According to this article at Religioscope, the Tajik government banned head scarves in secular schools on October 19. In the article a student of the Tajik national university comments, “What did the authorities achieve by banning the hijab in France – this was in a European country, and now it is in flames.”

Naturally people will jump to a comparison with the infamous “veil” law in France, but as with many analogies made about Central Asia, the differences are crucial enough to render comparison superficial. Not being an expert on France, I decided to consult my friend Michelle, who just so happens to have recently spent a good deal of time in France studying exactly this issue. She writes:

In France the controversial law from 2004 bans “ostentatious symbols of religion.” It is now colloquially known as the “veil law” because while small crosses on necklaces or Star of David earrings are permitted, the headscarf is not. This is taken as discriminatory because there is no way that a headscarf is not ostentatious, the more subtle headscarf- a handkerchief covering the hair that leaves neck and forehead open, very similar to the Tajik one described–is also not permitted.

Interestingly, she continues:

Also, James, I’m wondering what the divide is in Tajikistan in Muslim sects and what percentage are strict adherents and which are more secular, and which is in power politically. It is odd to focus on removing a certain kind of headscarf and allowing the Tajik headscarves. Does this correlate with fears of extremism?

Bingo. With little to no background in Central Asian studies she hits write on the fundamental difference between laws against head scarves in France and Tajikistan: motive. Since all of the Central Asian rulers are former Soviet elite that run ostensibly secular regimes, their principle opponents are religious. While it remains debatable how big a problem religious extremism in Central Asia actually is, it is clear that the regional rulers fear it. The hijab law is therefore designed to control religion and keep it in check.

The French law, on the other hand, stems from a desire to manage the influx of foreigners and the alien cultural values they bring with them.

France’s current difficulties arise from a fundamental lack of Muslim integration with the broader French community. Instead of promoting a policy that permits both cultures to coexist and gradually amalgamate, its policies lean toward polarizing the communities to assimilation and isolation. This “identity” argument is thus attacked as being anti-integration.

Note: I am certainly not arguing that the Tajik law is a good thing or inconsequential, just that the comparison made does not hold.