PUBLISHED WORKS
ASIAN VOICE COLUMNIST
You say Burqa, I say Bikini.
Marmalade Drops
By Deepti V. Patel
Published in Asian Voice 14.08.2010
Last month the French lower house passed a law, which subject to the Senates approval in September will ban French women from wearing the burqa in public places. Any woman found in contravention of the law will be fined approximately 200 euros and any man forcing his wife to wear the burqa will be fined 40,000 euros. It will not come as a shock then, that the burqa ban is already causing much controversy not only within the Muslim community in France but across the world. Is this a microcosm of S. P Huntington's clash of civilisations or can the French state successfully liberate women - forcibly?
It was the French philosopher Jean Jacques Rousseau who famously wrote in his Social Contract, the oxymoron, that it was the role of the State to force man to be free. Now Rousseau we can safely assume did not have the burqa in mind when he wrote his famous treatise on freedom. Several centuries later this is effectively the idea underpinning this piece of legislation. In the West the burqa is viewed as an icon of misogyny and modern politics. However amongst its wearers, Muslim women, the burqa has mixed reviews. Some women love their burqa they feel free behind it, they enjoy the anonymity the power of knowing they choose who can look at them. Others find it restrictive, a form of control over everything they do, it overshadows the inhabitants identity taking on an identity they did not choose for themselves.
France is not the first country to take such measures. The full veil was banned in Turkey some time ago however since 2008 a law was passed relaxing previous legislation as it had gained some what of a comeback. Earlier in this year Syria banned the niqab from being worn in universities or schools as it was viewed as a symbol of radical Islamic politics in a country which views itself as secular.
When we stop and pause it does seem strange that on the one hand we have male religious clerics stating women are required to wear the burqa and on the other hand male politicians stating women are now banned from wearing the burqa. Where in all of this decision wrangling did a Muslim woman get a choice which is the whole point of sorry story in the first place. Effectively the burqa debate boils down to choice. Choice is such a wonderful thing when we are freely able to make them. A woman's clothing is about choice. Some women love bikinis they feel powerful and beautiful, others dread the summer months because of a fear of what they will look like on the beach.
Burqa or bikini its a woman's fundamental right to choose what she wears and a ban on that, is a ban on the freedom of self expression. History dictates once something has been prohibited it normally becomes even more popular and leads to subversion. If it is real change the French government seeks then they should seriously consider adopting another strategy.
The Pre-Nup Conundrum
Marmalade Drops
By Deepti V. Patel
Published in Asian Voice 03.06.2010
Last month saw heiress of German paper fortune Katrin Radmacher awaiting Supreme Court decision over the validity of her pre-nuptial agreement. Her husband, Mr Granatino, a former City banker, agreed that he would not make a claim against her fortune in the event of a divorce. Now eight years, two children and one broken marriage later, Mr Granatino is making a claim citing that he didn't know the extent of her wealth when they got married. This only serves to highlight the purpose of the agreement in the first place protection of assets. Its a hard subject to debate - on the one hand marriage is about risk and taking a leap of faith but on the other with the increasing divorce rate, not addressing the issue doesn't mean it will simply solve itself. Is signing a pre-nup, pre-empting your divorce or is it the key to a happy modern marriage?
Here are the two potential scenarios facing any newly married couple a long, happy marriage or a decade or so of marriage, two children and a divorce lawyer. The latter scenario is not desirable, but the fact that there are divorce lawyers employed means that it is a possibility. Then there are two types of divorces. The first where the couple wisely put bitter feelings aside and amicably agreed to divide assets and move on, spending less on lawyers. Or sadly the more likely scenario there is one bitter party who would rather decimate the matrimonial assets rather than see their former spouse obtain it. Generally speaking, this arises where one spouse has accumulated most of the wealth, be it through inheritance or hard work, and the other party has nothing to lose in wiping it out. No one tends to start off wanting to be that bitter spouse.
If that's the end where do we start? If the marriage starts afoot on material inequality then a well drafted pre-nup clarifies the position for both parties. Talking about money can be like the elephant in the room that neither party wants to broach. However ideally it should be one of the first things you have an understanding about or else daily life thereafter might be some variant of hell. And if intellectually parties have different positions, at this stage, obtaining independent advice before getting a pre-nup signed is probably the least of your future worries.
Pre-nup or no pre-nup there is nothing in an agreement to provide a safety net for the heart or the time and energy spent creating a family. There is no monetary amount that will truly compensate for when that fails. Ultimately marriage will always be about a leap of faith and ideally, a pre-nup, if signed, is like insurance, just another dusty piece of paper in the filing cabinet.
NEW STATESMAN
Truth from all sources
In the first of our series of blogs from women involved in interfaith work Deepti Patel
17 DECEMBER 2007
From an early age, I can distinctly remember being fascinated by different cultures and faiths, and the many similarities and connections between each. I would spend hours tucked away on a bay window in my school library, on my ‘amazing quest to discover the truth’.
Looking back, it is clear the appeal of inter-faith and youth community work for me stemmed from my desire to fit into a world that didn’t understand my own cultural and faith background. When I changed schools, I remember signing a statement agreeing to participate in the school’s Church of England services, school assemblies and so forth. I remember my mother that day, giving me a classic piece of Hindu philosophy based upon a simple analogy: if God resides at the summit of a mountain, all paths to the top are equal as they reach the same destination.
My inter-faith work has, and I hope will, keep enlightening me. Recently we at the Hindu Council have been supporting the Burmese Buddhist monks by keeping vigil, protesting and campaigning. In conversation one night with a Burmese student, as we sat in our tent across from Parliament, I was truly humbled and inspired, in a way that only someone who has experienced atrocities and forgiven them can instil such an array of emotions and hope.
A fortnight ago the Children’s Commissioner organised the ‘11 million Takeover Day’. I spent the day at the Ministry of Justice mentoring inner city London children from all backgrounds, the purpose of which was to encourage engagement and understanding of the democratic process. Future projects I aim to help organise are orientated around using the arts to elevate inter-faith and cross-cultural dialogue and understanding.
With the festive season upon us, I find it disheartening when I hear of Scrooge-like behaviour. Christmas is one of my favourite times of the year. Bizarrely, this sometimes surprises people. It seems quite simple to me, there are some things about this time of year that transcend the religious construct: family gatherings, the feeling of community and, at the risk of sounding much like a Miss World contestant, a time of the year when we contemplate and appreciate all that we have.
Being brought up in England, that time for introspection has naturally been Christmas. If I had been born elsewhere it would inevitably be another festival involving similar principles. I think it is fear of losing some misplaced notion of preserving one's identity that stops some people from learning about other faiths and cultures. For me extracting parallels creates an invisible way within me to feel closer to humanity, in a world where alas people are increasingly becoming more isolationist. We are all connected more than we think, if one simply took the time to look to the substance rather than solely the form.
Recently a good friend recounted a conversation that she had had with her parents about me. The discussion had led to a point where she claimed she didn’t have any Indian friends, to which her mother replied ‘Well, what about Deepti?’ My friend went on to explain, in a way that to me is reminiscent of a rare childlike obliviousness towards race and creed, that she just had not really seen me as specifically Indian, although obviously she knows that I am and what that means to me.
This is the very same woman, who claims she isn’t that culturally aware. I beg to differ. I only wish more people looked at each other the way she sees me, with no labels or preconceptions, just the individual as they are. That to me is the whole point of inter-faith and inter-community work, indeed of being human.
