Talk:Sati (practice)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Edit history before 16 July 2005

Before User:24.52.227.195 at 04:03, 16 July 2005 expanded the text on this page, Suttee was to be found as a subsection of Sati, so look at the edit history of sati for a history of the text before 16 July 2005. --Philip Baird Shearer 18:21, 24 July 2005 (UTC)


Ruling widows

I wonder about something interesting; as a widow generally had a such low regard if she where alive, why is it that they where so many ruling widows in the hindu principalitys of the old India? They are an overwelming amount of examples of queens who took over the trone after their husbands death, not only as minor regents, but as ruling monarchs. It would be interesting to understand why this was an expetion; this was not unusual at all, and they where in many cases popular regents. Why was this accepted? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aciram (talk • contribs) 16:31, 31 December 2006 (UTC).

I'd guess that it was accepted for the same reason that widows became queens anywhere else. You are stating a presupposition within your question in "as a widow generally had a such low regard if she where alive", which I don't believe is stated in the article.
Also, it would be useful to have some citations for the Nepali 1804 case, so it can be included with the other references in the article.
(And please start new topics at the bottom of the page. It makes it so much easier to read. Thanks).
Imc 23:50, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Answer from Aciram. I'm sorry if i sounded offensive in any way, but it was a serious question from my part; i would really like to know, and i think that it is a walid question to ask in this case - this is within a culture who once had this practice in question, and therefore an interesting question, dont you think? And i think one should be able to ask about it and discuss it without no prejudice on either part. I used the phrase about the disregard of widows impulsively - it is not to be seen as a reffering to this articel! The Nepali case of 1804 i mentioned regards the dowager queen Raj Rajeswari Devi, mother and minor regent of king Girunayuddha Birkrama Shah, who ruled 1799-1816. She is mentioned in the site womenstateleaders.com.

No, you were not being offensive at all. But you raised a question in the talk page for the Sati article, and the presupposition in that context was that you were talking about something in the article. Hence, my statement that the article did not say anything, directly anyway, about the status of women when alive. For the rest of your question, I'm not sure that it is safe to rely on blanket statements such as 'widows were held in low regard' in Hinduism. They often were in many communities certainly, but simplifications like this are dangerous, especially given the complexities and variation of of Hindu society. For the queen regent of Nepal, I've found the ref at [2]. If no one else does it, I'll put it in later, but would prefer to look up and include a bit of context first, like what happened to her husband. Imc 16:51, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

The site womenstateleaders.com counts eighteen widowed rulers in the hindu principalitys of preunited India between 333 bc to 1824; among them queen Durgavati of Gondwana (ruled 1545-1564), one of the most legendary of female rulers in India; queen Chennamma of Keladi (ruled 1671-1696), queen Jiji Bai Sahib Maharaj of Kolhapur (ruled 1760-1773) and queen Nubadha Bai Sahib of Dhar (ruled 1782-1800); some of them regents for minor sons after the deaths of their husbands, some even monarchs. All when sati were still in practice, and all in hindu countrys. It would be interesting to know if there where perhaps some cultural rule explaining this, or if they where truly all of them excpetions.

POV/NPOV

I found this to be an excellent article about something I had heard of but knew nothing of. However it needs some more work to be NPOV. There seem to be quite a few structural changes, happening so I'm having a hard time following the edit history. When the content has stabilised, I'll be contributing, but I'll wait in order to avoid edit conflicts. brenneman(t)(c) 05:26, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Comment by Sir Charles Napier - NPOV discussion

The smug comment by Sir Charles Napier is racist - it serves to only paint a whole community more than addressing the custom itself. Also, how was he 'well known' for his opposition except by the popularity (among westerners) of his comment ? I would like to remove. Please let me know if anyone has objections. If I don't hear back I will remove shortly.--Pranathi 19:48, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Sir Charles' comment was not racist at all. He stated what measures he would take if the practice of murdering widows were continued, and he did not state that the penalty for murder would only be applied to Indians, did he?

I do not think it smug of racist. As it was directed at specific people not at the community as a whole. He is an important actor in the process of making Suttee illegal and he was well known for is opposition to it. The British ruled much of India at the time and if they had not agreed with Rammohun Roy then Suttee would not have been abolished. You can not air brush out the British contribution to the stopping of this custom and still give a balanced history of what happened.

The timing of the campaign against Suttee is also significant from the point of view of British social transition. The rise of Methodism and the abolishment of slavery throughout the British Empire, (led by social reformers like William Wilberforce), are manifestations of the social transition which took place witin the United Kingdom between the Georgian and Victorian period and because of the size of the British Empire had world wide ramifications of which the abolition of Surtee is one example. Philip Baird Shearer 08:26, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Philip, Can you point me to any references that point to his role? All I can find is his comment that made him well known. I am not brushing away British contribtion but specifically object to his comment and mention of his role (that I don't know of). Also, it may have been directed at the people that approached him at the time, but the comment definetely conveys the impression of Indian against British. 'We' is British and 'you' is 'natives' (as they were called). Am I missing something? --Pranathi 02:22, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Philip, Please let me know why you removed the above talk on Charles Napier. Also, can we come to a consensus on removing it? And I am finding it hard to find British contributions to the abolition of Suttee other than passing the law and being appalled (naturally) by the practice. If the Indians went to Britain during (for example) the withchunts (which were far more extensive & severe in volume), they would probably have been appalled too. Also, I think we must keep in mind that the primary business of the British in India was making money and they were wary of touching sensitive issues - Indian Social reformers did play a large role in getting the law passed. I may be misguided in my assumptions - if so, please point me to references that show otherwise. --Pranathi 01:04, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

It was a glitch which happens if a section is being saved when all of the page has not yet been returned by the server. It can happen when the server is slow. "Show Preview" yep looks ok, "Save Page" if the save happens before all of the HTML page has been returned then it zaps the other sections.Philip Baird Shearer 09:17, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
I've been looking for a reference on the net but have not found one yet. He was govener of large chunks of India around the time the policy was being implemented but the two major external articles on his page tend to emphasise his military exploits rather than his adminstrative ones.
BTW I think that the the quote is worth including because like a sound bite used in a TV news program, it helps to emphases the point. Philip Baird Shearer 20:04, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

A sound bite? Can you please respond to the racist connotations? The practice was obviously appalling - IMO, don't think we need a racist, colonial 'sound bite' to convey that. Can anyone else following this discussion pls share their thoughts? Otherwise, I'd like to put a NPOV check on this to provide balance. --Pranathi 00:20, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

To address some of your points. The motive for holding the empire were always multifaceted. But before the Napoleonic wars access to territory for trade had always been very important. As the 19th century progressed, three additional reasons seem to have gained in importance. The first was the realisation that taxing the natives, particularly property taxes, could return a profit on a territory, so holding territory could be commercially viable even if trade was not a major factor. The second reason was pure imperialism to hold territory because it inflated the egos of the imperialists (that imperialism was a good thing) and coupled to that, the denial of territory to other would be European imperialists. The third reason can be seen in the North West Frontier with a need to dominate an area of little commercial value but important as a buffer area against encroachment of the empire by other empires as well as the need to pacify an neighbouring area which would/could raid into the commercial territories of the empire. As the British Empire got larger so the buffer areas became larger.
The growth of the imperialist empire coincided with the growth of the British middle class who's ideas on social reforms also became politically important in Britain. Because of this change which was taking place in Britain, there was a tendency for the political class to argue that "something must be done" whenever a social issue was presented in the British press. The imperial empire was run by politicians for political reasons and not just for commercial gain, and so they were more inclined to do things for political social reasons than was countenanced in an earlier age and in the earlier commercial Empire.
I am sure that if there had been Indians in England during the time of the Witch-finder General then a correspondence from them back to family and friends in India would include a couple of good sound bites. If an Indian state had been ruling sizeable parts of the Island of Britain in the 17th century and had been instrumental in stopping witch finding then I would be disingenuous not to highlight their contribution to ending witch finding.
As to the quote there are imperial connotations to it, but what are the racist connotation? As to putting a NPOV on the article what would you like to add to the article to balance up the POV? Philip Baird Shearer 09:11, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I see we have different POVs regarding British motives in India. I would not like to argue that since it takes focus off of the article. If you can show references to British (or Napier) involvment/activism/contribution to the abolition of Sati, please present them. Otherwise, I would like to remove phrase stating Napier was 'well known' for his opposition. It seems the 'well known' was tagged on after the fact to buttress his comment. Also, I didn't realise the comment was not obviously racist to others as it might be to me or other Indians. First of all, it's directed at the whole community from a British holier-than-thou perspective rather than at the custom itself - which should be reason enough. Secondly, it is not true. Some 200,000 (by modest estimates) women (witches apart from other heretics) were burned in fire in Europe by men. The men not only went scotfree but probably received applause from the crowds. The last witch trial in England was held in 1944. England repealed the last anti-witchcraft law in 1951. I would like to see this comment removed for it to be NPOV. --Pranathi 23:36, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

His comments were not addressed to the whole communtiy, but to a delegation which came to see him. I am not sure what argument you are trying to put forward about witches. Very few women were burned as witches in England, it tended to be used as a punishment for high treason as the equivalent of hanged, drawn and quartered. But as the article you highlighted makes clear the burning alive of women for any crime was abolished in 1790, after a 50 year period when the women had been strangled before being burnt. Those who were burnt during the proceeding 100 years had all be burnt after being found guilty of a crime after due process of law. BTW the abolition of such barbaric punishments in Britain, is a further indicator of the way public opinion was changing in Britain over such issues in the late 18th and early 19th centurys. But to make Napier's point clear: if anyone had decided to kill a woman just because her husband had died, (cremation was not popular in christian Britain until some time after this date so the equivelent would have been buried alive), then under English law from the earliest of times they would have been hanged.
As an aside, I came to this article via Charles James Napier who was one of three brothers and a cousin Charles Napier, who all held middle to senior positions in the British establishment. There was some confusion over which Napier did what in the Peninsular War, so I expanded the articles a bit to make it easier for people to link to the correct Napier. But back to your question on the sinning Napier, here are the results of a quick Google:.
General Sir Charles Napier was governor of Sindh from 1843-47:
Here is another link (http://www.plexoft.com/SBF/P02.html) which states under "peccavi":
For example, critics observed correctly that slavery was an ancient custom in much of the region, and that the British had promised not to interfere with local customs when they took over. Napier ignored this, acting harshly (and probably sometimes unjustly, since he admitted that he often judged against the evidence) against people accused of slavery. He likewise acted against Hindu suttee, and against cuckolded (or merely homicidally jealous) husbands who murdered their wives.
--Philip Baird Shearer 16:19, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
I am glad we agree that 'we' is British. When we is British/westerners, to me that automatically implies the 'you' is Indians.when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. - I am disputing that as a custom of the British (which is different from 'Law'. BTW, the argument of 'Due process of law' does not justify an unjust law or custom). An argument of - it was our custom 50 years ago, but not now - doesn't gel with his statement. (BTW, Witch burningsdid continue infrequently into the 19th century in England. There is no mention of tieing a rope and hanging the people involved in the burnings.) Also, suttee as a 'custom' (as opposed to practice maybe) was not murder but voluntary suicide.
Again, I am not interested in all the articles about Napier, as that is not the scope of this discussion. I am solely concerned with his contribution to Suttee. From your last reference, we could possibly note that Sir Charles Napier (in his capacity as a Judge?) acted harshly against Suttee. I am not convinced of the 'well known for his opposition' tag. I have not called Napier a sinner - I have merely asserted that his comment is racist per modern definitions and does not deserve to be in this article. Please don't distort my argument and lose focus on the main point.
I am sorry that we cannot understand each other's views. I still suggest we put in an NPOV check for a neutral observer to provide balance. --Pranathi 21:42, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
Your wrote above: "I may be misguided in my assumptions - if so, please point me to references that show otherwise." and "Again, I am not interested in all the articles about Napier, as that is not the scope of this discussion". So it is not the man or his contribution you are interested. What you are interested in is the inappropriate wording of statement made by a man dead for 152 years. The statement is representative of the condescending imperialist tone and patterns of thought of a British man close to the summit of power in the British empire in the middle of it's most dynamic and self confident phase, and it helps explain why and how the practice was stopped in British controlled lands in India. For this reason it is an appropriate quote to have a section on the abolition of Suttee. If you wish to add something to provide a balance that in you opinion should be added then add away, but I think the quote should remain in the article. Philip Baird Shearer 08:14, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
By misguided..assumptions.. please point.. refernces... I meant references to British role in Suttee. Before I added Rammohan Roy's role, there was no reference to Indians who I believe played a major role (along with British probably) in the abolition. Yes, I am not interested in the man or his contributions - only to his contribution to Sati. No article on Sati mentions his name. If the comment by Napier remain, we will need an aside explaining that the statement was representative of the condescending imperialist attitude of the British and also that the statement itself was not true of actual British customs, which included burning of witches at the stake. Without a self-critical gaze it is easy to be condescending. Without an aside on the actual customs, the article only affirms his statement and reinforces any notions of racial superiority in the reader's mind. I think the comment should not remain because Napier was not an important player in the abolition of Sati and his comment was popular only in western circles mainly because of tone. It has no value as a fact and it's value as a sound-bite is disputable. --Pranathi 14:46, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

I am surprised that Napier's statement reinforces any notions of racial superiority in your mind because it does not do so in mine. What makes you think that the statement would in anyone else's mind?

Perhaps it does not reinforce "racial superiority" in my mind because I am not sure what "racial" means. I would have thought that cultural superiority would be a more appropriate term and if you had used that term I would not agree with you that it does reinforce cultural superiority because he is talking about one practice which no longer exists in India and a second practice which no longer exists in Britain. So the cultural link if any is very thin.

"the statement itself was not true of actual British customs, which included burning of witches at the stake." It was not the custom in Britain during the C19th to burn women at the stake. Anyone doing so would have been hanged. If there was a case of burning a woman for being a witch 100 years either side of 1850 please give a reference. To include such a comment would be like saying that "The Gandhi inspired none violent political protest should be balanced with thought that it was an Indian custom less than 40 years before Gandhi was born was to burn women alive on their husbands funeral pyres", the qualification although true is irrelevant and I suspect you (IMHO rightly) would object to such wording. --Philip Baird Shearer 10:37, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

BTW as you are objecting to a section in the article and not the whole article perhpase you should consider changing the page {{NPOV}} for a section {{NPOV-section}}. --Philip Baird Shearer 10:55, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

I will not respond to the racial superiority question, as I can see that argument as never-ending with only the both of us argueing.
Again, the comment is, You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours
It is factually incorrect.
Until 1790, every woman convicted of counterfeiting gold or silver coin of the realm, was sentenced to be drawn on a hurdle to the place of execution and there " to be burned with fire till she was dead." (Blackstone's Commentaries, 204. Ibid, 377). The last case of burning at the stake, in Britain, was Catherine Murphy (for coining offense) in 1789. Please point me to the law or reference to a case where, burning anyone at the stake, post 1790, is punishable by death.
No, "Gandhi inspired non violent political protest should be balanced with thought that it was an Indian custom less than 40 years before Gandhi was born was to burn women alive on their husbands funeral pyres", is not similar to my suggested aside. Gandhi inspired non violent protest should be balanced with the thought that 50 years earlier he burnt women alive on their husband's funeral pyre is similar to British custom of hanging men that burnt women alive should be balanced with the thought that 50 years earlier a legal punishment in Britain was "burning till she was dead". The former statement is not true, the latter statement is also not true in that there is no evidence that hanging was the British customary punishment for burning at the stake.
Again, can someone else step in? I'm tired of this argument - Philip will not budge from his stand and I am convinced that the statement should go. --Pranathi 03:24, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

First let me say how pleased I am by the level of discussion that is taking place here. I wish the other pages I frequented were as civilized and erudite. Which is also why I've had not much to say until now! ^_^
I must admit that upon reading the quote I was startled by it's paternalistic tone. While I do understand Pranathi's objections, unless there is any doubt that he actually said it I believe it should stay. It's factuality (e.g. burning witches) is immaterial, I'm sorry to say. There also appears to be little question as to his influence and authority. While the quote itself may demonstrate POV, I do not see that including it does.
brenneman(t)(c) 04:26, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

non Indic suttee

I have linked my Globular Amphora culture to this page. It speaks of the very early Indo-European practice of suttee in Europe. It is not unreasonable to believe the IE-speakers also introduced it to India. Modern English uses the term more broadly than as a practice found in older forms of Hinduism. The early Indo-Europeans really did practice it, and the article needs to reflect this, way at the top. --FourthAve 07:06, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

It is also possible that the practice developed separately at different times and places. So I do not think it is correct to include this speculation in this article without a reference to published Archaeological evidence from a respectable publication which shows some form of link in this practice between Europe and India.
Where is you evidence that "Modern English uses the term more broadly than as a practice found in older forms of Hinduism"? What is that statement supposed to signify?
Pagan vikings burials have been found with women ritually sacrificed in the grave, but that is not normally referred to as "suttee". Philip Baird Shearer 17:03, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
Explicit reference to English usage and a highly distinguished published archaeological source:
James P. Mallory, "Globular Amphora Culture", Encyclopedia of Indo-European Culture, Fitzroy Dearborn, 1997, p. 227:
Here special emphasis is placed on the evidence for sutee, the execution of the wife on the death of the husband.
The term is found in the Indo-European literature, used just this way.--FourthAve 23:18, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
I know of at least two mounds in my vicinity where they have found the remains of women together with the king (I live near Gamla Uppsala)--Wiglaf 20:05, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
The a section making the case with a referece to the publication should add depth to the article :-) --Philip Baird Shearer 20:04, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

At the very top, a kind of dictionary definition:

Suttee is the cultural practice of inducing a wife or concubine of a deceased male (usually one of high social rank) to commit suicide, or alternatively, forthrightly murdering her, with her remains then being interred or cremated with those of the deceased male.

Contents [hide]

  1. Etymology
  2. Hindu practice
  3. Provenance and Prevalance
  4. Alleged Scriptural Endorsement
  5. Jauhar
  6. Abolition and continuing incidence
  7. Practice elsewhere.
  8. See also
  9. External Links


English borrowed the word from Hindi ... bla bla bla(need some help here) and applied it initially to the Hindu practice, but has since used it more broady, as a technical term in a number of learnéd contexts, archaeology among them. It is also used to describe Brünnhilde's immolation in the final act of Richard Wagner's Götterdämmerung.

--existing article--

--sep section--

While there is intermittant evidence of the practice worldwide, it is also regarded as a distinctive practice of very early Indo-European cultures (in distinction to other adjacent cultures), and is attested archaeologically in ancient north central and eastern Europe. It is not untenable to regard the Hindu practice as a survival of this lamentable custom.


I've got the start of a separate article here, I think. I would be nice to mention the grandest and most glorious of suttees in Western Art, that of Brünnhilde. --FourthAve 20:05, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I persume you intend to add this informaion as a new section to the article not to replace the sections on suttee as practiced in India which ought to remain the main focus of this article Philip Baird Shearer 08:18, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
My thoughts are a brief dictionary-type entry, like the first and third paragraphs above (tho' this needs refining), with a reference to a separate section on the practice in other cultures.

Comment by Sir Charles Napier - NPOV discussion cont'd

Well, as I was reading the article and going thru the Napier's comment I didn't feel that the comment was intended to prove any racial superiority. First of all, why should the term "racial" prevail in our minds. It's only if u have the pride of ur own race(that is racism exists in ur mind in any form) then u will be prejudiced by such comments. Anyway if that is comment made by someone during that time just let the fact remain as it is. Why being prejudiced? Let the people opine themselves freely and u read their comments with the neutrality of mind.

Let me attempt to summarize the argument here.. There are 4 points relevant to argument of removing/retaining the comment (as a sound bite) in the article.
  • Inflnce of Napier - General, conqueror & governor (1843–47) of Sindh, now in Pakistan.
  • Influence of Napier in the dynamics of Sati abolition - No article on Sati (except Wikipedia) mentions his name. Not a big player.
  • Accuracy of his comment - Factually incorrect. Argument is that inaccuracy warrants removing it or adding an aside to convey that. Argument to retain comment is that the accuracy is immaterial.
  • Tone of comment - paternalistic. Argument to remove is that it is racist and paints a whole community instead of the custom. Value of including a POV comment (without an aside on accuracy & tone) is disputed. Argument to retain is that it's not racist and while the comment is POV, including it (without asides) is not.
Let me know if I am missing anything. If not, I'll take a break and return later.--Pranathi 06:43, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
Hello there. So having read your lengthy discussion I thought I'd suggest you qualify this statement rather than remove it. First, that Napier is well-known but his contribution to this issue may not be. Second, before introducing add something like "...typically sanctimonious...captures both genuine disgust but also British paternalism..." etc. I think Pranathi your comments underscore hypocrisy rather than error. Is it "factually incorrect" that a man or men burning a woman alive in 1850 in Britain would be hanged? No. Is it hypocritcal given Britain's own history of corporal punishment and imperial behaviour? Yes. Finally, not to sound callous, but the fact that a comment may be considered racist isn't in itself a reason to remove it from Wiki. Qualify it properly and assume readers have the sense to place it in context. Marskell 09:26, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your time and input. Yes, hypocrisy is a more apt word. Yes, properly qualified, I agree that inluding it is not POV. I will add an aside on hypocrisy and tone similar to what Marskell suggests. Please discuss if anyone doesn't agree.

I am thinking that, given the low importance of his statement to the discussion on Sati, his comment, along with asides, will take up more space than it deserves. But that is my POV and I agree that doing so will accomodate all viewpoints. On the otherhand, maybe the comment, with aside on tone, will be valuable to convey British attitudes in a nut-shell, as Philip points out. It's a Win-win, no? --Pranathi 15:00, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

can anyone tell me what is full form of POV/NPOV?

POV is point of view and NPOV is neutral point of view. Wikipedia strives to maintain neutral point of view, so that it is a balanced article and not biased toward any ideology or POV. --Pranathi 15:43, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
Edited and slightly expanded your change Pranathi. Linked to Sepoy Rebellion rather than witch hunts as I think it more relevant in placing British attitudes in context. Marskell 10:38, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

To put the new wording into context a mention needs to be made of the changes in British moral positions on many social issues both at home and abroad, expressed in such reforms as the Slavery Abolition Act, passed by the UK Parliament in 1833, which abolished slavery throughout the British Empire. Part of this shift was a questioning of the morality of holding an empire by the British ruling classes and the justification that the continuation and expansion of empire was justified by highlighting a perceived moral superiority of British Christian morals over others and the duty imposed on the British to export these morals to the rest of the empire and world. Not that theses British Christian morals were the same as today's humanitarian morals as is seen by such lack of action by the British Government over the Irish Potato Famine (1845-1849) and the actions of the British Government in the First Opium War. Without a mention of this the change in the British morals the ruling over Suttee seems whimsical.

Burning as a punishment had not been practised in Britain in living memory, and had been formally outlawed in in Britain for 40 years before Suttee was abolished by the British in India. The current link is not British specific and does not bring clarity to the issue. Further the taking of life by anyone other than the state after due process of law was also being redefined in Britain during this period. See for example the end of duelling as a gentlemanly way to solve disputes. In England anyone who took a life, including suicides were guilty of a crime. At that time and for hundreds of years before anyone who had taken the life of a woman, when not authorised to do so by the state, (including the woman herself) would be guilty of either murder or conspiracy to commit murder, or conspiracy in a suicide. BTW the conspiracy one is a clever catch all which was used to remove the legal defence of self-defence in a duel. Philip Baird Shearer 12:54, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I think a re-structure would partly clear this up. "Abolition and continuing incidence" could be split into "Suttee during British rule" and "Continuing incidence." Under the former header the exact context for British involvement and attitudes could be worked out.
Philip, I think you've rightly qualified and questioned certain analogies (suttee = witch hunt = misplaced analogy) but you're making similar mistakes. "Burning as a punishment had not been practised in Britain in living memory..." What does that matter in terms of India? British authorities didn't regularly launch musket volleys into crowds of Britons protesting, say, early industrial working conditions. Did British authorities regularly fire musket volleys into crowds of Indian peasents protesting land seizure? Of course. Certain middle class (male) British were emancipated by the reform acts? So why a hundred and twenty years until Indians could participate in a real vote? Indians were not treated the same as Britons, which is sort of the point. I'm really not a fan of post-colonial "any-mention-of-Europeans-must-be-bad" historiography but when it is hypocricy it should be pointed out. Your entire point is based upon law in Britain, which only underscores how ruthless the British were in regards to colonials. Marskell 22:17, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I am only remaking the point because of the mention in the article of "British hypocrisy, given their own history of corporal punishment" which links in (Execution by burning) under corporal punishment. Of course the British position was hypocritical not because of the different treatment metered out between those in the UK and India, but because the British ruling class perception of their "fair" treatment in India and the reality. Philip Baird Shearer 23:29, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

The reason I thought that was relevant was because Napier was comparing British customs to Indian (burning of a widow is not a custom, her voluntary immolation is the custom; british customs are not the current state of affairs but recent historical practices). BTW, this link is specific to Britain and mentions that the last burning was in 1789.[3]. British used their perceived moral superiority as a justification for imperialism. They used Suttee as a rallying point, hugely exaggerating it's prevalance and nature to British public . (pre-colonial European accounts mostly romanticised Suttee.) Missionaries also contributed to over-blowing it to make their case for conversion to govt. I am not trying to justify suttee, which I think is horrid, but I react against the gross misrepresentation of India and Hinduism which continues to this day. Marskell, let me know if I am taking it personally, since you seem to be objective. If so, I will drop the burnings and such.--Pranathi 00:33, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
I have changed the link to Capital punishment in the United Kingdom which is I think a fair compromise; a link to 1789 burning exists there. If you have good links or sources Pranathi insert the point about exaggeration in the Brit public imagination; alongside that, Philip or someone can point out that this was indeed a period of changing British attitudes and that criticism of practices like slavery and suttee were honestly felt. Marskell 12:19, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I think the new link is more appropriate. I will look for links - I recall #s and extent being heavily exagerated in some of the western accounts and read that Sati was used as a rallying point but don't know if there is any article linking the two and consolidating references to prove the same. --Pranathi 01:24, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Terminology - Suttee and Sati

Can revert to the phonetic spelling for this term - in this case it will probably have to be to Sati (practice)? If wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopaedia, it should try and follow scholarly practice. Apart from that, the spelling suttee is not even the most common term used on the web. Imc 17:09, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree. --Pranathi 01:24, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Title changed as discussed previously, To Sati (practice). Imc 19:12, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Major rewrite

Major rewriting of the article. Some of the comments made here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hinduism#Tone_of_the_articles applies to this article as well. There is a lot of finding excuses for the prevalance of the practice in here; or claiming that it was less important than it was.

Among the things that I've removed or deemphasised are these

  • the lack of religious and traditional sanction; not really relevant and overemphasised in this context, (what is the point here of lists of widows in the Mahabharata who did not committ Sati)
  • the idea that the practice was introduced; it is only a possibility, and the fact remains that the practice was only developed to the extent that it was within Hindu India
  • the idea that it was rare or unknown in many areas, such as the south; this is false; see for instance many references to the practice at Vijayanagara.

Imc 19:15, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Imc, Your changes have improved the quality of the article a lot. I think though the practice section emphasises the forced (homicidal) nature of sati. No doubt, to us, outsiders, it is inconceivable how it could be otherwise. But the 3 links in the page are the only eyewitness accounts I could find - and even being otherwise unsympathetic (unhindered by belief in Sati), they mostly point to voluntary sati. It could have been voluntary for various reasons, social pressures, impulsiveness caused by grief, pressure from greedy relatives for inheritance.. etc. and also once on the pyre, there are accounts of tieing and pushing back but the initial decision was made by the woman. I'm very willing to be convinced otherwise, but am tending to think the homicidal aspect of it has been exaggerated by history and our own conditioning. Here are some comments..

It is clear however (?? how and what shows that it's clear-any ref?- I suggest alternate wording) that it was not always voluntary.
Old accounts describe a number of different approaches of the widow to her impending death. Some went willingly to it, and sometimes walked into the flames after the fire had been lit. There have been reports that some widows lit their own funeral pyres. Many widows however had to be forced to their deaths (?? references). In some cases the woman was seated on the unlit pyre, and tied in place to prevent fleeing. Sometimes she was drugged (?? references?- some assume drugs were involved but are there any accounts?). There are records (one account exists - are there more?)) of men with long poles preventing the widow from fleeing the flames.
Royal funerals sometimes have included the deaths of many wives and concubines. A number of examples of these occur in the history of Rajasthan. (I have found 1 incidence on the net - are there more..?)

As I said, I have not found support for the phrases above - if anyone can provide them I am more than willing to be convinced.. (was it more of a forced nature in Bengal?)--Pranathi 04:30, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm open to the suggestion that any forced aspect of the custom is routinely overemphasised. However, such overemphasis is normal nowadays. For instance, see the edit by User:MANOJTV on 29th September. It seems that it is unacceptable to some to repeat the reports that Roop Kanwar voluntarily went to her death.
For the references, I'm working on another rewrite of this article, in sections. I intend to do this with references included for all arguable sections, and hope to do this within the coming week. Some of the websites I've used are;


Some of the intended sections, the first of which I'm working on now.
    • Origin and history
    • Justifications
    • The practice
      • Prevalance
      • Symbolic sati
      • Jauhar (a link)
    • Abolition
    • Later views of sati
      • Politicisation
Imc 19:48, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

IMC, I don't think the Manu Smriti lauds Sati. In fact, it talks of widow remarraige etc.. I could not find a specific verse referencing Sati on the net. Just a note of warning - many of the references are bogus and need to verified. I would use [4], [5] etc to verify any verses in manu smriti. On the otherhand, I think some of the Puranas exemplify it.--Pranathi 23:24, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

OK Pranathi, fair point, bad rewrite. My references to the Manu smriti were secondhand; Shastri refers to this book, and she does not say it lauds the practice either, just permits it. That paragraph came through unchanged from previous versions of this article. It either needs rewriting or placing elsewhere, after the references to Manu were placed in front of it. Are there other late works that 'laud' the practice? perhaps Madhvacharya? And I'm quoting Shastri on what Madhvacharya says as well here. Imc 03:21, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
It was Madhava, not Madhva, and he did praise sati according to Shastri. I've moved the section on 'lauding' sati. Imc 03:53, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't know of any such late works offhand. But I believe many influential figures denounced it though and that may add to the page - just a passing thought.. --Pranathi 20:36, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

The Vishnu Smriti and Brihaspati smriti are part of the puranas also called vishnu purana and brihaspati purana - they are not law books. I will confirm this though from a more knowledagbe source. After a bit of browsing, I understand that these are better stated as puranas and the Mahabharata/Ramayana as Ithihas. just 2 more cents.. --Pranathi 19:18, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
Imc, I noticed that the intro section simply states that the widow immolates herself. I think it would add value to add a short phrase on reasons, maybe like as an act of piety or to remove sins etc. to provide a reason or motivation. What do you think? --Pranathi 19:18, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
I've no objection in principle to adding a reason. But do we have a single unambiguous reason as to why the act was committed? (I'm getting to like short introductions. ) Imc 17:56, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
I guess not.. I was trying to think of a generic phrase, a cover-all, but couldn't come up with one. I guess reasons will be further down if someone wants .. and we already have a clean, short intro.--Pranathi 23:26, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Complaints about British attitudes.

If you want to rail against the British for their treatment of Indians, isn't it rather ridiculous to do so on the page that describes one of the best things they did for India? Abolishing the murder of widows ranks right up there with building the railroads and wiping out the Thuggee as some of Britain's greatest humanitarian accomplisments.

Leave the Brit-bashing to the articles on Ghandi, the Amritsar massacre, and the Indian independence movement. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.161.42.199 (talk • contribs) 05:31, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Please set up an account it is easy to do you can use any name you like and then the comments on the talk page can be signed with a consistent name using four "~" like this:~~~~ --Philip Baird Shearer 09:49, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Contrary to what the recent revision by the previous anonymous contributor implied, the British were almost the last non-Indians to consider sati 'beyond the pale'. The Portuguese (Goa etc.), French (Pondicherry etc.), and Dutch (at Chinsurah) had banned it long before in their possesions. Bentinck spent years getting reports and putting off pressure before he banned it in the Bengal presidency. Even then, that was only the Bengal presidency, the other two presidencies followed later with those princely states that still permitted it at the time.
Well, bravo for the Portugese, French and Dutchl, but it doesn't diminish the accomplishment of the British in wiping out this repugnant habit in the majority of the subcontinent.
In any case, I feel also (re. the earlier discussions) that the Napier quote is out of place here and ought to be removed. We could also find lots of similar quotes on Muslim views of the same subject, and they would be equally relevant. The Napier quote fits in the article on Napier, where it now is anyway. It may also fit into an article on British attitudes to India. It ought to be replaced with something more relevant, such as the arguments used by Bentinck, perhaps also Ram Mohan Roy and William Carey, both of whom were much more relevant to the abolition, which I'll try and summarise. (edited again; encoding issues).
Imc 09:55, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I think the Napier quote is very relevent for this article as it sums up the British position on suttee and it should remain in the article as the equivelent of a sound-bite in a news article.

Further information on Britain and traditions. The upper and middle classes in Britain, who received enlightenment education had for several generation thought the ideas of witchcraft to be none enlightened. In 1736 the established church withdrew from its previous position that there were things that went bump in the night and in the same year this allowed the for the laws against witchcraft were repealed in England in 1736 after that date anyone involved in attacks against people who they believed to be a witch could and were tried in court in the usual manner for such assaults not linked to beliefs in witchcaft. Philip Baird Shearer 09:37, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm propose to remove that phrase 'beyond the pale' again, since I don't believe that they did consider it any such thing till it suited them. I've also asked for some more detail as to where Napier said it, in the article on Napier. Finally, I propose to leave this quote in, but to move it to a section on outside views of the practice. Imc 18:33, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Mood of the article

I am surprised to see that it seems that this article is written to glorifying and somewhat justify the practice sati!! At the first line itself it should be mentioned that it is a barbaric, inhuman and an act of murder. It does not matter whether veda or any other holy book, person, or persons or religion or religious books, whatsoever, support it, murder of humanbeing can not be justified. It is a murderous act. It is illegal,too (likely in India, too).

If the article only discusses the bad side of Sati, then it will not be NPOV. In addition, Sati can be justified, it is good to do in certain circumstances.

Although it developed into something quite insane, initially Sati was performed only by women because there were other men interested in them, and were likely to sexually abuse and even rape them. It also shows their devotion to their husband. There are some justifications, hence they should be mentioned DaGizza Chat (c) 07:37, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Let me ask you, in all seriousness, ARE YOU INSANE? Are you seriously contending that Sati is good to do "in some circumstances"? What kind of a medieval relic are you?
Whether it was good or bad - you think of it as murderous, the people that did it obviously did not think so -It needs to be presented in a neutral tone. To someone from today's world that utterly cannot comprehend it, since it goes beyond common sense, the justifications portion explains why it was practised the way it was (BTW, practice is only from last millenium). It is not a justification for the modern person. This article is also excellent (thanks to IMC) at sifting facts from fiction since there has been a lot of hype surrounding sati, it's prevalance, justifications etc. Yes, it is illegal and that is mentioned in page.--Pranathi 15:39, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
This is utterly absurd. To claim that a crime is Ok just because the criminal doesn't think it's a crime would excuse every atrocity in history.
Pranathi has said most of what I would say. For a comparison, see the article on Slavery, also an undesirable practice, but also presented in Wikipedia in more or less a neutral fashion, as befits an encyclopaedia. Imc 17:54, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

"women because there were other men interested in them, and were likely to sexually abuse and even rape them." , well now look at this statistics in USA 683,000 forcible rapes occur every year, which equals 56,916 per month, 1,871 per day, 78 per hour, and 1.3 per minute. [6], one can imagine in india the figure will be few thousand times more. So do you recomend all the women of India to comit sucide so that onone can rape them !!!--kxd23

"you think of it as murderous, the people that did it "obviously did not think so !!! Pranathi, First of all what made you do sure that they did not thik buring alive a humanbeing is not not murder ?? secondly, if it is so then obviously those who did it did not consider widows (all girls ?)as human !! --kxd23

You are taking my comments out of context. If you read the article completely you will see what I mean. First of all, most of the time, it was voluntary (eye witness accounts) - so can be best compared to suicide not murder. There are multiple instances where the widow was attempted to be persuaded otherwise. Facts like these are hidden behind the hysteria surrounding the issue. That is maybe another good reason why it needs to remain neutral in tone.
also the figure in india will be more because? ..of the higher population?--Pranathi 02:16, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
Please remember that while "suicide" is a sin in many religions, some religions do not hold the view. Also in some religions that have "reincarnation" or perhaps long afterlife as a part of their teachings, correctly performed suicide is more meaningful than a prolonged life whether it may have more meaning or not. For example, in Shinto, death or rather afterlife is as long, if not longer, and as meaningful as former "life". From this view, suicide merely means a transition from living to the afterlife by one's choice. It's like waking up or sleeping and I'm assuming nobody would say "sleeping" is horrible.
I will also point out that in many cultures and religions even today, women whose husbands die before them are expected to enter religious services or something similar withdrawing from social life and never marry again. This is, in a way, the "social murder" of women's freedom in life. In many of those cultures and religions, not coincidentally, men do not share the same fate. The underlying philosophy is same here, men are free by death but women are not. If her culture and religion do not consider suicide a spiritual crime, why not end your physical existence and go onto the afterlife perhaps together with your husband?
I disagree that Sati's supporting philosophy is based on the prevention of sexual abuse. Focuing on it only is not a good way to figure out why sati occures or was created. For example, the rate of domestic abuse (including sexual) is about less than a half of US in Japan and the number of rape adjusted by population is roughly one-tenth in Japan compared to US. I don't think I need to point out that the rate of being murdered for these two crimes is far lower in Japan as well. But the rate of suicide is much higher in Japan than US which is completely improbable if one focuses on suicide as "preventing present and future suffering". Americans should be committing suicide at least 2 times more than Japanese at roughly 120,000 per year but I don't think Americans are killing themselves that fast. I do not have the exact figure at the moment but other countries with high sucide rate did not necessary have high crime rate as well.
Sexual abuse of widows who did not sati is most likely other way around. They were abused because they were perceived as "abusable" and not because they did not committ sati. For example, too many people even in much of civilised countries will claim that woman who goes out by only herself and raped is more "had it coming" than a woman raped in her home. Why is staying at home "better" if the physical strength (including weapon) of a man can quite easily overcome this obstacle? These two are same, the perception of "abusable" defines mindset of criminals and those around them on which is "worse". --Revth 10:17, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I added the comments of Barrington Moore about sati because I thought they expose the horror of the practice of sati. Barrington Moore is a very well respected political scientist, and I felt his comments would be a good addition to the article--Xijjix 19:51, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Sati in modern India

The article mentions that about 40 women have performed Sati in modern India. This should be referenced and modern is unclear, from what year does that refer? Smmurphy 04:46, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

My guess is since independence, 1947. But again, on searching, I'm not finding any other than the Roop Kanwar case (one site says it is the only recorded incident in the past 100 years). You're right, it needs a reference. --Pranathi 02:06, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
I added the figure 40 to the article. I remember seeing the figure somewhere, and while I have a number of reference sources, I did not record the source for this one. I don't have the inclination to go hunting for this figure now, so if anyone feels it necessary to amend the article, feel free. The figure was for the number of claimed sati instances, whether some of these would be better described as 'uncomplicated' suicide seems to be disputed. As to Roop Kanwar being the only recorded incident in the last 100 years, I think this is incorrect. I remember coming across at least one uncontested instance in the 1950s (again reference lost). Yes, 'Modern India' was used to mean independent India, perhaps this should be clarified too, though it is a generally understood convention. Imc 19:53, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
I like giving a number, and there is a big difference between 2 and 40. Right now, we could write something about it occuring less than once per year, but that sounds silly. Anyway, this source [7] says that 28 have occured in Rajasthan alone since independence. And here is a source for the number 40 [8]. (BTW, to find things like this, I recomend using google print at books.google.com [9].) I like the number 28 from Re-Orienting Western Feminisms: Women's Diversity in a Postcolonial World more than 40 from The Rough Guide to India, if only based on the impressiveness of the title. what does everyone think? Smmurphy 20:19, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
I only did a cursory search and one of the few I saw said the Roop Kanwar was the only one. You did a lot of research to put this article in it's current shape, IMC (and bore with my criticism/comments sans work)- Thanks!!(I meant to say this before but never did). Thanks for the tip, Murphy. I suspect I will end up use the site for --Pranathi 02:01, 18 November 2005 (UTC)a lot.

Suttee phonetics

The first line is: The practice of sati (also written unphonetically as suttee)...

Shouldn't that be "also written phonetically as suttee"?

The dictionary gives 'sʌti or sʌ'ti. Isn't that phonetic according to British Received Pronunciation and American Midwestern (TV) English?

The spelling 'suttee' is phonetic only if you accept the 19th century English orthography as being a phonetic system. I have heard people on the radio pronounce it as in 'sooty'. (There's a certain national British newsreader insists on saying the first vowel in 'Muslim' as in 'must'.) How Indians say sati will in any case differ from the British RP, since the 't' in sati is a flattened dental, as opposed to the alveolar / retroflex consonants British RP and east coast American English. It may be an idea here to put in a reference to IAST; this is a Sanskrit derived name, and the spelling sati is exactly right in this transliteration. Both the IAST article and the associated the National Library at Calcutta romanisation article could do with a pronounciation guide. Imc 10:12, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Then wouldn't something like "The practice of sati (in English often written suttee; ISAT: XXXX) was a Hindu funeral custom in..." be preferable?

LuiKhuntek 15:46, 26 November 2005 (UTC)


OK, changed it. Imc 17:30, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Death of Gandhari

I removed the following sentence.

Gandhari, the wife of king Dhritarashtra, also commited sati. (Bhagavata Purana 1.13.58)

This translation of the Bhagavata Purana suggests that she did committ sati. However, accounts of her death in the Mahabharata, state that she, with her husband, Vidura and Kunti, all died together in a forest fire - no sati, just death. Multiple refs exist as to this, including print books, such as Rajagopalachari's translation of the MB, and many retellings on the web. See e.gs http://www.indolink.com/Kidz/Mbharatpart12.html http://www.boloji.com/hinduism/086.htm I'd like to see another translation of the same text of the Bhagavata Purana. It may be that this text might be another of the justifications for sati, best listed with that verse from the Rig Veda. Imc 22:04, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Sati in Tamil Sangam literature

Purananuru verse 373 (Lines 10-15) was by Kovur Kizar on Cholza king Kulamtrathu Thunjiya Killi Valavan. The poet says that the wives of the deceased soldiers did not find a better place than the feet of their husbands after their death They did not return home, but committed Sati by lighting the fire[1]Worship of Satis is common in the state of Tamilnadu as the Veeramahasati or shortly Veeramathi cult 117.249.203.215 (talk) 01:10, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 January 2022

When the Pandyan King Bhutha Pandya died, his wife Perum Koppendu wanted to commit Sati. But all the Tamil scholars and ministers tried to prevent her from entering the fire. She criticised every one assembled there and then entered the funeral pyre. She told them that the fire is like a cool lotus pond for her. Her statement in the crematorium was reported verbatim in her poem in Sangam literature.


 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:49, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

The Far Pavillions

Addition to the Culture section: Sati is portrayed in MM Kaye's "The Far Pavillions" (book and TV mini-series). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.81.24 (talk) 23:16, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Shahu's wife Sakvarbai

User:Jonathansammy Can you give the page number of the book for your recent edit?

From A.R. Kulkarni's 'The Marathas'[10]

Shahu's wife Sakvarbai, the chief queen became sati on his death. She was from the Shirke family and had no issue. It was aleged that Nanasaheb forced her to immolate herself; but from the evidence available, it seems that she willingly became sati.

Akshaypatill (talk) 21:16, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Akshaypatill,Sure. Pages 183-184. He spells Shahu as Sahu. There is this other book by Menon as well. [2]

I hope this helps.Jonathansammy (talk) 22:14, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Akshay Patil, you got the wrong A.R. Kulkarni reference.You should be looking at [3] Cheers.Jonathansammy (talk) 22:21, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
Thank you User:Jonathansammy. I wasn't able to see some pages of the book on Google books, that's why I asked. I can see it now. Both the books are telling the views of G.S. Sardesai. I think A. R. Kulkarni is puting his own view in 'The Marathas'. 'The Marathas' is listed on Oxford Bibliography for history of Maratha rule.[11]. What should we do? Akshaypatill (talk) 04:49, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Hi User:Akshaypatill, Glad that I was able to help. The sources are reliable, and so I don't think anything needs to be done.Regards.Jonathansammy (talk) 14:39, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
User:Jonathansammy I think you are missing my point. A. R. Kulkarni is saying that she willigly became sati while G. S. Sardesai says Nanasaheb forced her. There is conflict between the sources. Akshaypatill (talk) 15:20, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
Hi User:Akshaypatill, you probably were not able to see AR Kulkarni's chapter in Anne Feldhaus' book.There he clearly mentions Peshwa Nanasaheb, and Tarabai pressuring Sakvarbai to commit sati.The Peshwa also ropes in Sakvarbai's brother to put extra pressure.See pages 183-184. [12] Regards. Jonathansammy (talk) 15:42, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
Thank you User:Jonathansammy. I think that page was missing on my Google preview or I missed it somehow. I think A. R. Kulkarni has messed up things. Akshaypatill (talk) 15:55, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
Hi User:Akshaypatill, How did AR Kulkarni mess it up? He clearly says that the Peshwa forced her. Is it the mention of Tarabai causing you problems? That lady was extremely shrewd and ambitious, and she wouldn't have allowed another person to get in her way to attain power.The paper here by Vaidya clearly states the roles played by the Peshwa and Tarabai in [13] I can quote the relevant text but it is rather long.Regards.Jonathansammy (talk) 16:20, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
No, User:Jonathansammy. I said messed up because the author has given different accounts of the same incidence in different books. 'The Marathas' and the book you cited was released in 1996. Both of these (the chapter in the book you cited) are writtent by A. R. Kulakarni, but the accounts are different. Check this (From A. R. Kulkarni's 'The Marathas') - [14]

Shahu's wife Sakvarbai, the chief queen became sati on his death. She was from the Shirke family and had no issue. It was aleged that Nanasaheb forced her to immolate herself; but from the evidence available, it seems that she willingly became sati.

Akshaypatill (talk) 17:24, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

This argument is futile. In a highly patriarchal society, such as India's has been for most of its recorded history, a statement that a woman killed herself of her own free will has no meaning. Sati is not normal suicide; it is not even socially encouraged suicide; it is a form of religiously sanctioned and socially instigated suicide. There is no free-will there. Please don't add statements about Sati of a woman's own accord. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:54, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Fowler&fowler The argument is already over and I agree with JS. I just clarifying my point because JS misunderstood it. Akshaypatill (talk) 04:58, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.speakingtree.in/blog/aryan-sati-in-sangam-tamil-literature
  2. ^ Kulkarnee, Narayan; Menon, A.S. (1990). A panorama of Indian culture: Professor A. Sreedhara Menon felicitation volume. Mittal Publications. Mittal Publications. p. 216. Retrieved 26 February 2022.
  3. ^ Kulkarni, A.R., 1996. Satï in the Maratha Country: An Historical Perspective. Images of Women in Maharashtrian Literature and Religion, pp.171-198.[1]

Undue weight in the lede

The lede has undue weight in an attempt to whitewash the article. Let's have a little more neutrality. 136.158.58.118 (talk) 09:13, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Read how Wikipedia defines neutrality: WP:NPOV & WP:PROPORTION. --WikiLinuz {talk} 🍁 20:43, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Sati practice is not part of original Hindu religion

Sati practice was never part of Hindu tradition. 49.207.213.203 (talk) 06:01, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

A now-common Hinduvta myth that is completely untrue. As the article sets out, it was practised well before Muhammad was born, & may well go back to the "original Hindu religion". Johnbod (talk) 15:15, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
+1. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:21, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
Islam frowns on both female infanticide and Sati, which form Hinduism's traditional last resort for asserting patrilineality in a crumbling moral order. A married woman in traditional Hinduism has little worth beyond what her husband brings her. A dowry ensures that she has no future claim on her natal property; the taboos on divorce and widow remarriage ensure she has no claim on her marital property. Female infanticide and Sati are extreme forms of those assertions—in the cradle and from the grave. Old practices they are, very likely dating to the inter-imperial age, between the Mauryas and the Guptas. Wife-abandonment is another, which has continued to be practiced among Hindus well into the 21st-century in proportions that match the divorce rate of the Muslims they love to rail and legislate against. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:59, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
Caste Hinduism, it is, and very likely only in the Indo-Aryan-speaking regions. These practices do not exist among Dalits (untouchables), Adivasis (tribals), and hill people. Not Sati, obviously, but other practices have even been taken by caste Hindu immigrants to western societies, raising concern among public health authorities, and forming the subject of recent scholarship. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:29, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
User:Fowler&fowler I had read somewhere that if a woman tried to escape after the initiation of the fire, she would be thrown back to the fire. Is it true? Akshaypatill (talk) 04:27, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
I have no idea but had she escaped without major trauma, ostracization, opprobrium, violence, rape, and prostitution would have awaited her. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:03, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
Humanity at its worst. Akshaypatill (talk) 05:50, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
Yes. I've re-written the sections lightly, moving the speculative Indo-European section to the general introduction and beginning with the Vedic Period. I've also made the section titles more NPOV. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:02, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
@Akshaypatill: I do think we need to say somewhere (sources permitting, which I'm sure they will) that the practise of Sati was very rare, an outlier perhaps. I can't be sure, but even in its heyday, it was very likely never practised by more than a small handful in a 1000 widows. The majority of widows, very have likely continued to live in their deceased husband's joint family, leading (what for that time and culture were) relatively contented lives—well, if they had at least one male offspring. If they had only daughters, who would have moved out after marriage, their widowhood could have been a precarious one. That is my intuition. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:48, 26 February 2022 (UTC) Updated. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:57, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
I think that's right. It seems always to have been localized in particular areas and social groups, and to have been opposed by many religious thinkers. Johnbod (talk) 18:46, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
@Fowler&fowler: From what I know, the practice was limited to the upper classes. I don't have any idea to which extent it was being practised. You are the expert here. Go ahead if you think so.
The widows had to live miserable lives. They had to shave their head, they weren't allowed to wear jewellery and had to wear white sarees. I don't know if having male offspring made any difference. Akshaypatill (talk) 18:49, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
Michael Witzel, a respected scholar, states that there was no evidence of Sati practice in ancient Indian literature during the Vedic period. I guess it'd be worthwhile looking into this piece:
Also, the most popularly known smriti "code-book", Manusmriti, states that widow women should seek her son's guardianship, along 5.155-5.156. I doubt there is any strong theological support, but widow women are most certainly associated with "inauspiciousness" or "bad luck" within Hindu society. WikiLinuz🍁(talk) 19:57, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
I don't know about ancient Indian literature during the Vedic period, but in the epic,Mahabharat, there is the case of Madri committing sati after the death of her husband, Pandu. His other widow, Kunti decided against it to look after the children, the pandavas.Jonathansammy (talk) 20:30, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
I won't ping anyone here.
Yes, Johnbod, there was very much opposition from religious thinkers at every stage of the practice's history, I would guess.
True, Akshaypatill, widows did have to shave their heads (not every day though, the nayun (the barber's wife) probably came once a month or two), wear a white sari, and go without makeup or jewelry, but if she had sons, she could continue to live in the joint family, headed by a son; if she had only daughters, she and her husband had to be living by themselves after the daughters were married off, and the death of her husband would have cut her adrift (for the daughter's new joint family, the marital one, would have already included her husband's parents ...). They probably did have some customs of care in such instances, but I don't know about them. In matriarchal societies of Southern India, of course, all this would not have applied.
WikilLinuz: We don't really say anything different in the section Vedic symbolic practice. I would guess that Romila Thapar, being a social historian of ancient India, would be preferred (for attribution) than Wetzel, who is a scholar of Vedic Sanskrit and a historical linguist. As for bad luck, true young widows were, but not older ones with grown sons. They reigned supreme, at least for a while, bossing all the new brides, and so forth.
Jonathansammy: yes. The epics date to the period of the inter-imperial age I refer to above. The section on "origins and spread" has been left vague for now. I've rounded up some new sources (ca > 2018) and have been meaning to take a look. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:07, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
PS A related article which gives some feel for the marriage practices (village exogamy and caste endogamy) of northern India is Raksha Bandhan. The exogamy was another feature of the pressure on women that has been absent in subcontinental Islam, for example. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:11, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
bossing all the new brides, and so forth - Good catch. WikiLinuz🍁(talk) 22:54, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
And regarding using Witzel, I agree that Thapar can be used when discussing the actual social occurrences of Sati, but Witzel is more appropriate when discussing the theological significance of Sati i.e. within In scriptures subsection, per WP:RSCONTEXT. WikiLinuz🍁(talk) 00:20, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
  • I agree that the practice was rare and limited to particular communities in large. I think it needs to be made clear on the first sentence of the lead. As per the cited source there which notes that "While this practice was never widespread, and is now obsolete..."[15] To comply with the sources including the another one from the lead which also supports this sentence, I think the first sentence  of the lead should say: "Sati or suttee was a Hindu practice, though rarely practiced, in which a widow sacrifices herself by sitting atop her deceased husband's funeral pyre." Abhishek0831996 (talk) 02:02, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
  • I violently disagree. The incidence, which was indeed rare historically, was no more rare in the period 1600 to 1947 than say lynching was in the US; both were explicit or implicit forms of extra-judicial killings (or suicide under duress if you will). It does not belong anywhere in the lead paragraph, let alone the lead sentence. That would be too transparently defensive, i.e. an attempt to minimize the violence inflicted on Hindu women. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:58, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Sati was never mentioned in any hindu Puranas or Vedas or upnishad. Madri did not commit 'Sati'. She committed suicide because of the guilt that her husband had to die because of her. Sati was never hindu. It came only as a side effect of Islamic invasion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8071:22DC:4200:809C:C53B:8E6E:7253 (talk) 17:45, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

I disagree with shock and utmost surprise to every word written by fowler & fowler. Not a single sentence relates to India, it's culture or the way of living. Let us not use this page and discussion for propoganda. It looks like a failed attempt to show Indian culture in bad light. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8071:22DC:4200:809C:C53B:8E6E:7253 (talk) 17:54, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

What does "to" mean here?

In this fragment "prayers were also performed to the practice of a wife immolating herself" what does the word "to" mean? Does it mean "alongside", or does it mean "honoring the ideal of"? 24.57.144.66 (talk) 18:59, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sati_(practice)/Archive_1&oldid=1223199241"