- On the Haripur fiasco
The KP Department of Education successfully triggered a nationwide debate by directing the heads of government-run schools in Haripur and Peshawar to instruct all schoolgirls to wear chadors/gowns to school. After being blasted in the media, the KPK government has since withdrawn the directive. Schoolgirls will therefore be wearing the same clothes to school that they have been wearing: a very respectable shalwar-qameez and dopatta, while those who were already donning chadors/abayas will continue doing so.
We are therefore back to square one. Except the episode has raised some fundamental questions all over again – questions that there’s a lot of confusion about. For example, is the state entitled to interfere in the ‘private affairs’ of individuals? And if so, is there any limit to the extent of this interference? Also, doesn’t a state, by so interfering, curtail the individual liberty of its citizens?
Every state, of necessity, interferes in many of the so-called private affairs of its citizens. States don’t allow their citizens to use many recreational drugs, for example. States also make it mandatory for all children of a certain age to be sent to school. There are all sorts of directives in place regarding vaccination and healthcare. In some countries, women are legally barred from covering their faces; or at the very least, they are not allowed to enter schools and public buildings wearing face-veils.
It’s true that there are Quranic instructions for women over and above the regular ones; but the context there makes it clear that they are only there to protect women in times of extreme lawlessness, which makes them an administrative precaution as opposed to a part of sharia.
What is the permissible extent of this interference? In theory it should be minimum, and on the strictly-as-needed basis. The less it is, the easier for the citizens as well as the state. However, ‘minimum’ being a subjective word, practically speaking there’s no limit to it. Of course, in case a state overdoes it (as states often do), it should expect a reaction from the public and the media (as was seen last week), and all states live with this fact.
Coming to the third question, this whole idea of absolute individual liberty is misplaced. Man, being a social animal opted over the centuries to live in groups, tribes and finally states; and in so doing he traded much of his liberty for other benefits. Not having absolute liberty is the price one pays for living in a society.
There are other aspects of this debate. For example, Mehr Mustafa, writing in last week’s Encore, denounces the DoE notification for a variety of reasons, some of them valid. However, at least two of her arguments aren’t quite up to the mark. She writes: ‘What was particularly concerning about this measure was, ‘a certain interpretation of purdah made compulsory for all girls with no regard to their personal and religious views.’ Whether this interpretation of purdah is justified is another matter (and we will come to it presently), in principle the state is well within its rights to enforce its will across the board. We have already covered the matter of women being barred from covering their faces in certain countries. There are also laws proscribing polygamy in the Western world, regardless of the faith of the citizen. One can, of course, argue with a specific regulation and arguments supporting it, but there’s no arguing with this right of the state.
Mustafa further writes: ‘Young girls are assumed to have neither personal agency nor views independent of their families. Hence, the state does not view them as citizens in their own right – citizens requiring special protection due to their gender and status as minors.’ This line of reasoning is problematic too, because there are so many things that the state (with the cooperation of parents), of necessity, imposes on minors: vaccination, matters of bodily hygiene, and sending children to school itself are some of the many matters that don’t require children’s consent, and rightly so. Even the most secular societies bar the use of alcohol before a certain age. The fundamentals of religion that children are taught also depend to a very large extent on their parents’ beliefs. That’s what parenting is all about; and while parents may err in their judgment, rarely do they act knowingly to the detriment of their children.
Nadeem Paracha, in his Smokers’ Corner, calls the DoE’s move anachronistic because ‘the forces that encouraged such enforced morality in Pakistan are now in the process of rolling back previous ideas of morality.’ He is referring here to the recent series of reforms in Saudi Arabia under Crown Prince Muhammad ibn Salman. I think this sort of argument gives way too much respect to the whims of Saudi rulers than they warrant.
Finally, acknowledging in principle the right of the state to issue such directives, were the likes of advisor Ziaullah Bangash and minister of state Ali Muhammad Khan justified in presenting it as a religious issue? I have written in detail in these pages about the Quranic instructions regarding proper attire for women; in which the veil or even the head-covering is not included. That’s why it’s not a religious issue; and shouldn’t be presented as one. It’s true that there are Quranic instructions for women over and above the regular ones; but the context there makes it clear that they are only there to protect women in times of extreme lawlessness, which makes them an administrative precaution as opposed to a part of sharia. The KPK government would be the first to acknowledge that such extreme lawlessness doesn’t prevail in the province.
Another obvious failure on the part of the state was that there was a complete lack of consensus among officials at different levels of the government. Shaukat Yousafzai, the Information Minister, went as far as claiming that even the chief minister was kept in the dark about the directive. Due process was therefore bypassed. Which, sadly, is pretty much par for the course.