I am an Indian girl. - Page 4

Originally posted by: Chits1

I just said na lats..it's ok.I don't want to discuss it further...each to his own...if I feel she is cheap..that is my opinion.If you like her..I have no prob or arguments either...😃,I don't need to read history or geo..rakhi is just time pass for me..😃

i am not thinking of liking rakhi or not liking rakhi.. i just wanted to bring out this point that indian woman old generation was there without covering top part..

This is from the Wikipedia entry for "sari"

[quote]It is generally accepted that wrapped sari-like garments, shawls, and veils have been worn by Indian women for a long time, and that they have been worn in their current form for hundreds of years.

One point of particular controversy is the history of the choli, or sari blouse, and the petticoat. Some researchers state that these were unknown before the British arrived in India, and that they were introduced to satisfy Victorian ideas of modesty. Previously, women only wore one draped cloth and casually exposed the upper body and breasts. Other historians point to much textual and artistic evidence for various forms of breastband and upper-body shawl.

In South India, it is indeed documented that women from many communities wore only the sari and exposed the upper part of the body till the 20th century.^[5] Poetic references from works like Shilappadikaram indicate that during the sangam period in ancient South India, a single piece of clothing served as both lower garment and head covering, leaving the bosom and midriff completely uncovered.^[3] In Kerala there are many references to women being bare-breasted,^[5] including many pictures by Raja Ravi Varma. Even today, women in some rural areas do not wear cholis.[/quote]

There is historical debate on this and even the experts cannot agree. So what can make anyone so sure that only "low class servants" or poor people who could not afford to dressed like that?

I don't think we should distort the past to satisfy our moral rules and regulations.

In any case, live and let live. Let's leave the judgment to God.

Originally posted by: --arti--

This is from the Wikipedia entry for "sari"

[quote]It is generally accepted that wrapped sari-like garments, shawls, and veils have been worn by Indian women for a long time, and that they have been worn in their current form for hundreds of years.

One point of particular controversy is the history of the choli, or sari blouse, and the petticoat. Some researchers state that these were unknown before the British arrived in India, and that they were introduced to satisfy Victorian ideas of modesty. Previously, women only wore one draped cloth and casually exposed the upper body and breasts. Other historians point to much textual and artistic evidence for various forms of breastband and upper-body shawl.

In South India, it is indeed documented that women from many communities wore only the sari and exposed the upper part of the body till the 20th century.^[5] Poetic references from works like Shilappadikaram indicate that during the sangam period in ancient South India, a single piece of clothing served as both lower garment and head covering, leaving the bosom and midriff completely uncovered.^[3] In Kerala there are many references to women being bare-breasted,^[5] including many pictures by Raja Ravi Varma. Even today, women in some rural areas do not wear cholis.[/quote]

There is historical debate on this and even the experts cannot agree. So what can make anyone so sure that only "low class servants" or poor people who could not afford to dressed like that?

I don't think we should distort the past to satisfy our moral rules and regulations.

In any case, live and let live. Let's leave the judgment to God.

this is the point which i wanted to bring out..

Originally posted by: --arti--

This is from the Wikipedia entry for "sari"

[quote]It is generally accepted that wrapped sari-like garments, shawls, and veils have been worn by Indian women for a long time, and that they have been worn in their current form for hundreds of years.

One point of particular controversy is the history of the choli, or sari blouse, and the petticoat. Some researchers state that these were unknown before the British arrived in India, and that they were introduced to satisfy Victorian ideas of modesty. Previously, women only wore one draped cloth and casually exposed the upper body and breasts. Other historians point to much textual and artistic evidence for various forms of breastband and upper-body shawl.

In South India, it is indeed documented that women from many communities wore only the sari and exposed the upper part of the body till the 20th century.^[5] Poetic references from works like Shilappadikaram indicate that during the sangam period in ancient South India, a single piece of clothing served as both lower garment and head covering, leaving the bosom and midriff completely uncovered.^[3] In Kerala there are many references to women being bare-breasted,^[5] including many pictures by Raja Ravi Varma. Even today, women in some rural areas do not wear cholis.[/quote]

There is historical debate on this and even the experts cannot agree. So what can make anyone so sure that only "low class servants" or poor people who could not afford to dressed like that?

I don't think we should distort the past to satisfy our moral rules and regulations.

In any case, live and let live. Let's leave the judgment to God.

Thanks for the nice greaceful pics taken from Ramayan laiitha.The woman look so graceful.

Originally posted by: _LalithaJanaki_

Whatever historians unearth, my main source will always be Hindu scriptures. Hinduism is the oldest religion in the world, so what is written in its scriptures should be true, na? According to the ancient epics like Ramayana and Mahabharata, women like Sita Mata, Draupadi, and Radhaji were always covered from head to foot in thick cloth, as well as all the other women like Yashodaji, Kaushalyaji, and Mata Anasuya. These are the women we should take examples from, not this so called info historians unearth.

See some pics from Ramayan.....this is how the chaste women in our Indian history dressed.

You are talking about North India and story down there... we are talking about South India and culture down there.. as you know the difference in the Temp... as south india climate is too hot... where as north cold.. so naturally people down there will be covered their body all over...or they may die out of cold😉😆 where as south if they do they may die out of heat 😃😃and mind you rakhi is from middle of india.. so she can choose either form of dress style..LOL😆

I wanted to stay away from this thread as moral policing and superior moral attitude makes me very uncomfortable.

But it must be pointed out that the pictures, or screenshots rather, that have been posted are from the TV Ramayan series. That is one interpretation of the Ramayan. In Ekta Kapoor's Mahabharat, she interpreted different outfits. The point is nobody can say with authority. Hindu scriptures don't mention any dress code like you say. If you are going to dismiss the work of serious historians who spend their lives studying things, including Hindu scriptures, then please at least consider how sound your own "evidence" is.

The photos of the actress you have posted is just that, acting. In real life she is a normal woman.

And even if Hindu scriptures mention something specifically about outfits and what parts of a woman should be covered, that still besides the point. Hindu scriptures have a lot of things that are interpreted a thousand different ways by people for many practical reasons.

You cannot try to establish some kind of sound proof argument to support your own distaste at Rakhi Sawant's clothes. Please don't drag religion into this anymore. I don't think it is fair to represent Hinduism in this way.

Originally posted by: --arti--

I wanted to stay away from this thread as moral policing and superior moral attitude makes me very uncomfortable.

But it must be pointed out that the pictures, or screenshots rather, that have been posted are from the TV Ramayan series. That is one interpretation of the Ramayan. In Ekta Kapoor's Mahabharat, she interpreted different outfits. The point is nobody can say with authority. Hindu scriptures don't mention any dress code like you say. If you are going to dismiss the work of serious historians who spend their lives studying things, including Hindu scriptures, then please at least consider how sound your own "evidence" is.

The photos of the actress you have posted is just that, acting. In real life she is a normal woman.

And even if Hindu scriptures mention something specifically about outfits and what parts of a woman should be covered, that still besides the point. Hindu scriptures have a lot of things that are interpreted a thousand different ways by people for many practical reasons.

You cannot try to establish some kind of sound proof argument to support your own distaste at Rakhi Sawant's clothes. Please don't drag religion into this anymore. I don't think it is fair to represent Hinduism in this way.

one of the best explanations... you are right to the core...

Originally posted by: Chits1

Thanks for the nice greaceful pics taken from Ramayan laiitha.The woman look so graceful.

Originally posted by: _LalithaJanaki_

You're welcome.😊

The woman is Deepika Chikhalia, and she acted as Devi Sita in Ramanand Sagar's Ramayan. She is actually my favorite actress!😃

yes,deepika.I love her acting too.She is a Sita maiyya for me 😃