Readers’ comments: Article makes false equivalence between Sabarimala, ghoonghat and hijab

I thoroughly enjoyed reading this article (“The Mughal emperor who tried to merge Vedanta with Islam”). In the fourth paragraph, the author writes “Jahangir was attempting something intellectually audacious: to prove that Vedanta and Sufism were essentially the same, expressed in different languages”, but this would be politically audacious in today’s era of political and communal intolerance and fanaticism.

Jahangir, a man although not without faults, was a great admirer and promoter of art and wildlife. I had the good fortune of reading the Sahitya Akademi Award winner Bengali novel Shahzada Dara Shukoh by Shyamal Gangopadhyay, in which I had traced Jahangir's pursuits in art, wildlife, ornithology etc. His ideas on Vedanta are equally commendable and represent the true essence of our pluralist nation.

It is interesting to note how the idea of worldly affairs to be “Maya” can terrify and fill a ruler with joy of turning his guilt into a dream at the same time. The author’s restraint in romanticising the episode is extremely appreciable. – Prayash Majumdar

Sabarimala restriction not the same as hijab

The article seemed to draw a number of false equivalences by bundling Sabarimala, the hijab and the ghoonghat under a single umbrella of “controlling women”, based on a superficial understanding of autonomy (“Why the Sabarimala verdict allowing women into the temple differs from the hijab ‘ban’”).

Sabarimala restricts a specific age group based on the unique celibate – Nisthika Brahmachari – nature of the deity. It has little to do with a universal “menstrual taboo” or stigma. This tradition coexists with women-only temples where men are excluded.

The hijab is scripturally rooted. It is tied to concepts like ghayrah (male honor/guardianship; ghairat in Urdu), making the enforcement of a woman's “decency” a male obligation.

The ghoonghat is a social custom rather than a scriptural mandate. It is practiced as a sign of deference and respect – even in front of older women – rather than as a tool for strict gender segregation. The ghoonghat carries auspicious connotations, like warding off the evil eye, and is often worn as a symbol of grace, celebrating the status of women, representing the polar opposite of the guilt and concealment associated with the Islamic veil. – Shivananda

FIR on poem

What audacity and ignorance to file an FIR against a poem on patriarchy (“Madhya Pradesh HC quashes FIR against teacher who shared Urdu poem as WhatsApp status”). Can’t someone post what they like on social media? – Roopa Sharma

Scrap Maharashtra project

The project must be scrapped and people should go to court (“Maharashtra: Centre clears 237 hectares forest land for port road, allows felling of 29,923 trees”). In the name of development, people don’t think about how trees and animals and locals will be affected. Every one has a right to live on the earth. – Atul Nikam

Indians and public spaces

I think another factor contributing to this problem is the inability of the service staff to intervene (“Why don’t Indians respect other users of public space?”).

In Western countries, the staff in restaurants, grocery stores, hotel lobbies, and airport lounges make the disruptive person aware of the effects of their behaviour, and, in extreme cases, escort them out. This ensures that respect and consideration in public remain normalised.

In our rigidly-hierarchical caste society, it will be very risky for service employees to be assertive with a socially-dominant person. As a result, most people in India are almost never called out for bad behaviour and remain blissfully unaware. – Surabhi Agarwal