The best for an educated women is to be distinct with her femininity intact. Be bold but don’t let go the humility. Wear Ghungat or Hijab if it gives you the sense of security or comfort and yet be confident. Its about time that they should refuse to be an object of sensual gratification, being exposed bodily for the entertainment of the masses, stripping and being posted on hoardings around the town in the name of modernization. Talk about respecting and honouring yourself to be respected and honoured by others.

If Pratibha patil was not the president of India and she had a gunghat over her head this post wouldn’t have been necessary. when you occupy certain positions power it entails a lot of responsibility. And actions and expressions in public life mean something and ought to be subject to scrutiny and debated upon. feminism hasn’t taken women out of cultural contexts but questioned opressive cultural practices. I am uncomfortable too, in equating oppresive cultural symbols/symbolism to individual choice. who asks the questions is also important, patriarchy scrutinising someone is different from someone questioning patriarchy. there is question of power involved. Don’t think it is the same.
@meena- I think you brought out the issue of location and choice very well. it would be easy to think that a dalit woman doesn’t wear chappals because she has chosen to walk barefoot. But is it? similarly Pratibha patil’s attire is not just about upbringing and personal choice.
@SK- yes, that was the point I was making.
@Falstaff- I agree, mostly to the first part of your comment. But the second half dismisses what you began in the first part. don’t quite agree that we disengage because she is a figurehead. If we take your argument to its logical conclusion, all politics is a farce. And you didn’t even have to comment!

Thinking about it, though, I think we need to distinguish between the personal choices of an individual and the choices made by the head of the country, especially someone like the President of India whose role is almost entirely symbolic. To the extent that we believe that the President is a genuine authority figure and her actions confer legitimacy on certain ideologies / practices / customs, we need to question and oppose the choices she makes. If what’s-her-name were a private individual she could wear whatever she pleased, but as a public official she has a responsibility to send the right socio-cultural messages.

All this, of course, begs the question whether PP really is an authority figure, or whether she’s just a somewhat comic figurehead, irrelevant even by the normal standard of the Indian presidency, which is a very low standard indeed. Indhu says “The president’s office needs very much to convey solidarity with the struggles, aspirations and empowerment of all women if the title ‘first women [sic] president of the country’ is to not ring hollow.” Personally, I haven’t been able to think of this ‘first woman president of the country” business as anything but a farce. I mean, this is a woman who believes in astrology. I’d hate to think that anyone anywhere sees her as a role model. Which is why it’s hard for me to get too worked up about anything she does – who pays any attention to her anyway?

At the same time, it’s also quite true that pratibha isn’t actually projecting an image of power… (and there’s no disputing the fact that images of power, or what is construed as power, is the result of stereotypes that have been fed into us). I find it quite difficult to hold it against her for dressing up the way she dresses. but, i have observed that a lot of my friends (specially women friends) don’t appreciate her mode of dressing..

But I think it is upto people to decide whether they should discard what they think is opressive.

Any step to break away from traditionally “imposed” (which i think is a keyword) codes of attire is key to emancipation (for both men and women alike). History is replete with such examples. The Shannar revolt in southern Tamil Nadu, had, as one of its key demands, the right for women of oppressed communities to cover their bosoms–something that was prevented by the caste diktats prevalent there. Kerala’s Dalit leader Ayyankali exhorted Pulayar women to stop wearing stone beads and necklaces that they were supposed to wear to indicate their low social position. And there are news reports in the early 20th century, of how the ears of Pulayar women were cut because they refused to wear these stone beads. Dr.Ambedkar, asked Mahar women not to follow the dress codes imposed upon them.

Because the personal is too often the political, dress and appearance carry larger-than-life implications. And it is not something that actually affects women alone. Young, educated Dalit men wearing footwear while walking through caste-Hindu streets, or daring to sport a moustache, have lost their lives because they trampled upon caste codes.

Responding to Sharanya, she has a valid point too. The Self-Respect Movement in Tamil Nadu actually opposed the tying of the thaali (mangalsutra, nuptial chain), keeping the pottu (bindi), etc… and a friend of mine, an 60+ Sri Lankan Tamil woman told me… “They took away everything that was beautiful in a woman, but didn’t take her out of the kitchen.” That’s a way of looking at things too.

I wholeheartedly support the Manvi women’s courageous decision in choosing to remove their ghungats. I would say that feminism is about making choices and every choice (provided it IS a choice) is valid.
And yes, the sari, silver jewellery, bindis, even FabIndia kurtas can be symbolic markers of identity.

Congratulations on having begun this blog by the way. I’ve just discovered it and am enjoying reading all your posts.