Unveil the Veil

Of all the religious attires (I am aware of), the ones that attracts the most attention and contention are the turban and burka. While both these outfits have been in the news on and off for many years for a manifold reasons, the latter is in the headlines again all around the world because of the keynote Parliamentary speech made by French President Nicolas Sarkozy. Sarkozy at the palace of Versailles amidst applause said "The burka is not a religious sign. It is a sign of subservience, a sign of debasement. In our country we cannot accept that women be prisoners behind a screen, cut-off from all social life, deprived of all identity. It will not be welcome on the territory of French Republic." Sarkozy's speech came a few days after US President Barack Obama's speech in Cairo where he contrastingly said - United Sates prizes religious freedom and wouldn't tell people what to wear. Now whether it was cultural appeasement or something else is debatable. Nonetheless, the French Parliament is expected to discuss and take measures against both burka (eyes covered with fabric mesh) and niqab (has en eye slit). As expected, the proposed ban invited the wrath of some, while some welcomed it.

Apparently, this is not the country's first heated face-off on a religious garment. In 2004, French parliament passed a legislation forbidding students from wearing conspicuous religious symbols like headscarves or jilbabs, turbans, crucifixes, and skull caps in state schools. France is not the only exception, even Muslim majority countries like Turkey and Tunisia have banned headscarves in schools, universities and public places.

The biggest question that pops up in this entire controversy is - Should a politician or for that matter a state be allowed to decide how one should practise one's religion based on what the majority feels? The answer may appear to be a straightforward NO, but not in this matter which is as complex as spaghetti. Yes, I agree that every individual has the right to practise religion is his/her own way, but NOT when it hinders our existence and interaction as social beings. Some may argue, Muslim women wear burka out of choice and not oppression and if they really felt it was submissive then they would have stood up against it. Certainly some women see burka as a sacred expression of religious freedom, but if our male chauvinist society were really paying heed to female subjection, then there won't be a hue and cry of women's rights going on in the entire world.

According to Islamic traditions, the idea of wearing a burka or niqab or to dress modestly is applied to akil baliq (women who reached puberty) in order to avoid attention from men, especially from muhrim (relative of the opposite sex with whom marriage is forbidden). Why is the onus of carrying the beacon of religious traditions always on the women? Why is it ok for Muslim men to wear T-shirt and jeans, while the Muslim women have to wear a burka or a headscarf. Why not cure the problem rather than taking precautions to avoid it, and so does it not make more sense to teach men to respect beauty, rather than covering up the beauty? Islam doesn't ask it's followers to wear burka, it's just asks them (men and women) to dress modestly and so does every religion. So, this is not a religious but a social issue and it's far reaching implications has been and are still witnessed throughout the world.

Another logical argument that is being raised now is - What about the wimples and robes wore by the nuns? Why is it that the garment wore by nuns is a sign of dignity, while the same is oppressive for Muslim women? There are two basic flaws in this argument - 1. All the Muslim women are supposed to wear the burka, while in the other case ONLY nuns who are women members of a religious order and bound by vows of chastity and obedience are required to wear the religious garment. How can one compare a nun to a common Muslim woman? 2. The biggest difference as far as I can understand between both the religious attires is the niqab. Nuns don't cover their faces, while the Muslim women do and to me this is what causes the failure to integrate with the broader society.

Not to offend any religious sentiments, but the headscarves I see these days seem to be wore to make fashion statements rather than to abide by the rationale behind them. The bejewelled headscarves wore with tight multi-colored tees combined with denim mini-skirts and leggings are beyond my understanding of a religious garment. It perplexes me whether those Muslim women are being religiously stylish or the other way round. Plus, does it make more sense to cover the head/face or the body curves?

In the end, is wearing burka really a matter of divine will and does the Muslim women wear it out of choice or compulsion? Nobody has the statistics to prove either. France is a liberal country and so it has all the rights to decide (based on the majority) what's good for it's society and if foreign women in Saudi Arabia can be enforced to atleast cover their heads and not even drive cars, why can't France have a policy for it's own citizens. In the end, modern society should be built on pragmatism and dialogue and not on sectarianism. Burka may or may not be a problem, but the larger picture is that there are numerous problems which the women face and everyone should work on eliminating those. We should take a step ahead and empower the women to voice their opinions and speak freely against any oppression. Banning burka won't stop women oppression, but ensuring justice and indiscrimination irrespective of the gender certainly will.

-Kartavya Jain

Budget Aala Re!!

Union Budget of India 2009-10 to be presented on 3rd July is without doubt one of the most awaited budgets in the history of India. It will be Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee's 4th full budget (rest three presented during Indira Gandhi's government). Undoubtedly, our dear Pranab Da has a mammoth task on hand, as he not only has thwart the galloping march of global economic recession to hurt India further, but also has to reduce the fiscal deficit (currently a humongous $62.26 billion). After handing UPA a glorious victory and almost a stable government, the expectations of the Indian Junta are high & hopeful. The FM is well aware of this fact and rightly points out - The focus of the government is the aam aadmi with more employment & income generation schemes.

India enjoyed a gross domestic product (GDP) of over 9% for 3 years consecutively from 2004-05 to 2007-08, but India's economic progress took a beating because of the global slowdown and the GDP now is just 6.7%. Although, the stock market showed signs of revival by touching 15,000 points mark, most of the industrial sectors particularly infrastructure, exports, housing, and textiles are still reeling due to the effects of economic crisis. So, how does the newly elected government plan to bring the growth rate back to 9% ?

Disinvestment of the Public Sector Undertakings (PSUs) seems to be the answer for the funds that the government need to provide the much-needed stimulus to the economy. With Left out of the government, the government will most likely go for a big-bang disinvestment of it's stakes in blue chip companies like BSBL, MMTC, NALCO, NTPC, NMDC, and Coal India. It is expected that the government will add $94.77 billion to its kitty by selling it's stakes in these companies. Infact, at the current market rate the divestment of 10% in BSNL alone could fetch the government a meaty Rs. 20,000 crore (Courtesy: Times of India). The auction of 3G spectrum and the public issues of companies like Oil India, RITES, and NHPC will further increase the government's spending power. If the sale goes as expected, the infrastructure sector seems to be the biggest beneficiary of the increased government spending and it will mean a green blinker for various gigantic road and energy projects.

The economic recession has also bolstered the government's appetite to surge the foreign direct investment (FDI) in the insurance and pension sectors from 26% to 49%. Indian government is also likely to dilute it's ownership in retail & banking sector to increase the foreign currency reserves. However, Congress's key allies TMC and DMK have already given indications that the government's path to divestment & foreign investment will not be hassle free and it will be interesting to see how does the government pushes it's liberal economic agenda. Will the government keep atleast 51% equity in the PSUs? Mostly yes, but we will have to wait and see!!

Despite providing the loan waivers to the farmers and lifting the ban on exports of wheat & non-basmati rice, the agriculture sector which supports two-thirds of India's population, is under crisis. The under-performance of the agricultural sector apart from various external factors has led to the increase in price of the essential commodities. Nearly one-third of India's total population lives in extreme poverty and slashing the prices of these commodities is of paramount importance for the government. The government is expected to boost the agricultural sector by providing cheaper credit, fertilizer subsidies, easing the curbs on grain exports and future trade, and improving the irrigation facilities. On a different note, the government should also promote organic farming, which as compared to conventional farming can yield greater productivity & returns on a small area of land.

India's second largest employer textile industry is one of the most hard-hits by recession with job loses touching 1 million mark. The industry is highly unlikely to meet its target of $40 billion in exports by 2009-10 pertaining to the lack of competitiveness and the economic slump. The budget will cater this issue by mobilising funds to build technologically advanced manufacturing facilities and urging the banks to provide credit at low interest rates. The proposal of scrapping the import duties on synthetic fibre will surely surely help the industry in cutting costs by 5-7%.

Deregulating the auto-fuel prices is another critical issue which Mukherjee may address in his budget. The trio of Indian Oil, Hindustan Petroleum (HP), and Bharat Petroleum (BP) registered a combined losses of Rs. 1 trillion by March 31 2009, mainly due to selling the fuel at government mandated prices. The proposed move is likely to help these companies to cut down the losses.

Indian Junta is also expecting the finance minister to reduce their tax burden by increasing the income tax slabs, which in turn may propel consumer spending and generate demand. India Incorporation is also looking to get a relief in taxes by atleast 5 percentage points. The IT industry already stunned by the indications of US probable move towards protectionism, is expecting the government to bail them by extending the Software Technology Parks of India (STPI) scheme for atleast 5 years and abolishing the fringe benefit tax (FBT).

Government spending on education, health, and employment programmes is going to be high. According to the Assocham (Associated Chambers of Commerce & Industry of India), a stimulus package of Rs. 1 trillion should be announced to put a major thrust in the real estate, housing, and construction sectors. However, considering the high fiscal deficit Pranab Mukherjee has warded off the industry against any expectations to receive big sops and incentives. Government is wary of the fact that it's national rural employment scheme & mollification of the farmer's loans in the last term has led to a tremendous increase in the fiscal deficit. So, this union budget will be a litmus test for Pranab Mukherjee & Co. as not only will they have to ensure the economic growth momentum, but also will to have keep the fiscal prudence in mind.

Well for all the Indians, the expectations are really high as they have done extremely well by giving Congress led UPA a clear majority and by denying Left any role in decision making. Now it's time for the government to live up to the expectations of the Indian Junta, deliver their promises, and come down to business. After all victory does not come at no cost!!

-Kartavya Jain

Racism: Is India Any Different?

Racism, the hated yet globally omnipresent phenomenon is in the headlines again. There has been a spate of vicious attacks on the Indian students studying in Australia in the last month or so, including the attack on a student from Andhra Pradesh which left him in a extremely critical condition. Needless to mention, the attacks and the lacklustre response of Australian authorities led to a spark of protests by the Indian government and the Indian community throughout the globe. The protest was legitimate and as was the desire to live securely in a peaceful society. The Indian media went a step ahead and labelled the entire country as 'Racist' and some groups flagged slogans such as 'Boycott Australia.'

While, I seriously condone the attacks on Indian students in down under and hope that the culprits are put behind the bars soon, are we justified in terming the entire country as 'Racist'? Agreed, there are people with racist mindset in Australia, but which country does not. How sensible is it to label the citizens of an entire nation as racists, because of the misdoings of a few hoodlums? The news channels as irresponsible as they can be have hyped up the issue to increase their viewership and TRP ratings, caring less about the aftermath effects of this generalisation. Has media been thoughtful of the repercussions which approximately 90,000 Indian students and a huge number of Indians families who will continue to stay in the Oz land face?

On one hand, I am happy to see that all the Indians are united against the attacks on their countrymen in a different country, but on the other hand what amazes me is where does our sense of countrymenship goes when it comes to racism in our own country. The racist comment on Shilpa Shetty (Bollywood actress) on a British TV reality show saw such an outrage from Indians that Jade Goody had to apologize publicly. Great work India, but where does this anger disappear when it comes to similar or even more offensive racial discrimination within India. The people from north eastern states are referred with derogatory names and looked down upon because of their eating habits in various parts of India. Is that not racism? Shiv Sena supremo Bal Thackrey against the racist attacks in Australia, wrote in an article in Saamna - “Australian players in IPL teams should be removed. Team owners like Vijay Mallya, Shah Rukh Khan and Preity Zinta should display nationalism by doing so.” Where was his feeling of nationalism, when his nephew Raj Thackerey and the MNS were vandalizing shops and beating people from UP and Bihar claiming that Mumbai belong to the Maharashtrians? Are people from UP & Bihar not citizens of India? Several cities in Gujarat have hoardings enunciating India as "Hindu Rashtra." Does a pre-dominant Hindu population makes India a Hindu nation? The North-South divide is just another example of racism.

The racism in India is not only region based, but also on the basis of religion/caste and skin color. Our obsession with skin color can be guaged from the matrimonial advertisements in the newspapers and also from the fact that the immigrant students from Africa are denied housing and termed as scary & dirty in most of our metropolitans. Caste based discrimination can be seen in India on a day to day basis. In a country that prides itself as being the world’s biggest democracy, more than 200 million people from the Dalit communities suffer from caste discrimination. So much is the level of ignorance that at the United Nations conference on Racism in 2001 in Geneva, the Indian government diplomatically ensured that topic of caste discrimination was excluded from the agenda. On the contrary, the government has made reservations for the backward communities in a plethora of government jobs and even education (whether or not they deserve it is a rabbit's chase for another day). What's the need for these reservations if there is no discrimination, is beyond my imagination? Our lack of committment to erase racism within our own country has weakened our stance to deal with racism against our countrymen abroad.

Coming back to Australia, the attacks on Indian students has to be condemned and dealt with serious concern. The Aussie authorities if they are to sustain their $2 billion education industry (just from Indians) and maintain its nick name of 'God's own country,' should crack down on such violent acts against any community. Indians on the other hand should not only stand united when the rights of their fellow-citizens are squashed in a foreign land, but also when they are trampled within the country. The Aussies who committed the attacks must surely be punished, but at the same time we have a greater responsibility to introspect ourselves and erase racism from India first. We proclaim pride in our unity in diversity, so its our duty to ensure that despite of his/her caste, color, creed, and culture India belongs to every Indian.

-Kartavya Jain