Mughals and Backwardness of Indian Women

By Adv. Irfan Engineer

The Presidential nominee of the UPA made an unnecessary

statement linking the ghunghat of Hindu women to the Mughal rule.

School text-books in South Asia are full of such unverified “wisdom”. The

authors of the text-books are paid low remuneration which does not attract

accomplished academicians to write the school text-books. The text-books

reflect the beliefs and perceptions of their urban upper caste male authors,

which may not always be factual. In fact text books in Rajasthan even

glorify fascism as more efficient than democracy and therefore preferable

in many respects. Even after passing school, the impressionistic

information imparted to school students through the text books persist if

not critically examined by them in pursuit of higher academics or for

better understanding. However, presidential nominee should be careful

while making such unverified statements. Such statements of a

presidential nominee may be misused by communal elements.

Renowned Historian Harbans Mukhiya opines that the practice of

ghunghat pre-dated the Mughal rule. Purdah worn by Muslim women in

the South Asian sub-continent is not seen in any other country or region.

Covering head by wearing a head scarf or chador is more in practice in

other countries. In fact, the purdah or burqa worn by Indian Muslim

women is modified and adopted form of ghunghat worn by Hindu women.

where the Mughal Rulers have originated, I didn’t find a single women

wearing anything like purdah or a veil. Women were dressed more like

their European counter parts. If the ghunghat of the Hindu women were

under Mughal influence, then Muslim women outside South Asia also

should have been burqa or veil. However, this is not the case. Whether

burqa influenced ghunghat or the other way round is anybody guess.

The argument that ghunghat was a protective mechanism of Hindu

women against the atrocities of Mughals will also not take us very far. The

power wielding male aggressor out to satisfy his lust seldom respects

burqas or ghunghats. Power wielding elite exploit helpless victims to

satisfy their lust without any respect for dress code of any woman. The

argument that ghunghat protected women from sexual lust of power

wielding men will logically lead us to the conclusion that victims of rape

are themselves responsible for the crime and invited the sexual assault as

they were not properly clad. How do you explain rapes in police custody

and sexual harassment at workplace in that case? Can one imagine a dalit

landless labourer sexually assaulting an upper caste woman from a land

owning family in a village however she may be dressed? Not because dalit

males respect the individuality of the fairer sex but they know that the

consequence of such a misadventure. What matters is, who is vested with

power and social sanctions and not how one is dressed.

the belief that the only oppressors of Hindu women in medieval period

were the Mughal aggressors. Otherwise everything else was hunky dory

for the Hindu women. No doubt all monarchs have oppressed peasants,

landless, lower castes and women and the Mughal Emperors were no

different in that respect. Mughal rulers, as all monarchs head an oppressive

social structure unprivileging the peasants, artisans and women vesting

social sanctions and authority in the hands of local rulers or rajas,

landlords, upper castes and male members of the society. Sexual assault on

women was just one of the way women were exploited, and sexual

exploiters of women were privileged sections of male, irrespective of their

religion. The Mughal rule was not without the consent of Hindu rulers and

elites of the time, which included the upper caste males, landlords and the

priests who gave social sanction to unprivileging women in general and

lower caste women in particular, making them vulnerable to sexual

assaults. The right wing Hindu ideology absolves the responsibility of the

Hindu male elite, the landlords and the upper caste males in oppression of

women.

Renowned Historian Uma Chakravorty has studied the oppression

of women in ancient India by examining records, documents and

analyzing ancient stories. Oppression of Hindu widows and segregation of

upper caste women in ancient India has been well documented now. In

fact women listening to recitation from religious scriptures were to be

objects like drums and animals which deserve to be beaten. Feudal system

always considered wives as dasi (slave) and even today many women

consider their husbands as their devta (face of god). Rajputs in Rajasthan

defend sati with pride as their ancient tradition. There is therefore a basic

fallacy in the argument that backward traditions in one community are due

to influence of other community. Women across religion, caste or ethnic

origins have been oppressed. Comparing or even blaming another

community for the plight of women belonging to one’s community will

only communalize the cause of women’s emancipation.

Islam was one of the first religions which recognized the

independent existence of women. The Holy Quran does not address only

men – it addresses both the genders. Women are entitled to inherit half the

share inherited by her brother. Muslim women can also enjoy her property

and even her husband may not interfere with her right. The holy Quran

also calls upon the Muslim men and women to learn and acquire

knowledge and wisdom and to go to China if need be to acquire

knowledge. In fact there are many Hadith (Prophet’s pronouncement)

which prove that women would not only participate in religious and social

affairs but would also argue with the Holy Prophet. However, as Islam

spread far and wide outside Arab territories, feudal traditions and practices

got better of Islam and the feudal elites justified the old feudal practices as

Islamic. Muslim women are amongst the most oppressed and subjugated
today. Oppressive traditions are product of certain socio-economic system.

The feudal values and traditions of the past still continue and women

continue to be oppressed irrespective of the religion they follow. Invoking

name of god grants far more legitimacy to patriarchy.

Communalizing the cause of women’s empowerment will do a

great disservice to the cause of empowerment of women. It will segregate

and divide the women along community lines pitting them against each

other. The need of the hour is that women of all communities, castes, and

nations together should lead a war on patriarchy and be assisted in their

efforts by men who are for gender justice. Whether women wear burqa or

ghunghat by itself is not an issue. What is important is that no woman

should be dictated any dress code. Jack Straw’s lecture to Muslim women

in UK that their veil was an obstruction to good communal relations

Christians and Muslims was equally impolite. What is important is that

women, irrespective of the dress they chose to wear, including ghunghat

or burqa should enjoy all the rights enjoyed by men equally and without

any discrimination and that it is their constitutional right to be independent

and individual, and the same should be respected by one and all.