The Hindu Business Line : When a scarf becomes a subversive weapon

The Turkish supreme court, earlier this month, overturned a law allowing young women to wear the Islamic-style headscarf at universities. Wearing of headscarves had been banned for a long time as part of laws and rules that seek to enforce Turkey’s secularism in public life. Modern Turkey’s founding father Kemal Ataturk even banned the wearing of the fez cap and would certainly be pleased with the decision, were he alive.

Yet times change and we move on, don’t we? So why should head scarves be so offensive to a state? The current ruling party in Turkey, the AKP, is considered Islamist compared to its predecessors at the helm of affairs. The party won a majority in Parliament and the law allowing wearing of scarves also passed by a big majority. So, are the courts reflecting the views of bygone era, rather than the aspirations of the present?

Scarf as a symbol

But for those who support the court’s decision, the scarf is a symbol. It is the thin edge of the wedge that would bring in more religion in daily life, and hence a front in a larger battle that needs to be fought with vigilance.

Although a majority Muslim country, Turkey has prided itself on its secularism and wants to keep it that way. A liberal may argue that display of religious symbols do not end secularism, but many still see the head scarf as one more point that determines the separation of religion and the state, and as a symbol of the oppression of women in Islam.

That is the spirit in which France also fought its scarf battles. In 2004, the French National Assembly approved a ban on headscarves and other conspicuous religious symbols from being displayed in schools. France had at the time seen riots in the suburbs that house Muslim immigrants from Africa.

Some of the immigrants wanted to carry their religious traditions to their new homeland. But, as elsewhere in Europe, the French were becoming worried that their famed separation of religion and state was being challenged as an outcome of increased immigration from Muslim countries.

The principle behind the French ban is not just secularism but also integration, since the French believe that by displaying religious symbols (including a Christian cross or a Jewish skull-cap), a community tends to stand out and not integrate with the others.

Some vocal fundamental groups were dismayed and saw discrimination and a loss of religious freedom due to the ban. However, in one poll, a majority of Islamic women supported the ban and many Muslim clerics also do not see a problem with the ban.

Storm in a coffee cup

Come across the oceans to the US. Rachael Ray, a hostess of a cookery show on US television, is also the spokesperson/model who endorses Dunkin’ Donuts, a popular coffee retail chain, and appears in its ads. An advertisement of the company that appeared on television screens earlier this month showed Ray wearing a black and white paisley scarf, with cherry blossom trees in the background in full bloom and an iced coffee in hand encouraging people to follow suit.

Relatively harmless, you would say. Till some conservative columnists wrote on blogs that the scarf looked like the keffiyeh, a traditional head-dress/neck-scarf worn by Arab men. The late Yasser Arafat, head of the Palestinian Liberation Organisation, would never be seen without it, and neither would millions of other Arabs ranging from street vendors to the Saudi royal family.

One columnist went on to complain about the many designers who are now promoting the scarf, about the many prominent personalities in the US who have been seen wearing it, and yet, she believed that it “symbolises murderous Palestinian jihad.”

Others joined in the debate, drawing more attention to the ad. Dunkin’ Donuts must secretly be pleased with all the attention, but very soon, the company released a statement saying that it was withdrawing the ad.

The company’s vice-president for communications explained, “absolutely no symbolism was intended. However, as of this weekend, we are no longer using the online ad because the possibility of misperception detracted from its original intention to promote our iced coffee.”

That statement, should be required reading for company spokespersons. It was clear as to the action and the intent. It, of course, furthered another debate. Activists were aghast that the company caved in to political pressure and should have taken a stand. But commercial organisations are in the business of making money, not furthering political causes or perceived hurts.

The Arabs are upset that their garment can raise so much ill will. The Zionists are upset that the company was trying to promote terrorist symbols. The activists are upset that the company did not stand on principle, what ever that may mean. An anti-racism organisation called ‘ANSWER’ even called for a boycott of the company demanding that we “Say ‘No’ to anti-Arab racism.”

Even in free speech America, a scarf created a storm in a, well, coffee cup.

Triggering alarm

I have had personal experience of the symbolism of the keffiyeh. My wife and I were on our way back after a day trip to visit the ruins of Petra in Jordan.

Crossing the border into Israel by road, we entered Eilat Airport to board a flight to Tel Aviv. With only hand baggage, the passage through security should have been easy. But then, the twenty-something security official spied a folded black-and-white checked keffiyeh in my bag. She froze. “What is this,” she asked. “Do you know what this means?”

We explained that it was a scarf my wife used to protect her hair from sand whipped up by the wind, during our trip through the ruins. “Why didn’t you buy a hat,” she countered. We were not in a mood to engage her in a discussion on preferred couture.

Not satisfied with our explanations, she disappeared into the back rooms to talk to her superior. She came back with a grim face and said she had to do a complete check. This involved using sensors to test our bags for chemicals and other tell-tale signs that would tell her if we were not who we claimed to be. Finally, satisfied, she passed us on.

When we asked her what alarmed her about the scarf, anyway, she said that it was a head-dress commonly worn by the Arabs. Now, you can buy a keffiyeh in the streets of Jerusalem, but seeing it in the bag of a tourist who had just visited Jordan sent off alarm bells for Israeli security.

You just can’t take chances with these scarves!

The author is professor of international business and strategic management at Suffolk University, Boston, US. He can be reached at cgopinat@suffolk.edu

More Stories on : Politics | American Periscope

Article E-Mail :: Comment :: Syndication :: Printer Friendly Page

Stories in this Section
‘Eco-rating’ as a social leveller

Inflation antidotes

Not the time for a pay hike

Has a cheaper US dollar led to costlier oil and food?

Oil price and elections

When a scarf becomes a subversive weapon

Entrepreneurs of different kinds

Higher MSP