New Zealand President Jacinda Ardern. (Image Credit: Reuters)
With the recent move of New Zealand’s Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern of wearing hijab to express her solidarity with the grieving family of the terror attack victims in Mosque, the discussion on her gesture of wearing Head Scarf is considered of more importance than that of her audacity to stand firm against the idea of victimising Muslims when most other countries including India is talking about punishing them reasoning the rise in terror activities across the world.
People, especially the so-called ‘Liberals’ are leaving no stone unturned in connecting the human right (Right to Clothing) with their self-defined liberalisation.
This ideology begets a larger question that demands a logical reasoning for certifying a woman ‘not liberal’ if she supports or wear hijab. Regardless of this unjustifiable logic, the rationale suggests that a woman who wears hijab is actually far more ‘Liberal’ than those who call themselves a practising Muslim but criticises the act of wearing hijab.
The general psychology behind choosing not to wear hijab of practicing-Muslim is that they will be ‘judged’. They believe that covering their head with a piece of cloth will question their recognition as a ‘Liberal’. They fear that people may change their perception, behaviour and attitude towards them. They may find it difficult to avail of their civil rights.
The fear of being judged and desperation to join the cluster of so-called-liberals push them to wear the mask of pseudo-liberalism and compromise with the authentic ideologies. What is this craving for?
At least those who opted to wear hijab are not coward as these pseudo-liberals and are daring enough to establish their identity as who they actually are. They don’t fear being judged. They are neither insecure about people’s perception or behaviour, nor being stereotyped as either bigoted or orthodox.
They strongly believe that people around them will accept them the way they are. They are confident that they can freely enjoy all the rights which the constitution offers them irrespective of their difference in clothing style. They are courageous enough to convey the message that this is a type of dressing; shariyat demands a Muslim lady to carry out.
The discussion on whether wearing a headscarf is a compulsion or a choice is the same as discussing whether practising the religion you follow is a compulsion or a choice.
A headscarf that is merely a part of women clothing cannot be associated with the woman’s freedom, right or liberalisation. Liberalisation is about economic, psychological and social freedom. Unless a woman is free to enjoy her civil rights, she is ‘Not Liberated’. So even if their right to wear Hijab is curtailed, judged or prejudiced, they are not liberated. Similarly, how can a woman (irrespective of her choice to wear or not a hijab) defending the practice of wearing hijab be termed as ‘not liberal’?
There is no reasonable justification for calling Hijab wearers an unprogressive woman. There is a huge need to understand and clear this preconceived notion of Hijab’s connection with liberalisation. And there is a humble request to stop judging ‘women in hijab’ or people defending ‘practice of wearing hijab’ as ‘not liberal’ in your bewilderedness.
the verdict 