Posted on 09/10/2005 7:33:57 AM PDT by CarrotAndStick
Facing a fatwa for wearing skirts. Expelled for wearing sleeveless tops. Dismissed for wearing a hijab - stuffy anecdotes from the prude annals? Hardly. This is the harsh reality that Indians are facing globally.
The self-appointed Dress Police - mostly government outfits, have taken away your freedom to choose what you wear.
The fatwa issued against Sania Mirza by a ‘religious scholar’ for wearing ‘revealing clothes’ comes days after Orissa’s controversial decision to enforce its “uniform dress code’’ in all colleges of the state.
The rule has made Orissa the first state in the country to bar girls from wearing sleeveless tops, tight jeans and skimpy designer skirts in colleges.
Anger & Outrage
Indians are expressing their outrage at such rulings which they say are ‘ridiculous’ and an infringement of their fundamental rights. Speaking on the decision taken by the state of Orissa, Mona Kapoor, a kindergarten teacher said: “We have conquered the Moon but we can’t see a girl show her knees!”
In Sania’s case, the ‘scholar’ has said, "(The) Veil can be dropped on certain occasions but not the way the girl is going about and playing in all those countries.” The remark has left many young women flummoxed. “Does he expect her to play in a sari? Or maybe in an abaya?” questioned college student, Deepak Singhal.
As amusing as they might sound to some, such strict orders have been manipulating the way we dress for a long time. And they are not restricted to students or youngsters only. The rules usually apply to women, homosexuals, religious followers and just about anyone who doesn’t fit into their definition of ‘appropriate.’
Religious intolerance
Religion has been the most common target of these rules. The Indian army has instructed its personnel not to sport bracelets, birthstone rings, vermillion streaks or sacred threads in an effort to maintain a strict dress code and a secular image.
The most visible form of this discrimination came to light last year when France banned Muslim students from wearing headscarves and turbans in school.
Islamic institutions lashed out against the French government when they adopted a law in 2004 that bans hijab and religious insignia in state-run schools. Muslims see Hijab as an obligatory dress code and not just a religious symbol like the cross.
Even non-Muslim supporters of the Hijab say that the UN Declaration on Human Rights affords each of us the global right to practice our religions freely. They argue and if that religious practice dictates the wearing of special clothing, then should schools not allow for a special uniform - whether that uniform alteration be the addition of hijab, cross, yamoulke, turban, or other symbolism.
Victims of ignorance
Three Sikh students in France who refused to remove their turbans under the country's new law banning religious signs and apparel in schools even took it to the Court.
But why just france? The US is notorious for banning the turban at the workplace. Mukesh Advani, a Hindu from India working in San Francisco, has represented Sikhs claiming discrimination because they are not allowed to wear turbans or carry a kirpan, a 7-inch ceremonial dagger. He said employers just need to be educated.
He was quoted as saying that ``Sikhs have real problems in certain jobs, especially those involving dealing with people, like in hotels or sales,'' Advani said. ``If you go to a Sikh temple in the Bay Area, half the people there will be clean-shaven because they say they have to be for their jobs. Employers don't know it's a symbol of their faith.''
Vulnerable sufferers
However, dress codes are not just a religious issue. There is a tendency to target those don’t follow the ‘norm’ and usually can’t even fight back.
A few years back, a high school student in Germany was suspended for proclaiming his homosexuality through his clothing. Scot Hiscoff’s black dress and red lipstick became a huge controversial issue for the school administration. Peters' cross-dressing, along with some gay buttons and T-shirts were banned. This created ripples of debate and controversy at the 1,800-student high school.
In a similar incident, a top-ranking student of a highschool was made to retake her high-school picture for the yearbook. Why? Because she chose to wear the tuxedo meant for boys as opposed to the draped gown for women.
A schoolboy in Germany with eczema was not allowed to wear 100% cotton trousers simply because they were not a part of the regular uniform. Even after repeated meetings between the boy’s mother and the school faculty, nothing came out the whole thing. Finally, the boy had to shift to another school where they accommodated his disability.
Irrational logic
In most cases, the reasoning behind the rules just don’t make sense to many. “Skirts and tees are the outfits that most tennis players play in. The game has been around forever and it is a tried and tested uniform - how can you suddenly start questioning it just because the best tennis player in the country happens to be a Muslim woman?” Kapoor argues.
In Orissa, the government feels the uniform rule will bring in “more discipline and a sense of unity” among the students. The unanimous response of the students has been that ‘we are not children anymore so don’t treat us like kids’. The students’ wings of Opposition parties have gone a step beyond and have described the move as “Talibanisation” of college campuses.
A deaf golfer who entered the US Deaf Golf Championships was told she could not wear hearing aids during the tournament because the authoritative body felt it would provide users with an unfair advantage. She counter-argues that if a person has been used to a hearing aid all their life and has learnt the sport in that time, wouldn’t the person who learnt without a hearing aid have an unfair advantage over the first?
She might be right, but whose listening. Brushing off protests as ‘occupational hazards’, the Dress Police go about patrolling the streets of civilisation; using their weapons to enforce what they feel is right.
Sooner or later the world is going to have to slap them down -- hard.
From a tennis standpoint, I fail to see the advantage of the low-rise mini-bottom and cut-off top over the sensible outfits worn by Chris Evert, for example. I would think the player couldn't concentrate on her game, because she' have to wonder if she was going to fall out of her clothing.
You've got a very valid point, but then again, you've missed the hint as to why tennis, especially women's tennis, is watched so widely the world over. Practically all Russian tennis players are supermodels in many ways. Reflective of deep sexism? You bet!
Ugh! Same with me. You really didn't have to force me to see that! ;^)
Ah, yes. I do tend to overlook that sort of point :-). Thinking it had something to do with *sports* was my error.
Don't those guys know that yellow clashes with metallic red? Geeez.... at least they could have worn something sensible like green metallic shorts. Besides... yellow is so loud.
"Mukesh Advani, a Hindu from India working in San Francisco, has represented Sikhs claiming discrimination because they are not allowed to wear turbans or carry a kirpan, a 7-inch ceremonial dagger."
Waaaah - I'm not allowed to carry my ceremonial hi-cap 9mm to work!
This article is ridiculous - lumping all kinds of unrelated things together.
Is it just me or does the chick on the right have a bulge?
LOL!
As far as the Indian tennis player, I agree with the fatwa. She isn't doing herself any favors showing off her belly rolls. There should also be a fatwa against fat chicks wearing spandex in Wal-Mart.
It's not just the dress that's clashing!
"Is it just me or does the chick on the right have a bulge? "
THATS A MAN, BABY!
I'm switching to Shinto/Bushido and insist on carrying a Katana. ;^)
Dog,
Don't know about you, but I would be embarrassed if anyone found that type of picture on my computer....
Hit the delete quick
You're as likely to flip out and shoot up your workplace as the Sikh is to go bats and start carving up his coworkers. That is to say, not very likely.
All the weapons bans are pretty stupid, in my opinion.
agreed!
On the other hand, requiring pudgy tennis players to Put Some Clothes On is a victory for good taste :-).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.