Identity crisis

The new law to be passed into effect by the beginning of the September 2004-2005 school year has drawn much criticism from religious groups, especially the Muslims not only in France but world-wide. The ban would also greatly affect the religious sentiments of a large Sikh community of Indian origin, who under the new law would be prohibited from wearing their turban to school. The ban on headscarves, turbans and skullcaps would lead many to withdraw from public to private religious schools. Whereby, a section of the people would end up at the outer edge and far from the mainstream of French society. The belief that such a law would protect the secular character of the Republic seems somewhat impractical in a France that is more culturally diverse than before. Paris-Normandie, a regional paper has appropriately argued:"It is a question of tackling the problems of integration, discrimination, gender equality and social and economic inequality. And it is not with a new law that such problems can be solved."

The mass migration from previous north-African colonies has brought new challenges to the French secular characteristic. The foremost being the French identity. Immigrants to France have brought with them their own culture and beliefs. It is a struggle to incorporate what they have known all their lives with what they must now learn. To the French, these new cultures and beliefs are an uncomfortable intrusion to their way of life. An apprehension echoed by Bernard Stasia, former education minister and head of a presidential 20-memeber commission that recommended the law to ban religious symbolism in school, on France-inter radio, stating: "There are indisputably Muslims or ... groups seeking to test the resistance of the republic, that bear a grudge against the values of the republic, that want France to no longer be France." The new law is a political gimmick and a twist to reinstate declining popularity to a comfortable level of political stability to win elections. The fact that regional elections are around the corner and the new law has almost 70 per cent support is not coincidental but a much considered political move.

Multiculturalism and ethnic identities are new concepts in French society and therefore there is the uneasy transition to acceptance. The headscarf, for instance, worn by many Islamic women is viewed as demeaning and infringement to women's right. It is also viewed as a symbol of a more radical Islam. But to many Muslim women the headscarf or hijab is their identity. On 21st December, 2003 Paris saw approximately 3,000 people take to the streets to protest the new law, many among them were women, girls and children wearing the headscarf. To them banning the headscarf is a violation of their rights and yet ironically to the government this is also about women's rights.

Religious symbolism does not necessarily affect the national secular character of a nation. Since the French Revolution in 1789, France has believed in the separation of the Church and the state, viewing them as independent entities. Although, secularism is a belief that forms the basis of French society, it is also a theoretical concept that does not always translate into action. In a speech on 17th December, 2004, the French President Jacques Chirac stated: "Secularism guarantees freedom of conscience. It protects the freedom to believe or not to believe. It guarantees everyone the possibility of expressing and practising their faith, peacefully and freely, without the threat of the imposition of other convictions or beliefs." At the same time the new law curbs the very religious freedom being propagated by the President.

The new law is not so much about France's secular character as it is about diversity and egalitarianism. Majority of the immigrants live outside the mainstream of French society, struggling with poverty, racism and lack of opportunities. French school calendar year is filled with Christian holidays, but ignore Muslim and Jewish holidays. In a country where there is a sizeable Muslim and Jewish population, such an issue can be seen inequitable and insensitive. Protestants, Catholics and Jews have their own religious schools under the supervision of the state, but there are none for the Muslims. Religious institutions are only eligible for state funding if it has "cultural associations." It is this sense of unbalanced secularism that creates discontentment and frustration.

The past is important and there is nothing wrong to uphold the values and freedoms that have formed the foundation of a society. But France needs to address the issue of multiculturalism that now faces a diverse ethnic and religious society. The banning of a headscarf and skullcap will make the schools uniform but not necessarily assimilate the existing difference. That has to come with understanding, tolerance and the endeavour to incorporate the new with the old. Change is an inevitable part of life, but it is the direction that makes the difference to a better future.

The French President Jacques Chirac was right when he spoke of France as: "A land of ideas and principles, France is an open, hospitable and generous country. United around a unique heritage from which they derive strength and pride, the French people enjoy a rich diversity. A diversity which is accepted and is at the heart of our identity." But words remain unfulfilled thoughts and ideals until translated into concrete reality. The new law goes beyond religious symbolism to raise issues of diversity, equality, integration, assimilation, secularism and religion. It is not an issue unique to France but a problem that many nations are confronted with today and had been in the past. So, how does a nation preserve its past and yet adjust to its present. The Future would depend on how we choose to answer it.

Fatima Chowdhury is a freelance journalist based in Kolkata