Find us on Facebook
A thin square of shiny polyester is the main player in Atiha Sen Gupta’s play, What Fatima Did. The plot focuses upon the sudden decision of a non-religious young woman to wear hijab. An insightful and funny look into the reaction of those around her, the play asked some very good questions about identity, religion, and culture. Despite not being a Londoner myself, I could relate to some of the struggles depicted. However, what was noticeably absent from the play was Fatima herself, and this left me confused about Gupta’s overall message.
The story is centered around a group of teenagers living in London. Their group consists of a set of twins named Fatima and Mo, and three other friends. Upon their return from summer vacation, the group discovers that Fatima has inexplicably decided to begin wearing hijab, and their reactions, in particular, that of her boyfriend George, present some interesting questions and challenges. The largest question, by far, was that of identity. What was refreshing was that the idea of religion was not in the forefront, rather the hijab was dissected in relation to the type of identity crisis that one would have at seventeen.
One of the strongest points is made by Ayesha, a self-proclaimed feminist in the group, who insists that the hijab is “stained with blood”, and is vehemently against what she believes it symbolizes. Ayesha also believes that Fatima is wearing hijab for culturally Muslim reasons rather than religious reasons. In her insinuation that it is a political statement rather than a religious one, Ayesha made an interesting point about the way in which some young Muslim women today decide to wear hijab. Especially in a Western nation, it becomes significant, at times, especially for an adolescent to find a balance between identities.
The reaction of Fatima’s mother was also interesting. She speaks of the struggle of women in her family against the hijab, and she is wildly against Fatima’s decision. She speaks of her grandmother’s struggle to protect her mother’s right not to wear hijab. I thought that her reaction was incredibly powerful. Once the hijab migrated to the west, I began to think about how its symbolism has changed. If it represented a lack of autonomy in the case of Fatima’s great-grandmother, could the hijab eventually become the symbol of a different type of Muslim woman?
The most obvious omission from the play was Fatima herself. She was not heard from or seen. Her absence helped the audience see the powerful impact of her decision. However, in the focus on the thoughts of others, I think Gupta reinforced a part of the hijab debate, which has bothered me for a long time. The voice of the “veiled” woman has been noticeably absent from the discussion, and I had hoped that the play would provide a look from a young Muslim woman’s perspective. While the reactions of those around her were significant and powerful, ultimately, the play left me with more questions about where Fatima was, rather than what she did.