Hot off yesterday’s presses (the television channels had a field day speculating) news of Sania Mirza’s decision to not play in the Bangalore Open. Sania, who’s only 21, has had a lot of “flak” from everyone who has a mouth, camera and media access, apparently. Her clothes are indecent, not covering her sufficiently, say fundie Muslims.

Haseeb-ul-hasan Siddiqui, a leading cleric of the Muslim organisation the Sunni Ulema Board, said: “The dress she wears on the tennis courts not only doesn’t cover large parts of her body but leaves nothing to the imagination.”

Imagination is imagination. And it is subjective. If you aren’t looking at her as a tennis player (that’s why she’s there in the first place), but as an object for titillation, then it’s entirely your choice. Yes, she has legs, which we can see in this case. And she has arms, peeking out of her sleeves. And she has hips, and a chest and other essential biological paraphernalia. But so does every other woman. Just because she steps out on court, must she be dissected so ?

As an aside, women are dissected, everyday, on the street, whatever they wear. This is politely called eve-teasing, but is in reality, sexual molestation. Commenting publicly on Sania’s attire, however takes this to a whole new level. What exactly does a young woman perceive if a public, religious body, can comment on another’s mode of dress and get away with it ? How must a woman perceive her mode of dress ? Always subject to criticism ? Always objectified ? Always a vessel of titillation ? How does a girl grow up free and un-fettered under such scrutiny ?

Must she play in purdah now ? (There goes her World No. 29 slot). Then she was misquoted on her views on pre-marital sex. She’s 21, an adult, and possess a brain. Hence she can have an opinion. But the fundies will have none of it. I say, who cares ? Why can’t she have an opinion ? And even if she believes in pre-marital sex (and she said she didn’t, but that’s another story), so what ?

Then, some innovative photographer photographed her from a curious angle, where it looked like she was pointing at an Indian flag with her feet. Due to this accidental pose, “Mirza faces a possible prosecution under the Prevention of Insult to the National Honour Act. “ I mean, poor kid. All she wants to do is to play tennis. But since she’s a woman, she must please all the religious fundamentalists in India, sit and behave like a woman should, not speak her mind, and whet her appearance and advertisement schedules to make sure there’s not a mosque or a flag in the vicinity.

This is a lovely advertisement for Incredible India, if the travel advisories against female travelers to India, were not enough. It is interesting to note that the Ulemas aren’t picking on Muslim women in the Bollywood industry who wear smallish clothes. Why Sania ? Why not Katrina Kaif, or Malaika Arora Khan ? I’m not advocating that they should, but why issue such statements against a girl barely out of her teens, who’s clothing is incidental to her bread-and-butter ? It brings up the specter of the “perceived” corruption of the actress. Katrina, beyond redemption, let’s not try to reform her ? Sania, poor kid, can still be rescued from descending into hell, by covering up those shameful legs ?

Yes, religious freedom is a necessity, but who decides when religious ideology impinges on the rights of a person ? When can the state rise up and protect the rights of a citizen (say Sania) and “gag” a person/body/association making subjective accusations on a person’s personal choices ? Sania understandably isn’t wanting to ruffle any more feathers.

Sania hasn’t attempted to thwart Muslim ideology in an obvious way, but she doesn’t fit into the role of traditional, good girl. Hence the nit-picking. I imagine it’s a whole lot of un-needed pressure being subjected to such accusations, and court cases, without doing anything to invite them. And I can see why she wouldn’t want to go out there and have it all happen again.