Sometimes I think we don’t need anyone to beat us, we do it ourselves; we are told we are a society of oppressors and we believe it. Without checking the credentials of the tutor. Anyway, reading through cultural Indian history, which we don’t we read Indian political history as told to us; by the British historians we have harboured an image of ourselves.  Until the advent of the British there was no slavery in India. Veiling of women was unknown until the events of invasions became more frequent.

We are time and again told of the status of women in India, and how they were oppressed. The current scenario does look a little depressing in the cow belt. But look at the Indian cultural history as documented by Indian scholars as opposed to the British ones, or the WOGS

Kalahana in Rajatarangini talks of the queens being political active, he refers to independent funds managed by the queens to handle public issues

  • Prince Candrapid and Lalitaditya were sons  of a divorcee Baniya woman,1
  • The mother of the King Sankarvarman was a spirit distiller
  • The Patta-rani of King Cakravarman was a Domba woman

The best ways to track these are not history books but the folk stories and legends of the people. The mother of KrishnadevaRaya was a divorcee of an Andhra Brahmin scholar, who stayed back to groom his son and was known as Appaji.

The constant war between the Muslim Invaders and the defending royalty brought about the use of purdah in the women of  warrior clan, these usual happened to be the elite, the purdah system then became a symbol of elitism  it eventual trickled down to the public.

The concepts of Anugamana (Sati) came about again in the Martial elite to avoid the torture post captivity, again followed the trend of Purdah

Dramatists like Bhana, have denounced this vociferously, but I guess fashion and the need to be part of the elite made this a tradition