During the FRG meeting this week, we began discussing, and exploring, the connection between women's clothing (cloaking) of the body, and the space that a body occupies. Jameela Nishat's play, "Purdah" [curtain/veil] addresses these issues by calling the Islamic burqa a portable room, or closet, which immediately undermines the current construction of the burqa as a cloaking device that seeks to render femininity invisible in the public domain. The play suggests, however, that the burqa may render femininity invisible, but makes the female body highly visible, a "subject" of the male gaze. The one character who wears the burqa on the street, however, is the only one capable enough (brave enough?) to return the gaze, to give as good as she gets. The question we attempted to address in such a complex representation of the veiled body is: what does this particular character's response say about the assumptions that the veil is a manifestation of the patriarchal oppressive machinery?
Another interesting avenue opened up by the play is Nishat's (assumed) play with lighting and disembodied voices that question the necessity for veiling the female body. The written version of the play that we have provides very little stage direction. We are assuming that scene 3 (in which multiple, unidentified, voices make numerous statements about the impact of the veil on women's lives) takes place in total darkness, with little or no light. If that indeed is true, then is the stage transformed into the dark interior, presumably the inside of a burqa? What does that suggest about space, body, performance and voice in a feminist context? Is she suggesting that the cloaking of a female body is more than a religious issue?
Following is a link to a poem by Nishat, entitled "Wearing a Burqa", one that highlights some of the issues we've been addressing in our meetings and discussions. Since the play under discussion is not readily available, the poem should help launch some interesting discussions about the role of religion, culture and cloaks in women's lives. Even though the context of the poem (and the play) is quite specific--both are addressing an audience that presumably reads and understands Urdu, and is, thus, part of the North Indian Muslim population--the poem itself seems to transcend issues of translation and cultural specificity. Any comments, questions, suggestions about the material are welcome. Hopefully, we can launch a productive discussion around these issues.
http://india.poetryinternationalweb.org/piw_cms/cms/cms_module/index.php?obj_id=10034&x=1
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I think that the poem nicely deconstructs the tension that is assumed in the wearing of a burqa. If we are to assume that the lighting effects in the play are there to mimic the burqa, the poem seems to be the flip side of this. It is also interesting that it is through a movement into a dark space (ie the cinema) that one is requested to remove the burqa.
In the poem, she seems to be playing a lot with the colour of the burqa itself--she focusses on black which makes the interior of the cinema rather dangerous. She also talks about men's rods and the moral police, both of which are highly sexualized images. In colloquial Urdu, a penis is often referred to as a "danda", a rod, which in turn is carried by policemen, who, quite literally, rape women prisoners with their rods, never with their penises...a lot can be said about the reference to the waving of the rods. In Pakistan, and I think in India as well, cinemas are spaces used by men for masturbation. How significant that her Burqa came off after the exposure to the cinema. Is she taking it off as a protest, or rejecting the symbol of virginity in favor of something else?
With the cultural context that you have given us Amber, the poem seems even more fraught with sexual tension, as well as socio- political tension. This removal of the burqa (in protest I would assume) can be tied to the refusal of the wife to wear the head scarf in front of her male relatives in Jahan's play.
isn't it significant, though, that she takes it off only in front of her personal relatives, not the world at large? the link to protest and removal of scarf is interesting, but fraught with tensions i think.
Post a Comment