Pratibha Patil apparently used the term Mughal rule to include

all "Turkish" rulers. I have see other people use the term Mughal

incorrectly in a broader sense.



Yashwant





--- In IndiaArchaeology@yahoogroups.com, JK <tiptronicus@...> wrote:

>

> Experts lift veil off purdah origin -India-The Times of

> India<http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/rssarticleshow/msid-

2132555,prtpage-1.cms>

>

>     Printed from

>  <http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/> The Times of India -Breaking

news,

> views. reviews, cricket from across India

>     Experts lift veil off *purdah* origin

> 19 Jun, 2007 l 0149 hrs IST lTIMES NEWS NETWORK

>

> SMS NEWS to 8888 for latest updates

>  NEW DELHI: When UPA's Presidential candidate Pratibha Patil on

Sunday said

> that the purdah was introduced in India during the Mughal rule "to

save

> women from Mughal invaders," she seemed to be going against what

historians

> and NCERT books suggest.

>

> Historians say that purdah in India started much before Babur

heralded the

> Mughal rule in 1526 AD. According to them, the UPA candidate's

reasoning as

> to why the social custom emerged - to protect women from

aggressors' eye -

> also doesn't fully explain the causes leading to the emergence of

purdah .

> They say that the purdah was also a status symbol of the higher

classes in

> medieval India.

>

> In his well-known book, 'Mediaeval India', renowned historian

Satish Chandra

> writes that during the Delhi Sultanate period, beginning in 1206,

the

> practice of keeping women in seclusion and asking them to veil

their faces

> in the presence of outsiders became widespread among the upper

class women.

> He says that the Arabs and the Turks brought the custom to India,

and

> consequently, it became widespread in north India.

>

> In the chapter, 'Government and economic and social life during

Sultanate

> period', Chandra writes that, "the growth of purdah has been

attributed to

> the fear of the Hindu women being captured by the invaders. In an

age of

> violence, women were liable to be treated as prizes of war.

>

> Perhaps the most important factor for the growth of purdah 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. Also, religious

justification

> was found for it."

>

> Nandita Prasad Sahai, who teaches a course on the gender history of

> mediaeval India in JNU, says that there is

> no consensus amongst historians about the precise period when

purdah originated

> in Indian society.

>

> "Historian Kegan Paul traces the practice of the custom back to the

Vedic

> period. And anthropologist Patricia Jeffrey says that seclusion and

veiling

> of women was not unknown before the Muslim invasion. It appears

that a

> social ideal recommending women to remain in seclusion to mark their

> complete loyalty towards their husband already existed," she says.

>

> This is further evident in the layout of the mediaeval Chittorgarh

fort that

> has separate quarters for women called the jenani deorhi .

According to

> Sahai, this indicates that patriarchal values had already emerged in

> pre-mediaeval times. And, that a family's honour had already come

to reside

> in the bodies of their women.

>

> "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 . It seems

plausible,

> however, that the practice became more widespread amongst the

Rajput royalty

> in trying to imitate the custom of the new ruling classes," says

Sahai.

>

> Interestingly, the peasant and working class women did not observe

purdah .

> It was a feature primarily among upper classes.

>

> "Over time, seclusion came to be combined with purdah/ghoonghat and

became a

> signifier of female respectability amongst the higher classes, and

part of

> the feminine code of modesty. That is why it was also observed

among elderly

> female relatives," says the JNU historian.

>

> By the 15th century, purdah became integral to the feudal etiquette

of

> Rajasthan and was observed vis-a-vis both outsiders, as well as

insiders.

>

> Patil's statement on the origins of purdah may have been off the

mark,

> historically. However, few will disagree with her advocacy to end

the

> custom.

>

>

>

>

>  About Us <http://info.indiatimes.com/terms/aboutus.html> |

Advertise with

> Us <http://advertise.indiatimes.com/> | Careers @

> TIL<http://www.timesjobs.com/TIL/Careers/>

>  | Terms of Use <http://info.indiatimes.com/terms/tou.html> |

Privacy

> Policy<http://info.indiatimes.com/terms/privacy.html>

>  | Feedback <http://info.indiatimes.com/feedback/itfeedback.html> |

> Sitemap<http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/sitemap.cms>

> Copyright (c) 2007 Times Internet Limited. All rights reserved. For

reprint

> rights: Times Syndication Service

<http://syndication.indiatimes.com/>

> This site is best viewed in 1024x768 resolution.

>

Here is a different account from that of Marxist historians.  Given a

choice I am inclined to believe locals about their history than so

called experts. - Viji





http://www.rediff.com/news/2006/nov/29flip.htm



T V R Shenoy



November 29, 2006

Some months ago, I recall a North Indian lady talking about the

cultural differences she experienced when in South India. Visiting

relatives posted in Kerala, she made a pilgrimage to the famed Shri

Krishna shrine in Guruvayur. Upon entering the temple she devoutly

covered her head -- only to be sternly reprimanded by a priest who

told her that this was against Hindu conventions.



The temple guardians at Guruvayur were quite right. I don't know how

many readers would have stepped into the National Museum in Delhi

(sadly ignored by most visitors to the capital). The wealth of

treasures in the museum is so great that it has actually spilled out

into the lobby. One of the first pieces of sculpture you can see --

before coming even to the ticket office -- is a marvellous statue of

the goddess Saraswati, from the Chauhan period as I recall.



The goddess of wisdom is portrayed without any covering on her head.

So are depictions from thousands of years of Indian history, from the

dawn of civilisation on the banks of the Sindhu through the Mauryas,

the Guptas, and other dynasties. But 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.



It is, literally, a graphic demonstration of West Asian cultural

mores replacing those that were native to India. South India,

shielded by the arms of everyone from the imperial Chalukyas in the

eighth century to Vijayanagara and the Marathas, retained the ancient

cultural traditions. And so it was that a Rajput lady found that the

act of covering her head, perfectly acceptable in Mathura, was

frowned upon in Guruvayur.



It is not my intention to revisit the debate over the wearing of

the 'niqab', the face veil that has been identified exclusively with

Muslim women. The niqab is not as important in itself as for what it

symbolises -- a mark that deliberately, even defiantly, proclaims

that its wearer stands apart from society as a whole.