Becky Blab

Nita has a lengthy post on “the ultra conservatism that is strangling the freedom of dress in Indian society today”.

If all those things which make a sari more comfortable and natural are considered “immodest” what’s the use of the sari anyway? No wonder the younger generation is giving up on the sari, except when it makes a fashion statement.

It’s time we understood that showing the midriff or even the ankles is not immodest. And certainly nothing was ever wrong or immoral in showing the navel. According to Indian tradition, the belly-button or navel is a sacred part of the body. It says here (references of scholarly works are given):

The sari, being an unstitched drape, enhances the shape of the wearer while only partially covering the midriff. In Indian philosophy, the navel of the Supreme Being is considered as the source of life and creativity.

But who cares about Indian tradition! Certainly not the moral police who have become so obsessed with covering up their own immorality that they have want to impose alien values upon us. They will continue to shout about Indian tradition from the roof-tops when actually they know (and care) less about Indian culture than either you or me.

In the post, she really pulls apart the different layers of the policing of women’s bodies through dress. She brings to light how notions of modesty and propriety are all culturally dictated. I, too, have struggled with the idea that the sari is supposed to be considered the ultimate in women’s attire, even though it does show the midriff and back which other cultures deem to be a ’sexual’ area.

I have always found it odd that in such a hot country as India, why social codes would call for the complete covering of women from head-to-toe. It seems pretty inhumane, aside from the practicality of shielding one’s head from the sun beating down.