Kazakhstan, like Russia and other Central Asian nations, has been grappling with the contentious issue of whether religious attire should be permitted in public spaces.
The crux of the debate centers on women’s clothing, particularly the hijab, himar, niqāb, and other regional variations. In the past year, following several terrorist attacks and escalating fears of Islamic radicalization, the issue has gained significant political, social, and religious traction.
Ermurat Bapi, a prominent deputy in the Mažilis (Kazakhstan’s parliament) and a historical opponent, has vocalized the need to regulate and restrict women’s clothing as a means to maintain peace, security, and aid Kazakhstan’s transition from authoritarian regimes. He asserts that the proposed legislation must strike a ‘compromise between society and religion.
The controversy was ignited in October 2023 when Minister of Culture and Information, Aida Balaeva, proposed a ban on the hijab and niqāb. This proposal led to widespread social protests, particularly on TikTok, where young women showcased continuous flash mobs donning the criticized attire.
READ MORE: Ashaghi Govhar Agha Mosque in Shusha Restored to Historical Splendor After Years of Damage
President Kasym-Žomart Tokaev subsequently suggested banning TikTok and, in March this year, referred to the niqāb as ‘an archaic form of dress’ imposed on Kazakh women by radical Muslim converts.
Bapi reiterated that ‘the issue is not the hijab but the destructive trends that undermine Kazakhstan’s national traditions. To evolve as a secular state, we must resist foreign political and religious ideologies and keep our future in our own hands.
The parliamentary debate remains convoluted, with discussions surrounding various types of religious garments, which reveal differing amounts of women’s faces, including the cadra and paranja, accompanied by images and designs from various contexts.
A significant challenge is that the Kazakh constitution does not impose restrictions on citizens’ attire. Jurist Maksim Mostovič highlighted articles asserting that ‘everyone has the right to the inviolability of private, personal, and family life, and to defend their honor and dignity’ (Art. 18), the right to ‘use one’s native language and culture, freely choosing forms of communication, education, and creativity’ (Art. 19), and the right to ‘freedom of conscience’ (Art. 22). Mostovič noted that during the pandemic, ‘everyone wore face masks,’ questioning the logic behind the current proposed ban, which he deemed ‘radical and illogical.
Such a measure, insists the jurist, would require justification on the grounds of ‘violating the rights of third persons’ or proving that covering one’s face constitutes ‘an attack on the constitutional order or social morality.’ He pointed out that many women wear such clothing under coercion from their husbands, and official bans do not resolve this issue. Instead, what is needed is a genuine ‘domestic violence prevention’ strategy, including establishing support centers for victims.
Some women cite their hijab as stemming from a deeper understanding of religious tenets or a desire to feel more protected and serene. However, MPs believe that all women in paranja or cadra are concealing something dangerous, notes Ajžan Auelbekova, a Muslim activist who frequently appears in the local press. She criticizes Ermurat Bapi for speaking ‘out of turn about religious clothing,’ suggesting he lacks understanding. Auelbekova acknowledges that the niqāb, which leaves only the eyes visible, ‘can frighten people,’ and generally, the Quran’s rules merely suggest covering the body’s outer forms. She concludes that ‘those who follow religious commandments must first obey the laws of the land, and the authorities must enforce these laws without infringing on people’s religious feelings and freedoms.
