Subscribe to Desicritics
Exposing "Purdah" - The Truth Behind the Veil
B Shantanu
By now, most of you must have heard or read about the controversy caused by Smt Pratibha Patil’s recent remarks on the purdah system.
To recap briefly, Smt Patil, the Congress nominee for the post of President, while speaking at a function to commemorate the 467th birth anniversary of Maharana Pratap in Udaipur said, “We have been practicing purdah in Rajasthan, which was brought about since we had to fight the Mughals… We had to protect our women and children and that is why the women were kept behind closed doors.” (TOI front page, June 19 ‘07 and other sources)
The statement sparked a storm of criticism and provided the perfect fodder for our headline hungry and sound-bite starved news media.
No sooner had the remarks appeared in press than the “counter-attack” started.
Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind general secretary Maualana Mehmood Madani said,”She has twisted history, she must apologize and withdraw her observations” (TOI, Front page, June 19 ‘07)
Irfan Habib said: “It is silly to talk of the Mughal invasion being the reason for the seclusion of women and introduction of the veil. The seclusion of women was seen even in Mauryan times. It is, in fact, mentioned in Kautilya’s Arthshastra.” (Unfortunately he did not give any references nor did he mention whether the veil was worn by women in Mauryan times.)
Habib then gratuitously added: “To say it was because of the Mughals is like saying that they brought Sati to India, which is absolutely untrue” (The Asian Age, 19 June ‘07).
B P Sahu, a Historian at Delhi University was quoted as saying: “[T]he idea that the purdah system started as a result of the invasion by the Mughals is one of the stereotypical ideas that have been taken from the works of British historians.”
Academic Kamala Mitra Chenoy of JNU said: “Though it is widely believed that the purdah system began after the Mughal invasion, in fact, it was prevalent earlier.” (Hindustan Times, Pg 13. June 19 ‘07)
As I read these comments, I noticed that there seemed to be no academic/expert who was quoted from anywhere else in the country other than Delhi; there was no one from abroad either - perhaps the experts at Oxford and Harvard were too busy to be bothered with such trivialities?
The sole exception appeared to be the Economic Times which had a quote by Varsha Joshi (historian at the Institute of Rajasthan studies, although - for all I know - the institute may well be located in Delhi)
The Economic Times (pg 3, June 19 ‘07) was also the only one (Pg 3) to print a quasi “counter-view”: Sarabindu Mukherji (Reader at Hansraj College and ex fellow ICSSR) was quoted as saying that Smt Patil’s remarks are apt and timely (and) “She has shown a great sense of history”. He added that “Historians and social scientists should get into the habit of telling the truth”.
I did a double take when I read that last bit. Did Shri Mukherji mean that historians and socials scientists were NOT in the habit of telling the truth?
But back to Mughals and the purdah…
Most experts/academics who commented on the controversy noted that the purdah was prevalent even before the Mughals and mentioned that seclusion of women existed in India in earlier times too (see e.g. Prof Habib’s comment).
Most of my keen readers must have immediately spotted the deliberate obfuscation in that sentence.
Since when did seclusion of women became synonymous with the purdah system?
And please note that while segregation of sexes in Islam is an established and well known fact (and Islam actively discourages social interaction between men and women), this has never been the case in the Hindu social system – neither do any Hindu religious texts ask women to cover themselves.
Even if we were to accept that the practice of “purdah” did exist before the Mughals, surely there is no doubt that it must have become even more widespread as a result of Islamic influence in the North, reflecting the status of women in Islam and the treatment of women by Islamic rulers and victorious troops?
But did covering one’s face (not head – this is an important distinction) i.e. “purdah” really pre-date the Mughals?
Let us look at some historical evidence regarding the treatment and position that was accorded to women in India before the Mughals – or to be more precise, before the Muslim (incl. Turkic and Afghani) invasions of India.
In a well argued article on Lokmanch.com (in Hindi), Vijay Kumar, Associate Editor of “RashtraDharm” provided the historical backdrop to the controversy.
He wrote (excerpts; loosely translated and paraphrased),
“Muslim attackers would often carry women and girls as spoils of war to destroy the morale of the fighting forces…and such women were frequently sexually exploited by soldiers on the battlefield…
The decades between the 10th and 12th centuries bore the brunt of these attacks (including the bloody expeditions of Mahmud of Ghazni and Muhammad of Ghur) and consequently the practice of getting girls married at a very young age took roots.
This was also the time when the practice of conducting weddings at night time and ensuring the bride and the groom were sent off before sunrise began (to protect them from marauders and warring soldiers).
The practice of the groom wearing a sword and keeping the route of arrival and return of the “Baraat” (wedding party) as separate also began at around the same time.
While before the first born girl child was “shown” the rising sun and prayers were said for her lasting good fortune, around this time, the practice of taking the first born girl out at night time and praying for her good fortune by “showing” the North Star began to take hold.
This was the same society where history and tradition has mention of several skilled and highly educated women such as Apala, Lopamudra, Gargi, Maitreyi, Bharati etc.
There are also historical records of women skilled in the Vedas and sacred hymns. In fact, even the wives of teachers and saints in “gurukuls” used to teach students staying in the ashram. Would this have been possible if these women were kept under wraps and denied education and skills?
In fact, the beginning of formal education was one of the sixteen “sanskars” in a person’s life.
Women were not only active in the field of education, they even went to war with their husbands.
The story of Kaikeyi helping King Dashrath by holding his chariot wheel using her finger is well known as is the tale of Subhadra when she helped Arjun fight with the army of Dwarka.
All of us have seen Ramayan and Mahabharat on TV. Did you ever see anyone in a veil in these serials?
I know that at least a few historians will question these statements citing lack of conclusive evidence for Ramayan or Mahabharat – but what is relevant here is not whether the great wars took place or whether Bhagwan Shri Rama actually existed or not – the point is that these tales reflect the prevalent situation in society at that time and it is hard to dismiss them as pure fiction.
It was only following the Islamic invasions that women began to get behind the purdah and veil. Not surprisingly, the purdah system first started becoming prevalent in Rajasthan which bore the brunt of these attacks.
In “Lifting the veil” post on his blog, Varnam narrated an incident about priests in Guruvayur who actually reprimanded a North Indian woman from covering her head when she entered the temple.
He also noted how “there is enough and obvious historical evidence to suggest that women never had to cover their heads” (a point that was also made by Vijay Kumar in his post on Lokmanch).
Varnam also remarked on the depiction of women in art and paintings around this period: “as time passes — and you enter the galleries showing Rajput miniatures from later periods — the veil makes its appearance, until even Adishakti Parvati has her face partly covered.”
As he wrote, while it may be true that the practice pre-dated the Mughals (considering that the Mughal period began only from the 16th century), if “the word Mughal rule is used incorrectly in a broader sense to include the Turkish and Afghan rulers as well”, then the practice may not have – strictly speaking – directly attributed to Mughals but it certainly had something to do with the invasions of India starting from 9th c. AD.
The Times of India published an extract from noted Historian Satish Chandra’s book (“Medieval India”) in its report (TOI, Pg 13, June 19 ‘07) that appeared to support this view: “During the Delhi Sultanate period, the practice of keeping women in seclusion and asking them to veil their faces in the presence our outsiders became widespread among the upper class women…..Arabs and the Turks brought the custom to India, and consequently it became widespread in India.”
Although Shri Chandra did note that the practice might have become widespread due to social reasons: “…perhaps the most important factor for the growth was social - it became a symbol of the higher classes in society. And all those who wanted to be considered respectable tried to copy it.”
There is – as far as I know – no known cultural, artistic or historical evidence to show that women covered their faces before the 10th century AD – i.e before the Muslim invasions began.
As Varnam says, “Face covering was completely absent in India till the 11 -12th century and they are not present in the Ajanta paintings. Slowly the head covering starts appearing with the arrival of Muslims with a 1250-1275 book in Jaisalmer showing a woman covering the back of the head using the sari.”
As I read through all of this, the picture began to get clearer. In particular, these points stood out:
- While purdah may have pre-dated the Mughals, it was almost certainly a result of Islamic invasions of India beginning from 9th century onwards
- There is no evidence to suggest that segregation of sexes was practiced in India in earlier times
- There is no cultural or religious basis (in Hindu society or Sanatan Dharma) for segregation of sexes or for having women cover their head
- In fact, there is enough and obvious historical evidence to suggest that women never had to cover their heads
- And finally, there is no known cultural, artistic or historical evidence to show that women routinely covered their faces before the time of Islamic invasions
In the end, I found it hard to disagree with Varnam’s conclusion:
Pratibha Patil did nothing wrong, but stated a historical truth. Her only mistake was that she picked the wrong community to blame. Instead, if she had blamed the caste system or denounced Brahmins, it would have been accepted without debate that she was the person with the perfect secular credentials to be the President of India.
Unfortunately, this is what might be the truth behind the veil.
******************
Special Mention:
Best Comment on the controversy:
Nandita Prasad Sahai (quoted in TOI, Pg 13, June 19 ‘07):
“Most historians consider the Muslim invasion as a watershed when purdah is said to have become more widespread as a defensive reaction in troubled times among the Rajput royalty trying to protect their women. In fact, the case is unproven in the absence of statistical material that could establish a change in the extent of the practice of purdah.“
Unbelievable. Shall we now go searching for statistics to prove/disprove historical theories? I am looking forward to some statistics to prove that the Indus Valley people actually lived in houses and not caves
Close Runner-up for Best Comment:
Yahya Bukhari, Member of the Jama Masjid’s consultative committee:
“(It is) an “anti-Muslim” statement…It is a purely religious matter and she has no right to interfere in matters of any religion.”
Nothing left to say.
Exposing "Purdah" - The Truth Behind the Veil
RSS:
- Subscribe to RSS 2.0 feeds for:
- » Comments on this article
- » Politics
- » Culture: History
- » Culture: Religion
- » Culture: Social Issues
- » Culture: Women
- » Politics: India
- » Politics: Religion
- » Desicritics.org articles by B Shantanu
- » B Shantanu's personal weblog
- » All Opinion articles
- » All Desicritics.org articles
Amrita
URL
June 28, 2007
01:40 AM
Hi Shantanu, interesting post. While I agree with you that there exists a very plausible argument for the introduction of the veil to India thanks to the Muslim raids and invasions starting 9th century, I do have several problems with your counterarguments:
First of all, I find your tone suggests that: Mughal or some other Muslim, it's all the same. And I don't think that's either fair, historically accurate or tenable. In fact, that's borne out by your ultimate conclusion.
Secondly, what is the problem with academics in Delhi? Why would you think somebody abroad is more qualified to give their opinion?
Thirdly, the people you quote extensively don't have historical theories unless they're students of history or are basing their theories on research. They have pet theories. I can have one. You can have one. We can all have one. It doesn't mean anything except to people who agree with us.
Fourthly, I need to read Varnan a bit more but on the face of it, he seems to have completely missed the mark with Guruvayoor at least if that's his big example of Hindu liberalism vis-a-vis women - back in the day when it was an upper caste bastion, brahmin women entered it absolutely swaddled in fabric with an umbrella to hide them just that extra inch.
But it's an interesting topic to explore. Let's see if someone actually takes it up
FF
June 28, 2007
05:20 AM
Cheers for bringing up the issue. Dear author however correct you may be, you will never find support from seculars and feminists. They want to discard any theory which falls short of projecting them (in past or present) as deprived section of society. They know if they are not projected as deprived class, they will never be able to (unfairly) demand for special privileges and special treatments to be met to them.
The fact that feminists and seculars almost invariably agree to each other has its origins in their demands about special privileges/powers to them in this otherwise equal democracy.
If you prove that they have been much like others all along, it will hit them hard as there ability to contribute and be useful in any significant way and hence their existence, will itself become suspicious. By objecting to people who want to project them as equals they are in fact fighting their own extinction.
smallsquirrel
June 28, 2007
05:54 AM
FF.. see, this is why no one wants to talk to you. when you barge onto someone's post and they are trying to talk about one thing and you try to hijack the thread for your own ends, you make a nuisance of yourself.
I am all for free speech, but come on. if you want to give your point of view, do it when it is appropriate. start a dialog. when you just stand and scream at people, no one will listen.
B Shantanu
URL
June 28, 2007
05:56 AM
Amrita,
Thanks for your comment.
Let me attempt to address the points you have raised:
1: The Muslim Invaders/Mughal juxtaposition that you felt in the post was not intentional and I agree with you that they are not the same (one of the key differences of course being that the invaders left and Mughals stayed back).
2. I have no problems with academics in Delhi at all. The remark was meant to be tongue-in-cheek...Perhaps I ought to think twice before trying to be funny.
The more serious point behind that comment was that almost all the academics appeared to have the same viewpoint and there was apparently no attempt made at unearthing historians (pun intended) who may have a different perspective. (By the way, I don't think anyone abroad is more qualified to give an opinion simply because they are abroad - again, that was meant in a tone of sarcasm)
3. The two people I have quoted in my arguments are Vijay Kumar and Varnam. Vijay Kumar's points (and his theory) are based in empirical evidence. All the practices he mentions are still widely prevalent in large parts of North/Northwest India. You can argue that his theory is speculation but unfortunately history is an imperfect science because evidence is not always easy to come by.
As regards Varnam, he has actually given several references in his post. Whether he is a student of history or has done research, I do not know but I will request him to comment on this (and also on Guruvayoor).
Having said that, I respect your (and others) right to disagree with the hypothesis.
In the end, I agree with you: It is an interesting topic. Let us not shy away from exploring the truth.
Jai Hind.
Atlantean
URL
June 28, 2007
07:55 AM
Incorrect: We have been practicing purdah in Rajasthan, which was brought about since we had to fight the Mughals
Correct: We have been practicing purdah in Rajasthan, which was brought about since we had to fight the Muslim invaders
To add to our sources, here's an interesting paragraph from S. A. A. Rizvi's "The Wonder That Was India II" (the sequel to A. L. Basham's famous "The Wonder That Was India".) I quote word to word:
The veiling of women was strictly observed by Muslim families, and the Hindus imitated the Muslim governing classes by keeping their women at home. Both Muslim and Hindu women travelled in closed litters. However, in Rajasthan the Rajput women merely covered their heads with a scarf. Females labouring on building sites and in the fields did not even cover their heads. (page 202, chapter: Social and Economic Conditions, subheading: Women)
...implying that segregation of women was influenced by Islamic customs.
Man singh
URL
June 28, 2007
10:54 AM
I have few points of common sense to mention:
1. There use to be a tradition of swayamvar in India in which a girl was free to choose her husband freely and many times some strict condition to be satisfied by the grooms. In such a free society where even God was femalised, it is rubbush to say that Purdah existed in pre islamic India.
2. Sita savitri, Draupadi, kashirajkanyas, Buima's marriage with Hidimba, Kach Devyani love affair etc are the literary evidences of non existence of such tradition.
3. Immediately before Muslim invasions Harshvardhan's time in Novel `kadambari'where a chandal women demonstrates teh capabilities of her parrot Vaishampayan and king Shudrak gets impressed with it. This is around 600AD.
Arab Muslim invasion strated in 713 AD.
The third item proves two things :
a) There was no untouchability in India before lanldlordism of medival times.
b) There was no Purdah in India society
These truths are hard to digest as in the name of secularism we have no courage to call a invader a invaders, a killer a killer, a terrorists a terrorist.
In the name of secularism we have lost our sense of discrimination between killer and savior, between culprit and victims.
It is vote that decides what's right n what's wrong.
I m sorry to say that but it is true that as a whole we have lost humanity in the name of secularism.
Anamika
June 28, 2007
05:13 PM
Interesting piece Shantanu and thanks for arguing it so cogently.
I agree - there is a definite bias in the media towards academics from Delhi - their proximity to the power centres as well as ideological positioning aid this. It is also quite interesting that media will rarely quote historians from other cities or academic centres, as if DU and JNU were the only ones.
Irfan Habib - btw is a medieval/modern historian with a specific focus on Islam in India, so his grasp of "classical" India is hardly solid.
For the record, Chanakya's Arthashastra makes no mention of the purdah system. Instead, Chanakya recommends women soldiers as the first and innermost ring of bodyguards, commends their abilities as spies, explains property laws in case of widow remarriage and grounds on which women can ask divorce (infertility on the man's part, poor treatment, abandonment, as well as treason by the husband). Hardly a text demonstrating the use of purdah before Islam in India! But thats how these academics
As for Satish Chandra's historian credentials - well, they are shoddy at best! These two are very much part of the "secular" historian brigade (along with Romila Thapar who is supposedly a "Buddhist" scholar but reads/speaks none of the languages - Pali or Sanskrit - and can thus not access primary sources but had the gall to explain at a Jaipur university conference that it didn't matter as they were translated into English anyway!)
You may find the extensively researched Arun Shourie book on the sham perpetrated by so-called "historians" in India interesting and revealing. And yes, Shourie demonstrates quite convincingly just HOW these so called academics lie!
B Shantanu
URL
June 29, 2007
01:12 AM
FF and small squirrel: Thanks for your comments.
Atlantean: Thanks for the quote and the reference substantiating the argument.
Man Singh: Great points. Thanks. I particularly liked the example from "Kadamabari". Your point about untouchability not existing in India before the Islamic invasions is very interesting.
Vijay Kumar has alluded to it in his post on Lokmanch.
I need to do more research on it to reach some conclusion - but thanks for alerting me on this.
You are right about how "secular fundamentalism" is forcing us to make the case for certain things even when there is overwhelming evidence to back assertions.
Anamika: Thanks for your comment and encouragement. I liked your excerpt from Arthashastra - very compelling.
I am amused but not surprised by Romila Thapar's defence of her ignorance of Pali and Sanskrit. This is where things have come to. Amateur historians and those with a love for the subject are producing better quality research and insights than "professional historians" these days. Sad but true.
I have heard of Shri Shourie's book but not read it yet. Thanks for the tip.
B Shantanu
P.S. Some of you would find this category of posts on my main blog interesting:
http://satyameva-jayate.org/tag/impact-of-islam-on-india/
Man singh
URL
June 29, 2007
12:54 PM
Shantnu, I will give more references from Ramayana and Mahabharat:
Satyawati was the daughter of a shudra fisherman. But she challenged the king and put her own terms to marry with Shantnu. She and her father boldly told her that her children should be the kings and not Bheesham.
Do you feel even today a Shudra women has such right to say to Sanjay Gandhi?
Clearly shudras were not untouchable though concept of impurity existed and that exists even today based on sanitary grounds.
In Utterkand of Ramayan, Kagbhushandi describes his own story of previous life and says he was a shudra. he was very rich. he once was praying in temple and his Guru came etc..and the rest.
This again tells us that Shudras were also given Guru mantra, they also used to pary in temples and the rest.
My analysis is that social degradation strated with jamindari system when landlords appointed by Muslim invaders in connicanvce with certain greedy Brahmins strated establishing a system equivalent to slavery system prevalent among Muslims. Shudras became slave equivanelt and rest is visible in front of our own eyes.
Chapter 9 shlokas 29 to 32 very clearly stated by lord Krishna that even vaishyas women and shudras (who could not have been able to maintain that much external purity in life required for Yoga sadhna)also reach Him if they are true Devotees.
rather Shloka 29 says I am equally exist on sarvabhuiteshu.
My request to young educated indians is that please challenge the false allegation put on us to hide the crimes of invaders against humanity by gangs of 4 M's(mao marx macauley and Mohamemd).
let's read our scriptures ourselves and show to the world what is right n what's wrong.
JK
URL
June 29, 2007
06:18 PM
Amrita,
Everyone can have theories, but it has to stand the test of new evidence. It is very easy to refute Pratibha Patil's statement by providing examples of the veil system in India much before the arrival of Mughals. So far we have not seen any such examples. We don't have pet theories, but a collection of publicly observed facts.
Regarding Guruvayoor, the fact that brahmin women covered themselves in fabric and used an umbrella in no way implies the veil system, which is the topic of discussion.
Amrita
URL
June 30, 2007
01:46 AM
Shantanu - Oops, I didn't know the Delhi thing was a joke :) As to Vijay Kumar, do you know where I can get a hold of his work because I really can't say anything one way or the other until I see what he's talking about. Empirical evidence is like statistics, you can make it work in several different ways. Thanks for the clarifications.
JK - publicly observed facts? If that's all you needed then we should pack up all academic research and just rely on ourselves to provide us an education. And for the record, unless you lived 1000 years ago, you're not using "publicly observed facts", you're using research - which is what I'm asking for as well. And for that matter, if you read Shantanu's article, then plenty of people are refuting Pratibha Patil's comments, including Shantanu.
And the Guruvayoor thing is absolutely relevant because it was one of the examples used to show that women in India do not practice purdah - purdah being defined in the article above as something more than a simple veil.
That example, AFAIK, is absolutely wrong because those ladies were definitely practsing something which was not officially called "purdah" but effectively arrived at the same result.
B Shantanu
URL
June 30, 2007
11:08 AM
Man Singh: Thanks for the additional references.
Amrita: Vijay Kumar's article that I have quoted is here: http://lokmanch.com/hindi/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1073&ac=0&Itemid=133
It is written in Hindi though and I am not sure if there is an English translation.
I have attempted a loose translation and posted some excerpts in the post above.
JK
URL
June 30, 2007
04:33 PM
Amrita,
Publicly observed facts, not by time travel but by looking at excavated pieces from ancient era, paintings and from artifacts present in Ajanta and Ellora caves. They depict life of that era and that is what we use to get a glimpse of life.
I still don't see how people covering their body in clothes and using an umbrella is comparable to a veil.
Add your comment
(Or ping: http://desicritics.org/tb/5631)