1 REGULATING MORALITY: COMPULSORY VEILING AT AN INDONESIAN UNIVERSITY 1 Eve Warburton Aceh Research Training Institute (ARTI) Banda Aceh,

NAD Indonesia Email: evewarburton@yahoo.com.au

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

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.

th

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 womens 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.

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, womens 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 Quran (including a womans 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). UIIs 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

"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 dawa meaning the call to walk in Gods 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 womens 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 womens 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 womens 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 bebas9 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 administrations 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 UIIs 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 Indonesians 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, womens 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 womens 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 womans moral character and is central to being a good Muslim woman. Contemporary womens 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.