Incentivising religion – because clearly, there’s nothing else to do
“Some people wear a turban. Some wear a chogha. Others wear a suit and tie, and some wear shalwar kameez. All these people are creations of God. And that’s fine. This is a freedom given to us by God. Who are we to take it away?”
These words spoken by Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif in an inclusive message on the occasion of Holi were celebrated by progressive rationalists of Pakistan as a glimmer of hope in light of religious extremism that has been victimising the whole nation in one way or another.
But another piece of news that flashed on television screens on the same day snatched away, though temporarily, the positivity we had been trying to get a hold on. The absolutely unexpected and dumbfounding proposal of making hijab compulsory in government colleges and universities dispensed the spirit of equality that exists in all of us as a somewhat delusionary wish, no matter how meagre.
How the balance could be maintained when one authority assures the masses of egalitarianism while the other throws it in their face along with a piece of cloth called hijab to cover it with.
“God will not ask a ruler what he did for followers of a certain religion. He will ask people such as me: what did we do for God’s creation?” PM Nawaz put forth an innocent question of paramount importance.
Punjab Higher Education Minister Syed Raza Ali Gilani answered: “Observance of hijab should be made mandatory for girls.”
“No one can force others to adopt a certain religion,” explained PM. But Punjab Minister put accent on his stance that promoting hijab-culture and resuming morning assemblies would sensitise students about different Islamic concepts for “character building”. What about those hailing from religious minorities? Are they currently lacking moral and ethical qualities, or will turn out to be characterless in forthcoming future? Or would it not have been better to recommend teaching of comparative religion from the very start so as to grasp the concepts of moralities from every religious ideology?
Is the teaching of religious fundamentals and associated character building not supposed to be taught at home? Are educational institutes not ought to teach its students lessons of adapting to cultural diversity, celebrating commonalities and respecting differences?
“All religions in the world teach respect for humanity and Islam teaches to respect all religions.” This is what PM Nawaz reiterated while delivering his message of tolerance-based inclusiveness of diversity. But Punjab Minister seems to claim that it is only through the teachings of Islam that people can be groomed and “made” successful as implied by the remaining part of the proposal. What to believe and what not, this certainly should not be left for such a nation to decide whose members are habitual of turning heads side to side, watching the jugglery of their fate being performed before them.
The worrisome directive suggested in the mind-boggling proposal is yet to be autopsied. Linking academic achievements with compliance to this injunction by awarding five percent “grace marks” as an incentive for covering up is similar in its essence to according additional marks in every exam at every stage to those who memorise the Holy Qur’an. If the blackness of our burkas and length of our beards started determining the marks we would be awarded in examinations conducted in Pakistan then we should dispense the idea and spirit of competition and focus on establishing state-of-the-art universities and colleges within the country’s boundary because this is the very basis on which majority of the Muslim students are being subjected to religious bigotry and discrimination around the world.
Similar kerbs on freedom of choice were actually imposed a few hours after the surfacing of the proposal when European Union’s Court of Justice (ECJ) imparted companies the right to ban employees from wearing visible religious or political symbols including Islamic headscarves at workplace. If we are and cannot be supportive of ECJ’s ruling and fear subsequent increase in incidences of hate crime against Muslims then we should not endorse and enforce an almost-identical restriction on choice of attire that is as personal a matter as religion.
But there is more to it than that. A lucrative advantage of granting five percent attendance to hijabi students in case they fail to be present in 65 percent of classes was also recommended in the proposal. Frankly, I am unable to discern the connection that is apparently present between the two as suggested by the recommendation itself. Is it the wearing of headscarves and burkas that causes these ‘privileged’ students to be late for classes and is being compensated for? Through which cause-and-effect relation have the two been linked? Even if for the sake of debate we digest adopting this dress code in universities and colleges of Punjab, why on earth does it have to be linked with additional marks and on what grounds?
Why do norms of every society aim at victimising women by depriving them of their fundamental right to live in their skins? Why do all poles seem to converge at one point and that is the dress code of women? Why are we debating on issues like “Bikinis, Burkini” even in this postmodern era?
Let the power of rewarding for putting on a headscarf and punishing for not wearing one be with God only. Let us focus on the obligations that God has trusted us with because, in today’s world, we seem to be exchanging our share of responsibilities with His, making this world nothing but more and more inhabitable for humans.