INTRODUCTION
While women should choose what they wear, such decisions should not be forced by the state. The difference between rights and forcefully imposed-rights is a policymaker’s intention of genuine welfare. While the central tenet of democracy embraces vigilant protests against exploitation, campaigns to ‘stop extremism” sometimes come as veiled xenophobic ideals followed by extremist moves. The recent instance of Burqa ban in Sri Lanka raises similar lines of concerns. The Sri Lankan Cabinet recently adopted a contentious proposal to prohibit all types of face veils in public areas, claiming a threat to national security. Often confused with Niqab, Burqa is an enveloping outer garment used by women in various Islamic cultures that covers the body and the face, with a mesh over the eyes. With the 2019 Easter Sunday bombings in Sri Lanka as a background, there was a temporary prohibition on wearing facial coverings that might disguise someone’s identity in public, purportedly for national security reasons. Two years after a wave of coordinated terror attacks on hotels and churches on Easter Sunday, in which nine suicide bombers from the local Islamist extremist group National Thawheed Jamaat (NTJ) carried out a series of blasts tearing through three churches and as many luxury hotels, killing 270 people, including 11 Indians, and injuring hundreds more; the Buddhist-majority country temporarily banned the wearing of burqas under emergency regulations in 2019. The decision was to ban all face coverings without any specific indication to burqas. World over, people have been divided over the ban in Sri Lanka, however Tunisia, Austria, Denmark, France, Belgium, Tajikistan, Latvia, Bulgaria, Cameroon, Chad, Congo-Brazzaville, Gabon, Netherlands, China, and Morocco are among the 16 countries that have previously outlawed the burqa.
BURQA BAN: IS IT CONSTITUTIONAL?
Any restriction on religious freedom must be non-discriminatory and reasonably proportionate to preserve public safety, order, health, morality, or others’ basic rights and freedoms- with a highlight on this the UNHRC voted a robust resolution demanding that the government be held more accountable for its treatment of the people of Sri Lanka. The revelation that ministers are pushing through with the burqa ban is another breach of human rights norms, raising a concern that all Sri Lankans outside the President’s close circle are eventually vulnerable to abuse of state authority. Article 12 of the constitution of Sri Lanka provides; all people are equal before the law, and no citizen shall be discriminated against because of their race, religion, language, caste, gender, political beliefs, or place of birth. Article 14 (1) (e) guarantees the right to practise, observe, and preach one’s religion or belief.In light of these provisions in the constitution, the move of the Sri Lankan government faces the most resounding question of a democracy: Is the ban constitutional? As the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) pointed out freedom of religion and belief is guaranteed under Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), of which Sri Lanka is a signatory, the ban stands a question against international treaties.
Comparing the move of the Sri Lankan government which faced a question of interfering into the essential religious practice to an Indian government’s which had faced similar interrogations, we can draw an analogy, which has been further discussed.
A NATIONAL ANALOGY
Drawing analogical justification from the national example of abrogation of Triple Talaq, the burqa ban seeks a recourse on the grounds that it reflects beliefs oppressive to women. However, giving male politicians or police officers the ability to dictate women how to dress and use force against those who don’t comply is far from liberating. And, in practise, refusing to allow certain women to wear clothes in which they feel comfortable while out and about isolates them and exacerbates any disadvantage they experience. Mirroring the national ban on triple talaq, interrogations on whether the decision was an interference on essential religious practice, the ban triple talaq was actually backed by the exceptions in article 25 and article 14 of the Indian constitution. Article 25 contains the freedom of every individual to freely practise and promote any religion of their choosing, with the following exceptions:
1. Public Order
2. Health
3. Morality
4. Other Provisions of Part III of the Constitution
Although the claimed conduct has no bearing on the first three exceptions, it is unquestionably in violation of other requirements of Part III, including Article 14. The practise is in breach of the Fundamental Right to Equality since it violates women’s rights because, unlike in other religions, they have no voice in the pronouncement of divorce. It was decided that the contested practise is a weapon for breaking a marital bond on Husband’s whims without any attempt at reconciliation to save it. This form of Talaq therefore, is in violation of Article 14 and liable to be struck down by the courts. Concluding with “what’s bad in theology cannot be good in law”, the ban of burqas, however ring absolutely hollow of all constitutional provisions of the nation as well as the international provisions like that The United Nations Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief and the UNHRC. The prohibition stems from a deteriorating situation in Sri Lanka for Muslims, other minorities, and dissidents, which, as in the past, has opened the way for a greater loss of human rights and democracy.
CONCLUSION
The ban on burqa, blanketed under a threat to national security and coupled with a number of other restrictions on burying the deceased loved ones and closing down of madrasas has left a growing number of minorities feeling unsafe and insecure. Far from enhancing national security, a burqa ban will very certainly encourage violent extremism in the name of Islam by further alienating Muslims and supporting a political strategy built on division and abuse of power. Even those who would never wear burqas would feel humiliated by such a move, which would result in frequent flashpoints on the streets, further isolation of women, and a sense of humiliation. This would exacerbate the Muslim community’s desire for a peaceful, diversified Sri Lanka. Acts of concern and solidarity that establish bridges between communities may be needed today, especially in the thick of the epidemic, when trust and mutual care may be critical in limiting the virus’s devastating spread. Thus, this situation rings an alarm for all the policy makers and administrators to forsake sectoral interests and vote bank politics, to unite for a humanistic surviving condition in this grieving world, not just economically and medically but also politically, legally and thus socially.
