December 22, 2002

Segregation is a concept that should remain a thing of the past. If dusted and brought out again for implementation by the MMA, it will only sink us deeper into non-issues we are grappling with again at the turn of the century

PEOPLE are beginning to see that the induction of Muttahida Majlis-i-Amal (comprising six religious parties) is neither expected to have an impact on the influence of foreign lending agencies, nor on the various foreign policy fronts. The presence of the right will most likely be felt on the front of social policy that is likely to be put in reverse gear.

The policy on women is already beginning to surface in the guise of issues taking the form of coeducation, segregation, head scarves, electronic (PTV) media, and cable TV policies.

The MMA members took these up as matters of “foremost significance for the nation,” as soon as election results were received. One of the MMA members addressed a gathering of party women in which coeducation and segregation surfaced as key issues that the MMA would be dealing with on a priority basis. That is, coeducation would be abolished and segregation would be introduced. The print media editorials lost no time in cautioning against the above outlook (Dawn’s editorial, Oct 22, 2002).

Since the MMA has emerged as the third largest group in the national elections and is also being pursued eagerly for support by the larger party, its pronouncements with regards to women comprising almost half the population can no longer be ignored. If half the country is likely to be affected and profoundly, it is time to address these upcoming issues that we thought had been left behind two or three decades ago. Let us take them up sequentially and in parallel, if the need be.

Segregation makes no sense on earth that men and women are supposed to cohabit by design. Coeducation, therefore, develops tolerance and respect for the other gender and thereby healthier male-female relationships essentially required in life. Some of the most heinous crimes against women are committed in the most backward pre-historic tribal societies, where men and women are kept segregated like animals in a zoo. And some of the worst harassment and teasing in public places has been experienced by burqa-clad women whom perverts find intriguing, like it or not.

Segregation is a concept that should remain a relic of the past that, if dusted and brought out again for implementation, will only sink us deeper into non-issues we are grappling with again at the turn of the century. Unless this move is contained, we will have taken a giant leap in reverse to the times when the late Prime Minister, Zulfiqar All Bhutto, had pulled shrouded women out in the early 1970s from behind a tent in which they had been kept sheepishly huddled in a public meeting. He had said without any inhibitions whatsoever that the world is for the women to live in as freely as it is for the menfolk. There is, therefore, no concept of gender-based distinction. The Law of Evidence is an example when two clergy representing a particular sect had actually walked out from the late General Ziaul Haq’s hand-picked Shura as it was not in conformity with their religious beliefs.

None of the above thoughts are any more Western than the concepts of nation-states, parliamentary democracy, capitalism, and technology; all of which we have embraced fondly and irrespective of their origins in the West. Even though women’s integration in society is not a notion borrowed from the West, it is viewed as such by our ultra-right who wish to borrow selectively from the West as suits them.

One must know whether it is a good or bad influence that one has adopted from the West. Unfortunately, it is the retrogressive influences that women in the country will need to stand up against after the turn of the century. This time, these seem to be originating from inside the country, or so it might appear on the surface. The symptoms, in this case, are more important to address than the cause. In the process, women will need to guard themselves against losing their right to be the head of the government — the first right a post-revolution Iran granted to its women. It was an Islamic revolution that started off on the note of healthy integration of women into the mainstream. Here, we just have a semblance of it taking off on the note of segregation.

Another symbol of the West that the right views as a bad influence is cable TV. This is despite the fact that cable is not just a source of world news and events, but also of healthy and informative programmes. As for the assault on moral values, it cannot be shut out by banning cable. If this is the only route, then our morals must really be fragile and vulnerable. While some channels can be blocked technically, the most effective barrier is the moral values we impart not just by speech, but by deed that alone can sell well to the young and leave a lasting impression.

So, in a globalizing world, morals cannot be preserved through forced seclusion or isolation. Rather, these should be built to inculcate a moral strength capable of withstanding all temptations. This would, however, be possible if religion is viewed not merely as a form of rituals, but as a complete code of conduct to be acted out in all facets of life and far beyond rhetoric that tends to erode the credibility of most intentions. Is there a policy in the works in the above direction? It is conspicuous by its absence again.

In a similar vein, is the PTV policy being focused upon? A corollary to PTV policy is the women’s head-covering policy found all too important by the late Gen Ziaul Haq who, at the same time, did not quite view a bare-headed Madam Noor Jehan’s melodious renderings as unreligious. For those who think that the head scarf is a sign of our religion and culture, they ought to also appreciate the fact that folk music is our culture, too. Is music religious or unreligious? Also, if there is a flexibility on the requirement of beards, then why an emphasis on women’s head scarves?

Original religious sources may not have categorically specified head scarves or veils for women. Later interpretations may have required them, as women’s hair are supposed to emit some rays that distract the opposite gender. Logically then, it is the men who should be donning the veil. During the current reformist debate raging in Iran, a conservative clergy had remarked that there would be no harm in relaxing this requirement in their country, provided the women remained focused on their professional, career and life goals, and would not try to emulate the glamour of some women.

Part of the solution, therefore, lies with women if they were to dress sober and professionally, as it is distraction that needs to be dealt with for which there could be alternative routes rather than an infringement on their basic right to breathe, see, hear and move freely that is imposed rigidly by at least one faction of the MMA.

Head scarves would then be a matter of individual choice. Seeing the popularity of the Western dress for men, dress issues are either trivial or non-existent if seen against the backdrop of the overall requirements for a religious life that should actually be lived more and preached less. This shortcoming is what the bane of our social life is, rather than womankind that the ultra-right wants to make invisible to preserve eroding morals. Women need to rise and block this escape route for those who cannot deliver on their campaign promises in the realm of economics and politics.

Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window)