Opinion A sari debate

Coomi Kapoor | Blog Bytes<br> If an individual has the freedom to dress as he or she pleases,surely the host has the right to pick and chose whom he wants to permit within his premises?

New DelhiFebruary 24, 2009 02:30 PM IST First published on: Feb 24, 2009 at 02:30 PM IST

The other day,the newspapers reported that a Delhi discothèque had denied entry to a woman wearing a sari. I was amused to learn that there is a considerable indignation over the nightclub’s dress code. If an individual has the freedom to dress as he or she pleases,surely the host has the right to pick and chose whom he wants to permit within his premises?

In a somewhat similar context,I recall the dilemma of a friend who works for a television channel. A journalism student,who was an intern with her TV channel,asked if she could appear on air for a story. The TV correspondent readily agreed but added the rider,”Of course you will first have to remove the scarf from your head.” The intern declined to do so.

There was a heated debate at the dining table when the TV correspondent related the story. An NGO pointed out,”If a Hindu girl had a bindi on her forehead you would not ask her to remove it. A Sikh with a turban would be acceptable. So why is the Muslim girl being penalised for adhering to her faith?” A lawyer saw it differently,”The TV channel wanted to project a certain liberal image. It was perfectly justified to decline to present someone whose appearance is not in conformity with that image.”

There are no clear cut answers. On one hand,if you want to integrate,you need to conform to the society in which you live. On the other hand,it is important to respect an individual’s religious freedom and customs. Every country handles the issue differently. Britain,for instance,believes in a policy of accommodation and flexibility in accepting the customs,food habits and dress styles of minority communities,even if they are alien,and at times jarring,to the majority. Muslim girls are permitted to wear hijabs to council schools. They can even wear specially designed burkini swim suit which covers them from head to foot when they enter the pool.

France has taken the other route. In its state-run schools,children may not display any religious symbol. They must conform to a common dress code. Sikhs may not wear turbans,Muslims scarves and Christians crosses. The alternative is to attend a privately run school. In Italy,the law forbids you from covering your face,whether with a burkha,balaclava cap or helmet. Still less tolerant is Saudi Arabia,where anybody exposing even a bit of the wrist will receive a wrap on the knuckles. I shudder to think what would be the punishment if the head scarf slips off.

Liberal humanists may extol the British model but one can’t help wondering whether in the long run it benefits the community it seeks to protect. Where do you draw the line? Ed Husain,the author of Islamist,points out that the more you concede to religious fundamentalists,the more demands they make. In the process they only succeed in further isolating their community from the society in which they live.

India is not Europe and diversity is part of our cultural heritage. We have a President who insists on covering her head and wearing long sleeves even in the height of summer,a Chief Election Commissioner who proudly displays a caste mark,and Parliamentarians who make a practice of sporting unconventional apparels which ensure that their caste,community or region is easily identifiable. I personally feel,that to build a harmonious,integrated society in modern day India,it might be wiser to try ironing out differences in society,instead of going out of the way to reinforce the angularities.

I recall the advice to the Parsees by the ruler of Sanjan,Jadi Rana,back in the eighth century. The Parsees,who fled religious persecution in Persia,landed in Gujarat and requested asylum. Jadi Rana allowed them to settle on certain conditions. The Parsees were told to give up the Persian language and speak the local lingo. They were also asked to dress like the natives and respect and observe the customs of the majority community. They could practise their religious ceremonies in private. The king’s advice was sound. This minority community prospered in its adopted land by melting easily into the mainstream,even while maintaining its identity for over 1200 years.