Click to play videoUPA's Presidential nominee Pratibha Patil has kicked up a storm among Muslim groups and historians by saying that the purdah system emerged in India to protect women from Mughal aggressors.
Patil's statement has evoked sharp reactions from Muslim groups and historians, who feel it was unnecessary for her to incorporate communal views in her speech.
They say it not only betrays Patil's poor knowledge of history but also underlines the perception that there are soft Hindutva elements in the Congress as well.
Historians too are contesting Patil's remarks, saying segregation of men and women and veiling from the in-laws existed since the 11th century
Coming from the UPA-Left Presidential candidate, the statement is particularly shocking considering she had only recently and rather famously proved her secular credentials after refused to sign the anti-conversion bill sent to her by the Rajasthan government.
But is Patil's comment much ado about nothing? Face the Nation debated the issue with General Secretary, Jamait-e- Ulema-e- Hind and Rashtriya Lok Dal MP Maulana Mahmood Madani; Columnist with The Pioneer Sandhya Jain; and historian from the Institute for Development Studies, Jaipur Varsha Joshi.
At the outset, all panelists agreed that Patil's comments were uncalled for. "Anything that a presidential candidate says holds a meaning. She should have been careful and nuanced it and it's an inter-community and intra-community issue and needed nuancing," said Sandhya Jain.
Interesting reactions also poured in on IBNLive.com. A reader Anju Chandel wrote in saying, "Though it's true that purdah system was prevalent much before Mughals invaded India it cannot be disputed that its enforcement became stricter during Mughal era."
All's not veil
The comment seemed to upset Joshi who dismissed the observation and said the implementation of purdah started in the strictest of terms much before. "This happened much before Muslims entered India or Rajasthan to be particular," she said.
Sandhya Jain however played the liberal and opined that looking at history and Patil’s comments simultaneously may not be the best way to go about analysing the situation.
“She has said it in the present context and I don’t know if she was addressing a Hindu or a Muslim constituency here. If she did refer to Muslims, the veil has a larger international conspiracy and controversy being created from outside India,†she said.
She also pointed out that just a few months ago Britain was in the eye of the storm as regards the veil issue. “Also, actor Shabana Azmi goes to House of Commons, wins an honour, comes back and says purdah must go. Then there’s Salman Rushdie who gets to bear the brunt for wroting Satanic Verses. There is a feeling among the Muslims of being hemmed in and I am not sure if Patil’s was the right way to discuss history or social reality,†Jain said.
Maulana Madani said while he partially agreed with Patil’s comment as regards the international scenario, he also alleged that the presidential nominee had “twisted†history. “Her statement has twisted history. In the present conditions, she sould haveve said it. India’s cultiure – cutting across all religions - has given purdah the status it now commands,†he said.
Maulana also disagreed that purdah system was imposed more strictly during the Mughal era. However, Jain said that Muslim dominance in India began when Mughals invaded India and ruled for 600 years. “Even today, one prominent Imam said we have ruled community for 800 years and Inshallah 9God willing), we shall rule again. We cannot forget all of that either,†she said.
Purdah, symbol of Indian culture?
Jain also said there has been “conflict and molestation of religious icons – if not of both genders, then at least of oneâ€. But the question is whether a person of such public importance as presidential candiadate should have brought it up in such blunt a fashion.
The sentiment found an echo in Joshi’s opinion as well. “It (purdah) was certainly not due to fear from Muslims, it certainly could have been about imitating their culture into our society,†said Joshi, asserting while the context of Patil’s comments may have been right, the delivery of her words wasn’t.
But Maulana did not agree with either. “The purdah among Muslims is cultural. And the purdah among the non-Muslims is also part of our culture. If someone wants to leave it, they can. But it shouldn’t be imposed,†he said.
Maulana’s comments did not seem to go down well with Jain who said that it wasn’t the purdah that was a part of Indian culture but “unnecessary staring at women†that was admonished in epics like Ramayana. “Purah is not a Hindu custom at all,†she said.
But the historian on the panel decided to put it in perspective when she said purdah was a part of Hindu culture – only, it’s called ghoonghat. “It symolised respect for elders by the daughter-in-law of the family. Especially in the Rajput families in Rajasthan, purdah is very different from the one in Muslim families,†she summed up.
Final results of SMS poll:
Is Patil's comment on purdah much ado about nothing?
Yes: 12 per cent
No: 88 per cent
(For updates you can share with your friends, follow IBNLive on Facebook, Twitter and Google+)
displayed with permission. Use of the CNN name and/or logo on or as part of CNN-IBN does not derogate from the intellectual property rights of Cable News Network in respect of them.