Talk:Sati (practice)/Archive 3

Apologias

A number of explanations and apologias for the practice have been introduced recently by some users. Most of these are in a relevant section; Argument that sati was an act of self defence. However, on 11 Dec 2006, this sentence was in the introductory section, where different users keep changing it.

“It was practiced most strongly where the Hindus were constantly under attack by Islamists.” This was changed from the previous, still questionable statement, that said Muslims, rather than Islamists.

Statements as this should not be in the introduction, which have been, and should be restricted to definitions of the term, not reasons for the practice. Furthermore, either version of this statement is factually incorrect, according to the evidence quoted so far. As far as we know from available figures, sati was practised most extensively in Bengal and Bihar in the twilight of Mughal rule there, and especially during the early stages of Company rule there. Islamism (as the term is understood now) has not been a factor anywhere till the emergence of Salafi and Deobandi traditions in more recent times. I have removed it. Imc 20:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course Islamism was the cause of the Sati practice. Leave Hindu history to be told by Hindus. After the Hindu Holocaust Hindus will stand up against blasphemy! The Practice of sati even spread to the South as the Hindus were attacked by Islamists, otherwise it was unheard of in the South. "Islamism (as the term is understood now) has not been a factor anywhere till the emergence of Salafi and Deobandi traditions in more recent times." Actually Islamism means Islamic militancy and the first Islamic invaders were Islamists who were disgracing their religion Islam by the attrocities they committed. - Maleabroad

Removal of content 17 Jan 2007

For the record, I'm listing here the major stuff added by Maleabroad or other IPs, the last being 136.159.32.180. I include reasons for its removal from the article, some of it repeated. Note that with the repeated additions, deletions, and reversions here, some of the material added by Maleabroad has become confused, so that he is now removing stuff that he himself as added, and the article is in need of revision. Some references may have been lost in this mess.

It was practiced most strongly where the Hindus were constantly under attack by Islamists.

No justification for this. See above, it was practised most strongly in Bengal under British rule. It was practised for the longest period in Rajasthan, where it started before Muslim invasions, and carried on despite there being no Muslim rule for long periods. Compare the upper Gangetic plain, and the Indus Valley, both of which were under Muslim rule for much longer periods, but where the practice was little known.

The Rajputs soon came to know the way of the Islamists. If it appeared that the battle could not be won, then they themselves killed their women and children, Masada style, and then went to fight with the Muslims until death. In many cases, the Rajput women took their own lives by taking poison and then jumping into a deep fiery pit. This was called the Jauhar Vrat or "oath of fire". The men went out to fight and died in battle.[1]

Irrelevant. The website is that of Rohit Vyasmaan, and supports Bajrang Dal.

Sati was mainly prevalent among kshatriya families to protect the dignity of their womenfolk i.e to prevent sexual harassment by invaders of women whose husbands were killed in war. It reached its peak during the Islamic conquests of India

The section is untrue, dishonest, and wrongly cited, as the quoted reference does not state what is said above.

The Mohammedan conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. The Islamic historians and scholars have recorded with great glee and pride of the slaughters of Hindus, forced conversions, abduction of Hindu women and children to slave markets and the destruction of temples carried out by the warriors of Islam during 800 to 1700. Millions of Hindus were converted to Islam by sword during this period. Hindu women were also raped and forcibly converted many times in Hindu history as they still are today.[2] Daniel Pipes writes that one reason for the invasion (jehad) of India (not only for conversion) was to make slave of infidel (kafir) women: 15. Hajjaj apointed Muhammad s/o Harun. At this time occurred the event of some pirated kidnapped some women going from Ceylon to Arabia which the Muslims justify as the cause for the next invasion of Debal, the capital of King Dahir.

When the first Indian king, Raja Dahir was defeated, his daughters suffered a fate worse than their father at the hands of the Arabs.[3]

All of this section is irrelevant to the article. The last reference is untrue; the article mentions a Raja Daher, but has nothing about his daughters.

However these attempts were created so that Hindu widows can become the property of the Mughal realm. In the Mughal times, Islamsits captured Hindu women, raped them and kept them as slaves. Hindus justified sati on these grounds. Akbar himself had over 1,000 wives. Aurangzeb was known to be the most notorious and widows (especially those under his reign) feared him. So now with these laws, not only were the Mughals banning the practice but depriving Hindu women to die with honor. The historian, Upendra Thakur records the persecution of Hindus and Buddhists:

[Resistors] were put to death and women made captives. The Jizya was exacted with special care. [Hindus] were required to feed Muslim travellers for three days and three nights. }}

Irrelevant to the article.

The reason why a few instances do occur nowadays is not because of fears of kidnapping by Islamists but because many wives cannot live emotionally without the husband and so there have been instances where sati practice has occurred.[4]

This is not what it says in the quoted article.

Imc 21:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that in a content dispute like this, proper references are key. Therefore I've reverted to the last verison where the references weren't completely stuffed up and unviewable. There's a small number of useful changes since then that have been drowned out in the edit war, but I think on balance it would be better to add them in rather than try to re-fix the reference snarlup. Orpheus 00:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Of course sati was practiced strongly because of Islamist invasions. Tell me something: Are you a Hindu? Do you know the Hindu holocaust? It was practiced strongly in Bengal but do not forget the Islamists had attacked Bengal. After all present-day Bangaldesh was oroginally Buddhist. Please do not make idiotic claims like Hindu-wannabe Orpheus.

Saying 'of course' does not make it an argument. Islamism has a common meaning in English that is not the one you use, and is in any case a controversial term that should not be used unnecessarily. Please discuss here, in a civil and reasonable manner, and get agreement here before making changes. Imc 17:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Much of this material continues to show up and is either poorly supported or entirely unsupported. It is a clear attempt to attack Muslims, and is not supported by historical scholarship. It also goes against the spirit of Wikipedia to make such large scale changes to the content and spirit of an article without community consent, which is clearly not evident here. If individuals continue to add unsupported, anti-Muslim material to this page I'm going to recommend it for protection and report the individuals in question. Draglikepull 03:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Although I happen to agree with you on the specific reversions in question, you should be aware that you sound exactly like the person you are criticising. Wikipedia isn't the place to stick up for whatever group you identify with. That's the whole point of the NPOV policy. Don't turn it into a cultural battleground - there's enough of those in the world already. Orpheus 13:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Allow me to clarify. I'm not attempting to support either Muslims or Hindus or any particular viewpoint either group may have. From what I've read on the subject the opinions expressed in the edits that I reverted are not supported within the academic community. That being said, should any user be able to find reliable sources that disagree with what I know of the subject, I have no problem with them being added to the article. My problems with the user in question were that - 1) they made highly controversial, unsupported (emphasis on "unsupported") claims and 2) the manner in which these claims were made came across as racist, which is clearly a violation of Wikipedia policy. But again, I've no qualms with similar information appearing so long as it is well supported by reliable sources, and is framed in a non-racist manner. Draglikepull 18:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

The origin of sati

Why develop a custom that forces widowed women to ether commit suicide or live the rest of their lives as outcast, begging nuns!? You can’t just blame myths or religious texts! According to Steven Pinker culture is a mean to get a better life. Consequently, this tradition must originally have served a function. The Ancient Greek explanation is probably mere guesswork as most of their “scientific” writings. Anyone who have an idea?

2007-03-04 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.114.161.209 (talk) 12:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC).

Citations

Is "The Straight Dope" (with its rather facetious tone and lack of any references) really a suitable site to link to? Surely we can do better that that???

That site really isn't very helpful.Leafever (talk) 10:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Roms / Rhoms of Europe also used to use sati

The Romani people of Europe also used to use sati. The Roms (Roma in their language as 'a' makes a word plural) originate from India just after 1000ad. They speak a Rajasthani / Panjabi dialect with a major Sanskrit influence. The mascaline words end in 'o' which is the same as in Rajasthani and words such as Phral (brother), Phen (sister), Kher (house), Othe (there), Khuro (horse) are all from Panjabi regional prakrit.

Contrary to what is often said, the Romani people of Europe have no relationship with the Domari / jat / Zott nomadic groups of Asia and North Africa. The Domii left India during a much earlier time in history which is recorded as being during the early Persian empire and were taken to Persia as musicians and entertainers. This is suppoted as Domari is a triple gender language whereas Romani is a post 1000ad Indian double gender language. The equiverlentof the above words in Domari are Bhar (brother), Bheynam (sister), Ghar(house), Hundar (there) and Ghora (horse) which are not from a Panjabi prakrit but a different Hindi styled language.

The title Rom refers to a 'married' and respected man within their comunity. When a man get married an old Romani word is 'Ramada'.

The word for 'God' in the Romani language is Dev and to say God Bless is 'DevleSa'.

Once upon a time in Romani history when a Rom died his Romni (wife) would also be burned along with her husband. Due to being in Christian lands and as this act is seen as being inhumane, this practice has died out is all but a memory passed down. Nowadays the man is usually burried in the European way and all the mans physical possessions (including his caravan and trucks if he is non-settled) are burned. The wife will go to live amongst the man's relatives. In Romani custom it is seen as bad to inherite from the dead.

Other Hindu customs seen within the Romani culture is the strictness of purity and defilement. Romani have strict laws of cleanliness and living that if not obeyed is seen as Melalo / melali, makado / makadi, marime (unclean, poluted).

My question is what does this suggest about the Romani origins whilst back in India? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.34.227.166 (talk) 08:37, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

Excellent Article-ignore the crackpots

I think this article was well conceived, written and developed. The discussion page clearly illustrates the kind of ridiculous PC censorship that is destroying western scholarship. The writer would be remiss to overlook the British influence on India and Sati. The Napier quote concisely and eloquently states the Government's view of the practice. The "contributor" who suggested "what if the Indians went to England in medieval times........." should really consider leaving intelligent discussions alone. Lastly, Pranathi should consider the purchase of a dictionary. I might be quibbling over semantics but just maybe, future accusations of racism should actually involve racism (not just things you disagree with and choose to denigrate). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Earthhawk (talk • contribs) 11:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Western scholarship has been in large part an apologia for western imperialism (and any study of the reporting of recent years in Iran and Iraq will show that it still is). Sati provides a simple subject suitable for propaganda in its cause. The British referred to above would be the same British who (among other things) had just decided that their own shameful part in the slave trade was no longer as profitable as it could be. Look for studies at to why it was that by the time the British felt sati must be abolished, that it was most widespread in Bengal, one of the areas that first came under British control and the resulting imperialist impoverishment. (Try [5]), To be more general, consider the explanations for the strong correlation by the end of British rule between poverty, illiteracy, and social ills in any part the subcontinent, and the length of British rule there (many references, such as Nehru, quoted in several places, including this one by Chomsky at [6]).

Imc 16:28, 15 October 2007 (UTC)