Over at The Nation, there’s an article on an interesting new book called The Politics of the Veil by historian Joan Wallach Scott, which examines the French obsession with the Muslim’s woman’s headscarf or foulard islamique. Muslim girls in France often face non-admission or expulsion from school when they choose to wear a headscarf. The Politics of the Veil gives us a history of the controversy and Wallach Scott’s research is apparently “broad and exhaustive.The article is a snapshot of what one can expect from the book and gives a brief history of the controversy. It also talks about some of the different factors involved in this debate — secularism, national identity, the idea of a homogeneous European female identity, and sexual liberation. She makes an interesting point about the last.

In reality, both Islamic Sharia and strict French laïcité produced gender systems that essentially deprived women of the right to dispose of their bodies as they wished. Indeed, in Islamic tradition, women are urged to be modest and to steer clear of tabarruj. This Arabic noun has its roots in the verb baraja, which means “to display” or “to show off,” and the noun can be translated as something like “affectation.” In A Season in Mecca, his narrative book about the pilgrimage, Moroccan anthropologist Abdellah Hammoudi uses the term “ostentation” to translate tabarruj, “the invariable term for a bearing that is deemed immodest or conspicuous, a hieratic stance.” Similarly, the French law born out of strict definitions of laïcité warned schoolgirls about displaying “conspicuous” signs of religious affiliation. In short, the battle between the two modes of thinking was played out in women’s bodies.

As usual, individual freedom is forgotten in the bid to fit people into strict ideological moulds. It is disturbing how even ideologies that originally start on the premise of “freeing” a certain group of people end up being restrictive and determining, and therefore ultimately oppressive, in their own way.

The headscarf issue is complex because it is rooted in several questions. How does one negotiate the path between religious freedom and secularism? What does secularism mean? The absence of religion or the freedom to practice whatever you want. If it is the latter, where do you draw the line when it comes to regulated institutions like schools? The Sikh turban, the Muslim hijab, the sacred thread worn by Hindu Brahmins, the Christian crucifix pendant — all of these are religious symbols. Banning one while allowing others is unfair but the more ‘visible’ ones tend to come under more fire than others.

Also, how realistic is it in this age of global migration to hold on to ‘national idenity’ with steely fingers. As people move around more and there are more migrants in every place, there is bound to be upheaval and redefinition of national identity. Whole masses of people cannot be expected to drop all the habits, customs and affiliations that they have been practicing for centuries. They probably would not be able to even if they tried.

In another incident just last month, British MP Jack Straw sparked off an argument around the niqab because he said it was a “visible statement of separation and of difference” and asked women visiting his surgery to consider removing it. The niqab, unlike the hijab which covers only the head, is a veil that covers most of the face, leaving the space around the eyes open. From the BBC report.

Mr Straw was putting women “into a very awkward position by compromising the faith they believe in and that is ill-placed”, Council of Lancashire Mosques chairman Hamid Kureshi told BBC Radio Five Live.

And a political rival - Liberal Democrat constitutional affairs spokesman Simon Hughes - questioned whether it was Mr Straw’s place to question the way that members of the public dressed.

“I don’t think it’s the job for somebody who represents the whole community to say to somebody who comes through the door, ‘Do you mind if you dress differently in order to talk to me?’,” Mr Hughes said.

With time, European countries will need to loosen their construct of national identity and give up on conventional notions of people looking and behaving tidily similar. Diversity does breed some amount of chaos. And chaos is not always bad. We cannot pay lip service to concepts like racial equality and diversity without making space for what that means in real terms. All people come with baggage. People from different races, religions and sexes come with different kinds of baggage. Asking them to leave that baggage at the door is hardly in keeping with the larger goals of unity and tolerance.

I came across this article in Ode Magazine today. It talks about what the West can learn from the rest of the world and highlights some key values, habits and priorities in countries in Africa and Asia. As someone from the ‘rest of the world’, and because India featured more than once, it was interesting to see that some things that one considers rather commonplace in one’s own culture are thought of as worth learning by someone, somewhere else. Undoubtedly, if I put together a similar list, it would reflect things about other cultures that they take for granted.

Anyway, the article talks about learning humility from Sri Lanka, community and raising children from Kenya, democracy from Ghana, work from Nigeria, the village from Tanzania, and ingenuity, non-violence, yoga and food from India. My favourite is happiness from Bhutan:

The king of Bhutan introduced the concept of gross national happiness (GNH), which is based on the idea that true development of society takes place when material and spiritual development occur side by side to complement and reinforce each other. That’s why for the past two decades, happiness has been incorporated as a guiding principle in Bhutan’s policies.

Over the years, we’ve made Bhutan greener than most countries and despite the advent of satellite TV and the Internet, the social fabric is still intact. These policies have also made Bhutan more secure than ever before. To us, these are all indications that our policies are beginning to realize the goal of making people happy. And that’s what all of us want: to find more ways we can engage in the pursuit of happiness.

An entire country which pursues happiness — what can be more fabulous than that? No countries from South East Asia and the Middle East feature. Zen and the art of eating fish from Japan? Martial arts and food from China? Well, I suppose it’s impossible to be really inclusive in any list.

Increasingly, there’s a lot of thrust on cross-cultural learning and the importance of understanding other cultures because of the shrinking world we live in. With the Internet at our disposal, it’s easier than ever before to know about other cultures — at least at a prima facie or superficial level. Whether or not, this fuels more unity is still debatable. In some case, knowledge does equal understanding and better empathy. But in others, a single cultural tradition or habit that you find distasteful or unethical can turn you off a particular culture and prevent you from caring enough to find out about other aspects. Sometimes, there is an uneasy balance of respect of repugnance. On the whole, I would say it’s better to know rather than not. I think one of the measures of the Internet’s success is that there is still a great deal of communication and harmony between individuals in different countries today despite overwhelming counter factors like terrorism and war.

The Centre for Intercultural Learning and the Cultural Profiles Project are great sites for those who want to know more about people elsewhere in the world. Go on, take a virtual dip into another culture. Have fun!

Every now and then, somebody does a study on which countries are the best to live in. The latest is a Reader’s Digest study which has declared that Finland is at the top of the heap. The study was conducted by US environmental economist Matthew Kahn and this may explain why apart from the factors usually considered, environmental ones were also taken into account. The Nordic countries are the greenest in the world according to the study so Finland was closely followed by Iceland, Norway, Sweden and Austria.

“Finland wins high marks for air and water quality, a low incidence of infant disease and how well it protects citizens from water pollution and natural disasters,” the study said.

The United States was 23rd on the list of 141 countries, Britain was 25th and China 84th. Nations at the bottom of the table were all African. Stockholm scored as the best city to live in out of 72 major metropolitan hubs, followed by Oslo, Munich and Paris. Four German cities won a spot in the top 10 list. New York was 15th and London 27th.

From here.

I wonder how useful such studies or polls really are. At a certain level, I can understand that it’s useful to know which places offer the best education, the most jobs, the cleanest water or freshest air. But not all human needs and wants, whims, fancies, desires and eccentricities can be neatly categorised, can they? Life, after all, is rather more complex and variegated than that. For example, New York was 15th in this study but where I come from, I meet many more people who want to live in New York than in Munich, Stockholm, Zurich or Oslo, which are usually higher up on lists like this. The reasons usually have little to do with the quality of the air, education or roads and often involve a perception of what the city offers, an imagining of how it moves and breathes, a dream.

In this column, Shashi Tharoor (a writer who I occasionally agree with) talks about the soft power of nations. Giving an example of what he means by soft power, he says:

Indian cuisine, spreading around the world, raises our culture higher in people’s reckoning; the way to foreigners’ hearts is through their palates. In England today, Indian curry houses employ more people than the iron and steel, coal and shipbuilding industries combined.

When Indian filmmakers or sportspeople succeed internationally or when Indian writers win the Booker or Pulitzer Prizes, our country’s soft power is enhanced. (Ask yourself how many Chinese novelists the typical literate American reader can name. Indeed, how many non-Western countries can claim a presence in the Occidental mind comparable to India’s?)

I think, soft powers or ’soft factors’ play an important role in people choosing where they want to live. Apart from convenience, safety and comfort, there are other things we as humans need — identity, belonging, acceptance, friendship, resonance, freedom, excitement, fulfillment and so on. And I think when choosing a country to move to (or stay in), many of us are likely to look at these factors as well.

I don’t know about the ‘best’ cities but the greatest cities are invariably not the neatest or cleanest places. They are the ones with the most history, movement, freedom or culture. They are the ones that fascinate, enthrall, excite, or even exasperate. The ones that build strong communities and stronger individuals. Of course, occasionally they get some of the basics right too.

I know many people who just want the best quality of life available out there and such studies can help them make informed choices. Then there are others who are entirely led by emotion and couldn’t care less about the smoothness of roads. I’m guessing most people are a mix of the two. What do you think?

The latest Newsweek carries a report on how xenophobia is thriving among the Alps. Peaceful Switzerland is not so peaceful, it seems, and there is trouble brewing under that pristine exterior. What’s triggered this off is a contentious election campaign poster put up by the Swiss People’s Party (SVP). The poster features three white sheep on a background of the Swiss flag — with one black sheep being kicked out. The symbolism is unmistakable.

The party claims that the poster merely promotes its plan to deport foreigners convicted of crimes. But many are not convinced and are questioning the deeper racist imagery and messaging. According to Newsweek:

The black-sheep campaign has drawn condemnation from the United Nations’ special rapporteur on racism, who says it “provokes racial and religious hatred” and should be withdrawn to restore “the image of Switzerland as a country respectful of human rights.”

The Swiss People’s Party (the Schweizerische Volkspartei or SVP) has the largest number of seats in the Swiss parliament and is a member of the country’s coalition government. This makes anything they condone or endorse a matter to be taken seriously. This Independent article questions whether Switzerland has become Europe’s heart of darkness and emphasizes SVP’s role in this.

The party has launched a campaign to raise the 100,000 signatures necessary to force a referendum to reintroduce into the penal code a measure to allow judges to deport foreigners who commit serious crimes once they have served their jail sentence.

But far more dramatically, it has announced its intention to lay before parliament a law allowing the entire family of a criminal under the age of 18 to be deported as soon as sentence is passed.

It will be the first such law in Europe since the Nazi practice of Sippenhaft – kin liability – whereby relatives of criminals were held responsible for their crimes and punished equally.

The party has also launched a campaign for a referendum to ban the building of Muslim minarets, which has raised hackles.

Traditionally, Switzerland has been known for its stable political structure. But according to political expert Wof Linder, the run-up to the parliamentary elections on October 21 have been more aggressive than ever before and decidedly “un-Swiss”.

The tone has become harsher, but also rougher. I’m thinking here of the People’s Party, which has overstepped over the mark with its posters where the [white] sheep throw the black sheep out of Switzerland.

But it’s a similar story with the [centre-left] Social Democrats as one of their posters shows a plane crashing into a nuclear power plant. These are examples of things which have really overstepped the mark compared with the usual political style.

The SVP’s hard-line, anti-immigrant tactics garnered 26.2 per cent of the vote four years ago and latest polls show that it may achieve the same this time around. But the issues symbolized by a black sheep on a poster are much larger than one election campaign. They’re about identity, fear and belonging. As the Independent points out:

What is at stake here in Switzerland is not merely a dislike of foreigners or a distrust of Islam but something far more fundamental. It is a clash that goes to the heart of an identity crisis which is there throughout Europe and the US. It is about how we live in a world that has changed radically since the end of the Cold War with the growth of a globalised economy, increased immigration flows, the rise of Islam as an international force and the terrorism of 9/11. Switzerland only illustrates it more graphically than elsewhere.

Slow down my beating heart
Man dreams one day to fly
A man takes a rocket ship into the skies
He lives on a star that’s dying in the night
And follows in the trail
The scatter of light

~ In a Little While, U2

The latest New Yorker cover story is about a truly “global musician”– Manu Chao. Chao’s latest album “La Radiolina” has 22 tracks in five different languages. Including English which he gleaned from music and crime novels while growing up. For those familiar with his style, this is nothing surprising. Considered the pioneer of Latin alternative music, Chao sings in French, Spanish, Arabic, Galician, Portuguese, English and the Senegalian language Wolof. Here is the New York Times review of La Radiolina and you can listen to samples here.

Elaborating on Chao’s multiculturalism, The New Yorker article informs us that:

Chao maintains apartments in Paris and Barcelona, and spends part of each year in Fortaleza, a town in northern Brazil, where his eight-year-old son lives. He is completing an album of songs in Portañol (a hybrid of Spanish and Portuguese) and collaborating on another, with patients in a psychiatric hospital in Buenos Aires.

Fascinating. I haven’t heard Chao yet but I will run out and get myself the CD soon.

This does make me wonder about something else though. Foreign travel has always been something of a privilege, a badge to be worn proudly. With words like “global citizenship” and “multiculturalism” becoming common parlance, it’s become almost a mark of something more — superior sensibilities and an evolved sense of humanity.

But being “global” doesn’t always come cheap. Maintaining apartments in multiple countries comes at a price. As does jetting around the world — even on cheaper flights. Vast numbers of people, especially in developing countries, may not be able to invest so much in developing a multicultural identity. Or their money may be better spent elsewhere.

But world travel has become more than a practical or even recreational need. It has become something of a coveted title. To some people, the stamped passport is probably as important as a doctoral degree. What does this mean for those who can’t or don’t “achieve international exposure” for whatever reason? Will they increasingly become something of a lower caste in this new kind of elitism? Or will they find other ways to engage with the world? There are other issues involved as well. Immigration has wider economic, social and cultural impact. Air travel is increasingly being looked at as an environmental hazard.

Not for one moment am I espousing that we should chain ourselves to our chairs. That we shouldn’t stand awe-struck before the Pyramids or gape at the Niagara. Taste the desert thirst in deepest Sahara. Sit at a Parisian cafe, moon over Italian sculptures, gaze into the waters at Venice. Drink Turkish coffee or cavort with kangaroos down under. All I’m saying is that as we move forward — and around — at dizzying speed, we shouldn’t forget some of the larger issues. Even if they slow us down just a little bit.

Meanwhile, here are some tips on greener travel.

The NY Times asks its readers an interesting question:

A charter school in Florida has come under fire for tying its Hebrew-language based curriculum to religion. Opponents of the Ben Gamla Charter School say that it is impossible to teach Hebrew — and aspects of Jewish culture — outside of a religious context.

How do you feel about publicly financed schools that cater to particular languages or cultures?

I think the question can be broadened to how important a role culture should play in education at all, which demands a closer look at the interplay between culture and society. The Dictionary of Modern Sociology defines culture as “the total, generally organized way of life, including values, norms, institutions, and artifacts, that is passed on from generation to generation by learning alone.” So culture is both integral to a person and inherited from the past. Because it defines so much of how a person should live, it forms a crucial component of his or her identity.

But in an increasingly globalized world, people often have to learn new ways of life and unlearn what has been passed down to them. This can lead to people feeling confused, overwhelmed or unanchored from their identity — psychological conditions that can have far-reaching impact on social interaction and relationships. Increasing globalization, travel and immigration are creating more subcultures within nations, which means that questions surrounding this are assuming center-stage.

Traditionally, the tricky business of culture has been negotiated in different ways. Countries have adopted approaches ranging from monoculturalism (when in Rome be as the Romans are) to multiculturalism (be yourself even while in Rome) and melting pot (do whatever comes naturally). But the thorniest angle of culture is always values.

In a perfect world, we would all believe in the same basic values and uphold the same fundamental rights. But this is not really the case, is it? Varying rules and attitudes regarding relationships, sex, marriage, divorce and recreation prevail in different cultures. Where does one draw the line between respecting other cultures and condoning heinous practices? How far should a state go to maintain and encourage subcultures without endangering the fundamental principles of its nationhood? Walking the tightrope between respecting cultural diversity and building a world that is safe and free for all remains one of the key challenges of our times.

I tend to agree with this view on the politics of culture:

When culture is treated as nothing more than an innocent accretion of solutions and practices, and each culture is seen as something inviolate, then all cultures are accepted at face value and cultural relativism is the suggested standard. So we hear that we should avoid ethnocentrism and respect other cultures. To be sure, after centuries in which indigenous cultures have been trampled underfoot by colonizers, we need to be acutely aware of the baneful effects of cultural imperialism and of the oppressive intolerance manifested toward diverse ethnic cultures within our own society.

But the struggle to preserve cultural diversity should not give carte blanche to anyone in any society to violate basic human rights. Many patriarchal cultures, for example, are replete with “sacrosanct customs” that, on closer examination, promote the worst kinds of gender victimization, including the mutilation of female children through clitorectomy and infibulation, and the sale of young girls into sexual slavery.

If one applies to this to the debate around education, the answer seems simple enough — conditional support. But examining what these conditions should be and defining them accurately and precisely is required as a first step towards a pluralistic world that still has some basics in common.

Everyone’s talking about the world becoming smaller. We live in a time when geographical boundaries have blurred to an extent and phrases like the “global village” have found their way into our lexicon. This NY Times article points out that “global demographics are shifting” with international migrants becoming more skilled and educated than they have been traditionally.

The number of college-educated migrants in rich Western countries rose 69 percent from 1990 to 2000, according to a World Bank analysis prepared for The New York Times. By contrast, the number of less-educated migrants rose 31 percent.

The article also talks about how it has becoming easier for the educated to be mobile and treat the world as their playground—or in this case, workplace. Unlike unskilled migrants, they are welcomed and feted because every country wants brainy people working in it—and for it.

Better economic prospects, improved lifestyle, different choices, and the opportunity to see an alternative culture are some of the factors that drive immigrants but moving to another country also involves huge scale disruption and displacement. While skilled workers can fall back on various social and material perks to cheer themselves up, unskilled migrants get the unbuttered side of the bread. And yet, it’s dangerous to ignore them as history has proven time and again.

Migration is a complex subject because of the many economic and social implications attached to it—brain drain, remittances, integration—and governments need to take it very seriously. Some things have been happening on this front. In 2005, the European Union came up with a framework for the integration of immigrants, which is available here. Last year, the United Nations recommended that a global consultative forum be formed to promote inter-governmental dialogue on migration. The first meeting of this forum was held in Brussels last month. They came up with a comprehensive list of recommendations including easier remittance transfer mechanisms, flexibility in visas and residential status of skilled migrants so that they can return periodically and contribute to home country development, and recognition of domestic work as ‘work’. Read the full report here.

Despite the world getting flatter, as Thomas Friedman so famously put it, rich countries still guard their territorial borders rather zealously. Particularly, unskilled migrants are often viewed with suspicion or as inferior citizens. British economist Philippe Legrain makes a compelling case for welcoming more immigrants into richer countries—even the unskilled ones—in his book “Immigrants: Your Country Needs Them”.

Over the next twenty years, the supply of potential migrants in poor countries is likely to continue rising. While rich countries’ baby-boom generation are nearing retirement age, poor countries’ much younger baby-boomers are just starting to enter the labour market. Many of these young people will be tempted by the prospect of a better life in North America, Europe or Australia, especially since moving to a foreign land seems less daunting now that there are established immigrant communities in most rich countries. At the same time, the demand for migrants in rich countries is set to rise, as ageing populations and shrinking workforces put a strain on businesses, economies and government finances. With more old people around, the demand for services such as nursing care will soar. With more rich people around, the demand for services such as cleaning and restaurant work will also grow fast. Since people in rich countries increasingly turn their noses up at such jobs, the demand for immigrants to fill them will inevitably rise. Demand for skilled immigrants is also likely to increase, as companies, cities and countries compete for an advantage in the global marketplace by trying to hire the most talented people, most of whom will increasingly come from poor countries, where the number of university graduates is rising fast.

Read the entire excerpt here.

The NY Times has an interesting snapshot of global migration on its site, which records that about 3 per cent of the world’s population lived outside their country of birth in 2005. Predictably, the US had the largest share of the world’s migrant population and the second highest was in Germany. India, Mexico and China are the countries where migrants send home the most money. Dilip Ratha, a Senior Economist in the World Bank and Task Manager of the Global Economic Prospects 2006, has also spoken about how remittances can reduce poverty in this paper.

Remittances provide a convenient angle for approaching the complex migration agenda. They play an effective role in reducing poverty. Since remittances are personal flows from migrants to their friends and families, they tend to be well targeted to the needs of the recipients. And these flows typically do not suffer from the governance problems that may be associated with official flows.

There are many arguments for governments accepting international migration and putting into place policies to smoothen the ride, rather than making it more arduous. How far they go in actually implementing measures towards this is something that remains to be seen.

If you want to move to another country, consider Munich. A Monocle study of the world’s 20 most liveable cities has named Munich, Germany’s Die Weltstadt mit Herz (global city with a heart) and home of its legendary Oktoberfest, number one. Apart from great infrastructure, low crime, plenty of beer and the best electric lighting in Europe, Munich also offers august soil. Stalwarts like Kandinsky, Marc, Klee, Strauss, Ibsen and Mann have called Munich home at some point.

The Danes can take a bow. Copenhagen, Denmark, is at second place with factors such as efficient public transport, the extension at the city’s airport, a well developed bicycle network, the café culture, and design and creativity contributing to the win.

Zurich, Switzerland’s largest city, is third on the list. Known for its safety and high quality of life, Zurich usually comes out tops in surveys of this kind. Having the highest number of public baths in the world can’t hurt either.

Also in the top 10 are Tokyo, Vienna, Hel Sinki, Sidney, Stockholm, Honolulu and Madrid.

These are difficult times. Today itself, 33 people were killed in bomb attacks in Pakistan. Waking up to reports of war and terror have become commonplace and we have learned to take for granted that our world is in perpetual conflict.

Noted Canadian author Margaret Atwood said: “I hope that people will finally come to realize that there is only one ‘race’ - the human race - and that we are all members of it.” But some days, it’s hard to wake up and feel a sense of kinship with the person living next door, let alone with someone living in another country. Yet, now more than ever, it’s important to feel this. Because in times of trouble, the world needs as many missives of peace as it can get.

The irony is that it’s never been easier for people to step over boundaries, see other places, understand other cultures, befriend people in distant lands. With globalization and increased travel, people are country-hopping at an alarming rate. Apart from this, technology has created shared spaces where the entire world can commune. In ancient times, people gathered around a bonfire to talk, share, feel the spirit of “community”; now, they power up laptops, click on the browser icon. The worldwide web is the modern-day bonfire. All this should lead to an unprecedentedly unified world.

But like with most other things, destructive forces seem to have the upper hand here as well. Terrorists and war-mongers are using the advantages of mobility and technology far more effectively than the millions toiling to eradicate poverty and disease, fight social injustice and bring about reform. Is it because the numbers are fewer? Or does it boil down to some ancient metaphysical law on good versus evil.

Perhaps, it’s because the positive voice is far more feeble. Most ordinary people who just want to live and let live–tend to do exactly that. They go to work, spend time with the family, hang out at a bar with friends, look after their kids. They don’t usually have the time and energy left over to spread passionate messages, torment other people or plan massive projects. Look at most discussions on message boards and blogs. After a point, the sensible comments will be overwhelmed by hateful messages with illogical arguments or personal attacks. Flamers and trolls just seem to have so much energy! To fight them, we must match their loudness of voice and passionate energy. In the virtual world–and outside it.

Secondly, the lines between right and wrong are often blurry and there are eternal debates about what makes one person’s view more ‘good’ than another’s. All things considered, I think it’s safe to say that causing damage and death willfully is wrong. If one functions with that as a basic, it can’t be that hard to figure out the rest.

This weekend, a large number of people will be unified by one thing. The last book in the hugely popular Harry Potter series will be released on Saturday and children (and adults) across the globe will devour the 900 or so pages to see if Harry finally vanquishes Voldemort. I am confident that most are hoping that good will ultimately win over evil. For now, that will have to suffice. In the real world, things aren’t so simple.