Malady of state defining religion

On Monday, June 22, French President Nicolas Sarkozy created history in at least two ways. With his address to lawmakers at the historic Chateau at Versailles, he became the first president in 136 years to address a gathering at the venue. The Greens and communist kept away from the address stating that the selection of the venue smacked of Sarkozy’s thirst for power.

The other was his denouncement of the burqa worn by Muslim women as a sign of ‘subservience and debasement’. France has a substantial population of Muslims and at around five million it is the largest in Western Europe, the ‘developed’ side of the continent. French authorities have agreed to set up a commission to study the spread of burqa wearing after 60 MPs signed a petition to this effect demanding an inquiry.

In 2004, France imposed a ban on wearing apparel that had a religious insignia to schools. This included the hijab, Sikh turbans, Jewish skullcaps and crucifixes. This created a stir but was later eased. Sarkozy’s is not a lone voice but one of the many across Europe who think that the burqa, hijab and niqab are a hindrance to personal freedom. Voices of dissent have risen in other parts of Europe and the world. In 2003 the schools in Sweden were allowed to ban burqa’s while the Dutch stopped short of banning it in 2008. Not to forget the Sikh protest in Vancouver, among other places, against a ban on turbans in Canada.

As all debates have two sides and so does this. While Sarkozy, and the European community, which gives paramount importance to individual freedom, might have a point in terming the burqa as a means of subjugating women and treating them as ‘mobile prisons’, Sarkozy overstepped by saying that it was ‘not a religious symbol’. Religion, at best, should not be a subject of national debate and its practices should not be defined by the secular democracy.

That Sarkozy has said this at a time when France is going through a crisis also indicates that its principle of ethnic assimilation is failing – a fact he observed in his speech while stating that the present immigration model was not working. Sarkozy’s reaction can also be attributed to France’s near xenophobic adherence to guarding its or secularism which is its religion. But what the authorities fail to realise is that if they manage laicite to pass a resolution banning the burqa in public places, it would be a great injustice towards women who enjoy a certain level of freedom because it would further lead to the cloistering of womenfolk.

The irony in the whole episode is that after pronouncing the burqa’s as not , Sarkozy and Carla Bruni were playing good hosts at the Elysee Palace to the Emir of Qatar Sheik Hamad Bin Jassem Al Thani who was joined by one of his wives Sheika Mozah, whose head was covered in an elegant turban.
(Edited version of this can be found for six days from day of post at http://www.expressbuzz.com/edition/story.aspx?Title=Intention+unveiled&artid=NxWzmhVMuEA%3d&SectionID=RRQemgLywPI%3d&MainSectionID=RRQemgLywPI%3d&SectionName=XQcp6iFoWTvPHj2dDBzTNA%3d%3d)