T

his refers to an article titled '€œTNI women allowed to wear hijab in Aceh only'€ (The Jakarta Post, May 29).

I don'€™t feel that allowing people to express their religious identity violates secularism. There is no merger of state and church powers at play here, merely state acceptance of the reality of religious pluralism.

I think the purpose of a secular state is to harmonize these differences and to be, as you aptly noted, as neutral as possible. Denying women the right to cover is not neutrality, in my book, by secularism for the sake of secularism.

There'€™s an argument for pragmatism in uniforms; a beard, for example, is a disadvantage in a fight. A beard is also part of sunnah (preference) dress in Islam for men the same as wearing jilbab or hijab is for women. Are beards permitted in the Indonesian Military (TNI)?

Most military structures have policies against beards, but I could swear I'€™ve seen officers in the TNI with beards. No one seems to (and again, I could be wrong here) bat an eyelid at that representation of Muslim dress.

But how about jilbab? Is it a disadvantage in a fight? Is there a purpose served in denying women a religious observance other than '€œbecause we said so?'€

Focusing on real problems involving the influence of religion is fine. Discouraging women from serving on the basis of headgear that is not a disadvantage in a fight is not such a problem, and is indeed discriminatory.

Both the denial of women in service who want to wear jilbab and the forcible wearing of jilbab are civil rights violations. There is a path to freedom, one that acknowledges the religious identity and liberty of women, which gives the right to choose rather than be commanded.

Either extreme is the problem, both sharia influence and nationalist policies.

Dani
Aceh