Fears of Islamic radicalisation have made the issue increasingly hot in Astana. The Culture Minister has proposed banning the hijab and niqab, and President Tokaev himself has called them an “archaic way of dressing”, sparking protests and flash mobs on social media. The Constitution is invoked, which does not provide for such bans.
Astana () – For some time now, in Kazakhstan, as well as in Russia and other Central Asian countries, there has been a debate about the appropriateness of wearing religious clothing in public places. The debate focuses on women’s clothing, the hijab, the himar, the niqab and other more local variants, and in the last year, following several terrorist attacks and fears of Islamic radicalisation, the issue has become increasingly heated, politically and socially, as well as religiously.
One of the most charismatic MPs in the Mazilis (Astana parliament), the long-time opposition member Ermurat Bapi, has also spoken out about the need to control and limit women’s clothing, in search of solutions to preserve peace and security, and to help Kazakhstan get out of the sands of authoritarian regimes. In his opinion, the draft law under discussion should seek a “compromise between society and religion.”
It was the Minister of Culture and Information, Aida Balaeva, who proposed banning the hijab and niqab in October 2023, sparking a wave of social protests, mainly via TikTok, with young women showing themselves in continuous flashmobs wearing the reviled garments. This led President Kasym-Žomart Tokaev to propose banning TikTok, and in March this year he called the niqab an “archaic way of dressing”, imposed on Kazakh women by radical Muslim neophytes.
Bapi intervened to confirm that “the problem is not the hijab, but the fact that destructive tendencies seriously damage the national traditions of Kazakhstan… If we want to develop as a secular state, we must not be influenced by foreign political and religious ideologies, our future must remain in our own hands.” The debate in parliament is confused between the various models of religious clothing, which leave more or less visible centimeters of the woman’s face, as well as the hip and the thigh, comparing images and designs from various sources and situations.
The problem is that the Kazakh Constitution contains no prohibitions or restrictions on what citizens can wear, and jurist Maksim Mostovič recalled the various articles stating that “everyone has the right to the inviolability of his private, personal and family life, and to the protection of his honour and dignity” (Article 18), or the right to “use his native language and culture, freely choosing the forms of communication, education, instruction and creativity” (Article 19), as well as the right to “freedom of conscience” (Article 22). During the pandemic, Mostovič recalls, “everyone was wearing masks”, and there is no reason for a current ban, which would in itself be “radical and illogical”.
Such a measure would have to be justified by “the violation of the rights of third parties,” insists the lawyer, or by demonstrating that partially or almost completely covering one’s face constitutes “an attack on the constitutional order or social morality.” Many women wear such garments under duress from their husbands, and even in this case official prohibitions do not solve the problem: what is needed is a real “prevention of domestic violence,” creating centres to listen to and welcome victims of such situations.
Some women justify their hijab not only by a deeper study of religious dictates, but also by the desire to feel more protected and more serene in their inner self, while MPs “believe that every woman in a paranja or cadra is hiding a bomb,” says Ajžan Auelbekova, a Muslim activist who frequently appears in the local press. In her opinion, Ermurat Bapi “speaks irrelevantly about religious clothing, which she knows nothing about.” She also agrees that the niqab, which leaves only the slit for the eyes, “can scare people around,” and in general, the rules of the Koran only suggest covering the external forms of the body. The conclusion is that “people who follow religious commandments must first observe the laws of those who govern us, and the authorities must be able to enforce these laws without offending religious feelings and people’s freedom.”
Add Comment