Continuing yesterday's thread on ghoongat or a veil. Verious references from scriptures were presented yesterday to show that women led a free life and were not secluded in any way. Continuing with the same, let's see some more references.
Altekar says at the beginning of the Christian Era, a certain section of the society began to advocate greater seclusion for women. Especially royal ladies were kept seculded, the general notion being that they should appear in the public gaze.
Hence we see in Bhāsa's (200 AD) drama Pratimā Mata Sita appears on the satge with a veil which she asked to remove by Shri Ram so that the people could get a parting glance of their Princess.
The widows of Maharaj Dasharath are shown to be veiled when they go out to see the gallery of royal statues. This prevents even Bharata from recognising them.
In Svapnavāsavadattā, Padmāvatī, although doesn't observe purdah in her maidenhood, is uncomfortable at the prospect of her husband recieving the ambassador from Ujjaini in her presence.
Her objection is overruled by the king and he states that the elite of the society would feel offended if purdah was observed by the queen in their presence.
This can lead to one conclusion that by the at least some sections of the society, namely royal families had begun to from an opinion that their women should observe a veil when in public observes Altekar.
Some of the elites were and the fashionable society began following the example of the royals. In Mrichchhaktika we find courtesan Vasantsenā being offered a veil when raised to the status of a respectable lady.
But again this was confined to a select few and probably confined to one part of the country. This practice seemed altogether irrational to women and was opposed by them.
From the Lalitavistāra we see that when Gopā, the bride-select of the Buddha was betrothed to him, she was advised to wear a veil. She refused to comply stating that the pure in thought requires no such artificial protection.
Purdah was opposed by many spirited ladies and as a result it didn't become for many centuries even after that. The system might have prevailed in some of royal families in Northern India.
Kalidāsa, who belonged to a later era tha Bhāsa, doesn't mention veil in any of his works save in one place. The heroine, appears wearing a veil in Act V.
But that is worn by her for protection against dust and wind. And she doesn't take it off for some time because she was feeling shy for that was her first public appearance in front of her husband, explains Altekar.
Contemporary art doesn't depict any kind of veil of women's faces. Sculptures at Sanchi ( 2nd century BC) could see procession from balconies of their houses without covering their faces.
The same is the case in Deccan during the 5th and 6th century AD. Out of the many paintings at Ajanta, none show veil or purdah. It can be concluded hence that the covering of face was unknown on Deccan at this time.
In one of the paintings we see Māyādevī seated in the open court without any veil, when astrologers are being consulted about the implications of her dream. Description in the SS.
Vidhura Pandita delivers his sermons to royal ladies and none of the ladies has coverd her face in this presence.
Both at Sanchi and Ajanta we see men and women moving together in streets and participating in worship at public places. Again no face cover visible.
We can assume that showing a veil would be difficult for a sculptor but not to a painter. So, if we see married women moving around without covering their faces in Ajanta paintings, we can safely conclude that the practice was not in vogue.
Yuan Chuang has given a pretty detailed description of Hindu society in 7th Century AD but he no where refers to purdah.
He also describes Rājyashrī, the widowed sister of Harsha, used to attend her brother's court without a veil.
He also describes Rājyashrī, the widowed sister of Harsha, used to attend her brother's court without a veil.
Rājataranginī gives a detailed account of the life in Kashmir court and palace during the period of 700-1159 AD. Again, no mention of purdah.
Abu Zaid, an Arabic traveller of early 10tg century mentions that Indian queens appeared in public without any veils.
It can be therefore concluded that purdah, if it existed, was limited to a very small section of the society.
It can be therefore concluded that purdah, if it existed, was limited to a very small section of the society.
Hindu society did not have anything akin to purdah although there were certain restrictions on the movement of women.
To be continued in the next thread.
To be continued in the next thread.
Loading suggestions...