorney-at-Law. He is an Editors’ Guild award-winning columnist, and a contributing writer and columnist for Nikkei Asian Review and South China Morning Post, while his editorials have been published in The Australian)