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

[Vikramjeet]

@tarunraju

Do you see Telugu movies of pre 90s? i hope you have seen such scenes where a lady is being brought to marriage hall and she is full of shyness with heads down. now this is what you guys call 'sexual repression' and ascribe it to Victorian era or Muslims( no Muslim woman or Victorian lady behaved in this way but still).

Ancient Indian emperor Harshavardhana wrote a sanskrit drama when Muhammad was a merchant of Mecca. Relevant portions

'Autsukyen Kritatvara sahbhuva Vyavartmana Hriya Taistearbhanduvadhujanasya Vachanainirtabhimukhyam Punah Drishtavarge Varmattsadhwasarsa Gauri nave sangame sanrohatpulaka haren Hasta Shlishta Shivayastuh vah'

Translation : May Parvati bring prosperity to you - Parvati who was making haste in eagerness for the first meeting with Shiva but returned due to natural shyness and who was being brought forward by the ladies of her kith and kin with various persuasions with hair standing erect with joy on seeing the bridegroom and who was full of fear and was seen by Shiva laughingly.

This is from 620s.

 

[Vikramjeet]

The abuse happens when you twist fact of the texts and trying to squeeze it into present scenario.
oh..Just like you I was generalizing your posts and points...
AS some peope in here say "Showing the mirror"

Now you wanna bring sex into the picture...From veils to sex..

Who are you to talk about texts when you were clueless about all this? If you pseudo Hindus read texts, you would not have been in such an embarrassing position.

 

[Jatt.Hindustan]

Who are you to talk about texts when you were clueless about all this? If you pseudo Hindus read texts, you would not have been in such an embarrassing position.

Um no, you are an imbecile as SIKHS ARE HINDU AND HINDUS ARE SIKHS.

Show something supporting purdah in gurbani.

You can't, now just stay quiet while mod logs on to ban you.

 

[Vikramjeet]

I am sorry but these guys are pathetic. They are not aware of anything, shout 'islam did this' or islam did that. They call themselves Hindus but have not even read Ramayana or Mbh forget about Lalitvistara or such, when their position is shown as flawed in deep manner, they resort to abuses( what sort of moderation is there) and justify it.

Bye Bye.

 

[sorcerer]

Who are you to talk about texts when you were clueless about all this? If you pseudo Hindus read texts, you would not have been in such an embarrassing position.

As if you wrote the texts yourself... I ignore your inflated ego.

Embarassing positions...Are you a pre teen?
WHy is it embarassing and on what level..

 

[Vikramjeet]

Um no, you are an imbecile as SIKHS ARE HINDU AND HINDUS ARE SIKHS.

Show something supporting purdah in gurbani.

You can't, now just stay quiet while mod logs on to ban you.

I never said that. Gurbani is a recent work and no one knows about this outside a small circle of some people.

 

[sorcerer]

I am sorry but these guys are pathetic. They are not aware of anything, shout 'islam did this' or islam did that. They call themselves Hindus but have not even read Ramayana or Mbh forget about Lalitvistara or such, when their position is shown as flawed in deep manner, they resort to abuses( what sort of moderation is there) and justify it.

Bye Bye.

You assume and generalize a lot.. nd somehow you cant adjust the fact the others can be right too and they could be better informed than you.
I simplified it for you.

 

[Bangalorean]

Um no, you are an imbecile as SIKHS ARE HINDU AND HINDUS ARE SIKHS.

Show something supporting purdah in gurbani.

You can't, now just stay quiet while mod logs on to ban you.

Interesting that you say this: "Sikhs are Hindu and Hindus are Sikhs".

How many Sikhs feel the same way as you?

I am asking because a very prominent Sikh member of this forum @Singh, completely disagrees with you. His view is different.

 

[Jatt.Hindustan]

Interesting that you say this: "Sikhs are Hindu and Hindus are Sikhs".

How many Sikhs feel the same way as you?

I am asking because a very prominent Sikh member of this forum @Singh, completely disagrees with you. His view is different.

Vast majority who are not Leftists/Aaptards/Singh sabha valas know this:

http://www.hindunet.org/home/sikh/rverma/sumer.html

It was British who tried to split the two anyway.

Other thing is in Punjab, 'Hindu' tends to mean either an ultra orthodox congressi bramin, or a pakistani refugee bhappa who basically promotes urdu, same gotra marriage and allah in every song.

In that case we are not 'hindus' but neither are they.

Otherwise, as geo cultural term and not british religious construct yes we are Proud Hindus.

 

[Jatt.Hindustan]

I never said that. Gurbani is a recent work and no one knows about this outside a small circle of some people.

Not really Guru Nanak Dev ji reformed dozens of sects accross India from Jains to Goga Panthis. Lot of epople don't know that and I won't reveal more info to enemy.

 

[tarunraju]

@tarunraju

Do you see Telugu movies of pre 90s? i hope you have seen such scenes where a lady is being brought to marriage hall and she is full of shyness with heads down. now this is what you guys call 'sexual repression' and ascribe it to Victorian era or Muslims( no Muslim woman or Victorian lady behaved in this way but still).

Lol no. If you've ever been to a Telugu Hindu wedding, you'll find that the bride doesn't veil her head, nor is she "shy." The vows ceremony is kind of playful, and the bride usually has a commanding position over the events. Even in the Telugu "suhagraat," it's the bride that enters the room where the groom is sitting on the bed, and not the other way around (like in North India).

 

[sgarg]

Purdah is a remnant of dark period of India's history.

The Vedic system is covering the head in religious ceremonies. Otherwise no purdah is there.

 

[tarunraju]

Here are some random pics from Telugu weddings that I googled out for @Vikramjeet with my own captions

Look who's veiled (not the bride):

Challenge accepted:

Who's the shy one now?

Company, load your rifles!

Fire!

 

[sorcerer]

This is why I am not concerned with Christianisation of India. We have already lost our dresses( I am talking about fashionable ones not veils or such), our languages which are prime part of mankind, our architecture and tasty foods. All this due to ghazis. On the other hand , most important component of civilization which many parts do have basically social and religious framework are too regressive. I mean rituals, temples and mores can be defended but what about prudishness much worse than in Islam. So we lost things which are practical and what we have now is just aspects of our civilization which are regressive and not suitable in 21st century.

And your kind gets beaten..racialized..abused in the land of Christians that is west..
Is it because of the regression that the minorities are flurishing here in India though they have anti national tendencies towards the ones who helped them recoup in the first palce!
WOw!!!!
The civilization is accomodative and not regressive as so many regressive practices in religion were phased out as society advanced.

In India, there is a new religion called 'Kamasutraism' followed by all and sundry. JNU leftists and Hindu RW never agree on anything but when it comes to this religion, all become its adherents. This religion has a sacred book called 'Kamasutra' and Prophet of this religion is author Vatsyayana. The followers of this religion do not even know what he says on some things. His views( which were product of his prudish society that is ancient india) are more than enough to make look Sree Ram Sena and VHP nice liberal guys.

Since i have done extensive research on history of India I have read almost all primary sources including this sacred book. Let me quote some important parts.

This is what Prophet Vatsyayana says about how wives should behave

"The wife should always avoid the company of female
beggars, female buddhist mendicants, unchaste and rougish
women, female fortune tellers and witches. As regards meals
she should always consider what her husband likes and dislikes,
and what things are good for him, and what are injurious
to him When she hears the sounds of his footsteps
coming home she should at once get up, and be ready to do
whatever he may command her, and either order her female
servant to wash his feet, or wash them herself."

Wow.



And how she should live


"She should avoid bad expressions, sulky
looks, speaking aside, standing in the doorway, and looking
at passers-by, conversing in pleasure groves, and remaining in
a lonely place for a long time;"

Liberal views?


And when husbands are away from homes

"During the absence of her husband on a journey the virtuous
woman should wear only her auspicious ornaments, and
observe the fasts in honor of the Gods.
To the abode of her relations she should not go
except on occasions of joy and sorrow, and then she should
go in her usual travelling dress, accompanied by her husband's
servants, and not remain there for a long time."

So she should not enjoy anything not even decent dress.


Finally when he returns

"She should receive him at first in her ordinary
clothes, so that he may know in what way she has lived
during his absence, and should bring to him some presents,
as also materials for the worship of the Deity."



The following lines tell us that society was as harsh as some conservative people and that is why Vatsyayana suggests this to someone who is trying to start an affair with presents.

"In the next place he should get her to meet him in some
place privately, and should then tell her that the reason of
his giving presents to her in secret was the fear that the
parents of both of them might be displeased,"

and how girls behaved those days

"Now a girl always shows her love by outward signs and
actions such as the following:—She never looks the man
in the face, and becomes abashed when she is looked at by
him; under some pretext or other she shows her limbs to
him; she looks secretly at him though he has gone away
from her side; hangs down her head when she is asked some
question by him, and answers in indistinct words and unfinished
sentences"


Victorian prudishness beaten by this.

This is how a man should proceed in embracing

"But if he is not well acquainted
with her, or if she is a young girl, he should then embrace
her in darkness."

so embracing in darkness is showing sexual repressive nature of society.

Finally,

"although the girl loves the man
ever so much, she should not offer herself, or make the first
overtures, for a girl who does this loses her dignity, and is
liable to be scorned and rejected""

So wives should not look at passers by, should wear poor clothes in absence of husbands, should not visit pleasure gardens in absence, should not talk with unchaste and roguish women. Men fear their parents so much that they give presents in private at secret place, are advised to embrace their lover in dark while girls should be shy when looked at and should hang their hands downwards. Finally, a girl who makes first overtures is liable to be rejected and scorned.

These are not words of Praveen Togadia but Prophet Vatsyayana of religion of 'Kamasutraism'.

Doesnt all religions so far which came to this earth had a containment mechanism for women in various forms...that include christianity which you are batting for.
WHat woman should do..what she should not do..

but..
You seem to quote and try hard to paint it in regressive way..
Is it how it is practiced even now or have the Hinduism phased it out as society evolved?

 

[Virendra]

This is what Prophet Vatsyayana says

:shocked: ... :shocked: ......

 

[sorcerer]

@Vikramjeet was quoting random texts which are basic guidelines for a society.
What he didnt understand is a manual for society doesnt go by the way "May be." "If you want" ..If you think so ..etc..

A manual has Dos and Donts.. and its upto the humans to practice it according to their wish.

Poor soul took it for granted and tried to paint it all regressive.
He started the veil fo make Hinduism look regressive and tried to draw parallel to Islam conviniently forgetting the fact that the christian nuns have it all covered and they have a dress similar to Islamic practice.

Kamasutra was one regression he talked about where as the religion he said (christianity) is awesome had various taboos associated with sex.

The Old Testament raged against "whoredom" and decreed brutal penalties for unapproved sex. It commanded that non-virgin brides be stoned to death (Deut. 22:21).
In the first century C.E., Paul urged celibacy for Christians. The earliest known papal decree, issued by Pope Siricius in 386, attempted (without much success) to forbid church elders to make love with their wives. Scholar Reay Tannahill says early Christian leaders made sex and "sin" synonymous.
..
..
It wasn't until 1972 that the U.S. Supreme Court finally ruled that all American couples have a right to birth control.

His so called..."AWesome Christianity" created hell for people engaging in sex.
1972 is more recent than Vatsyana era..

This is not regression. according to him.



Well..he will redefine the term regression according to his belief..

 

[sorcerer]

:shocked: ... :shocked: ......

Yeah..he has done deeeep study in indian texts and is all knowledgable.


According to him Vatsyana is a Prophet..




Read the whole discussion man...you can see it plastered alll over the joint!!

 

[ezsasa]

Maybe it started as a means for womenfolk to protect themselves from the sun, and slowly got included as a tradition.

During the course of time got used a instrument of oppression by the so called elders.

 

[Ray]

@Vikramjeet

Thank you for the info that added to my education and knowledge.

 

[Vikramjeet]

:shocked: ... :shocked: ......

Muslims say 'Pakistan is land of Quran' , Christians say 'US is land of Bible' and Hindus say 'India is a land of kamasutra' so its writer must be prophet. Anyway, it was just a sarcasm.