Varsha Joshi of the Institute of Rajasthan Studies has been quoted as
saying the veil was prevalent in the Rajasthan even during the 11th
Century.

To the best of my knowledge, she is basing the view on the existance
of household quarters in the Chittaurgarh fort structures. I am not
sure why that implies the existance of purdah then.

Yashwant



--- In IndiaArchaeology@yahoogroups.com, viji <viji123@...> wrote:
>
> This is great news!
>
> http://www.hindu.com/2007/06/18/stories/2007061810770100.htm
>
> End the veil system: Pratibha
> Special Correspondent JAIPUR: Rajasthan Governor and
UPA Presidential candidate Pratibha Patil on Sunday left historians
and Muslim social activists astounded by her remarks that the purdah
(veil) system was introduced in India to protect women from Mughal
aggressors. Addressing a function marking the 467th birth
anniversary of Maharana Pratap at the Nagar Parishad Auditorium in
Udaipur, Ms. Patil said though Indian culture always respected women,
the veil system began during the Mughal rule to "save women from
Mughal invaders." Ms. Patil said: "Today we are citizens of
free India. There is need to put a stop to such practices. That alone
will ensure real respect for women. When women are progressing in
every field, it is our duty to discontinue such practices."
Historians said the veil system was prevalent much before the Mughal
invasion. "There is evidence of construction of separate `zanana'
chambers for women in the Chittaurgarh fort in
> the 11th century," said Varsha Joshi of the Institute of Rajasthan
Studies. Dr. Joshi said women were not allowed to take part in
the coronation ceremonies of Rajput rulers, and they were mostly
confined to home. "To argue that purdah started because of Mughals
amounts to taking a very narrow view of history." State
president of Jamat-e-Islami Hind Mohammed Salim said the opinion that
women adopted the veil because of the fear of Mughal rulers reflected
the distorted view of history taken by the Sangh Parivar. "It is
unfortunate that Ms. Patil found the communal forces' views
convincing enough to incorporate them in her
address." "Factually incorrect" The State secretary of the
All-India Milli Council, Abdul Qayoom Akhtar, said Ms. Patil's
remarks were "factually incorrect and historically
untenable." "We have been listening to such comments in the
false propaganda of Sangh Parivar earlier. It is surprising that
Ms. Patil has chosen to
> agree with the Sangh's line of thinking," he said. However,
Congress spokesperson Param Navdeep, contacted by The Hindu, defended
Ms. Patil's remarks, saying they should be seen in the light of the
life and times of the erstwhile Mewar ruler. "There should be no
controversy about it. It is an established fact that women were the
target of aggression during the Mughal rule," she said.
>
> Dharmo Rakshati Rakshata
> If you protect your Dharma, Dharma will in turn protect you
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Moody friends. Drama queens. Your life? Nope! - their life, your
story.
> Play Sims Stories at Yahoo! Games.
>