Why did the Hindu nationalists not allow Indian women to get western education?
Answers
Answer:
Women were seen as dependent minors who needed to be controlled by men in order to succeed under the influence of Hinduism. Hinduism had caused women's rights to decline tremendously during the Vedic period (1600-1800 BCE). Women are subservient to men in everyday life under the practice of Hinduism. This can be seen in the story of the ritual of Sati. Sati was a funeral that was practiced among Indian communities. In this ritual a widowed woman would kill herself as a sacrifice by burning herself on her husband's funeral pyre. This ritual alone shows the difference of men's roles verse women's roles in Hindu society. The act of a woman being influenced to kill herself due to the death of her husband shows that women were not viewed as independent from the men as society but rather dependent of men. It shows that the life of a women is less valuable than a man's because she is forced to sacrifice herself as a duty in order to be reborn into a higher caste in her next life. As these rituals became more complicated, women were not allowed to own property in society. In addition to this, women had married at very young ages which did not allow for them to finish their education under the practice of Hinduism. Due to being married at such young ages, they were not able to finish their educations, therefore not qualifying them to perform many ritual sacrifices. Hindu practices showed the negative characteristics of women. They had stated that women would be promiscuous unless controlled by men. Another example of Hinduism impacting women's roles in Indian society is a quote from Romila Thapar. He states that, "The symbol of the woman in Indian culture has been a curious intermeshing of low legal status, ritual contempt, sophisticated sexual partnership, and deification," In all, Hinduism had impacted women's roles in Indian society by perceiving women as dependent minors who needed to be controlled by men in order to succeed.
Buddhism differed greatly from Hinduism due to the fact that anyone could achieve enlightenment or Nirvana, not just the upper classes or men. Buddhism had challenged the inequalities of the Hindu-based caste system. It had argued that caste position nor gender should be a barrier to enlightenment.This had been very attractive to women and the lower classes in India. Women had joined Buddhism to find freedom and independence in society which had been unavailable in Indian society before Buddhism. Women's roles in society became relatively different and better because of Buddhism. Women's social status had improved greatly under Buddhism due to this. Women and men were equal in theory which caused for more rights for women. While patriarchal society stayed the same, women were allowed more freedoms and were seen as independent in the Buddhist society. Women were allowed to become nuns and be religiously and societally active. Overall, Buddhism had allowed for women to be seen as independent and had improved women's rights in society.
Answer:
Hindu nationalism has been collectively referred to as the expression of social and political thought, based on the native spiritual and cultural traditions of the Indian subcontinent. Defenders of Hindu nationalism have tried to avoid the label "nationalism" by arguing that the use of the term "Hindu nationalism" to refer to Hindū rāṣṭravāda is a simplistic translation and is better described by the term "Hindu polity".[1]
The native thought streams became highly relevant in Indian history when they helped form a distinctive identity in relation to the Indian polity[2] and provided a basis for questioning colonialism.[3] These also provided inspiration to Indian nationalists during the independence movement based on armed struggle,[4] coercive politics,[5] and non-violent protests.[6] They also influenced social reform movements and economic thinking in India.[5]
Hindutva (transl. Hinduness) is the predominant form of Hindu Nationalism in India. As a political ideology, the term Hindutva was articulated by Vinayak Damodar Savarkar in 1923.[7] The Hindutva movement has been described as a variant of "right-wing extremism"[8] and as "almost fascist in the classical sense", adhering to a concept of homogenised majority and cultural hegemony.[9] Some analysts dispute the "fascist" label, and suggest Hindutva is an extreme form of "conservatism" or "ethnic absolutism".[10] It is championed by the Hindu Nationalist volunteer organisation Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), the Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP), the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and other organisations in a ecosystem called the Sangh Parivar.[11]