Ever since the French President Nicolas Sarkozy stated that burkhas are not welcome in his country, there has been a lot of debate and heat generated on liberalism and freedom of individual choice. But there are different aspects relating to this controversial statement. One, that so called liberal democracies still suffer from narrow-mindedness, and for this statement on burkha to come from a democracy that gave us the principles of Liberty, Equality and Fraternity, this is not a small concern. Second, the countries which are raising a hue and cry as to the French President's statement could as well look into their own backyard.
Liberalism stands on the principle that an individual has the right to decide what he/she wants for himself/herself as long as it does not hinder the liberty of others. When this principle is taken to the higher plane of the State, then a State can impose any laws it wants, but this should not hinder the personal choice or the liberty of the individuals in the concerned State, as long as it does not impede national security. It is in this context that Sarkozy's statement needs to be debated. Sarkozy's statement is definitely regressive. But this cannot hide the fact that the same principle of liberalism should extend to the Muslim -majority States like Saudi Arabia, where even the non-muslim minorities are supposed to be attired in hijab. Well, if one has a right to read Quran, others do have the right to read the Satanic Verses or watch a Da Vinci Code. If someone, muslim or otherwise, wants to wear a burkha, it is their personal choice. There are many who say that a burkha stands for male domination and female oppression, but there are as many women who wear it on their own accord. This altogether is another debate. But the argument remains that one cannot want to let their religious brethren to have all the freedom of personal choice, while the other religious members are not provided the same in the muslim-majority States.
A State in the modern world cannot afford to be religious. This is where the entire argument on the wearing of burkhas and hijab leads to. And all the States need to introspect their own standards and standing on liberalism, if not selective liberalism.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
The Muslim countries rule their states based their own intrepretation of Islam or the Koran. They never declared a motto which said 'Liberty, Equality, Fraternity' whereas France did. I agree that some Muslim states do impose it on their people. But I guess no one's forcing it in France. If someone's wearing Burkha in France, I assume that she is wearing on her own discretion. Just because sarkozy felt that it was female oppression, he cannot just ban it. There might be some people who would love to wear it for reasons religious or non-religious. And you cannot oppress them using such bans.
So, what's up in Sarkozy brain next?????
One, I also have said that a democratic country like France preching Liberty, Equality and Fraternity cannot be narrow-minded. And I have said that even if wearing of Burkhas is a question of female oppression or otherwise , its another debate altogether. The question here is about a Muslim State imposing its will on the minority non-muslims in its State while opposing another non-Muslim country like France's will on its minority population. What double-standards!!!!
Double standards shown by France hurts me more than that are shown by the countries that you have mentioned. I would like to see countries like France live up to their promises whereas I have little hope from the other countries.
There is no doubt about France's blunder here. Whether a muslim or a non-muslim state, we are here talking about the wrongness of oppression of personal choice on not so essential issues
Post a Comment