If you thought banning a “tilak” was funny, think again
Most of you must have read about the “tilak” controversy in Bihar from a few days ago.
Yesterday, an alert reader sent me this snippet from thelondonpaper*:
A Heathrow worker was today fighting to win back her job after being sacked for wearing a nose stud.
Amrit Lalji, 40, worked at the airport for more than a year – wearing the tiny stud – and said she wore it as part of her Hindu religion.
Lalji, a customer relations worker in Terminal 1, refused to remove it after being told this summer that jewellery was not permitted.
She was eventually suspended and sacked.
Heathrow has been in the middle of a similar-ish controversy last year when an employee was asked not to wear a cross to work.
Do readers know how old is the tradition of the nose stud in India and if it has any religious connotation or symbolic significance (such as a “bindi”)?
I am curious.
Comments and thoughts welcome, as always.
Related Post: Don’t wear a “tilak” to work !
* News snippet by David Brown, dt 17th Sept ’07; Pg 4
UPDATE:
It seems Amrit Lalji has found a heavyweight ally:
From the Pioneer story “Indian woman stripped of her job for wearing nose stud in UK” (By Nandini Jawli, London):
“The Mayor of London Ken Livingstone has condemned the sacking of Amrit and called for her to be re-instated. Livingstone said, “It is an attack on her right to freely express her religion and an attack on her right as a woman to dress as she wishes.”
Image Courtesy: Prakhar Amba
Why even go work for the british!. They looted the entire world to make themselves rich and then turn around and call the ones they looted as third world. Dont go and live / work in these Morally third world countries like UK.
I don’t think the nose stud is anything but traditional jewellery but I may be wrong.
The nose-ring or nose-stud reminds me of a ‘nakail’ used to keep the yoke on a beast of burden or a cow or a bull.
Some quick desk research suggests that it was probably introduced by Mughals, who were Muslims and hence great protectors of women (sarcasm intended, for those who have a sense of humour bypass).
“No nose rings are found on the stone and clay sculptures from the Indus civilisation, or at Ajanta or Ellora. There is no evidence of the use of nose rings from the plaques, seals or coins excavated from Mohenjodaro, Harappa or the
Kushan and Gupta dynasties. Similarly, the bronzes of the Apsaras of the 9th century, or the 11th/12th century Uma of the Pala period and Parvati show an absence of this ornament of the nose. Evidence of nose rings and studs appear only in the 15th and 16th centuries”.
In recent Hindu tradition, nose-rings are to be worn by married women (although Punjabi communities have made a fashion item of nearly everything in north India, including toe rings, or bichhiye, which were also married women’s adornments).
In the story you cite, it is worth checking how many employees have pierced ears because that is also one of the ‘policy’ things cited by the employer in this case.
Please check the photo – http://www.heritage.gov.pk/Indus%20jpg/Indus%20Jewel.jpg
It is a set of jewelery excavated that belongs to IVS.
I can see a few “ring type” jewelery that very much looks like an ear ring and a nose-ring.
Can someone please comment on this?
-Ram Sundar
@ Nita: In addition to “an only mouse”s comment, I found the following excerpt on this site: http://www.indiaprofile.com/fashion/rings.htm
It has the paragraph referred to by mouse and also mentions that:
“The widespread use of nose ornaments in India today has created a misconception that wearing of these an ancient Hindu custom based on religious sanctions. Yet French historian-writer I.L.Blanchol says, “the Muslim ladies also perform certain vows in the name of renowned saints and make their children wear nathunis (nose rings).”
…
Thus, nose ornaments which are commonly worn as marriage ornaments today one can conclusively say, appeared around the end of the 16th century and are believed to have been introduced by the Mughals.
***
@ An only mouse: Thanks for your comment. I would hate to see Indian women stop wearing it just because it reminds them of a “nakail”!!
That said, it may have some symbolism – which you hinted at.
I have included additional excerpts to your comment for the sake of completeness.
***
@ Ram Sundar: Thanks for the link. I had a look at the pictures – Appear more like ear-rings than nose-studs.
There was once an interesting discussion of the history of the nose ring, archived here:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/indicCivilization/messages/51?threaded=1&m=e&var=1&tidx=1
When it is agreed that wearing of a nose stud is a tradition, how can it be fixed by History; because tradition, after all, is: ‘handing down in unwritten form to posterity’? Seeing it as a ‘nakail’ could be on account of our seeing it from a modernised, Westernised or ‘Women’s Lib’ angle. In fact, it is one of our religious ceremonies which a girl undergoes along with the ‘Karna-Bheda Sanskar’ in the childhood. It is not at the time of marriage alone that it is worn, but right from the childhood. Usually, a small ‘koka’ of gold, silver or thin wooden stick is worn then.
It is not correct to say that it has been taken from the Mughals, because it is not a Mughal or Mongolian practice or ornament. Muslims in ‘India’ and Pakistan wear it because of their Hindu inheritance. Several Hindu marriage ceremonies are still being continued in them.
Shrimad Bhagavad Paad Aadi Shankeracharya’s composed Lalita Panchakam Stotram has described a ‘big pearl ornamenting the nose of the divine Mother: “Prthul Mauktik Shobh-Naasam’m” – and his time was 2500 years before. In Mahalakshmi- ashtakam also one finds the words ‘Nanaa-lankaar Bhooshitam’.
Durga Saptshati describing Mother Durga’s face states ‘Tri-Nayanaa Sarvaang Bhooshaavrtam’, meaning, whose all the parts of the face (including the nose) are decorated with ornaments. Even now village ladies wear an ornamental covering on the head from side to side, a clip in the hair, ‘Chooda Mani’ in the ‘Chooda’ or ‘Joorha’, ‘Tikka’ on the forehead, Stud, Koka, ‘Laihsunia’, ring or ‘Nathh’ in the nose and a big ‘bracelet type’ covering on the neck thereby covering and ornamenting all the parts of the face.
‘Naasika-Bharanam’ or nasal ornament can also be seen in several ancient Devi temples in the South.
Here are few more quotes to prove its ancience -‘Naasikaa Mauktikam’ (Sha.Padh.), ‘Naasa Mauktik-Kaitavena’ (Naish. Char.), ‘Naasaagr Mukta’ (Shaar.).
So, Smt. Lal was very correct when she said, it is a part of my religion.
@ David: Thank you very much for the link.
I am excerpting some parts of the discussion below. I think they will help improve our understanding.
***
@ Dr Singh: Thanks for your comment and the quotes.
While the practice of piercing the ear-lobe is well established (“Karna-bheda sanskaar”), I am not sure if a “nath” has any religious significance.
It may well be part of our tradition (based in customs) but not necessarily part of the Hindu religion – although I am well aware that “Hindu-ism” defies the tag of religion in several ways…and who is to say that their interpretation is better than others?
Thanks for contributing to the discussion though and I hope you find the excerpts from the discussion referred in David’s comment, interesting:
***
EXCERPTS from DISCUSSION on Yahoo! Groups (Courtesy David):
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/indicCivilization/messages/51?threaded=1&m=e&var=1&tidx=1
—–
Years ago I copied a few pages from a library book that roused my curiosity, “Women in Rgveda” by Bhagwat Saran Upadhyaya, and just recently came across them again while looking for something else.
Those pages dealt with the nose ring in Indian culture, saying
“The nose-ring is conspicuously absent from the list of ornaments furnished by the Rgveda. Nowhere do we find the slightest allusion made to it.”, and also
“But Dr. Altekar has very ably shown that “the nose-ring was unknown throughout the whole of India during the entire Hindu period. Hindu sculptures of Puri and Rajputana of the post-Muslim period begin to show the nose-ring for the first time. Both the positive and the negative evidence thus shows that the nose-ring is not a Hindu ornament.””
So my question is, what most likely is the source of this custom? Turkic? Iranian?
Paul Kekai Manansala once suggested an Austro-Asiatic origin, but it seems to me that if that were so, it would have been in place well before the Muslim period, and not have escaped notice until then.
Any ideas?
—–
My family immigrated to East Africa about a 100 years ago, and in my family there is no tradition of piercing your nose, actually they are against it by saying that it is not the custom of their caste.
So I find what you say here very intriguing.
—–
My grandmothers (referred to above) were specifically refering to Jat Sikh women from their region of Malwa,Punjab, when they explained to me that wearing a nose ring was not our custom.
Now thinking back on it, it may have been more to do with religion or regional differences rather than caste.
But my grandmothers associated it as a custom followed by the “lower castes”, or what constituted as lower castes in their time period, of which I know very little as I did not grow up in India.
—–
I will try to get some information about mention of nose-rings in Tamil Sangkam and post-sangkam literature, which may be much later than Rig Veda, but much earlier than any islamic influence.
—–
Among the people of Kerala, at least among “upper” caste Hindus and Christians, nose rings or any type of nose ornaments were not prevalent till very recently. Piercing the nose was unheard of.
At the same time, every female child had her ear lobes pierced. Even boys had their ear lobes pierced in the olden days.
—–
So more evidence (referring to above) that it is a relatively new custom.
Given the timing claimed by Dr. Altekar one can’t help but suspect it was a Muslim introduction, but yet, as I’ve said, I’ve never heard of such a custom among the Turks or Iranians.
—–
But if it was a Muslim introduction then why is it that we see no Persians, Turks or Arabs or Mongols wear it, only Muslim women from India, Pakistan or Bangladesh do.
Also it is found even in TN which had little Muslim influence, Meenakshi Amma has this in the Madurai kovela (temple), so Dr. Ranjit Singh is right when he said that it is found in Devi mandirs in south.
Also we also have to note that the Indian languages that I know of have a native word for the ornament, often foreign introductions (such as sweets like Jalebi) retain their foreign names, in Telugu it is “mukku pudaka”, in Tamil “mukku kuthi” and so on, “koka” in Punjabi and so on.
Few more inputs to add:
Two Amman (Paarvathi) murthi’s famous for their nose studs:
1. Mookambika (Kollur) [http://www.mookambika.co.in/historyofmookambika.html]
2. Kanyakumari
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devi_Kanya_Kumari]
Harish and Ram Sundar: Thanks for your comments and additional information.
As both of you have indicated, the custom of wearing a nose-stud may well have indigenous origins.
What I am still not clear about is whether it has any religious significance or symbolism attached with it – or was it merely a piece of jewellery?
“What I am still not clear about is whether it has any religious significance or symbolism attached with it – or was it merely a piece of jewellery?”
From what my Tamil friend tells me, it is seen as as a symbol of a married woman, it varies since Hindus do not have a uniform code, that maybe why kerala didn’t have it among the “upper” castes, for example in my area of AP a married woman is to always have a toe ring (called mettelu in Telugu and bichiya in Hindi) but I am sure not all Hindus follow this, to an outsider it might look like just another case of decorative jwellery but to the locals it is the sign of married status of a Hindu woman.
“The Hindu Council in UK in a statement said the wearing of a nose stud is an integral part of Lalji’s faith. Many Hindu women have their nose pierced and fitted with a stud for their wedding as part of the Shringar ritual, it said.
As per the ritual, there should be sixteen different “marks of a married woman”. The other marks include the Bindi, the red dot on her forehead, wearing of a Mungal Sutra or wedding necklace and Sindur, putting vermilion in the hair parting.
http://www.hindustantimes.com/StoryPage/StoryPage.aspx?id=7d520081-ae28-40db-9afd-a3f89ddf7513&MatchID1=4552&TeamID1=2&TeamID2=6&MatchType1=5&SeriesID1=1143&PrimaryID=4552&Headline=London+Mayor+orders+Laljit's+reinstatement “
Harish: Thanks for diligently following up on this.
It does appear to be a practice rooted in traditional, regional customs with socio-cultural (and possibly religious) symbolism.
I was not aware of the nose-stud being one of the sixteen different marks of a married woman… Is what you are referring to the “Solah Shringaar” of a women? (rough translation: sixteen adornments?).
Would any readers of the blog be able to comment on this?
Thanks everyone for enriching the debate.
How were the references quoted by us inadequate and unauthentic to prove the antiquity and originality of the ornament? Are Lalitaashtakam and Durga Saptashati of recent origin or post-Muslim period?
Bhagawan Aadi Shankeracharya’s period is fifth century BC, and Durga Saptshati is of the beginning of Creation. Kamakoti Peetham was established by the Acharya in 482 BC where he finally settled after an extraordinarily hectic peripatetic monastic career. It has an unbroken line of succession of 69 Acharyas; the Goverdhan Peetham of Dwarka has 79, and the Goverdhan Peetham of Puri over 140. Aren’t they a sufficient proof of the antiquity of his period?
Durga Saptashati is a part of Markandeya Puraanam, just as Bhagavad Gita is that of the Mahabharattam. Puranas are as old as the Vedas; in fact, they were revealed even before them: Puraanam sarva-shaastraanaam-prathamam Brahmanaa-smrtam/ Anantaram ch vaktrebhyo Vedaasya vinirgataaha// (Matsya P. 53:3; also Agni & Brahma P.) The Vedas too state: Rchah Samaani Chhandaansi Puraanam Yajushah Saha/ Uchhishtaat-jajnire sarve divi Deva divishrrtaah// Atharva:11:9:24
Jewellery, brothers, is a part of our Vesh-bhusha, both men and women. Each and every part of the latter, from head to foot, is decorated with ornaments when she is given at the time of her Vivaah. The words of the father at that time would prove it: …. Amuk naamaneem Shri-roopineem yatha-shakty-alankrtaam kanyaam….
Little wonder, there are a variety of names and ornaments of each and every part of her body. The nose is no exception. It has : Naasikabhoo-shanam, Naasabharanam, Nathh, Nathhee, Naath, Chhalla, Koka etc.
“The nose-ring is conspicuously absent from the list of ornaments furnished by the Rgveda. Nowhere do we find the slightest allusion made to it.”
If Naasikabharanam, or an equivalent of it was not found in it, how does it mean – and how can one infer – that it was not worn by our women? Does Rgveda provide lists of ornaments? Words Kaupeen (Langoti or lion cloth), Upaanat/ Paaduh(sandal), Shaatakee (Saree) and Shaatak or Shaatakam (Dhoti) are also not found in it. Would one then infer that people then didn’t wear shoes, and men went about naked without a lion cloth or dhoti and the ladies without sarees?
When Lalitaashtakam, Durga Saptashati and some other quotes already given mention it, how can it be said that “…the post-Muslim period begin to show the nose-ring for the first time.” Is the period of those post-Muslim? How?
“…. that “the nose-ring was unknown throughout the whole of India during the entire Hindu period. Hindu sculptures of Puri and Rajputana of the post-Muslim period begin to show the nose-ring for the first time”.
Goverdhan Math of Puri is not of the post-Muslim period? In Rajputana, like elsewhere in the North, thousands and thousands of temples were destroyed and razed to the ground by the hordes of Muslim marauders. How would one expect to see there one from the pre-Muslim age? Could one name even one which was ancient and of the pre-Muslim period? One should remember that Rajasthan, rather Rajputana to use its original and pre-Nehruine name, had not been kept completely subdued like Punjab, Sindh, Delhi and Central and Western parts of U.P – but even then, they were left with heaps and heaps of ruined temples.
Even the Golden Temple of Amritsar was destroyed by the Muslims and was even blasted completeley by Ahmed Shah Abdali in 1762. The standing structure is the one raised by the devotees and completed by Maharaja Ranjit Singh.
Had the ‘stud’ not been a part of our jewellery, how would such a galaxy of names and types been found and come into use? As a matter of fact, not only the nose but even the nasal septum has an ornament, a ring, which is worn in many parts till date.
It is true, there is no mention of a Sanskaar by that name, but then no other Sanskaara has also been mentioned for a girl save the Vivah Sanskaar.
Our humble opinion is, that it is not right for us to search elsewhere for the origin of our traditions; for in that case, how would they be ours? To be our traditions, they have to be ours and not taken or borrowed from others. Such an advanced, proud and Arya cultured nation like ours, could never have even thought of taking any custom or wear of the others, especially the Anaaryas, and decorated our womenfolk with them. We were then not what we have become today – apes and mental slaves of the foreigners and non-Anaaryas, the West. The Shalwar-Kamiz which has become the wear of the Punjabis, particularly the Sikh ladies now, was conspicuous by its absence till decades after the seizure of the province by the British. No Hindu or Sikh lady ever wore that. Their dress was Lehnga, Ghagra and Saree. (Please see paintings of the time and ask the great-great grand Mothers from the Punjab.) We had then our own education and also the mentality.
With apologies,
Dr. Ranjeet Singh.
Dear Dr Singh: First of all thanks for sharing your thoughts.
I believe you mistakenly assumed that the reference to RgVeda was from me. It was not. It was an excerpt from Yahoo! discussion group.
Having said that, one of my main objectives in starting this blog was to set the record straight on various things and misperceptions that people have about our country, culture, history, religion etc.
So your contribution is very welcome and a useful addition in that sense…
You have made a number of points in your comment – so please allow me to revisit once I have some more time (hopefully over the weekend)…
In the meantime, I look forward to your continued participation in the discusions here.
Santanu,
Saw this mail on the indian archaeology mailing list. congrats!
JK
———- Forwarded message ———-
From: david_russell_watson
Date: Sep 21, 2007 12:44 PM
Subject: [Ind-Arch] An Interesting Discussion of Nose Ornaments
To: IndiaArchaeology@yahoogroups.com
is taking place at https://satyameva-jayate.org/2007/09/18/if-you-thought-banning-a-tilak-was-funny/#comment-6834 .
David
Its so stupid to learn that ’tilak’ and ‘nose stud’ is creating news and reason of being sacked from the job.
Whats wrong in it.? What is wrong is peircing ring at navel, tounge and on lips. Tatooing on body parts.
Once, somebody asked one woman in US, that what is this on your forehead? She said “Bindi’. Than one more question came out of curiosity, why are you puting this? woman knew that he is pulling her legs so replied, its my tatoo, many people have on their body so do I and it is on my forehead. Anything wrong in it? one more exclamaition from that person, very strange and weird. Woman replied I never felt that way when I saw paint and colour on many people around me, so why you are feeling that way with my “Bindi”?.
Moral is : What they do is “LILA” and what we do is ‘Bhavai’? Sorry guys, I dont have proper words to explain LILA and BHAVAI in english. Help Please!
So refuse to see a thing, Dr. Singh, and it ceases to exist, eh? But at what cost do we walk around with our eyes closed?
You seem, on the contrary, to recognize that shalvar-o-qamiz is of foreign origin, and thus the fact that Indians can and do sometimes adopt foreign customs, yet otherwise insist that the question shouldn’t even be raised.
It’s difficult to comprehend your logic, sir, but then what would I, a mere “Anaarya”, know?
David
David Russell Watson: “shalvar-o-qamiz is of foreign origin”
Salwar/shalwar is a Pahlavi (Iranian) word that traces back to Zend (old Iranian), while the word Kameez derives from Arabic.
The CHURIDAR – visible on the Ajanta cave paintings as well as on those from the Satavahana period (both from about 250 BCE to 200CE) – is indigenous to India. It consists of tight-fitting pants with a somewhat more form-fitting top that comes to somewhere around the knees. This contrasts with the baggy salwar pants, and the loose and formless kameez worn in Pakistan.
Outside of Punjab and neighbouring regions, the salwar is not as commonplace in the rest of India. It is only in recent times that it has been starting to spread out more. For instance, in the last few decades, on the few occasions when adult women in South India don’t wear the saree, they have been wearing the churidar. In comparison, the salwar has still not caught on as much there.
Salwar kameez itself is not an Arabian dress. (Though, I suppose perhaps the extremely long and formless kameez style they wear in Pakistan might have been inspired by the kind of long – though *pantless* – Arabian dress I’ve seen some Arabian women wear?)
The salwar kameez appears to be from the Afghan and Punjab regions. In spite of the half-Iranian half-Arabian name given it, outside of the Indian subcontinent – which includes Afghanistan – it is considered an import (not traditional). The Afghan dress is likely either an adaptation of the Indian churidar or may just be derived from the Parthian (old Afghan, pre-islamic) tunic-and-pant set.
That is, unless someone’s able to find a *definite* “islamic” precursor for the salwar kameez while simultaneously proving that neither the Ajanta and Satavahana periods nor Parthian wear had any influence on the salwar.
Or perhaps western people just haven’t heard of the churidar (and/or don’t know what Parthians wore) and so assume that all Indian dress-with-pants style clothes “must be entirely foreign and/or islamic in origin” merely because one form gained an “Urdu-sounding” name…
To “Nemo” in regards to shalvar-o-qamiz:
Please note that it was Dr. Ranjeet Singh, not myself, who complained about the wearing of shalvar-o-qamiz as the adoption of foreign custom, after previously insisting that no foreign origin should ever be considered for any Hindu custom. It was the logical incongruity of such statements upon which I was commenting, and so which stands regardless of the final origin of shalvar-o-qamiz. Note that I wrote nothing at all about it being of Arabic or Islamic origin, as seems to be of overriding concern to you.
Therefore sarcasm like “perhaps western people just haven’t heard… and so assume” is entirely unjustified.
If thay coul help the discussion there is a record of nose stud in the Bible. in Genesis, Abraham, father of Isaac and Ishmael send his servant to look for a wife for Isaac in his own family. The lady chosen was Rebekak. In chapter 24 verse 22 it is written ‘Consequently it came about that, when the camels had finished drinking, then the man took a gold nose ring of a half shekel in weight and two bracelets for her hands, ten shekels of gold was their weight, 23 and he went on to say: “Whose daughter are you?’
If I am not ,mistaking the Muslims are related to Ishmael brother of Isaac.
I could be logical to think that they two had those kind of jewllery. As they seems to appear around the 15th century it could be right that they not Hindu but Muslim.