This is in answer to the question that has been raised that the SS i used in this tweet is part of a play and not actual Ramayana. A small #thread to address the concern. https://twitter.com/miiranarayan/status/1358992318662139904

Firstly i would like to clear up I nowhere support enforcement of any particular clothing style on anyone nor do i suggest women should be shackled anyway. People using my thread to enforce ghoonghat on anyone who doesn't like it can plz take a hike.

Ghoonghat for me is a type of dress just like pheran,mekhla or saree.I prefer dressing to the occasion so will wear it on my wedding.Nothing against ppl who dont want to.Only reason for this thread is to clear the air that it's origin lies in Bharat n not a reaction to invasion.

Coming to the point, yes the SS i used in this thread talks about a play named Pratimānātaka by Bhasa where Ram asks Sita to unveil. But does that prove Ghoonghat was not practiced at all in our culture? NO IT WAS VERY MUCH A PRACTICE OF HINDU SOCIETY and here's how.

Bhasa is one of the earliest Sanskrit playwright who lived around 3rd or 4th century CE. Where was Islam then? Where did he get this concept from if it was an alien practice for us? I don't think Bhasa had any ability to forcast anything about Islαm so many centuries before.

Even In Abhijñānaśākuntalam, Kālidāsa, a revered poet whose plays were primarily based on Vedas, Ramayana, Mahabharata n puranas, has used the concept of Avagunthana.

When Shakuntala arrives before Dushyanata to accept her and their child Dushyanta enquires who is this veiled one & goes on to say wife of someone else shouldn't be inspected.

This play was written in 5th century much before Islαm. Even if we say Not every women in India practiced it yet how can we say that it wasnt our own practice? Not every woman in india wears saree or eat rasgulla so can we say Sareee/rasgulla isn't a Bharatiya concept.

Or we started wearing saree coz of invasion?

Kalidasa or Bhasa weren't some bollywood scriptwriter that we can blame their plays as inauthentic or exaggeration or far from reality of the society. Can we? So their showing ghoonghat can't be dismissed as non existent practice.

Coming to Ramayana, i looked up for this particular incident mentioned by Bhasa in valmiki Ramayana.
The below SS from Yuddhakanda corroborates the same n clarifies that the particilular incident isn't a creation by Bhasa as an exaggeration.

The above is spoken by Swayam Shri Ram. He chalks down when should a woman,visible to public, not be condemned. He also goes on to say it is not a fault in his presence as Vibhisana was trying to disperse everyone to provide them seclusion.

The SS i have used is from a book 'Indian Costume' by Govind Sadashiva ghurye. The reason i used it is to show what an eminent sociologist & research scholar like Dr. Ghurye explains the situation as and not showcase my own perception about the incident.

Here is another description of the same event by Hariprasad Shashtri. This is again to show what Shashtriji describe this incident as, so as not to impose my personal opinion.

Not just that in my previous thread i have already shown another reference of Mandodari too where she is asking infront of Ravana WHY IS HE NOT ANGRY SEEING HER UNVEILED. If the concept of Avagunthana is so alien where does this ref comes from?

Not just head cover often it has been used as face cover too albeit it wasnt a compulsion. Neither was it prohibited for women to show their face in public nor were the shamed in case they were seen without it (unlike system of purdah). Check the purple highlight in the ss below.

I have already clarified purdah is diff from ghoonghat in many ways. Equating the two is highly misleading. While ghoonghat was a choice purdah was compulsion. Infact many times a woman donning Ghoonghat are seen not covering there every inch of their body unlike Purdah.

I REPEAT:
I did not find Ghoonghat as a religious practice anywhere to be imposed on anyone.But It is a cultural practice prevailent in a society that has birthed Us Hindus so i will accept history as it is n respect whatever our tradition has been whether i practice it or not.