The battle of the burkini

"Vandals may strive to sack our seat of learning, And even raze it to the ground by burning, But Royal's spirit never can go cold, Her blood is Blue, her heart is solid Gold! (From a College magazine, 1961.) Who runs Royal? is the burning question in the minds of its stakeholders - parents, teachers, old boys and well wishers. Many actions of the recent past, be it by the state, the ministry or the new man at the helm, is felt by its stakeholders as not in the best interests of the school or the 8000 plus children attending it. One then can transform the burning question to read ‘Who is running Royal to the ground’?

History has shown that Royal College being the largest public school in the country serves the nation best by moulding its young men to become responsible citizens. Hence Royal's decline becomes a matter of interest not only to the immediate community interacting with the school, but also to the entire nation.

Earlier this year, the Minister of Education used his imperious powers with the country’s top Royals to evict the long time head of this august institution. Various allegations were laid across the man’s chest, some of which we are told are still under investigation. The past head, unceremoniously evicted thus, is currently languishing with no proper job to do. For the first time at Royal, the gala send off privileged for the head of the school at the end of their tenure, was not to be as his removal was quick and surgical. Many past and present Royalists were unsure of the reasons for his transfer and unhappy with the manner in which the surgery was swiftly performed. After all the man had served the school for 12 long years!

A new man was thrust upon the hallowed institution as a replacement despite serious allegations when he was at the helm of Ananda College, Colombo. Six months or more have passed with him as head, but signs are disturbing as one is at a loss to figure out as to who the real decision maker at Royal is. Many characters are seen to portray themselves as veritable play makers and or king makers.

First amongst these is a senior official planted at Royal by the ministry of educa- tion during the reign of the past Principal. He was quickly found to be wanting in ability and character and viewed by the school community as totally unworthy, unsuitable and incapable of handling a senior position in the county's largest public school. This person who, since embracing lay life, was investigated and removed from the Defence College, Colombo previously. He is toeing a Sinhala-only policy playing the nationalist card because Royal is a state school. Stakeholders are blaming the authorities in the Ministry for assigning him to Royal. After all Royal has been one of the very few secular schools in the country well represented by the country's ethnic diversity.

On the other hand a band of teachers, who have upstaged the management committee within the school and were the flag bearers in welcoming the new head when he arrived to take up the appointment, are seen to call the shots influencing the new head at each turn. This group is known to have the backing of an ex deputy Principal, who had to leave Royal under controversial circumstances with a history of creating conflicts at each of her past appointments. This nexus of influence also has within, a past retired Principal of Royal who recently was obnoxious enough to walk unannounced into a management meeting of the school to hold forth! The current teachers, the ex-deputy Principal and the past retired Principal are presiding over the demise of the great institution making administrative changes, influencing sports awards and even threatening teachers with transfers, if they don’t fall in line. It is alleged that the ex- deputy Principal wields overwhelming influence over the incumbent Minister of Education.

Another surprising play maker is the SDS committee appointed in April 2016, who for lack of better description acts the proverbial bull in the china shop! The re-emergence of a former SDS official, who held the same office a few years ago, is too good to be perceived as coincidental. The man in question held the same office under the immediate past Principal, left office with a soured relationship and campaigned heavily for the candidacy this time around. A set of teachers who vociferously supported his election were the ones who aligned with the former deputy Principal to revolt against the then Principal. It is no secret that the re-emergence of this character was not an incidence of mere chance, but was an organised move instigated from outside school quarters. The SDS official and another who is a teacher and coincidentally an old boy and parent, are dictating terms to the current Principal who remains the ex-officio President of the SDS. This ‘gang’ is today over-stepping their authority assuming leadership and dictating terms at fora such as the century old Games Council and other activities of the school. Surprisingly, the current head allows such high-handed acts to happen right under his nose claiming he has no control over these influential sorts. The actions of these SDS officers have created disgust amongst stakeholders within the school which has affected many activities of the school. The said SDS officers along with the newly appointed head, have also stated publicly that they plan to bring down a peg or two, the Royal College Union, the most revered alumni association of Royal, which has served the school in good stead for a period of over 125 years! As a wag commented 'the SDS has now become the School Destruction Society?

The irony is that, all this is happening under a regime where the Prime Minister of the country, an ardent old boy who was once an active member of the Royal College Union and 28 other old boys, are members of parliament and the bulk of them come from the ruling parties. It is impossible that these occurrences are blind to those in power and begs the question of how long this 'gang' of destructive elements are allowed to carry out the destruction of this great institution?

It is timely that those holding power take an interest in their alma-mater and act swiftly to ensure corrective action so as to preserve the traditions of Royal and not let it be governed by self-centred individuals whose short term interest is to be the play makers of the day but in the long term, destroy the long established traditions of Royal that has stood the test of time.

"When the swamp disappears, there will be no mosquitoes"

LONDON – There has been a lot of fuss lately about the handful of Muslim women who choose to bathe on French beaches wearing a special garment that covers the head (not the face), and much of the body. That garment – the so-called burkini – was invented in 2004 by an AustralianLebanese woman named Aheda Zanetti, with the goal of enabling even the strictest Muslim women to swim or play sports in public. Little did Zanetti know that her creation would generate a national controversy.

The imbroglio started when mayors in several southern French seaside towns banned burkinis on their beaches. A grotesque photograph soon appeared in newspapers around the world of three armed French policemen forcing a woman to undress on a beach in Nice. Though the ban has now been invalidated by France’s highest court, it is still enforced in several seaside resorts.

And, indeed, the controversy is far from over. Former French President Nicolas Sarkozy, who is now running for a new term, recently called the burkini a “provocation,” while Lionnel Luca, the mayor of Villeneuve-Loubet, spoke of “rampant Islamization.” The equally outraged Prime Minister Manuel Valls has called bare breasts a symbol of French republican liberty. After all, he concluded, wasn’t Marianne, the female symbol of the French Republic, usually depicted with her breasts exposed?

There is little doubt that Sarkozy’s opposition to the burkini is entirely opportunistic. The controversy represents yet another opportunity to stoke prejudice against an unpopular minority, in the hope of syphoning votes from the far-right National Front’s Marine Le Pen in the 2017 election. But, in a tradition that spans centuries of European missionary zeal, his opportunism has been cloaked in moral terms: “We don’t imprison women behind fabric.”

Sarkozy would have us believe that the ban on burkinis is really meant to liberate Muslim women from primitive restrictions imposed by authoritarian Muslim men, just as British colonial rulers once liberated Indian Hindu widows from being burned alive to accompany their spouses in death. This reflects a broader tendency, which has been gaining traction since the end of the last century, to couch anti-Muslim rhetoric in the language of human rights, as though equal rights for women or gays were ancient Western customs that must be defended against alien religious bigotry.

In Valls’s version of history, public nudity is a cherished French tradition and a sign of freedom. To be fully French, it seems, women must, like Marianne, bare their breasts.

Yet, in the nineteenth century, when Marianne became a symbol of the French Republic, nudity was acceptable only in an idealized form, in paintings or sculptures of Greek deities and other mythical heroines. It was fine to gaze at the breasts of a painted nude Marianne or Venus; but for a real, living woman to expose even part of her ankle was considered highly improper.

Of course, nowadays, these attitudes are rare in the Western world. So even though Valls’s version of history is skewed, one might argue that European Muslims who insist that women of their faith should be covered up are out of step – especially given that women sometimes have little choice in the matter.

Indeed, in some immigrant areas, Muslim women feel obliged to cover their heads, lest Muslim men see them as prostitutes, who may be molested with impunity. But this is not always the case. Some Muslim women actually choose to wear a hijab and, in rare cases, a burkini.

The question is whether the State should be determining what citizens should or should not wear. The French republican answer is that people may wear whatever they like in private, but must conform to secular rules in public.

In recent years, however, those rules have been applied more strictly to Muslims than to members of any other faith. I have not heard of policemen forcing orthodox Jewish women to bare their heads by ripping off their wigs.

Well, some might argue, orthodox Jews are not responsible for massacres in the name of their religion. And that is true. But the assumption that women in burkinis are all potential terrorists is farfetched. A woman lying on a beach in a body-covering swimsuit is probably the least likely person to start shooting or bombing.

As for the argument that Muslim women need the state to free them from Muslim men who force them to wrap their heads in scarves or cover up their bodies, the question is whether this is worth depriving other women of their choice to appear in public in these ways.

I am inclined to doubt that it is. The best way to help women escape from domestic authoritarianism is to encourage them to lead public lives as well, in schools, in offices, and on beaches. It is better for a woman to be educated in a headscarf than not to be educated at all.

For certain public functions, it is perfectly legitimate to ask people to show their faces. Some jobs come with certain dress codes. Private companies can insist on their own rules; there is no need for national legislation. The excessive imposition of conformity by the state can actually have the opposite effect than what is intended. Forcing people to adhere to a common identity fosters a rebellious insistence on difference.

It is no good telling people named Fatima or Mohammed that they are French and must adhere to the norms laid down by Sarkozy or Valls, if they are not treated as equals by people called Nicolas or Marianne. Wearing a headscarf, beard, or bodysuit can be a harmless way for humiliated people to defend their pride. Take away that pride, and defensiveness can swiftly become less harmless.

(The writer is the Professor of Democracy, Human Rights, and Journalism at Bard College, and the author of Year Zero:

A History of 1945.) Courtesy : Project Syndicate, 2016. Exclusive to the Sunday Times.www.project-syndicate.org

A grotesque photograph soon appeared in newspapers around the world of three armed French policemen forcing a woman to undress on a beach in Nice.