May 13, 2016 — INDIA (SUN) —
This book was banned by the GBC UK, GBC NA EC and VEB (Vrindavan Executive Board). We continue our serialized response to the Resolution by NA EC banning Women: Masters or Mothers? (WMM). For information on the background of this serialized response please read the Introduction.
[NA GBC] Clause
Whereas on page 30, WMM 2nd edition, he says "Muslim women still cover their head (if not their whole body) in public, which some people think is inhumanly restrictive; but a chaste women appreciates this as being cultured and dignified (in other words, implying covered heads by a married devotee lady are not up to the standard of chastity represented by Muslims);
Response
This passage from WMM in no way implies what the GBC EC here suggests. To insinuate unintended ideas is the kind of destructive criticism we are instructed to avoid. The author simply appreciates that all traditional societies have maintained both the chastity and dignity of women by following similar norms since time immemorial. Such a practice is appreciated by chaste women as being cultured and dignified, whereas those who are not so look for fault in it or criticize the practice.
This is actually a Vedic practice and not necessarily only Muslim, as we can see how H.H. Bhakti Vikasa Swami bolsters his statements with that of Srila Prabhupada's in the next paragraph (which was carefully omitted from the clause above):
"Srila Prabhupada similarly described: Even fifty or sixty years ago in Calcutta, all respectable ladies would go to a neighboring place riding on a palanquin carried by four men. The palanquin was covered with soft cotton, and in that way there was no chance of seeing a respectable lady traveling in public. Ladies, especially those coming from respectable families, could not be seen by ordinary men. This system is still current in remote places. The Sanskrit word asurya-pasya indicates that a respectable lady could not be seen even by the sun. In the oriental culture this system was very prevalent and was strictly observed by respectable ladies, both Hindu and Muslim. We have actual experience in our childhood that our mother would not walk even next door to observe an invitation; rather, she would go in either a carriage or a palanquin carried by four men.
(Caitanya-caritamrta 1.13.114, purport)
Regarding the reluctance of some women to properly cover themselves up when going out, the following section on page 105 in WMM 2nd edition shows the implications:
"Women complain about rape, but they go out by themselves, often dressed in a manner specifically calculated to attract men. I have seen Indian women at midnight walking unaccompanied on the street (which was unimaginable even a few years ago). Probably they were not prostitutes; they could for instance have been going to or returning from shift work in a hospital. But the freedom of women to wander around alone at any time means that they cannot be properly protected, and an increase of rape is inevitable."
Every Indian will understand the cultural implications of this. Until recently in India it was unthinkable that a woman could be out alone at midnight. From other passages in WMM it is clear that the author by no means treats rape lightly or underplays the wrongdoing of its perpetrators. He simply offers some commonsense advice on how to avoid it, an example being the clause under discussion which says that women should properly cover themselves.
This is the material world, criminal elements have been present in human society since Lord Brahma created all the species. Why do we lock our house and car doors? Why do we not flash money in public? To avoid being victims of a crime. The criminals are still criminals for committing robbery, but that doesn't make it any better for the victim. Best thing is if people do what is in their power to avoid being victims. For the same reason, a woman should not display her opulences in public or she risks someone robbing her of them.
A cursory check on the policies of insurance companies will also reveal that when payouts are being calculated, the payout in cases where the victims of thefts were negligent is lower than those where the victim actually took some precaution. Likewise, the idea of women covering up was for their own benefit (and to some extent for the benefit of men who would not like to degrade themselves into illicit sex), and many times when they became victims of crime, we see that they could have taken some precautions, such as those mentioned in the clause under discussion.
It seems clear that some of these points are being deliberately twisted just to try and make the case for banning the book. We can see that this is just another outrageously weak point for banning the book, and once again we wonder how such a thing like this can happen from a managerial authority of ISKCON.
Get a copy of Women: Masters or Mothers?
Earlier Responses
Appreciations of Women: Masters or Mothers?
