Download compulsory veiling at an Indonesian university

1
REGULATING MORALITY: COMPULSORY VEILING AT AN INDONESIAN
UNIVERSITY 1
Eve Warburton
Aceh Research Training Institute (ARTI)
Banda Aceh, NAD
Indonesia
Email: [email protected]
Introduction
Ten years after the fall of the New Order regime in Indonesia, political commentators
have emphasised the considerable progress that Indonesia has made in regards to
security, economic stability, and democratisation. However, in the post-Suharto period
analyses of religious freedom and inter-religious relations have been uncertain,
demonstrating the complex challenges facing a democratising nation that is religiously
diverse, and where the Muslim majority itself is amongst the most plural in the world.
Recent developments, such as the implementation of Islamic Law in the Special Region
of Aceh, the appearance of syariah-style bylaws in particular local government contexts,
and the anti-pornography laws put forward in 2006, prompted concern that increasing
public space for conservative Islam could potentially infringe upon religious freedoms
1
th
This paper was presented to the 17 Biennial Conference of the Asian Studies Association of Australia in Melbourne
1-3 July 2008. It has been peer reviewed via a double blind referee process and appears on the Conference Proceedings
Website by the permission of the author who retains copyright. This paper may be downloaded for fair use under the
Copyright Act (1954), its later amendments and other relevant legislation.’
2
and the rights of religious minorities. 2 Commentators often site the tendency of these
regulations to focus upon symbolic elements of Islamic law, such as the covering of
women’s bodies and wearing of the headscarf.
While institutional developments at regional and national levels have become the
source of public dispute and academic analysis, the emergence of institutionalised veiling
on Indonesian university campuses in recent years has received comparatively little
attention. The case of mandatory veiling on Islamic campuses is an interesting
microcosm for understanding the broader, complex responses of the Muslim community
towards institutional regulation of religious practices, and the implications such
regulation has for minority groups within Indonesia. Mandatory veiling on Muslim
university campuses highlights the way in which Islamic symbolism, in particular the
veil, is used to demonstrate the moral character of an institution. The veil has come to
represent the moral quality of both the wearer, but also the community at large. More
often than not, regulations that mandate compulsory veiling are a top down initiative,
implemented without community consultation.
Since the fall of Suharto, particular Islamic university campuses have introduced
regulations enforcing veiling for all female students while on university grounds. Islamic
dress is presented as an essential component of the institutions’ public image and the
academic as well as moral development of the university community. This paper
examines the reasons behind the introduction of mandatory Muslim clothing on one
university campus, and students’ varied response to the public regulation of their dress,
and religious practices. The case of Universitas Islam Indonesia (UII) demonstrates how
mandatory veiling limits individuals’ religious choices and privileges one interpretation
of Islamic practices over others – and the difficulty of opposing or challenging
regulations that claim to be based on Islamic law and community morals.
2
For further discussion of these issues see for example, Salim (2007), Allen (2007), Hosen (2005), Chandrakikna and
Yuniyanti (2004), Satriyo (2003).
3
Veiling in Indonesia
Over the past two decades, the Islamic practice of veiling has become increasingly
commonplace in Indonesia. Women who veil were once the target of suspicion and
harassment; however, since the 1980s the veil, or jilbab, has evolved into not only an
acceptable, but prominent expression of Muslim identity. The jilbabisasi phenomenon, as
it became known, has been commonly discussed in terms of its place within the global
Islamic revival and the santri-fication of Indonesian society that gained momentum
throughout the 1980s and 1990s.3 During this period the veil came to represent a
generational change, as Indonesian Muslims were exposed to new religious teachings and
texts, and began to understand and express their religious identity in new and more public
ways (Brenner 1996). By choosing to wear the jilbab, Indonesian women broke away
from accepted forms of religious expression and demonstrated a new awareness of, and
commitment to, Islamic principles and obligations (Brenner 1996; Washburn 2001).
Veiling continued to grow in popularity, and the jilbab became established as an
acceptable expression of Indonesian Muslim identity.
The dismantling of entrenched authoritarian controls in the Era Reformasi
(Era of Reform) has provided opportunities for unprecedented democratic development
and an open forum for cultural and political discussion. Within this wider socio-political
context there has emerged increasing public debate about the jilbab and the modesty of
female clothing generally (Liddle 2004). Veiling has been in the past, and is once again, a
contentious issue and debates surrounding its regulation are framed within a discourse of
religious obligation and community morality, versus religious freedom and private
interpretation. In the eighties, the Suharto government banned the jilbab in government
workplaces and on university campuses. However, since the end of the New Order,
women’s veiling choices occur against a backdrop of a more public and vocal
3
The term santrification comes from the word santri, a term coined by Geertz in his seminal study of religion in Java,
that refers to Indonesian Muslims who are more concerned with “Islamic doctrine, and most especially the moral and
social interpretation of it” as opposed to abangan Muslims who engage more with “ritual detail” and combine elements
of Javanese custom with Islam (Geertz 1960: 126-30). Thus santrification refers to an increase in Islamic piety and
stricter adherence to Islamic practices across broad sections of the Indonesian society. According to Liddle (1996: 623),
this process has also led to a dissolving of boundaries between santri and abangan, as more and more Indonesians
appear to fit the santri category, and also between modernists and traditionalists as the “interorganisational relations,
Islamic school curricula, and the working beliefs” of these two groups have converged.
4
conservative Islamic discourse, and there is increasing pressure for women to perform
their religious identity through dress (Smith-Hefner 2005; Smith-Hefner 2007), and the
emergence of new institutional contexts in which female Muslim dress has even been
made mandatory.
This shift in the public regulation of religious practices in Indonesia remains
relatively under-researched. An important exception is the recent ethnographic study of
Minangkabau women in West Sumatra by Lyn Parker (2008) in which she examines
government policies and school rules that regulate veiling practices and, in some cases,
make veiling compulsory. Parker asserts that mandatory jilbab is often justified through
articulated fears of a moral crisis facing the community, and is also a means of enhancing
the reputation and status of those institutions. While specific to the cultural and
institutional context of the Minangkabau communities, a similar discourse of moral crisis
and institutional identity is present in the regulation of female Muslim dress on university
campuses across Indonesia.
The Case of UII4
Universitas Islam Indonesia (UII) in Yogyakarta was originally established in 1945,
and is the oldest private university in Indonesia. Until recently, whether or not female
students wore the jilbab was a private matter and a choice to be made by each individual
student. However, since 2001, UII has embarked upon a program of campus Islamisation
aimed at improving piety and morality, within which the jilbab plays a central role. The
university administration introduced rules in 2001 making “Muslim clothing” mandatory
for female students and staff, regardless of religious affiliation. The only students not
included in the new regulations are international students. Section 3 of the new university
regulations states that, “All (female) students are required to wear Muslim clothing while
4
This paper is based on fieldwork undertaken at Universitas Islam Indonesia in Yogyakarta, Indonesia in February and
March of 2006. Interviews were conducted with the UII Rektorat, teaching staff, students, and the Student Executive
Organisation (LEM).
5
within the University grounds.” The meaning of “Muslim clothing” in Section 3 is
confirmed in Section 4 which provides a list of forbidden clothing and behaviour. Women
are forbidden to wear too much make-up or smoke cigarettes, and along with sunglasses
and thongs, or shoes similar to thongs, they are forbidden to wear clothes that are tight or
transparent, or that reveal their aurat.5 While there is no specific reference to the jilbab,
the female aurat refers to those parts of the female body that should be covered according
to the Qur’an (including a woman’s hair) and the jilbab is commonly used for this
purpose. Prior to the introduction of these rules, students were required to dress neatly
and appropriately, however, there was no regulation referring directly to Islamic dress
codes.
The Deputy Head of UII stated that students had always been encouraged to wear
Muslim dress and that the 2001 regulations had simply formalised what was already
common practice (Interview with Deputy Head Secretariat III at UII, 3 March 2006).
However, other staff and students stated that prior to 2001 most female students did not
wear the jilbab (Interview with UII Lecturer, 3 March 2006; Interview with UII students.
Some students suggested that new regulations were introduced to keep up with trends in
other Islamic universities. For example in 2002, Universitas Islam Negeri Jakarta (UIN)
introduced regulations making female Muslim clothing compulsory on campus (Fauzia et
al. 2004). According to the Rektor (chair) of UIN, Azyumardi Azra, “the jilbab is linked
to the image or character of an educational institution” and demonstrates the values of that
institution (Rahima 2003). UII’s image within the wider community was, according to
some students, less respectable than others as its students had a reputation for wearing
“sexy” clothes on campus.
These new rules were implemented in an arbitrary fashion and there remained
significant discrepancies between the regulations and the actual reality of what most
students wore on campus. Female students generally wore a head covering, although
5
"Peraturan Universitas No. 460/Sk-Rek/Rek/X/2001 Tentang Disiplin Mahasiswa Universitas Islam Indonesia (UII)
Yogyakarta. [University Regulations No. 460/Sk-Rek/Rek/X/2001 Concerning Student Discipline Islamic University of
Indonesia (UII) Yogyakarta] " (2001)
6
many wore a small scarf that left hair and neck exposed or wore tight clothing that
revealed the shape of their body and skin around their hips. The wide variety of jilbab
worn by students and the persistence of ‘un- Islamic’ clothing amongst females prompted
the introduction of further dress regulations specifically outlining standards of jilbab and
female Muslim attire. Since March 2005, female students have been required to wear one
of four standard types of Islamic-style clothing. These four options were then displayed
on posters throughout the university with pictures and a detailed description of the new
standards. 6 From this date students whose clothes do not meet these specific standards
will be subject to sanctions, which can include a written warning or exclusion from class.
The initiative to standardise and enforce female Muslim dress has been led
predominately by the Head Office of UII (Rektorat UII), along with the Executive
Student Organisation (Lembaga Eksekutif Mahasiswa- LEM) and small faculty-based
Islamic student groups.7 The standardising of female Islamic dress is part of a larger, longterm project called “Implementation of Internal Dakwah at University of Islam Indonesia
2003-2006”, being led by the Rektorat.8 According to UII administration, this program
concentrates on improving knowledge and practice of Islam amongst staff and students
and promoting UII as a leading Islamic institution. The Dakwah project involves such
initiatives as providing intense Islamic study programs, creating an organised prayer
system for daily prayers (sholat), enforcing correct Muslim clothing, and facilitating the
promotion of Islamic values through university classes. There has been a concerted effort
from campus administrative bodies over the past five years to improve the Islamic
character of UII.
According to the Deputy Head of UII, Muslim clothing is one of the most
important elements of Dakwah for UII as it “illustrates that the identity of UII is an
6
See Figure 1
It is unclear as to whether the initiative began within the student body or came from UII administrative bodies. The
Deputy Head of UII asserts that the student movement began independently of UII administration and then the two
bodies have worked together to achieve common goals. LEM also states that the student body is acting on behalf of the
will of the majority of students and not under pressure from university officials. At the same time other members of
staff believe the term ‘student movement’ is misplaced in this context and perceive both the 2001 and 2005 regulations
to be a top-down initiative that has come from a minority of concerned officials in the Head Office of UII.
8
Derived from the Arabic word da’wa meaning ‘the call to walk in God’s ways’, it refers to religious propagation and
missionary activities.
7
7
Islamic identity”. The Dakwah program and the recent changes to female dress regulations
are supported by sections of the student body who work in conjunction with the
Rektorat. In September of 2005, several student groups led by the Student Executive
Administration (Lembaga Eksekutif Mahasiswa –LEM), the student representative body
on campus, made a public declaration in support of standardising Muslim clothing worn
on campus under the banner, “Muslim Female Clothing Standardisation Movement” .
This particular student initiative is part of a broader movement, which is called the
Campus Islamisation Movement (Gerakan Islamisasi Kampus), and works to support
the university Dakwah project. This movement is primarily concerned with the
implementation of a discipline system for Muslim clothing on campus, and building an
Islamic social network on campus. The Campus Islamisation Movement Declaration
asserts that the characteristics of modern life such as “clubbing, consuming drugs, and sex
before marriage” have replaced the intellectual student culture and lifestyle. This shift, it
argues, can be observed in the deterioration of consistency in Muslim women’s clothing.
This declaration makes a direct association between immoral lifestyles and ‘un-Islamic’
dress, and implies that through enforcing and standardising modest Muslim clothing for
women the behaviour and morality of students will improve.
Since these regulations were introduced in 2001, the greatest emphasis has been
placed on ensuring female students wear the correct jilbab and, since 2005, it has become
one of the only university dress codes to be properly enforced and followed by all
students. Yet there has been no formal debate or discussion about these new rules
amongst staff or students. The Deputy Head of UII insisted that no students complained
about the regulations because they know that the new dress codes are a Muslim
obligation. LEM also stated that there have been no formal complaints lodged at their
office. According to LEM, students understand that UII is an Islamic institution and
should, therefore, be following Islamic practices. LEM emphasised that each student is
free to make her own decision regarding the jilbab when she is off-campus; however,
whilst on campus the students are representing UII, an Islamic institution, and should
dress appropriately. LEM also explained that the university student mentoring program
8
teaches women about their religious obligations and this helps to socialise the new rules
within the student community.
Other staff members and students, however, suggest that many within the
university do not agree with the introduction of regulations enforcing the jilbab and
Muslim dress for women, particularly for non-Muslim students. According to one
lecturer, staff opinion was almost equally divided about the 2001 regulations. This can be
observed in the way these rules were arbitrarily imposed as only the staff who agreed
with the regulations would actually enforce them. Students say that many questioned the
rules privately amongst their friends and were surprised that the university would force
(paksa) the jilbab and Muslim clothing upon its students. According to one student,
many girls were frustrated that they would now have to buy more clothes specifically for
university. Students also felt that enforcing the jilbab betrayed its’ true spirit and meaning
as the jilbab should only be worn when a woman is ready and should reflect the heart and
character of the wearer. Those who did not agree with the regulations did not lodge formal
complaints. Rather, many continued wearing their own choice of clothes and covered their
heads with the small scarfs rather than the prescribed jilbab.
Clothing choices may nevertheless bring sanctions. Since 2005 there have been cases
where girls were not allowed to enter class or participate in exams because their jilbab did
not meet the new university standards, or because their clothes were too tight. There have
also been rumours that students whose clothes continually fail to meet the new standards
will have their academic marks reduced. Some students expressed frustration at the
increasing conservatism within UII student and staff administration, and the continued
emphasis upon their appearance. One student said that the pressure for UII girls to wear
more modest styles of dress is stronger than it has ever been, with pictures of “correct
Muslim attire” being displayed around campus, mentoring programs that emphasise the
jilbab for new students, public seminars about women’s clothing and even cruel or
derogatory cartoons and articles in the student press about girls who wear ‘sexier’ clothes
or headscarfs. Off campus, this student says she is free to decide upon her own style of
clothes and feels little pressure to wear modest or more Islamic clothing; however, now at
9
UII she feels uncomfortable and embarrassed if her arms and ankles are not covered
properly. For other students, the programs and regulations about the jilbab have
significantly influenced their perception of Muslim women’s responsibilities and they
have begun to wear the jilbab outside the context of the campus environment as well.
These new rules have implications for diversity within the student community.
While the majority of students are Muslim, UII is also open to students from other
religious backgrounds. However compulsory veiling applies to Muslim and non-Muslims
alike, with the only exception being international students. However, according to the
university administration, the rules still apply to Muslim international students, such as
those from Malaysia. When asked whether any non-Muslim students had protested
against having to where the veil, representatives from LEM and the university
administration said there had been no complaints lodged as all students understand that
UII is an Islamic institution. Those who do not wish to wear the veil could, according to
the UII administration, simply attend one of the public or Catholic universities in
Yogyakarta. Conversely, there were students who spoke of an unofficial rule at the
Catholic university, Atmajaya, that forbids the jilbab on campus. A student from
Atmajaya, said that when she first began university there were a few girls who wore the
jilbab and who were subsequently told quietly by staff that it was “best not to wear it
within university grounds”. Since then she has never seen anyone wearing the veil.
According to students from this university, everyone understands that it is inappropriate
to wear the veil at Atmajaya and that this unofficial rule is actually more widely known
and accepted than formal university regulations. There is a general understanding that
Muslim girls who want to wear the jilbab “should just go to an Islamic university”.
Within these contexts, both formal and informal regulations are based upon an overriding
and narrow assumption that non-veiling means non-Muslim.
In the post-Suharto era, the Islamic identity and public image of UII has become the
focus of staff and student administration. In comparison to other Islamic universities, UII
had a reputation for its relaxed approach to Islamic education and practices and a
10
relatively ‘bebas’9 student body. This image is being addressed through the
implementation of the university Dakwah program. Mandatory jilbab at UII is a central
tenant of the university administration’s efforts to improve the religious and moral image
of the student community. While also investing time and resources in increasing Islamic
education and knowledge, in its early stages the most fundamental element of the Dakwah
program has been the imposition of Muslim female dress. UII is an institutional regime in
which hegemonic interpretations of female Muslim attire are being socialised and enforced
through university programs and regulations. As a significant mainstream educational
institution UII’s promotion of specific interpretations of Muslim clothing, most
importantly the jilbab, contributes to broader social perceptions of conventional,
acceptable female Muslim attire.
Conclusion
Obligatory veiling in educational and government institutions is unprecedented in the
Indonesian genealogy of the jilbab, and marks a new level of public regulation of religious
practices. The relationship between the state and public sphere on one hand, and the
private realm of religious interpretation on the other, whether at a local, regional or
national level, is a subject of sensitive and ongoing debate. While national level
deliberations over constitutional recognition of Islamic law appear settled, at the local
level these issues remain unresolved. Within Islamic institutions such as universities,
stricter adherence to Islamic practices is presented as fundamental to the overall quality of
the moral character of the student body and the institution. It is a discourse that echoes
trends in regions and municipalities around Indonesia that have introduced mandatory
veiling, where local community leaders and groups promote the role of Islamic principles,
9
Bebas literally means “free, unhampered, unimpeded” (Echols and Shadily 1989: 60). However
it can have negative or positive connotations depending on the context. Many Indonesian’s will
use bebas to describe a person, group, activity or lifestyle that is morally lax, liberal and without
ethical restrictions. It can also convey notions of independence, freedom and liberation.
11
practices and laws in addressing ongoing socio-economic challenges. As a powerful
symbol of Islamic identity and Muslim morals, compulsory jilbab wearing is consistently
among the first regulations to be established. In many cases it remains unclear as to
whether these laws and policies reflect the aspirations of the people via adequate
community consultation, or if they are being justly implemented directly.
Where local government by-laws have introduced compulsory veiling for women,
there has been public debate and strong opposition from other, often external, sections of
the Indonesian community. Indonesian feminists, human rights groups, political leaders,
women’s organisations, and various other NGO networks present a potent challenge to
attempts to regulate the domain of private religious interpretation and to restrict freedom
of expression. However, on a micro-level, opposing or debating Islamic issues such as the
jilbab can be difficult as the prospect of appearing un-Islamic or morally lax concerns
many Muslim women. Studies conducted by Rahima in districts where Syariah by-laws
have been implemented indicated that although women are uncomfortable with many
regulations they are anxious about publicly challenging Islamic rules and principles
(Rahima 2004). Similarly, students at UII who disagreed or were uncomfortable with
mandatory veiling rules did not lodge official complaints, or contest moves to standardise
Muslim clothing on campus. Many expressed their initial disagreement by not adhering
strictly to the new regulations, but tighter controls and increasing pressures on campus
proved effective in discouraging open protest. Thus, while these sorts of trends can
produce a range of impassioned public responses, there are also many women who will
steer the course of least resistance with the intention of avoiding controversy.
Institutions that enforce veiling play a central role in constructing broader
conventional notions of Muslim identity that have an impact upon women’s perception
of the jilbab and their responsibility as Muslim women. Veiling is presented as ideal and
correct, while not veiling violates expected codes of behaviour, prompting scrutiny and in
some cases punishment. Institutionalisation of the veil is justified by the notion that the
jilbab is the embodiment of a woman’s moral character and is central to being a ‘good’
Muslim woman. Contemporary women’s perception of the jilbab and their individual
12
choices respond to a wider public sphere in which personal morals, female modesty and
adherence to Islamic practices are being emphasised and promoted. The regulation of
female Muslim dress codes on university campuses is justified by claims that veiling
engenders piety, discipline and morality within not only the wearer but also the wider
community and is central to programs of social development. Mandatory veiling in
universities such as UII and in particular local governments remains isolated to these
particular contexts, and outside of these settings women are not obliged to abide by their
hegemonic norms and policies. However, this does not detract from the significance of
these regulated spheres. The formalisation of Muslim dress codes by UII and by district
administrations places new restrictions on the enactment of previously private religious
choices. Institutionalised veiling raises important and complex issues about the
relationship between private and public spheres within an Islamic context. As the case of
UII demonstrates, debating and questioning such a sensitive religious topic within a micro
community setting can be difficult, and many people choose to avoid the scrutiny and
controversy that resistance would attract.
13
Bibliography
Allen, Pam. 2007. Challenging Diversity?: Indonesia's Anti-Pornography Bill. Asian
Studies Review 31:110-115.
Brenner, Suzanne. 1996. Reconstructing Self and Society: Javanese Women and 'The
Veil'. American Enthologist 23 (4):673-697.
Chandrakikna, Kamala, and Chuzaifah Yuniyanti. 2004. The Battle Over a 'New'
Indonesia: Religious Extremism, Democratisation and Women's Agency in a
Plural Society. ICIP Journal 1 (2):1-26.
Fauzia, Amelia, Lisa Noor Humaidah, Noryamin Aini, and Yuniyanti Chuzaifah. 2004.
Realita dan Cita Kesetaraan Gender di UIN Jakarta. Jakarta: McGill IAINIndonesia Social Equity Project.
Hosen, Nadirsyah. 2005. Religion and the Indonesian Constitution: A Recent Debate.
Journal of Asian Studies 36 (3):419-441.
Liddle, William and Saiful Mujani. 2004. Indonesia's Approaching Elections: Politics,
Islam and Public Opinion. Journal of Democracy 15 (1):109.
Parker, Lyn. 2008. To Cover The Aurat: Veiling, Sexual Morality and Agency among
Muslim Minangkabau, Indonesia. Intersections: Gender and Sexuality in Asia and
the Pacific (16, March 2008).
Rahima. 2006. Dalam Sejarah Pendidikan Islam; Tidak Ada Segregasi Laki-Laki dan
Perempuan: Wawancara Dengan Azyumardi Azra. Rahima 2003 [cited 8 June
2006]. Available from www.rahima.or.id/SR/07-03/Opini1.htm.
———. 2004. Perempuan dalam Arus Formalisasi Syariat Islam (Sebuah Pengantar).
Paper read at Perempuan dalam Arus Formalisasi Syariat Islam: Belajar dari
Tasikmalaya, Garut, Cianjur dan Banten, at Hotel Ambhara, Kabayoran Jakarta
Selaten.
Salim, Arskal. 2007. Muslims Politics in Indonesia's Democratisation: The Religious
Majority and the Rights of the Minorities in Post-New Order Indonesia. In
Indonesia: Democracy and the Promise of Good Governence edited by R. H.
McLeod and A. MacIntyre. Singapore: ISEAS Publishing.
14
Satriyo, Hana. 2003. Decentralisation and Women in Indonesia: One Step Back, Two
Steps Forward? In Local power and politics in Indonesia : decentralisation &
democratisation, edited by E. Aspinall and G. Fealy. Singapore: Institute of
Southeast Asian Studies.
Smith-Hefner. 2005. The New Muslim Romance: Changing Patterns of Courtship and
Marriage Amongst Educated Javanese Youth. Journal of Southeast Asian Studies
35 (3):441-459.
Smith-Hefner, Nancy J. 2007. Javanese Women and the Veil in Post-Soeharto Indonesia.
The Journal of Asian Studies 66 (2):389-420.
Washburn, Karen. 2001. Jilbab, Kesadaran, 'Identitas' Post-Kolonial, dan Aksi Tida
Perempuan Jawa. In Perempuan Postkolonial dan Identitas Komodoti Global.
Yogyakarta: Kanisius.