Women and Their Affines: The Veil as a Symbol of Separation Author(s): Ursula M.

Sharma Source: Man, New Series, Vol. 13, No. 2 (Jun., 1978), pp. 218-233 Published by: Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2800246 . Accessed: 20/05/2013 06:23
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Man.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 163.1.62.81 on Mon, 20 May 2013 06:23:22 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

THE

AFFINES: AND THEIR WOMEN OF SEPARATION VEIL AS A SYMBOL

URSULA M. SHARMA University ofKeele

to the practicewherebya woman veils her nikalnarefers In northIndia, the termghungat ofghungat as practisedin seniorto her own husband. A description facefromall male affines have described Ghanyari, a Himalayan village, is given here. Generally,anthropologists ghungat within the context of discussionsof household organisation.However, as women and 'courtesy'affines, i.e. to most of the seniormen in the extendghungat to all classificatory is betterunderstood as a practice which controlsthe activitiesof women village, ghungat as a whole, not just within the household. Ghungatlimitsthe within the villagecommunity interaction ofjunior women with seniormales, especiallyhigh caste seniormales, i.e. those who may be expected to wield most power in the community.It is also a depersonalising women sociallyinvisiblein public contexts.Yet women in Ghanyariare device, rendering It must be understoodas a didactic not social ciphersand the device is not wholly effective. which is onlypartially realisedin ofinteraction withaffines practice,defining an ideal pattern reality.

in a northIndianvillage,thepractice During thefirst daysof myfieldwork me alien and curiouswas theghungat. All grown whichinitially struck as most women in Ghanyari, the Himachal Pradesh village where I worked, customarily wear a loose shirt(kamiz) over baggy trousers(salwar)with a drawn about the head and shoulders.Ghungat wide scarfor shawl (dupatta) nikalnameans to draw the edge of the scarfover one's face so as to veil it beforeherhusband'sfather, completely.A marriedwoman practises ghungat elder brotherand uncles, and indeed beforemost of the older men of the village where she is married. I found it disturbingwhen an informal with a group of women was interrupted conversation and my companions would veil themselves as an olderman passed and become silent and restrained wherewe were sitting. Since it made such an impression on by thecourtyard me it seemed remarkablethatthisarea of symbolicbehaviour had been so generally neglectedby anthropologists who have studiedsouthAsian society, now thatthe social controlof women althoughperhapsthiswill be rectified has become a respectable area of concern.Hitchcockand Minturn(I963) give in the course of an a good deal of usefulinformation about veilingpractices account of familyorganisationand child-rearing practicesin Khalapur, a Rajput village in Uttar Pradesh. Doranne Jacobson (1970) has provided an in Nimkhera,a village excellentaccountofbothghungat andpurda as practised in Madhya Pradesh. These accounts reveal some variationsin the way in whichghungat is practised in different regionsofnorthIndia,but on thewhole the similarities are more strikingthan the differences. Discussions of the practicehave dealt with it mainly in termsof avoidance behaviour. Thus
Man (N.S.)
13, 2I

8-33.

This content downloaded from 163.1.62.81 on Mon, 20 May 2013 06:23:22 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

URSULA M. SHARMA

219

as a 'distance'techniqueand her account relies theghungat Jacobsendescribes made by Radcliffe-Brownand Murphy to the heavilyon the contributions study of 'social distance' and avoidance patterns(Radcliffe-Brown I952; helps reduce tensionwithin Murphy I964). Consideredin thisway, ghungat the joint family. First it may help minimise fension by reducing the forsexual competitionamong the men of the same household opportunities (acobson 1970: 205). Presumablybrothersare less likelyto lust aftereach charmsare concealed fromthem.Secondly,where other'swives ifthelatter's of themother-inhusbandsin thepresence fromtheir women veil themselves in his wife in the law, this preventsthe man from taking undue interest of loyalties froma conflict presenceof his mother.He is less liable to suffer with not to interact when his wife and his motherquarrelifhe is constrained both of them on the same occasion (acobson 1970: 221). Hitchcock and Minturn (I963: 240) advance much the same kind of explanation for this (along on thewaysin whichghungat Jacobsonalso laysstress aspectofghungat. and therelationships servesto subordinate withotherconventionalrestraints) of the loyaltiesthatobtain withinthe nuclear familygroup to the structure 'plays down' the conjugal bond,just as the largerjoint familyunit. Ghungat to one's childrenin the presenceof elders 'plays ban on showing affection bond. Finally,and perhapsmostobviously,it reduces down' theparent-child and may betweena woman and hermale affines thelikelihoodofopen conflict even give her a 'sense of privacy'in a strangeplace (acobson 1970: 222). One would not wish to quarrel with these approaches; they are useful and it has a 'distancing'effect certainly of what goes on. Ghungat descriptions whose relationship betweencertaincategoriesof affine does limitinteraction however,is the In dispute, mightbe supposedto be subjectto specialtensions. For one thing,bothJacobson'sand my own adequacy of such observations. solelyin thecontextof domestic is not practised ghungat data make it clearthat women veil before In bothNimkheraand Ghunyari and family relationships. who are not membersof ego's domestic a large numberof 'courtesy'affines As group and who even live in othervillages(e.g. daughter'sfather-in-law). a in except familial purely even nor practice, is a domestic purely not ghungat or of domestic in terms solely be explained can hardly it very loose sense, of the consideredas a feature is more appropriately familytensions.Ghungat of the wider village community.As such,it is a social and politicalstructure women and it is a highly means of controlling the behaviourof in-marrying will be related ghungat mode ofcontrol.In thisarticle economicaland selective in ruralsocietyin north to some generalaspectsof femalerolesand activities is controlledand to the mannerin which property India; more particularly, and of village solidarity and at a less concretelevel to principles transmitted, village exogamy. Ghanyari is a village of about 450 people, situated in District Una (Himachal Pradesh),a relatively poor and infertile hill tract.There are few holdingsof more thanten or eleven acres,and most are smaller.Most of the land is held bymembersofa group ofsecularBrahmans, butmanyhouseholds of all castesdependheavilyon remittances sentby wage-earningmembersof

This content downloaded from 163.1.62.81 on Mon, 20 May 2013 06:23:22 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

220

URSULA M. SHARMA

the familyemployed in the armyor in urban work of one kind or another. The inheritanceof land, and indeed most other kinds of property,is At leastitis customarily patrilineal. so, sincerecent legislation providesforthe of land by daughters. making of wills and forthe inheritance However the existence of theselaws has as yetmade littledifference to theactualpracticein thisarea. Usuallyland is dividedequallyamong thesonsofa man,thoughnot necessarily at the time of his death. A group of brothers as joint may persist property holdersforsome timeafter the deathof theirfather, thoughusually when themotheris stillliving.In suchcasestheelderbrother exercises formal controlover thehousehold'saffairs and over theway in whichland is used. If thefather diesat an advanced age itis likelythattheelderbrother will already have been exercising thiscontrolforsome time,as an elderlyman may 'retire' fromday-to-day controloftheland as he becomeslessactivephysically. Ifthe eldest son is working outside the village, as may well be the case, the next eldestwill usuallytakethelead in day-to-day decisionmaking,but theeldest will expect to have thefinalsay in importantdecisions.That, at least,is the ideal pattern, forseniority is a centralprinciplein householdorganisation. In familieswhere a large group of brotherscontinues to constitutea joint householdof thiskind,what more frequently is thatthose happensin practice who can get work outsidethevillage do so, and day-to-daydecisionmaking so faras theland is concernedwill be made by whicheverbrother remainsat home. Very occasionally partition of propertyis deferredfor a whole generation, thatis,untilthegrandsons have grown up and are readyto marry. The group on whose behalf a man holds land may therefore be a large completejointhouseholdor itmaybe a nuclearfamily, accordingto thephase of the domesticcycle which has been reached. However, when property is divided among brothers theywill usuallycontinueto co-operatein political and ritualaffairs even iftheyno longer constitute a property-holding unitor productionteam. Not all men in Ghanyari own muchproperty, thougheven thepoorestwill usuallypossessa house site and some agricultural implements, even if they have no land or cattle.Some artisans hold rights to perform jajmani services forBrahmanhouseholdsbut manyof theserights are no longerexercisedand thejajmanisystem in Ghanyari is in an advanced stageof decay.When thereis no land nor anyextensivejajmani rights there is farlessincentive forthesonsto stay togetheraftertheir father'sdeath, so that large joint households are uncommon lower down the economic scale, as has been observed by anthropologists in most partsof India (Mandelbaum 1970: 50-2). But thestructure of thehouseholdamong tenantfamilies is not unlikethat of landowning householdsin the sensethatit is stillthe unit of production. The tenancy is held by theeldestmale memberand he, withhiswife,children, and othermembersofthehousehold,formtheproductionteam.Even ifthere is nothingto own, the controlof what is rentedis formally in the hands of men. At the time of my main period of fieldworkall familiesin Ghanyari eitherowned or rentedsome land, though many of the low caste families depended very heavily on the cash they could earn by labouring as stonebreakersor road-menders for local farmers or others.

This content downloaded from 163.1.62.81 on Mon, 20 May 2013 06:23:22 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

URSULA M. SHARMA

221

So while women play a very active part in agricultural production,the formalcontrolof thisproductionis vestedin men,especiallyseniormen. The economic organisation of the village could be described albeit rather simplistically as being articulated about a dominantgroup of male Brahman of a seriesof loosely relatedgroups of patrikin, peasants.The group consists unit of productionis the household group, headed by its but the effective senior male. The other castes, dependentin various degrees on the chief landowners,can also be seen as consistingof small groups of patrikin, less The wives ofthemen who cohesiveto theextentthattheyhave lessproperty. give the village this structural backbone are normallyoutsiders. In DistrictUna the village is an identifiable social unit,even if it is not withmore or less alwaysspatially verycompact.Village exogamyis practised serveto ensurethata woman does restrictions consistency, and othermarriage not marryinto a household where she has any prior kin tie. There is the maximum segregation-both spatial and conceptual-between a woman's kin and her affines. When a new bride,she comes to her husband'shouse as a stranger and has to be incorporated into hishousehold,and by extension, into his village also. This is a gradual and sometimespainfulprocess. Stranger women arelinkswhichconnectone householdwithotherhouseholdsoutside the village, but the strangers have to be 'domesticated'.Yet even when a intoherconjugal householdand woman has become well and truly integrated in thecourseoftimehasbecome mistress ofit,theconceptualseparation ofkin is stillrigorously maintained and different modes of behaviourand and affines remainappropriate forthepeople ofone's natal attitudes different sentimental home and thepeople of one's affinal home. As is common elsewherein north India a pair of special termsare used to denote a woman's natal home (peke) and heraffinal home (saure). Looking at thesame questionfromthemale point remain for ever separateas a categoryfrom of view, daughtersand sisters There is a further wives and daughters-in-law.1 separation between the impureroleofwoman as sexualagentand thepositively valued role ofmother which is discussedat lengthby Hershman (I977). In her role as wife, a woman is seen in various senses as potentially dangerous. The literatureshows how in-marryingwives are seen as of thejoint family threatening the solidarity group, and when thehousehold and property are divided it is frequently the quarrellingof the wives thatis Ghanyariexpresseda similarview, not on the groundsthatwomen are any more quarrelsomethan men, but on the grounds that the wife will give whereasthehusbandis priority to hertieswithherhusbandand herchildren, more likelyto tryto balance hisobligationsto hiswifewithhisobligationsto The junior wives in a large hisparents, iftheyare still alive,and to hisbrothers. household certainly have the smalleststake in its continued cohesion as an structure. authority Except in the case of a widow, who has controlover her dead husband's shareof thefamily land duringherlifetime, women are excluded (by custom, thoughnot by law) fromdirectand formalcontrolover land. In spiteof this exclusion,many women stillhave a considerablesay in the managementof

thebreak-up for heldresponsible (Mandelbaum 1970:

9I).

in Manyvillagers

This content downloaded from 163.1.62.81 on Mon, 20 May 2013 06:23:22 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

222

URSULA M. SHARMA

the land and the disposalof itsproducts.Where severalmale membersof the household are absent,workingin the citiesor in the army,it may fallto the women to manage the day-to-day business of cultivation. Womenespeciallythe older women-frequently have ready access to the moveable propertyof the household, cash and grain. Some women 'bank' the cash are not earned outsidethe village by sons and husbands.Women, therefore, it that a woman remains true will economically powerless. Nonetheless in her own name seldom hold land, the most importantformof property, has died withoutclose agnatickin. unlesssheis an onlydaughter whose father Normally she obtainsher rightto cultivateland and to use its productsby with the male who is head of the household and in virtueof her relationship whose name the land is registered. Very few women have claimed their themto do independent rightto inherit althoughmodernlegislation permits so, and one suspects thatmanyare not aware thattheyhave thisrightin law. The degree of control which women are able to exerciseover land and of the questionof otherformsof property may be consideredindependently whetheror not they take an active part in the cultivationof the land. In ofproperty formalsayin themanagement whilstwomen have little Ghanyari theyare farfrombeing economicallyredundant.Indeed theirlabour in the is found in fieldsis essentialto the economy of most households. Ghungat villages where all women 'work'-such as Ghanyari,and in villages where only some women 'work'-such as Nimkhera and Khalapur. It does not in itself oblige a woman to observeanykind of seclusion,and it is quite possible forwomen in Ghanyari,as elsewhere,to weed, hoe and harvestwith their facesveiled. Ghungatis incumbent only on married women. An unmarriedgirl in Ghanyariwill be expected to keep her head and shoulderscovered with her shawl,but does not have to cover herfacefromanyone.During thewedding herfaceis covered,indeedherwhole bodyis coveredwitha voluminous ritual shewill seldomunveilherfaceto and duringherfirst visitto hersaure blanket, anyone. In a ritual which takes place shortlyafterher arrivalin her new husband'shome, the women of thehousehold and theneighbourhoodcome and uncover her face one by one, making her small giftsand hopefully commentingon hergood looks. But it is the otherwomen who lifther veil. She mustshow no willingness As she becomes more settled to do so herself. into her new home and learns to identify its various members and their relationshipto herself,she can be less retiringwhere the women are butshewill continueto observea stricter concerned, code ofetiquette towards theoldermen. She will nevershow herfaceto herhusband'sfather (hersaura), to his elder brother(herjeth), nor to any other of his seniormale kin. Her husband'syoungerbrother(herdevar)and othersof her husband's junior kin may see her face.Indeed she may entertain a veryinformal relationship with herdevar whichmayhave strong sexualover-tones, even ifit does not actually blossom into sexual liaison. Her behaviour to her devarwill be in direct contrast to herbehaviourtowardsherjeth and otherseniormales,fromwhom she must veil. She will also veil herself fromthe husbandsof her husband's unlessperhapstheyareverymuch youngerthanherself, sisters, and frommale

This content downloaded from 163.1.62.81 on Mon, 20 May 2013 06:23:22 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

URSULA M. SHARMA

223

kin of her mother-in-law.She does not veil herselffrom her children's (nor indeed fromany woman) fromher own mother-in-law parents-in-law, husband,though all theseadditionalprescriptions nor fromher own sister's may be found in some otherpartsof India. a woman sociallyinvisible.It is not usually is a meansof rendering Ghungat difficult to guesswho is behindthe veil in most cases,but the veil coversthe A bride arrivesin her woman s most personaland communicativefeatures. husband'shome as an anonymousbundle,swathedin veilsand shawls.In fact under-emphasised. women is generally ofin-marrying thesocialindividuality Jacobsonnotes thatin Nimkhera women who have marriedinto the same witheach other into thesame household,are identified village,and especially a woman does not veil herself beforeher For instance, in manysocialcontexts. peke,men of her natal village; and her husband'sbrother'swifetreatsthem in the same way as she does. In neitherNimkhera nor very informally women used verymuch. A Ghanyariare thepersonalnames of in-marrying when she marries, bride may be given a new name by her husband'sfamily to as 'so-and-so's but even thisname is littleused. She is more oftenreferred wife'. In Ghanyariall young marriedwomen are addressedas lari which In shortit is an allbride, wife, or daughter-in-law. means indifferently, purpose term of address and referenceused for any junior in-marrying woman. Even older women in Ghanyariwill seldom be addressedor referred personalnames,a kin termor a nick-namebeing used instead.It is to by their not consideredgood formfora woman to use the personalname of a male whereonlymen of all thisis a situation affine so thenetresult seniorto herself, Women talkabout other as individuals. can readilytalkabout fellowvillagers people (and get talked about themselves) mainly in terms of their relationships. havingto veil before As a woman getsolder shewill, of course,findherself fewerand fewerpeople, sincetherewill be fewerand fewermen alive in the villagewho are seniorto herhusband.In anycase,it is not consideredquite so shameful fora woman to show herfaceto one beforewhom she reallyought to veilifbothpartiesareelderly.Such a lapse would be considered brazenand Thus a in a grandmother. insulting on thepartof a younggirl,but forgiveable is woman's progressive intothegroupin whichshehas married incorporation symbolismof the paralleledby a gradual weakening of the depersonalising veil. Young bridesmay look interchangeable, but mothersdo not. with other of women and of theirrelationships This de-personalisation people is a verycommon formof controland is not peculiarto India. When Miss Ann Jonesmarries Mr JohnSmithand becomes Mrs JohnSmithshe is being 'de-personalised'in much the same way as a Ghanyariwife who is addressed by thevague genericterm'lari'. On theother by hermother-in-law hand, devices which involve the concealmentof the body are particularly effective. Papanek (1973) has pointed out thatthe secluded Muslim woman who goes out in her burqah, a tent-like garmentwhich completelyobscures figureand face,is experiencedas a 'non-person',and so does not violate the principlethathigh statuswomen should not leave seclusion.The veil which women in Ghanyariwear can also be used in a similarway to the burqah, as a

This content downloaded from 163.1.62.81 on Mon, 20 May 2013 06:23:22 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

224

URSULA M. SHARMA

fromthe gaze of the public in general,and is sometimesso kind of 'shutter' used by village women when theytraveloutsidetheirown neighbourhood. On the other hand, the veil has an expressivepotentialwhich the burqah altogether lacks and indeed is designedto preclude.Thus Papanek also notes can manipulate thatMuslim women in Pakistanwho do not wear the burqah of theveil,accordingto thenature thepositioning theirdress, chiefly through of the social situation.The same may be said of women in Ghanyari,who waysto denotea know how to draw theveil acrossthefacein a dozen different I have seentheveilusedinsolently, although dozen different degreesofrespect. ofinsolencewas it would be impossibleto conveyin wordsjust how theeffect women and, it will be whilstthe veil 'de-personalises' achieved. Therefore, argued, silencesthem,it does not leave them withoutmeans of expression. In Ghanyari,all men of the same caste who residein the same village are regarded as being in some way kin to each other. In many cases they are is forgotten or unclear. known to be real kin,even if the preciserelationship But even where no known kin link exists, caste fellows are regarded as each otherby kinterms 'courtesy kin' and bothrefer to each otherand address to age and generation. Consequently,all the castefellowsof her appropriate and she mustuse the accordingto thisfiction, husbandare a woman's affines appropriate etiquette, veilingbeforethosewho countas herhusband'ssenior live close to each other 'kin'. Given thatmembersof thesame castegenerally woman will in thesame quarterofthevillagethismeansthata young married be constantly veiling herselfamong her neighbours,even where no close are present. 'genuine' affines is even extendedto includepeople The same principleof village solidarity of othercastesprovidedthattheyarenot too farremovedin ritualstatus;they too are referred to as thoughtheywere kin,even though-given the rule of is not casteendogamy-they could not possiblybe blood kin.But thepractice kinofthesame caste.That is,a symmetrically observedas itis among courtesy in Ghanyariwill addressa Brahman by some appropriate kin term carpenter etc.), only using a personal name if he is (brother,uncle, grandfather, someone verymuch youngerthanhimself. However, a Brahman addressing will addressa carpenterby his personal name, although if he is talkingto to whom he respects he mighthesitate someone verymuch olderthanhimself use a personalname and mightuse some kin terminstead.The same lack of is shown in the veiling behaviour of the women. A Brahman symmetry woman in Ghanyariwill not veil herself beforea man of lower castein her her husband'svillage, even though he be older than her husband and treats beforea husbandas 'nephew'. But a woman of barbercaste will veil herself Brahmanman of thesame age as or seniorto herhusband.In caseswheretwo equal status thereseems castesin thesame village are accordedapproximately to be mutual veiling. The verylowest caste in Ghanyariis the Chamar (leatherworker) caste. They are regarded as untouchable by members of all other castes and is not extendedto themby anynon-Chamarsin thevillage. 'courtesy' kinship Nor do they addressmembersof highercastesby kinshipterms,but by a special honorific term.All the same, Chamar women marriedin Ghanyari

This content downloaded from 163.1.62.81 on Mon, 20 May 2013 06:23:22 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

URSULA M. SHARMA

225

without exception veil themselvesfrom older men of other castes in the which is understandable village. Indeed theirbehaviour is very deferential, forms ofsubordination when we consider thatthree in operatesimultaneously such a situatior-that of theimpureto the pure,thatofjunior to senior,and that of femaleto male. No woman would ever veil herself fromany man in her own natal village (peke)however highhis statusrelativeto her own, and she can thusrelax the vigilancewhich she mustexercisein her saure.The act of veilingis only the grossest elementin a complex offormal and deferential behaviourmaintained towards affines, In the instancein which the especiallysenior male affines. mostextreme respect is called for-in a woman's relationship withherfatherin-law-she will not merelycover herface. She will also avoid initiating any kind of conversation withhim,and indeed will avoid his verypresenceas far as thisis possible. If she has to be in the same room with him, she will seat herself at a lower level demonstrating her low statusin relationto him. A married woman's behaviourto anyadultmale who is not herown kinsmanor of hernatalvillagewill be formaland subdued,but towardsthoseaffines who may not see her face,her behaviouris also supposed to be deferential. During fieldwork first looked like a symbolicdevice which chiefly ghungat served to separatewomen frommen with whom sexual relationsare most strictly prohibited. As noted earlier, witha devar(real,classificatory, or affairs 'courtesy')are looked upon withindulgence,and thereis an expectationthat such affairs will sometimes fromthepoint takeplace. It is,after all, preferable of view of all concerned that a young bachelor's attentionbe held by his affectionate sister-in-law thanthathe be tempted to flirt withlow castegirlsor with his village 'sisters', and even more important thata young wife not be with low caste men. Wild oats, whetherthose of young tempted to flirt bachelorsor young brides,are best sown withinthe household. However, sexual relationson the part of a young wife with her elder brother-in-law, with a father-in-law or any other male affine are definitely regardedwith disapproval.Thus thecategory ofmen fromwhom a woman in herhusband's villagemustveil herfaceis nearly thesame as thecategory ofmen withwhom sexual relationsare most stringently forbidden.(It is not quite the same, as therearemen oflower castethanherself who maysee herfacebutwithwhom she mustdefinitely not have sexual relations.)Yet the veil does not seem to preventwomen fromhaving sexual relationswith men fromwhom they shouldveil. For ifone quarterofthegossipcurrent in Ghanyari was true,then women did sometimeshave affairs with fathers-in-law, uncles-in-lawand elder brothers-in-law in spiteof generaldisapproval.If the veil conceals the wife'scharmsfromherelderaffines thenthe submissive behaviourwhich she is meant to show to such people is as likelyto ensurethatshe will be more vulnerable to their advances than to those of other men. Again, affairs betweenlow castewomen and high castemen are by no meansprevented by the veil which standsbetween the partners. Indeed the literature on north Indian villagessuggests thatthiskindof liaisonis one ofthecommonestkinds of extra-marital sexual activity (e.g. Pettigrew1975: 44). Whetherone looks on suchrelationships as a case of low castewomen exploitingthesexuality of

This content downloaded from 163.1.62.81 on Mon, 20 May 2013 06:23:22 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

226

URSULA M. SHARMA

highcastemenin orderto obtainpresents or economic concessions, or as a case of high castemen exploitingthe sexuality of low castewomen fortheirown pleasure,the low caste wife is in a poor position to avoid such relations, theweakestcreature in the veil or no veil, being economicallyand politically is practised village. A second considerationis that in some areas ghungat towards certain notably the mother-in-lawor classificatory femaleaffines, mothers-in-law(Jacobson 1970: 138). And finally,if ghungatis to be within the consideredas a means of 'cooling' potential sexual attractions household,thisdoes not explain the generalisation of the categoriesof affine beforewhom ghungat mustbe observedto includeso manypeople outsidethe household.Althoughghungat betweenthesexes, seemsto be 'about' relations it cannot be said to be about sex relationsin particular. Perhapswe should treatsymbolicbehaviourin termsof what it demands rather thanin termsof what it is able to effect. Whateverelse it may be, the symbolismof social etiquetteis stronglydidactic. Individual instancesof ghungat cannot be said to have any 'meaning'. When a woman veils herself froma man or even fromanotherwoman, it will be seen by themto be as a resultof theirrelationship, a resultof her 'feelingshy' (JacobsonI970: I37) ratherthan as denotinganything thatis not alreadyknown and obvious to thoseconcerned.But thecomplex ofghungat behaviour,takenas a whole, will alreadyhave taughtthe woman what are the occasions on which she should 'feel shy'. Obviously ghungat is in one sense effective since it does make for those separated by the veil. But it is really communication difficult in good effective onlyin so faras itslessonsare takento heartand itis practised forit is stillpossible to flirt faith,in both letterand spirit, or quarrel from behinda veil, and I have seen it done. In factghungat teachesthe woman the distinction between those situations in which she ought to be passive and submissive and thosein whichsome degreeofresponsible activity and control are allowed her.It defines thesituations in which shemustbe, or at leastmust appear to be, the passive subjectof someone else's control. What is the need for thisdistinction? I have already suggestedthatboth northIndian peasantsand westernsocial anthropologists regardin-marrying women in northIndian villagesas potentially and dangerousto the solidarity cohesionoftheagnaticcore ofthejointhouseholdand thevillagecastegroup. They have the lowest investment in this solidarity, at least until theyhave acquired a measureof authority as mothersand mothers-in-law themselves. also regardin-marrying Indians,thoughnot perhapssocial anthropologists, women as potentially dangerousfortheritualand mystical harmwhich they can do. It is marriedwomen who know the techniquesof sorceryand can cause harmto membersof theirhouseholdor to their neighbours. That is not to say thatmen in Ghanyarisuppose thattheirown daughters and sisters are incapable of quarrelling or usingsorcery, but by thetimetheyhave learntto do either theywill be married and will be doing themin someoneelse'shouse. Women living in theirparents'homes may, of course, quarrel with their brothers' wives but again,theirremovalon marriage meansthatsuchdisputes are unlikelyto have seriouslong termconsequencesfor the household as a whole. Limitingthe opportunities which marriedwomen have to exercise

This content downloaded from 163.1.62.81 on Mon, 20 May 2013 06:23:22 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

URSULA M. SHARMA

227

effectiveness does limittheir controlover land and otherimmovableproperty respect. Their potentialdisruptiveness in theiraffinal homes in one important and passiveas possible. can be curbedfurther iftheycan be made to be as silent A social ciphercan do no harm.But women are no social ciphersunlessthey are made to be so. As Levi-Strausshas remarked,theyare unlike the other 'goods' which are circulatedbetween social groups,in thattheycan speak. However, theycan be told to be silent,and thisis one importantaspect of of a passive and ghungat. It teachesthe marriedwoman the appropriateness deferentialmode of behaviour in encounterswhere her activity might among men. interfere with a systemof domesticand political relationships limits the social effectiveness of Thus the obligatorynature of ghungat women in virtually in theiraffinal villages.Almost any any public situation of men and women in a wife'saffinal villagewill includesome from gathering whom she should veil herself and before whom she should behave It does not matterhow many other people are sittingin a circumspectly. store;ifone ofthemis your courtyard or at thebus stopor outsidethegrocery husband'sseniorkinsmanyou shouldnot hang about to pass the time of day It is difficult, for informally with othersunlessyou do so veryunobtrusively. sinceitis case in a villagepanchayat, instance, fora woman to make an effective virtually certainthatit will include older men of higherstatusthan herself, The verypeople who are likelyto be beforewhom she should veil herself. is mostpowerfulin thevillage are theveryones withwhom communication limitedforherby convention.This meansthata woman who wishesto have in thevillage will findit hard to do so and will accessto themen of influence of others-of her husband or her have to rely heavily on the good offices mother-in-law. her requestforhelp throughthem, She will have to re-route and if-as well may be- hercomplaintis againstone of themor againstother membersof the household,thenshe is in a veryweak positionindeed. I did in which a young wifecame running to thehouse of her witnessone incident (traditional husband'suncle and urgently pleaded withhim to call a panchayat village court) to hear her case. She claimed that her husband had been illher.She made thesepleasfrombehindherveil and in a veryrespectful treating manner.Her behaviour in appealing directlyto a male elder was unusual, in the unusual though it was not disapprovedin her case, as she was herself to usual position of having marrieda man fromher own village, contrary practice.The men fromwhom she now veiled as in-laws were those with whom she had been familiar as 'courtesy'kin when she was a littlegirl,and it was perhapseasierforher to approach themthanit would have therefore been for a woman who had marriedinto Ghanyarifromanothervillage.2 It is not the practice of ghungat alone which has this effectof limiting in public situations. There are numerous other women's effectiveness institutionalised modes of controlover thepublic behaviourof women. The social segregation of the sexes which obtainsin varyingdegreesin all north Indian villageslimitsthepublic interaction of women in generalwithmen in as 'public' space. general,given thatmen have precedencein all areasdefined There are general concepts of sexual modestyand feminineincompetence which further suffice to restrain women's behaviourin public. The factthat

This content downloaded from 163.1.62.81 on Mon, 20 May 2013 06:23:22 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

228

URSULA M. SHARMA

a marginalrole forwomen in production.The ghungat can be mythsuggests seen as doing comparable work in Ghanyariin the sense that by indirect thatwomen's politicalattentions are turnedfromthepublic means,it ensures in thelatter curbstheireffectiveness sphereto thedomestic,and considerably such as 'You rotten spherewhile theyare young. Paradoxically,statements mother,your latchkeychildrenwill grow up delinquent'and 'You brazen contribute to thesame kindof hussyto show yourfaceto yourfather-in-law' activitieson the to extra-domestic ideological work in curbing aspirations part of marriedwomen. The comparativeliterature shows thatthereare manypossibledevicesfor theextra-domestic activities ofwomen. Economic dependenceon controlling fromattempting men is seldomefficient in itself to ensurethatwomen refrain to trespasson areas which are culturallydefinedas 'male' preserves.Strict of the sexes and seclusion,such as are practisedin some Muslim segregation

areyoung(Mitchell I97I: homeforemployment whilethey

women have a lower rate of literacythan men means that they are less confidentin public matterswhere literacyis important(reading election is thatit aboutghungat etc.). What is distinctive leaflets, legal correspondence, The of women. the behaviour married means of controlling is a veryspecific woman is the to theunmarried onlyformof controlwhichappliesspecifically fearof damaging her chancesof making a good marriage,a sanctionwhich A girl who draws effectively. controlsindiscreet behaviour fairly certainly In in any way will not be favouredas a marriagepartner. attention to herself those Indian communitieswhere the age of marriagefor girlsis high the controlof unmarriedgirlsis a farmore seriousproblem than the controlof marriedwomen. Thus among urban middle class Indians,whose daughters are expected to complete a fairlylong course of education and who are about thereis greatanxiety to marry much beforetheage of twenty, unlikely the conduct and reputationof unmarrieddaughters,and great concern to contactwith unrelatedmales outside preventthemfromhaving unnecessary the home. Among thesegroups the marriedwoman, especiallythe married is oftenseenas farlessdangerousa being and farlessin woman withchildren, is however,thedaughter need of control(GoldsteinI972: I20). In Ghanyari, less of a potentialproblem thanthe wife. For one thing,a woman is farless of hernatal village she in the public affairs herself directly likelyto interest parents' leavesit forheraffinal villageat an earlyage (fewgirlsremainin their houses after the age of eighteen). Her economic and domestic interests lie elsewhere.To be sure,she does have more directaccess to the thereafter men of influence in her own village-they may well be her 'uncle', or 'brother',but she is farlesslikelyto need theirpatronageor 'grandfather' is mostcircumscribed injust advice. The ghungat ensures thathereffectiveness thana thelocalitywheresheis mostdangerous-i.e. wheresheis a wiferather in extra-domestic affairs in the very village daughter.It curbsher initiative been whose public affairs are of most concern to her. It has frequently work is done societiessimilar thatin capitalist feminists remarked by western by the 'mythof motherhood'-the idea that the mother'sround-the-clock care is indispensable to young childrenand that she ought not to leave the
II8-I9).

This

This content downloaded from 163.1.62.81 on Mon, 20 May 2013 06:23:22 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

URSULA M. SHARMA

229

societiesand indeed by some Hindu communities, are devicesof such a kind. But theycan prove somewhat blunt instruments. Effectively theyprohibit women fromcontactwith all men save a narrowcircleof kin. The woman's honour, and by extensionher family'shonour, becomes dependenton her successfully avoiding such contact.But such avoidance is difficult to arrange and may involve other 'costs'. In the firstplace, genuine seclusion is it. In Ghanyari there is a uneconomicaland normally onlytherichcan practise strongneed for women's labour and strictseclusion would prevent their in farmwork. And nowadays theremay be other costs since participation thosewealthygroupswho could afford to practiseseclusionmay findthatit now conflicts with otherdemands.For instance, when educationbecomes a necessity fordaughters iftheyare to marry well, as is thecase formanymiddle class Muslim and Hindu Indians,thenthe daughters mustbe allowed out of thehouse to attendcollege at theveryleast.Ghungat, in comparison, is a mode of controlwhich is economical in both sensesof thisword. Firstly, it limits women's social effectiveness withoutlimiting their and turning productivity, theminto economicallyredundant statussymbols.Secondly,it is economical in the sense thatit cuts women offfromfreeand effective communication with only those men who may be expected to have most control and influence. It does not cut themofffromcommunication withall men,and the is obtainedwiththeleasteffort. greatest effect to symbolise It is not necessary thesubordination of all women to all men in orderto limittheir as a activities sex. is a meansofcontrolling their Ghungat women by ensuring publicpassivity. This aspect of the institution seems to have escaped the few ethnographers who have attempted it unlesstheyfelt to describe thatit was so obvious thatit required no comment. From this point of view, ghungatcan be seen as belonging to the same sociological league as such diversepracticesas footbinding in China, sexual teasingin Herefordshire (Whitehead I976: I93), seclusionamong Muslims and the mythof the perfect housewifein western capitalistsocieties.Having said this,it is importantnot to lose sightof the specific aspectsof the situationin villageslike Ghanyari.Whilstthereare in most societies institutions which effectively curb women's aspirationsto public activity,the reasons for which men need to control them must be specified and hencenon-specific conceptslike 'patriarchy' are not veryuseful. If males are dominanteverywhere, male dominance is not everywherethe same, and ghungat in Ghanyari supportsparticulartypes of political and economic communityamong males. To reiterate: ghungat is not always successful in producingthe effects here imputed to it. Women in Ghanyarido not behave in a particularly passive mannerin general,althoughtheyare usuallysuccessful in maintaining a very discreet public manner.The allianceswhich theyformand the enmities they pursue often have a considerableeffecton the course of village factional politics.They often wield considerable positivecontrolover theway in which cashis saved or spent.Many act as petty moneylenders, albeitmainlyof small sumsto otherwomen. They cannotnormally conductthesale ofland butthey may vigorouslyobstructor encourage it, and apart fromthe newest bride,

This content downloaded from 163.1.62.81 on Mon, 20 May 2013 06:23:22 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

230

URSULA M. SHARMA

theyare seldom unable to make theiropinionsknown, withinthehousehold at least. The ghungat does not actuallypreventthem frombeing active,any more thantheideal of themotherwho spendsall day readingto hertoddlers and encouragingtheir moraland mentaldevelopmentprevents manywomen in Britainfromgoingout to work.Butjust as themyth ofmotherhood ensures thatfora motherof youngchildren, gainingand keepingemployment will be uphillwork, so ghungat putsobstaclesin theway of a wife'sexpressing herself in affinalvillages. It cannot actually resolve the contradictionbetween a woman's capacityto speak and act and the 'need' forher to be passive and submissivein her affinal home; it can only make didacticstatements about what sort of resolutionmight be desirable.My suggestionsso far may be summarised as follows: ghungatis not just a consequence of domestic nor of sexual mores of a particularkind. In the northIndian organisation, villagecontinuity of thecontrolofland and indeedofpoliticalprocesses in the villagein generaldependsverymuch on thecontinuity and cleardefinition of relationships both within and between clustersof agnaticallyrelatedmen. Relationships between these men are relationships of subordinationand superordination of two kinds,or at leastare thoughtof as being so. They may be of the senior-junior type (between statusequals) or of the ritually pureimpure type (between membersof different castes). Relationshipsbetween men of the same casteare expressedthroughthe use of kinshipterms, which have values and assumptions about relativeseniority builtinto them.But the relationships betweenmen of different castescan also be expressed in terms of agnatic kinship, though the use of such terms is not symmetrical. Ideologically,theentire villageis 'one big family' withtheseniorBrahmansas universal'uncles','grandfathers' and 'elderbrothers'. And just as theidiom of kinshipcan be extendedto a varietyof different kindsof relationsof superordinationand subordination among men, so also can the idiom of affinity among women. Ghungat suggests of women ways in which theintervention in theserelationships betweenmen should be limited,and how the degreeof 'interference' on thepartofoutsidewomen mightbe reduced.But itis notjust a question of the relationships between men of the same household. The ghungat is generalised beyondthehouseholdto applyto a wife'srelations with all the othermen in her affinal village. All thesemen are her 'affines' in some sense. Ghungatfurther stressesthat her attachmentto the village occurs throughher man and thather status theredependsentirely on his status in so faras thecategories of men beforewhom shemustveil are determined by her husband'srelationships to thesemen. Through herrelationship to a particular with an entirevillage is ordered. man, her relationship Feminists have pointed out thatwhat happensin the family has a political function; the relationsbetween the sexes are experienced as private but in thatitis largelythrough nonetheless have a publicpotentialdimension such thatthesubordination 'private'relations of kinship and affinity of women as a sex is realised (e.g. Rowbotham I973: 58-60). Anthropologists have long been aware thatkinship is political,thatthere is a 'politicsofkinship', but they have not readily extended this insightto the study of domestic relations betweenthe sexes.Women have frequently been describedsolelyin termsof

This content downloaded from 163.1.62.81 on Mon, 20 May 2013 06:23:22 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

URSULA M. SHARMA

23I

but the politicalimportof theseroles has not theirroles withinthe family, truein thecase ofIndia wherefemaleroles been examined.This is particularly described,but where the thoroughly withinthe household have been fairly implications of women's separate roles as daughters and wives for the beyondthehouseholdhave hardlybeen explored.3In thecase of community have treatedas a problem ghungat we see clearlythatwhat anthropologists as a must also be considered study of family roles context of the situated in the in limits women's to the power and access politicaldevice which structures when we becomes evident in which theyare married.This only community the of veilingbehaviourin Ghanyari;so long as we treat examineall instances outsidethehousehold as merelyan extensionof domestic practiceofghungat roles it does not become apparentat all. Conclusion It has been suggested in this paper that ghungatrefersto a major contradiction in thesocialpositionof women in northIndian villages.Whilst in theformofland,and whilstothereconomic relations men controlproperty of propertyare ordered as between men, which arise fromthe distribution play a wives consume the product of the land, and in the case of Ghanyari, in thatwhichtheyarenot major rolein producingit. They have a keyinterest between be 'kept out of' therelations supposedto controland musttherefore the men who are supposed to do the controlling.They must be rendered to the ineffectual in the veryplace where theirpresenceis most threatening of theserelations among continuousmaintenance among men. The relations men here referred to are not just the relationsbetween men of the same relations household,but the hierarchical among the men of the entireaffinal thoughit may make village. Ghungat does not resolvethesecontradictions, can be resolvedat the themless obvious. To suggestthatsuch contradictions ritual level is to saythattheyarenot resolvedat all. In factwomen arenot at all controlover theway prevented fromattempting to exerta degreeof indirect in which property is managed, acquired or disposed of. It does not prevent themfromplayinga veryactiverole in thepoliticallifeof thevillage,even if thisrole is a covertone. Ghungat, however,is able to suggestwhat kindsof in termsof theideology resolution of thesecontradictions mightbe desirable which defines relationsbetween the sexes in Hindu society. of the veil here does As a post-script, it needs stressing thatmy treatment not by any meansexhaustwhat could be said about itsuse as a symbol.Veils are not only used to cover facesand bosoms; and theycan be used to suggest thebride'sveil is conjunctionas well as separation. Thus, in thewedding rites tiedto thegroom's scarf as theypace aroundthenuptialfire. When theyreach theentrance after theceremony is over,theyagain to thehusband'scourtyard enterwith his scarftied to her veil, having 'tied the knot' both figuratively and literally. We mightregardthe veil as a generalextensionof a woman's social personality comparableto theuse of the spearas a symbolicexpression of a man's social personality I956: ch. 9). among the Nuer (Evans-Pritchard As a symbolof feminine it has not entirely among educated modesty perished urbanyouth,foreven wherea largedupatta of is no longerworn theuniform

This content downloaded from 163.1.62.81 on Mon, 20 May 2013 06:23:22 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

232

URSULA M. SHARMA

of stuff includesa kind of 'vestigial'dupatta-a narrowstrip manyschoolgirls draped about the neck of the kamiz, concealing little,but suggestingthe worn by Ghanyariwomen. To snatcha girl's functionof the wide dupatta of 'eve-teasing'whichoccurson manya school bus, dupatta is one of theforms is which the girlfeelsis not lessbecause herdupatta and theinsultor irritation In Ghanyari,marriedwomen oftentouch symbolicratherthan functional. greeting-literal theirelders' feetwith the ends of the shawl as a respectful subjectionof one's symbolicself?This is comparableto what Slocum, Akhtar could be ended village,wheredisputes and Sahi (I960: 23) notedin a Pakistani at the by thedaughterof thepartypreparedto admitguiltplacingherdupatta Finally,Lewis feetof the otherpartyas a signof humiliationand repentance. observesthatin the northIndian village he studied,the women would beat withsticks at Holi as partoftheroletheir husbandsand elderbrothers-in-law But what are we to make of thisfestival. reversing prankswhich characterise husbands not withsticks, hisstatement thatitis saidthattheyused to beat their but with theirveils? (Lewis I956: 233).
NOTES

(sister/daughter) and her role as sexual object and providerof children(wife/daughter-in-law). On many ritualoccasionsthegirlsof a household may be honoured by being given specialfood and small giftsas representatives of the Goddess Devi. As virginstheyare pure and have this special status.In some areas it seems thateven grown daughterswhose marriageshave been consummatedmay occasionallybe honoured by having theirfeettouched by membersof the family,though I did not witnessthisin Ghanyari(see Jacobson I970: 3 i6). The point would seem to be thattheyare so honoured by people whose relationship to themis not even indirectly affinal. Daughters-in-lawand otherwomen affinally relatedare never included in such rituals, or at least only as givers of food and gifts, never as receivers. 2Jacobson cites an-instance of marriage within the village in Nimkhera where a quite different solution to this problem was adopted. The wife veiled herselfto the men of her husband's immediate familybut the restof the village men remained 'kin' ratherthan affines Jacobson I970: I49). 3 An interesting exception is an article by J. Hitchcock in which he points out that 'the a more effective seclusionofwives makes thefamily politicalinstrument' (Hitchcock I959: I2). Wives might threatenthe solidarityof the male household group, being newcomers to the family into which theyhave married.Their seclusionminimises thepossibility thattheywill be able to affect thissolidarity. His conclusionswith respectto seclusionare thus similarto those that I have drawn with respectto ghungat.

1 In ritual terms there is a parallel separation between the role of women as virgin

REFEREN

CES

E. E. I956. Nuer religion. Evans-Pritchard, Oxford: Clarendon Press. in transition: a Bangalore casestudy. Goldstein,R. I972. Indianwomen London: Scarecrow Press. Hershman,P. I977. Virgin and mother.In Symbols and sentiments (ed.) I. M. Lewis. London, New York: Academic Press. Hitchcock,J.I959. The idea of the martialRajput. In Traditional India: structure andchange (eds) B. Cohn & M. Singer. Philadelphia: American Folklore Society. & L. Minturn I963. The Rajputs of Khalapur, India. In Six cultures (ed.) B. Whiting. New York: JohnWiley. Jacobson,D. I970. Hidden faces: Hindu and Muslim purdah in a centralIndian village. Thesis, Columbia University. Lewis, 0. I956. Village lifein northern India. New York: Vintage Books. Mandelbaum, D. I970. Societyin India. Berkeley, Los Angeles: Univ. of California Press. Mitchell,J. I97I. Woman'sestate.Harmondsworth: Penguin.

This content downloaded from 163.1.62.81 on Mon, 20 May 2013 06:23:22 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

URSULA

M. SHARMA

233

Murphy, R. I964. Social distance and the veil. Am. Anthrop. 66, I257-74. Pettigrew,J. I975. Robbernoblemen. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Papanek, H. I973. Separate worlds and symbolic shelter.Comp. Stud. Soc. Hist. 15, 289-325. note on joking relations.In Structure in Radcliffe-Brown,A. R. I952. A further andfunction primitive society. London: Cohen & West. Rowbotham, S. I973. Woman'sconsciousness, man's world.Harmondsworth: Penguin. inLahoreDistrict. Lahore: Univ. of Panjab, Slocum, W.,J. Akhtar& A. F. Sahi I960. Villagelife Social Science Research Centre. andexploitation in work In Dependence Whitehead,A. I976. Sexual antagonismin Herefordshire. and marriage (eds) S. Allen & D. Barker. London, New York: Longman.

This content downloaded from 163.1.62.81 on Mon, 20 May 2013 06:23:22 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions