However, in doing so, she herself is not portraying, or making those who see her artwork believe she is trying to say anything necessarily political. Her work is not about trying to give any sort of commentary about any type of person or society. “...She rarely allows extra-artistic concerns to undermine the aesthetic force of her work. "For me," she writes, "art is not a conduit to politics, feminism, or religion. It is a ticket to experience" (Kunitz, 47-48). She has also mentioned before in the past that because of her time spent living in America, she doesn’t want her work to be seen as any type of commentary on Palestine, or the East as a whole. Once during a talkback for an art show, “ …Sikander complained that when she visited Pakistan not long ago she was peppered with questions about her politically charged work. And although she argued that this represented only a small portion of her output, it made no difference to her interrogators” (Rodgers, 12). This issue seems to occur because of Sikander's use of drawing from her early training and use of imagery from the Palestinian, eastern world, along with drawing from symbolism from other parts of the world. These two parts of her being totally different pieces of her life story, but her being able to use her artwork in order to combine the two is a constant theme that can be seen across a lot of what she makes.

These things being brought together as one makes it very easy for the assumption to be made that the artwork she is creating is trying to tell a bigger story, even though what she may have included may only be for design, and nothing more. Though obviously, that is not always the cause when it comes to what she is creating. “Sikander seems to be saying that her work is more about growing up surrounded by a wide range of visual stimuli--from the traditional Muslim world to pop culture--than about the cultural symbolism of the imagery” (Rodgers, 12). Though, as we mentioned earlier, many people do argue against this idea of the way she thinks on her artwork, and there are those who still try to, what she would deem, overanalyze what she has created in order to unlock some secret hidden belief or idea that the artwork is trying to show through Sikander.

After 9/11 occurred, those that had this piece commissioned had misunderstood the Sikander's meaning behind what she was having this womanly figure hold, it being a show more of violence than strength. She was asked to change it but decided to instead to pull away entirely from the commission.

She drew upon these two figures showing the symbolic weight of communal identity from across different areas of her world, this being from where she originates from, Pakistan, and her now home of the United States. With this comes those who assume that one woman symbolizes the Goddess Venus and the Indian Devata. With this in mind, the two together in the positions they reside in can bring upon the desires of non-heteronormalities, which by most are pushed to the side and ignored, those types of feelings being seen as foreign and even inauthentic. For both the East and West, feelings and emotions cause by nonheteronormative thoughts or ideas are definitely seen in such a way. Sikander wanted to viewer, from this sculpture, to be able to envision a different view of the past, present, and future with these god-like women. One where these emotions, thoughts, and feelings aren't seen as something to be taken in a negative light. For they are something as beautiful as any other.

The sculpture features braids in the shape of ram horns, these representing unity of different pieces of culture, race, womanhood and more of Sikander's own life. Her skirt also includes Arabic writing that says "havah", which is from the Urdu word meaning "air" and "atmosphere" and the Arabic and Hebrew word for "Eve". The rings spiraling around represent the lines of longitude and latitude on a map, another callback to her being a sort of representation of the world.

Those surrounding the center figures are men and woman who have had positions of power or worked hard to create and make the East a better place to live. Specifically, many having to do from where she had once come from, Pakistan. Along with this, them being in the piece helps speak on the alliances between these leaders and the power of America. According to Sikander, “The 1990s was about war, coalitions, alternating friends and foes, imposed sanctions, debts forgiven, and human rights brushed under the carpet as America flexed its military muscle around the world. This work took this history into account, and I proposed that American policy in Islamic countries would become a defining issue in the new millennium" (The Morgan Library & Museum). The painting overall sharing and giving those who see it a look at these individuals who have tried to make their part of their world better, and to show the greater parts of it. That not just men, but women too, have done much work to try and show and fix the place they call home. In doing so, those who live there, and those from all the way in the West, understand how the world they live in isn't just what the media tries to portray it as, especially when it comes to their religious work and practices, and how that shapes their lives much differently than of those in the States. "The work was always resisting that type of fetishization, especially about the Muslim woman as needing to be saved, especially in how it gets played up in Hollywood, in media, in TV, in this"(Davenport, 20), and "... it has a deeper history of the representation of the veil in European colonial imperial history. And it counters it with other types of narratives, where the joyousness of the feminine, the inherent female agency, autonomy, ability to be creative, where its inner beauty, its inner strength is very present"(Davenport, 21). These being regularly occurring themes and ideas throughout countless other pieces she has created.

What she has done here is trying to make you look differently at the idea of the veiled, Muslim woman. What we see in the painting someone who looks to be a Muslim female, veiled. But, when taking a closer inspection, you are able to distinguish that it is actually a male figure. Through the use of the veil, these long, flowing white lines, she was able to disguise and hide away what the viewers would usually assume as a woman, putting on a more androgynous tone to the form. She uses the white as a tool for editing in her work here, one way being a way of redacting, a way of question who gets to define these sorts of things, and why they get the power to do so. Why must women be looked at and questioned, especially in the West, about the clothing they may decide to choose to wear, or must wear due to the religion that they follow?

Shahzia speaks more specifically on the matter of her piece. “The notion of the veil, despite its cliché, persists in defining the Muslim female in the West. This protagonist appears to be a veiled female, yet on close inspection one can see that the stock character is a male polo player common to South and Central Asian manuscript illustrations. Painting over the male figure with chalky white lines was my way to make androgyny the subject. One could read it as a comment on patriarchal, colonial, and imperial histories. It was also a means of tracing my own relationship with the largely male-dominated lineage of manuscript painting"(The Morgan Library & Museum).

Shahzia has spoken about how this painting references the two Hindu deities Ratna and Krishna; however, she has removed all presence of the Krishna, the male deity. This being done so she can focus specifically on the feminine, and how empowering it can be. We can see the female form balancing on one foot underneath a tree with blooming flowers, holding onto a branch. She is also pining down a white, shadowy form with looping feet and wings. We see other types of these creatures as if they are looking on from a distance. Shahzia is wanting to give the feeling of both rootedness and being afloat from these individuals.

“The central character’s attempt to pin down with its one foot the ghostlike female suggests the paradox of rootedness,” Sikander explains. “In a place like Houston, with its multiple immigrant narratives and nationalisms, the Uprooted Order series addressed the fallacy of assimilation versus foreignness” (The Morgan Library & Museum).