How come Indian women started wearing veils to cover their faces?

[Vikramjeet]

I think Nehru's analysis of veiled Hindu women in The Discovery of India is quite accurate. It started with the advent of Muslim rule. Hindus used veils to protect their women from being taken as sex-slaves by Muslims. Before Muslim rule, women were quite liberal with their clothing.

Yes this is the usual answer one gets. Point is did Nehru and his fanboys forget that Muslims also ruled North Karanataka and Telanagana? The expansion of Muslim rule there was quite bloody and lot of sex slavery was practised, so why did Hindus of that area did not adopt veils? Or Muslims who reached there became saints? Come on guys, Muslims would take anyone as sex slave, veil or no veils.

 

[Vikramjeet]

Please answer this-Why Hindus in Rajasthan which was relatively free of Islamic influence wear veils but no one in Telangana and Karnataka cover heads despite Telangana and Karnataka under muslim rule for centuries and suffering abduction of women and girls on large scale?And less said about veils protecting women, the better. we are told that muslim molesters were so saints that they respected married women when their Prophet makes it clear that married women captured are lawful 'booties'.

 

[tarunraju]

Please answer this-Why Hindus in Rajasthan which was relatively free of Islamic influence wear veils but no one in Telangana and Karnataka cover heads despite Telangana and Karnataka under muslim rule for centuries and suffering abduction of women and girls on large scale?And less said about veils protecting women, the better. we are told that muslim molesters were so saints that they respected married women when their Prophet makes it clear that married women captured are lawful 'booties'.

Really? Because Rajasthani women look like princesses and Karnataka/Telangana women look like quasi-negros? Is that what you wanted to hear?

My grandmother, who survived the Razakar era as a teenager, tells me that they had to not only wear veils, but also pretend to be Muslims. The medium of instruction in schools was Urdu, and so the Razakars couldn't tell. Most houses had "dry-wells" in their backyards, where men would hide their valuables and women, each time there were Razakar raids in their village.

 

[tarunraju]

Muslim invaders behaved much like today's ISIS. Muslim rule was just that. All the bullshit about Mughal rule being a "golden age" for India is just that...victor-written bullshit. India's secular constitution and Gandhi's insistence that India be a secular country is the biggest travesty of justice for Hindus. When India was being carved up and the size of Pakistan was being decided, it was done so to accommodate every single Muslim in the country, and not just the ones that wanted separate Pakistan. Jinnah insisted that every Muslim wanted Pakistan. It was Gandhi and his ilk's (Nehru's) idea that the residual India be secular. Today we're dealing with a noisy, overbearing minority that doesn't let Hindus express their identity or heritage to the fullest, without tripping on some or the other bullshit synthetic/western "civil" value-system. Nepal and Thailand (and other Siam-region countries) celebrate their Hindu heritage better than we do. Hindu symbols are part of their folklore, currency, heritage sites, and even modern infrastructure like airports.

 

[Vikramjeet]

Really? Because Rajasthani women look like princesses and Karnataka/Telangana women look like quasi-negros? Is that what you wanted to hear?

My grandmother, who survived the Razakar era as a teenager, tells me that they had to not only wear veils, but also pretend to be Muslims. The medium of instruction in schools was Urdu, and so the Razakars couldn't tell. Most houses had "dry-wells" in their backyards, where men would hide their valuables and women, each time there were Razakar raids in their village.

Yes but I do not think wearing veil is part of Telanagana culture. Is it? On the other hand, razakars type situation never was there in Rajasthan, just some raids.

 

[Vikramjeet]

Muslim invaders behaved much like today's ISIS. Muslim rule was just that. All the bullshit about Mughal rule being a "golden age" for India is just that...victor-written bullshit. India's secular constitution and Gandhi's insistence that India be a secular country is the biggest travesty of justice for Hindus. When India was being carved up and the size of Pakistan was being decided, it was done so to accommodate every single Muslim in the country, and not just the ones that wanted separate Pakistan. Jinnah insisted that every Muslim wanted Pakistan. It was Gandhi and his ilk's (Nehru's) idea that the residual India be secular. Today we're dealing with a noisy, overbearing minority that doesn't let Hindus express their identity or heritage to the fullest, without tripping on some or the other bullshit synthetic/western "civil" value-system. Nepal and Thailand (and other Siam-region countries) celebrate their Hindu heritage better than we do. Hindu symbols are part of their folklore, currency, heritage sites, and even modern infrastructure like airports.

I fully agree here- there is not a single thing done by Bagdadi which was not done by Prophet of Islam himself. However, my point is that Islamic ISIL had more impact on Telanagana and North Karnataka( in districts like Gulbarga, Bidar etc.) where Hindus even learnt a foreign language unlike in Rajasthan or UP yet why veils are not part of those cultures at all, atleast I have never seen such things.

 

[Simple_Guy]

Why Hindus in Rajasthan which was relatively free of Islamic influence wear veils.

All Hindus don't but mostly the royal and warrior communities.

For example poor marathas don't have this custom but the royal and warrior element among them have adopted this custom.

Having become a Maharani, she had to observe the state custom of being in purdah. No woman of the royal family could step out of the palace, or out of the women's chambers except under purdah, a custom that the Scindias decided to do away with after the nation's independence. "My husband was very broadminded and democratic in that sense," says the Rajmata. "In the presence of Sardar Patel, we gave up our purdahs because my husband said that since the kingdom didn't exist anymore, there was no need for that custom."

From the Archive: Vijaya Raje Scindia-Memories of a Militant Maharani : MagnaMags

 

[Simple_Guy]

double post...

 

[Vikramjeet]

All Hindus don't but mostly the royal and warrior communities.

For example poor marathas don't have this custom but the royal and warrior element among them have adopted this custom.



From the Archive: Vijaya Raje Scindia-Memories of a Militant Maharani : MagnaMags

I never said all Hindus but it is wrong to say that ghoonghat is worn only by queens, all upper caste women and even OBCs in many parts wear this. even Meenas in Rajasthan. Are you saying that no one wears or wore this after kingdoms were over?

 

[tarunraju]

I fully agree here- there is not a single thing done by Bagdadi which was not done by Prophet of Islam himself. However, my point is that Islamic ISIL had more impact on Telanagana and North Karnataka( in districts like Gulbarga, Bidar etc.) where Hindus even learnt a foreign language unlike in Rajasthan or UP yet why veils are not part of those cultures at all, atleast I have never seen such things.

So what's your central point. That veils had nothing to do with Muslim invaders?

 

[Vikramjeet]

@maomao @alphacentury, @Banglorean, @Simple Guy @Jatt. Hindustan @Ray @tarunraju and yes how can I forget my dear friend @sorcerer. Veils covering faces in India have nothing to do with hallucinations like 'protection of women"( as if women would not be abducted then), 'islamic influence' or such. They have an ancient presence and existed before islam was born in Arabia.

Here are references ( thanks to my and one of my friends research)

"It is evident from Vatsyayana that a veiled life was the general rule in the women's apartments of the upper classes. Respectable women when going outside, would cover themselves from the view of passers by. Nevertheless, for women working at the market or in the fields or in some kind of physical labour there was no opportunity or necessity to be veiled, nor did such women have any respect for the custom. Middle-class women veiled themselves, though, seeing this as one means of expressing their family dignity. A lovely picture of these women has been drawn by the poet Lakshmidhara:

'Her head veiled in modesty, she walks slowly, her eyes fixed on her feet; what little she says is sweet and gentle. Thus the lay loudly proclaims the dignity of her family.'"

pg no - 383, History of the Bengali People: From Earliest Times to the Fall of the Sena Dynasty - By Niharranjan Ray


The custom of the seclusion of royal women was well established during this period. Queens and princesses, we are told in picturesque language, could not see the sun or creatures flying in the sky and could not be touched by the wind: for them to be seen in public was their greatest misfortune (Ram ii 33, 8; Mbh. ii 69, 6; ix 71 etc.). That queens attended sittings of the royal court only when concealed from the public gaze is shown by an incidental reference in the Jaina Kalpasutra. Here we read (iv 62-3) that when Kshatriya Siddhartha summoned his ministers and courtiers for the interpretation of the queen's dream, he took his seat on a throne in the hall of audience, but the queen was seated behind a curtain. From a passage in Lalitavistara (157) we learn that it was customary for a newly married girl to wear a veil in the presence of her father-in-law, mother-in-law and other elders.

pg - 40, Essays in Indian history by Raj kumar

References in general as well as technical literature of the early centuries before and after Christ seem to indicate that married women in high families did not usually appear in public without the veil. This custom was probably continued in the Gupta age.


pg - 217; Indian history by Allied publishers




Some ladies of the royal families lived in a portion of the place known as antahpura, avarodha and suddhanta, guarded against intrusion from any stranger. From literary sources, it is known that out of modesty, women sometimes covered their bodies with shawls or other mantles and put on a veil.....

...Women put on three garments - an upper one, a lower garment and a shawl. the upper garment was a bodice (Kurpasaka, Stanamsuka). The lower garment was a type of petticoat (ghaghra). From the use of the words nivi and nivi-bandha, it can be inferred that it hung to the ankles and was held up by a cord (nivi). Lastly, there was a long shawl used by women, which covered them almost from head to foot and serving even for a veil.

Pg - 309/310; Malwa Through the Ages, from the Earliest Times to 1305 A.D by Kailash Chand Jain


Enuff sources?

 

[Vikramjeet]

This is from modern day India describing about a woman who discarded veil in Rajasthan



Born into a family of daily wagers, it never really seemed likely that Murli Meena would achieve this desire. Although she was a natural leader, there simply were no opportunities for her to distinguish herself. Her fortunes, however, changed when she got married to someone who lived in the neighbouring village of Dehlala and decided to discard the 'ghunghat' (veil traditionally required for all married women). Looking back, Murli says she wanted to "live as freely as the daughters and daughters-in-law of the Brahmin and Jain communities in my neighbourhood". Says she, "During the 'pheras' (Hindu marriage ritual) when my mother pulled my 'pallu' (free end of the sari covering the head up to the waist) down, I pulled it back with equal force - and this happened quite a few times!"

While initially no one liked her "bold move" - for quite some time she had to bear the criticism and nasty comments of her family and friends - slowly everyone reconciled to the change


Impact of Islam?


Well Islam was born in 613 AD. Now there is an ancient sanskrit work which is a biography of Buddha @Tshering 22 . This work was already translated in Chinese in 308 AD and is known as Lalitvistara meaning Play in Full ( vistara = full, lalit= play). When Buddha was married to Gopa( Yasodhara) this is what she faced

"However, no matter who the Śākya girl Gopā encountered, whether it
was her mother-in-law, her father-in-law, or any other member of the inner quarters, she did not cover her face. So people criticized her and spoke badly of her, saying, "A new wife is supposed to be covered" '

Do you know what she said?

"Those who control their bodies thus control all physical faults;
Those who control their speech never confuse their words;
Those with guarded senses are mentally composed and serene.
What good is it to cover the face of such beings?


"Furthermore the great sages, those who know the thoughts of others,
And the assemblies of gods all know my thoughts.
They know my discipline, qualities, restraint, and carefulness;
So why should I veil my face?"


So no that woman in Rajasthan is not wearing veil due to islam, she is wearing it because Buddha's wife was also asked to do same. No islam here.

 

[PredictablyMalicious]

Muslim invaders behaved much like today's ISIS. Muslim rule was just that. All the bullshit about Mughal rule being a "golden age" for India is just that...victor-written bullshit.

I think this part is absolutely true. ISIS is the closest the muslims have come, in recent history, to emulating the ways of their prophet. I don't agree with your stance on secularism. Who wants to live in a Hindu shithole where cows are sacred and killing a cow lands you in prison? You want to live in a Hindu version of Saudi Arabia? By looking at it from a hindu-muslim angle, you're missing the point. It's simply not desirable to live in a non secular country. When you talk about hindus expressing their identity, what you really mean is hindu hard liners stepping on everyone else's toes and turning India into an ultra conservative hellhole, even more than it already is. What India needs is to adopt secularism in earnest and advance in the direction of full separation of state and church. No religious laws, period. That should be the end goal.

 

[Virendra]

In my knowledge there is not a single depiction of Indian women (sculptures, paintings, textual etc) before medieval centuries, where veil is visible or even mentioned.

 

[Vikramjeet]

I hope you guys watch TV serials. How do Indian females react to death of their husbands or lovers? Something like this

'Oh why are you not getting up, there is cold and you are lying on floor' 'Who will talk with me now' 'Look your Neha is in such condition and you are doing nothing' right? So if someone says after death of her husband' I have come in this and you are not getting enraged' this presupposes that society did not like such condition at large.

This is what Yuddha Kanda of Ramayana ( even Hindu haters admit that Ramayana was complete by pre Christian times) describes when Mandodari wife of Ravana mourns.

दृष्ट्वा न खल्वभिक्रुद्धो मामिहानवगुण्ठिताम् || ६-१११-६३
निर्गतां नगरद्वारात्पद्भ्यामेवागतां प्रभो |

"O Lord! Are you not indeed enraged, in seeing me on foot in this way out through the city-gate, unveiled and come on foot in the way?


So this means that going unveiled was not liked among many.

पश्येष्टदार दारांस्ते भ्रष्टलज्जावगुण्ठनान् || ६-१११-६४
बहिर्निष्पतितान् सर्वान् कथं दृष्ट्वा न कुप्यसि |


O lover of your consorts! Look at all your spouses, who came out, with their veils dropped off leaving their shame . Why are you not getting enraged in seeing this?"


I hope guys can see this word 'Lajja' and know what it means.


The word used for veil is Avagunthita here as in वगुण्ठिताम्. It is this word which now is called Ghoonghat. What i showed for women was Ghoonghat and called as such.

 

[Vikramjeet]

Next Sita is brought veiled in palanqin and Ram had to tell that this time veil was not necessary.

tataH sItaaM shiraHsnaataaM yuvatIbhirala~NkR^itaam |
mahaarhaabharaNopetaaM mahaarhaambaradhaariNIm || 6-114-14
aaropya shibikaaM dIptaaM paraardhyaambarasaMvR^itaam |
rakShobhirbahubhirguptaamaajahaara vibhIShaNaH || 6-114-15


Prevailing upon Seetha to ascend a shining palanquin, covered with an exceedingly valuable cloth and guarded by numerous demons, after she had bathed her head and cleansed her body, had put on costly robes and had been adorned with exceedingly valuable jewels, Vibhishana then brought her to the presence of Rama.


na gR^ihaaNi na vastraaNi na praakaaraastiraskriyaaH |
nedR^ishaa raajasatkaaraa vR^ittamaavaraNaM striyaH || 6-114-27

"An apartment is not a thing that protects a woman, nor robes, nor compound-walls, nor concealments nor such royal honours. Her character is her shield."


vyasaneShu na kR^ichchhreShu na yuddhe na svayaM vare |
na kratau no vivaahe cha darshanaM duShyate striyaH || 6-114-28

"A woman becoming visible to public in times of a calamity is not condemned in difficult situations, nor in battles, nor in self-choosing of a husband by a princess at a public assembly of suitors, nor in sacrificial ceremonies nor in marriage-functions."



saiShaa yuddhagataa chaiva kR^ichchhre mahati cha sthitaa |
darshane.asyaa na doShaH syaanmatsamIpe visheShataH || 6-114-29


"The younder Seetha is in distress and beset with a great difficulty. There is no fault in her appearance in public, particularly in my presence."

visR^ijya shibikaaM tasmaatpadbhyaamevopasarpatu |
samiipe mama vaidehiiM pashyantvete vanaukasaH || 6-114-30


"That is why, let her come on foot alone, leaving the palanquin there. Let these monkeys see Seetha in my presence."

It is crystal clear that except some occasions veils was essential.

 

[Vikramjeet]

Kalidas was a renowned poet of ancient India.

This is from a work written in 400 AD by him , now please read entire story of Abhigyanshakuntalam yourself, let me quote relevant portions. A bride is there in court of her husband who is king, she has come with her parents. Gautami is her mother( one who brought her up).

"King (observing SHAKUNTALA). Ah!

Who is she, shrouded in the veil
That dims her beauty's lustre,"

Well, veil may mean anything, even head covering right?

Now,

"Gautami (to SHAKUNTALA). Forget your shame, my child. I will remove your veil. Then your husband will recognise you. (She does so.)"

So mother is removing veil after saying that she should remove her shame meaning veil was worn due to modesty and not fashion just as in 20th century India. That it was not head covering is clear from 'your hubby will recognise you'. So veils covering faces and worn out of shame were there in India in 400 AD too, now if our friends and 'experts ' say that islam emerged in 300 AD and came to India then, I am helpless

 

[Vikramjeet]

I do not support veils . However, I hope that now Buddhism and Buddha, Ramayana, Kalidas and entire sanskrit literature becomes barbarous and like JNU ones tell us deserve to be burnt as per our friends who were cluelessly talking about islam and veils. OK not my concern. Even logic tells us that Islam is not responsible for this, as south Indian areas where muslims ruled and had much impact like in Telangaan and N Karnataka do not have this custom.

Hinduism is as bad( debatable) as islam when it comes to things like this.
@sorcerer

You said that I like catching fish in murky waters. I hope you know this short poem

'Machhali jal ki rani hai, Pani uska jivan hai' ( fish is queen of water and water is its life).

Now this is what I say

Lekin main wo raja hun jo machhali ko pani me dubo dubo kar mar dalta hai.

(I am a king who kills queen fish by drowning it in water itself).


I hope you enjoyed the sport.:thumb:

 

[Jatt.Hindustan]

Well Idk, either way guru sahib already said w.e
Sri Granth: Shabad/Paurhi/Salok SGGS Page 484

They will stop it on their own, if we bring lot of attention to it the leftists will come like flies.

Rajastan already has lot of gora tourists because of these Musalman Ke Salay Jaipur Kachewas.

 

[Jatt.Hindustan]

Says she, "During the 'pheras' (Hindu marriage ritual) when my mother pulled my 'pallu' (free end of the sari covering the head up to the waist) down, I pulled it back with equal force - and this happened quite a few times!"

Lol if she is not covering her hair in marriage, she deserves to be thrown off a cliff.

Gurus banned veil not dupatta, let Rajputs do what they want.

It is their women, you can go with leftist army to xhange it, but Jatts and Rajputs of Punjab, Up, Mp, Bihar will also be there with Rajasthan.