Sexual Liberalism in India vs. The Purdah System

[gorah_pindu]

Dr Ambedkar said, in his book 'Pakistan, or The Partition of India':

As a consequence of the purdah system, a segregation of the Muslim women is brought about. The ladies are not expected to visit the outer rooms, verandahs, or gardens; their quarters are in the back-yard. All of them, young and old, are confined in the same room. No male servant can work in their presence. A woman is allowed to see only her sons, brothers, father, uncles, and husband, or any other near relation who may be admitted to a position of trust. She cannot go even to the mosque to pray, and must wear burka (veil) whenever she has to go out. These burka women walking in the streets is one of the most hideous sights one can witness in India. Such seclusion cannot but have its deteriorating effects upon the physical constitution of Muslim women. They are usually victims to anaemia, tuberculosis, and pyorrhoea. Their bodies are deformed, with their backs bent, bones protruded, hands and feet crooked. Ribs, joints and nearly all their bones ache. Heart palpitation is very often present in them. The result of this pelvic deformity is untimely death at the time of delivery. Purdah deprives Muslim women of mental and moral nourishment. Being deprived of healthy social life, the process of moral degeneration must and does set in. Being completely secluded from the outer world, they engage their minds in petty family quarrels, with the result that they become narrow and restricted in their outlook. ... The physical and intellectual effects of purdah are nothing as compared with its effects on morals. The origin of purdah lies of course in the deep-rooted suspicion of sexual appetites in both sexes and the purpose is to check them by segregating the sexes. But far from achieving the purpose, purdah has adversely affected the morals of Muslim men. Owing to purdah, a Muslim has no contact with any woman outside those who belong to his own household. Even with them his contact extends only to occasional conversation. For a male there is no company of, and no commingling with, the females, except those who are children or aged. This isolation of the males from females is sure to produce bad effects on the morals of men. It requires no psychoanalyst to say that a social system which cuts off all contact between the two sexes produces an unhealthy tendency towards sexual excesses and unnatural and other morbid habits and ways.

It has always seemed obious to me that segregation of the sexes produces unhealthy attitudes. Countries that have a healthy attitude toward sex, often have some of the lowest rates of sexual crime, for instance in the Netherlands, Scandanavian countries and Japan. Furthermore, it is stupid to treat this perticular bodily function and part of human culture as a taboo. What makes selling sex any different from selling labour in a factory? Both have risks, that can be prevented by safety practices. Both can be exploitative, if a country dosent regulate them properly. Both involve physical labour using a natural bodily function. India wasnt exactly a prudish country in the past, and it need not be in future. The anecdotal and irrationally fearfull attitudes of some Indians toward sexual liberalism could do with some re-assesment.

[sandtest]

India wasnt exactly a prudish country in the past, and it need not be in future. The anecdotal and irrationally fearfull attitudes of some Indians toward sexual liberalism could do with some re-assesment.

Exactly agree.... Purdah or Ghoonghat-- as is it can be seen in my village in UP is something which is "inspired" or enforced during Mughal era on us. This has nothing to do with Vedas, Upanishads,Puranas, Buddhists Suttas or Jainism etc.-- which are foundations of religious belief in India since ancient times. I was wondering while watching Mahabharat when Urvashi-- an apsara was performing a dance in front of Indra ( the king of gods also mentioned in Vedas several times), and when Arjun enters in that Rajsabha, the dialogue between Arjun and Urvashi are so open and the dressing etc. nothing suggets Ghoonghat or Purdah. We are a country where Kanya use to select her "Var" (Husband) through open Swyamwar (Own choice). Wonder how deep this Purdah system has got into our society.

[yoda]

India wasnt exactly a prudish country in the past, and it need not be in future. The anecdotal and irrationally fearfull attitudes of some Indians toward sexual liberalism could do with some re-assesment.

I agree that we could do with some re-assesment, but which past are you talking about?

[gorah_pindu]

Exactly agree.... Purdah or Ghoonghat-- as is it can be seen in my village in UP is something which is "inspired" or enforced during Mughal era on us. This has nothing to do with Vedas, Upanishads,Puranas, Buddhists Suttas or Jainism etc.-- which are foundations of religious belief in India since ancient times. I was wondering while watching Mahabharat when Urvashi-- an apsara was performing a dance in front of Indra ( the king of gods also mentioned in Vedas several times), and when Arjun enters in that Rajsabha, the dialogue between Arjun and Urvashi are so open and the dressing etc. nothing suggets Ghoonghat or Purdah. We are a country where Kanya use to select her "Var" (Husband) through open Swyamwar (Own choice). Wonder how deep this Purdah system has got into our society.

You are right - if anything, the ancient texts celebrated openly sultry romance. How times have changed with conservative foreign influence. Just because Arab tribesmen needed conservative garments to keep out the sand, their culture was ignorant enought to assume their tradition represented the height of civilization - the same goes for the Victorian era attitudes of the British.

[gorah_pindu]

I agree that we could do with some re-assesment' date=' but which past are you talking about?[/quote'] This past:

[yoda]

don't know if that was indeed real or just fiction. yes, we all have seen those orgies on some our temple structures and seen illustrations as above in some writings. but in real life, even in parts of India which were not as moghul dominated as others, you would find that women are/were in absolute modest clothing covered from head to toe.

[The Outsider]

but in real life, even in parts of India which were not as moghul dominated as others, you would find that women are/were in absolute modest clothing covered from head to toe.

Have you visited tribal areas in MP and Chhatisgarh? Women walking around with one bare breast is quite a common sight in the interiors.

[gorah_pindu]

even in parts of India which were not as moghul dominated as others, you would find that women are/were in absolute modest clothing covered from head to toe.

You dont have to be politically controlled to be culutrally effected. Conservativism became the style of the land - and its time India re-assessed this. And as pointed out above, there are areas in which this tradition isnt practical.

don't know if that was indeed real or just fiction.

Some people argue that courtly life bore no resemblance to village life. But neither does middle class life bear any resemblance to village life. I.E. should an educated Indian not be able to choose whether he/she wishes to watch intimacy in a movie?

[yoda]

Have you visited tribal areas in MP and Chhatisgarh? Women walking around with one bare breast is quite a common sight in the interiors.

Haven't visited the tribal areas of those states, but yes, I am in agreement that tribals are typically less clothed than the others. in parts of TN they are referred to as korathees. i am not sure if they can be used to cite how others may have dressed few generations ago. the tribals seem to be in their own social evolutionary cycle.

[gorah_pindu]

I doubt very much that people living in a tropical or subtropical environment would have worn heavy clothing in the 10th century. Given that the ruling class and priesthood didnt have qualms about nudity in art, I doubt very much that the average villager would have had qualms about not wearing a top, or wearing only a small piece of cloth across the breasts. European dress evolved from the need to remian warm, Arab dress evolved from the need to remain free from harsh sands - as their culture developed, these geographical trends were enshrined as 'tradition', and eventually religion. Thus, arriving in foreign lands, they inevitably noted 'half naked barbarity', as if their own relative trends were more justified. These prejudices lacked any justification beyond 'the way we live is better, so conform'. The Europeans kidded themselves that lack of clothing was closer to animal insticts, and the nudity of the beast, when in reality, it was mearly a social phenomenon dictated by climate, and Indian civilization had been simultaniously advanced and nude.

[yoda]

something interesting:

saris origins are obscure, in part because there are so few historical records in India. Yet, we know that Indians were wearing unsewn lengths of cloth draped around their bodies long before tailored cloths arrived. One of the earliest depictions of a Sari-like drape covering the entire body dates back to 100 B.C. A North-Indian Terracotts depicts a woman wearing a Sari wound tightly around her entire body in the trouser style. This elaborate body-hugging style represented in the terracotta may have evolved among India's temple dancers in ancient times to allow their limbs freedom of movement while at the same time maintaining their standards of modesty. There are many sculptures of Graeco-Indian Gandharan civilization which show a variety of different Sari draping styles. Tailored clothes arrived in India with the arrival of Muslims. Hindus beleived that any cloth pierced by needles was impure. It is commonly beleived in India that today's petticoat or "Ghagra" and the blouse or "Choli" which are worn under the Sari are later additions which started with the coming of British in India. Increasing number of upper class women in the early 20th century did adopt items of European style clothing as the fitted blouse and slim petticoat. This was also adopted due to the fashion of transparent chiffon Saris during that particular period. Some of the wives of Indian Kings draped themselves in Saris that were made by Parisian designers. The concept of beauty in ancient India was that of small waist and large bust and hips, as is evident in the sculptures of those times. And Sari seemed to be the perfect dress to flaunt those proportions as it exposes the waist of a woman and emphasises the waist and bust with the pleated fabric. Sometimes women wore accesories like Girdle(a belt) with elaborate design around their waist to emphasize the hip area.

http://www.puja.com/sari/hstry/hstry.htm#

[gorah_pindu]

Nobody is debating the age of the sari, rather showing that it existed alongside other forms of dress, which I pictured above.

[kumble_rocks]

A woman is allowed to see only her sons, brothers, father, uncles, and husband, or any other near relation who may be admitted to a position of trust. She cannot go even to the mosque to pray, and must wear burka (veil) whenever she has to go out. These burka women walking in the streets is one of the most hideous sights one can witness in India. Such seclusion cannot but have its deteriorating effects upon the physical constitution of Muslim women.

Very true ! Women have rights too and Muslim men SHOULD NOT force the burqa in the name of religion. That constitutes to discrimination ,IMO. I always wondered why socially liberated women like Tabu,Shabana Azmi etc do not wear burqa. Maybe they consider it oppressive just like I do !

[yoda]

Nobody is debating the age of the sari' date=' rather showing that it existed alongside other forms of dress, which I pictured above.[/quote'] Would be interesting to read some additional evidence to support these other forms. While I agree that paintings and sculptures have a good reason to represent contemporary culture, some of them don't seem to square well with the overall conservative dressing of the older generation. And I am not convinced all of it can be written off as due to the arrival of the Moghuls and the British.

[gorah_pindu]

BTW, some parts of the above article are very innaccurate - for example, tailored cloth was used in India far before the arrival of Islam - the military has used tailored material since antiquity, with Mauryan troops wearing cloth armor, and shoes of hide. Furthermore, the popular style during the era of the Kushans (before Islam existed) was tailored cloth. Other parts, such as the idea of modesty, appear to mainly be the opinion of the site in question.

[gorah_pindu]

Would be interesting to read some additional evidence to support these other forms. While I agree that paintings and sculptures have a good reason to represent contemporary culture' date=' some of them don't seem to square well with the overall conservative dressing of the older generation. And I am not convinced all of it can be written off as due to the arrival of the Moghuls and the British.[/quote'] You seem to be missing my point. You have acnolwedged that art of the time contained liberal sexuality. I am arguing for art of our time to contain the same level of liberalism. Im not arguing for people to dress like apsaras in a village. Im arguing for liberalism in our entertainment and attitudes. Would you agree with this? The debate of whether the art of the past represents ordinary life or not is irrelevent to what im saying.

[yoda]

Movies are the biggest form of entertainment for the public and you would agree that sexual themes and more explicit sex is the trend there. Regarding attitude, I donno. We in general don't like to talk sex except amongst close friends and life partner and I am ok with it.

[gorah_pindu]

There is worrying censorship within the entertainment industry by religious prudes. This minority dictates what the majority can and cannot watch or read. Additionally, in public, there has been instances of couples being arrested for holding hands, etc. A large portion of the population, maintain an irrational taboo against sensuality, which allows this censorship to go unchallengd. I would like to see change sooner rather than wait decades.

[Guest dada_rocks]

Ambedkar seldom pulled any punches.Good thing about him damning sick practices of our time is that today not many if any ( Arun Shauri is the exception but then he is Rajya Sabha material) can muster the courage to attack him personally and still be politically relevant .

[Guest dada_rocks]

There is worrying censorship within the entertainment industry by religious prudes. This minority dictates what the majority can and cannot watch or read. Additionally, in public, there has been instances of couples being arrested for holding hands, etc. A large portion of the population, maintain an irrational taboo against sensuality, which allows this censorship to go unchallengd. I would like to see change sooner rather than wait decades.

You are over-exaggerating real picture is anything but. At one-end is irrational police lathi-charge for hand-holding and at the other end is couples actually indulging in the make-out spectacle involving groping and what not in public parks. If I could borrow the analogy from the electrical response of a system with two-pole transfer function with a step input , then these aberrations of extreme behaviour of opposite hue are not only unavoidable but also desirable in the sense they assure u about the robust stability of the system.