Desicritics Comments on Exposing "Purdah" - The Truth Behind the Veil

Comment by JK

Sat, 30 Jun 2007 16:33:48 EDT

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.

Comment by B Shantanu

Sat, 30 Jun 2007 11:08:21 EDT

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.

Comment by Amrita

Sat, 30 Jun 2007 01:46:09 EDT

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.

Comment by JK

Fri, 29 Jun 2007 18:18:31 EDT

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.

Comment by Man singh

Fri, 29 Jun 2007 12:54:03 EDT

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.

Comment by B Shantanu

Fri, 29 Jun 2007 01:12:05 EDT

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/

Comment by Anamika

Thu, 28 Jun 2007 17:13:51 EDT

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!

Comment by Man singh

Thu, 28 Jun 2007 10:54:44 EDT

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.

Comment by Atlantean

Thu, 28 Jun 2007 07:55:39 EDT

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.

Comment by B Shantanu

Thu, 28 Jun 2007 05:56:28 EDT

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.

Comment by smallsquirrel

Thu, 28 Jun 2007 05:54:22 EDT

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.

Comment by FF

Thu, 28 Jun 2007 05:20:22 EDT

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.

Comment by Amrita

Thu, 28 Jun 2007 01:40:13 EDT

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