sign in sign up
<<
Home , Bengali Brahmins, Lord William Bentinck, Sati (practice)

I. (A) Personal Details Role Name Affiliation Principal Investigator Prof. Sumita University of Allahabad Parmar Paper Coordinator Prof. Rekha Pande University of Hyderabad Author Dr. Archana Verma Independent Scholar Content Reviewer (CR) Prof. Rekha Pande University of Hyderabad Language Editor (LE) Prof. Sumita University of Allahabad Parmar

(B) Description of Module

Items Description of Module Subject Name Women’s Studies Paper Name Women and History Module Name/ Title, in 19th Century description Module ID Paper 3- Module- 22 Pre-requisites None Objectives To make the reader understand the dynamics of Sati in 19th century India, especially and its historical background Keywords Women’s social reform, , Sati, Ram Mohun Roy, William Bentinck

Sati in 19th Century India

Background Sati refers to the practice of a immolating herself on the of her husband. The word comes from the legend of and his first Sati, who went to attend her father’s ’s against Shiva’s wishes. and Seeing that her father had not invited Shiva, Sati threw herself in the sacrificial fire in rage. Shiva appeared in his ferocious form Virabhadra, destroyed the sacrifice in ager and wandered around with the body of Sati, her limbs dropping at various parts of India as they decayed. These places became prominent centres of Goddess worship. Sati reincarnated herself as the daughter of the king of Himalayas Himavan and got married to Shiva again after a penance. This legend doesn’t really describe the practice of Sati i.e., a widow immolating

herself on the cremation pyre of her husband, but it has given rise to the connotation of this term in this particular way. We have some stray references to Sati in the and in the 4th century BCE, Megasthenes refers to a stray incident in the Gandhara region that Alexander had conquered. Traditionally, the popular belief was that the widow immolated herself willingly and the fire appeared cool to her. After the immolation, a memorial stone and often a shrine was erected for her and she was worshipped as a Goddess. We have such sati stones from coastal Andhra and parts of Madhya Pradesh in Central India, mostly belonging to the Vijayanagar period in the 14th century CE. Apart from this, we have some references to Sati in . In the 19th century, we have references to sati in Bengal. In Independent India, we have an incident of Sati of Roop Kanwar in 1987 again from Rajasthan, which was vehemently denounced and led to legal action. There is no other reference to sati in the Independent India. (John Stratton Hawley, Oxford University Press, New York, 1994, pp. 149-174). Contrary to popular belief, it is unlikely that the widow immolated herself willingly. Most likely, all incidents of Sati were forced and the element of willingness were constructed to give the incident a legitimacy in the popular minds. The act of Sati has been regarded has inhuman and scholars have debated it from various viewpoints. In the 19th century, a strong movement against the practice was led by Raja Ram Mohun Roy leading to the enactment of law against it by the Governor-General of India in 1929. In this module we will learn about the various discourses on sati in 19th century India. While studying this issue, it is important to keep in mind a few points. First, Sati was never a widespread practice and was not practised all over India. Its references in history have been sporadic. Hence, it is incorrect to think of the entire Indian society as practising sati on a regular basis, nor is it correct to think that the anti-sati movement led by Raja Ram Mohun Roy in Bengal was for the whole of India; for the simple reason that it was not practised in many parts of India. Even in 19th century Bengal, it was practised only in landed families and again, only sporadically. It was never a regular pan-Indian practice in any period of Indian history. Hence, any scholarly study of sati should not be taken as a marker for the whole of the Indian society. The make no reference to Sati and don’t advise it. The critique of sati also didn’t arise in colonial India for the first time as is often presumed. There was sufficient criticism of it available in pre-colonial times as well. The famous author Bana made a strong critique of sati in the 7th century. He calls it a foolish mistake of the ignorant that doesn’t send the widow to heaven, but on the contrary, sends her to hell because of committing the sin of . Medhatithi, the 10th century scholar, says that sati is against the and against the . Virata prohibits the custom and citing him, Aparaka in the 12th century also criticises it and reiterates the sin of committing suicide incurred by the widow. Devanabhatta from says it’s an inferior practice and doesn’t recommend it at all. The tantras upheld the power of women. The Mahanirvana Tantra prescribed one day fast for men who disrespected a and prohibited even female

animal’s immolation. The Shakta sect as a whole banned sati (John Stratton Hawley, Oxford University Press, New York, 1993, p. 171). During Mughal times, we have the Emperor ’s example, who tried to introduce social reforms in his Empire. Although he didn’t formulate any law against it, he ordered his officials throughout the Empire to stop the immolation of a woman if they saw that she was being forced. (John Stratton Hawley, Oxford University Press, New York, 1993, p. 151). He also offered pension, gift and rehabilitation to the widow to stop the practice (Maja Daruwala, Central Sati Act, Online Website - http://www.pucl.org/from-archives/Gender/sati.htm). This didn’t completely eradicate the practice of sati, but certainly contributed to its reduction . Sikh condemned the practice in the 15th – 16th centuries. The Marathas also banned it in their region. The Dutch, Portuguese and the French also banned Sati in their colonies in India. The above background of this issue shows that this was never a widely practised phenomenon, nor was colonial Bengal the first to attempt to critique it. Thus, Bengal’s history of sati should not be taken as the history of the whole of India. At the same time, this should not be taken as a reason to feel contented about India’s past, because the very fact that the critiques of this practice existed throughout history, suggests that it was sporadically practised in some regions of India. The context in which it was practised has been widely debated amongst scholars. Sati in 19th century Bengal In the 19th century, Bengal had the maximum number of sati immolations, in contrast to most other regions of India, where it was either absent or sporadic (Long George (Ed.), C. Knight, London, 1842, p. 359). Lord Bentinck was spurred on to Legislation by the unacceptable rise in Sati practices in his province Bengal. In the 10 years between 1815 and 1825, the figure had doubled to 639 deaths by burning. He was certainly egged on by the constant entreaties of the and encouraged to action by the change in attitudes amongst an influential section of led by Raja 's Samaj. Raja Ram Mohun Roy was engaged in social reforms related to women and made a vehement attack on sati in Bengal. He made representations to the British government to ban the practice. He began this opposition against sati in 1912 on seeing his own sister-in-law being forced to burn herself. He began visiting the Calcutta cremation ground and formed opposition watch groups to stop the immolation cases. He also wrote and distributed articles to argue that it was against the scriptures. Despite this, Bentinck approached the question with caution. He sent circulars to 58 of his administrators to discover whether the army would revolt, whether legislation was advisable and whether Hindu resistance could be contained. The consensus of opinion was that the army would pose no problem. Finally, within 18 months of having assumed the governorship of Bengal, Lord William Bentinck passed the Sati Regulation, XVII of 1829 on 4 December (C. H. Philip, Oxford University Press and School of Oriental and African Studies, Oxford, 1977, online resource – http://chnm.gmu.edu/wwh/p/103.html). The regulation was clear, concise

and unequivocal in its condemnation of Sati, declaring it illegal and punishable by the criminal courts. It made zamindars, petty land owners, local agents and officers in charge of revenue collection especially accountable for immediate communication to the officers of their nearest police station of any intended sacrifice of the nature described. In case of wilful neglect the responsible officer was liable to a fine of Rs.200 or 6 months in jail for default. Immediately on receiving intelligence that a sacrifice was to take place, the police daroga accompanied by others was to go to the spot and declare the gathering illegal, prevail upon the crowd to disperse, explain that any persistence was likely to make them all liable to a crime and if necessary prevent the Sati from taking place or go and inform the nearest magistrate of the names and addresses of all those present. If the sacrifice was over, a full and immediate inquiry had to be undertaken in the same way as for any unnatural death. Most significantly the regulation eschewed any debate about voluntariness which has so much in the forefront of the Sati debate in 1987. Aiding and abetting a sacrifice whether voluntary or not was to be deemed culpable homicide. Punishment was at the discretion of the court according to the nature and circumstances of the case. No justification was to be made that the victim desired to be sacrificed. The death penalty was specially spelled out for any violence or compulsion or helping or assisting in the burning of a widow while she laboured under a state of intoxication or stupefaction or because any other cause impeded her free will. In such cases the court was instructed to show no mercy (Maja Daruwala, Central Sati Act, Online resource – http://www.pucl.org/from- archives/Gender/sati.htm). Fundamental Opposition Even before the regulation was out, some three hundred orthodox Hindus petitioned Lord Bentinck to stop the abolition. They pleaded that the practise of “self-immolation” was not merely a sacred duty but a "privilege" of believers. Bentinck however would not relent. The sequence of events that followed are an eerie precursor to the events after Roop Kanwar’s Sati in 1987. Orthodox Bengali formed themselves into the Dharma Sabha, just as today we have the Dharam Raksha Samiti in Rajasthan. In all they collected more than Rs.30, 000/- a huge sum in those days, to fight the Regulation all the way up to the highest court. By contrast Raja Ram Mohan Roy was given Rs.5000/- to assist the Government in their representations before the Privy Council in England. Both sides gathered petitions and pamphleteered extensively. In 1832 the appeal was heard by the Privy Council. The petitioners argued that it went against the basic assurance given in the George III Statute 37 whereby the Hindus were assured complete non-interference with their religion. The abolitionists argued that there was really no freedom of religion that could go beyond what was "compatible with the paramount claims of humanity and justice." Of 7 privy councillors, three finally voted against Bentinck's regulation but finally it was upheld.

With the last hurdle cleared, Madras and then Bombay followed suit with their own legislation banning Sati. Slowly local rulers who came under the yoke of the British also conceded legislation against Sati in conformity with the British regulations. The rulers of Jaipur banned it in 1846 (Maja Daruwala, Central Sati Act, Online Website – http://www.pucl.org/from-archives/Gender/sati.htm). Indian Penal Code The 1833 Charter to the empowered the government to make laws for British India with due respect for native custom and usage. T.B. Macaulay, an academician and lawyer was given the brief of formulating a comprehensive criminal code of universal application through the entire subcontinent. He had no doubt in his mind that Sati was a barbarous practice which could brook no justification. But the administration of 1860 and the Law Commissioners who revised the first draft, were unnecessarily alive to the sensitivities of the orthodox brahmanical feeling and watered down the murder provisions in their relation to Sati by enacting exception 5 of section 300. Under this, a mitigation was provided for murder when “the person whose death is caused, being above the age of 18 years, suffers death or takes the risk of death with his own consent” (Maja Daruwala, Central Sati Act, Online Website – http://www.pucl.org/from-archives/Gender/sati.htm). Various Scholarly Views The first scholarly studies have been appreciative of the efforts to ban sati by Raja Ram Mohun Roy and Lord Bentinck in the early 20th century Bengal. This was the first time that a strict law was made to ban it, even though sati had been denounced and efforts had been made to discourage it as we have seen in the previous passages. From the late 20th century onwards, we begin to get a critique of this earlier viewpoint. A major study holds several critical opinions in this regard – first, that in the entire discourse, the widow remained in the background and was marginalized. Second, the British gave undue importance to scriptures. Thus, they initiated shifts in the indigenous perceptions, which was a part of their “civilizational mission.” This degrading view of Indian society was a colonial and view of the Indian society. Third, the reformers’ discourse was not free from the colonial perceptions. Fourth, the gains made by the British law were enjoyed by the upper caste and upper caste women and the women lower on the rungs of society experienced a restriction of their social practices because of limiting them in the purview of the strict codified law (Lata Mani, University of California, Berkeley, 1996, pp. 191-196). While the theoretical framework of this scholarship appears attractive at first, locating these arguments within the context of practice of Sati in the 19th century Bengal reveals the superficiality and absurdity of these theoretically attractive arguments. To begin with, this scholarship holds that the were marginalised in this discourse. Although the author does not say it in so many words, this creates the impression that the widows might have held an alternative opinion to banning the practice of sati and that even if this absurd proposition was correct and if the widows could have held an alternative opinion, then the society should have been allowed to continue with the practice. This argument completely ignores the fact that it is

inhuman to even imagine that a widow could have sanctioned her immolation by the society, the act has always been obviously forced and served to the public as a “willing act.” The argument of the marginalization of the widows is not tenable in the specific context of Sati. This author goes on to say that the British gave undue importance to scriptures. This is a charge that is usually against the British that they didn’t understand Indian society, where there was always a freedom to decide what particular scripture the person wanted to follow if at all, or if they wanted to reject the scriptural advice completely. This is very true that the wide range of flexibility and freedom of choice existing in the Indian society was restrained by the British practice. However, in the specific context of Sati, this argument is not tenable. Because the reformers quoting scriptures demonstrated that the scriptures didn’t sanction the practice and indeed, we have seen in the earlier passages that even pre-modern scholars had called it against the scriptures. Hence it’s not logical to argue that the scripture was used to limit the social practice. Again, the author’s argument that the reformers’ discourse reflected the colonial discourse, which was a civilising mission, is also not tenable in the specific context of Sati. We should use these theoretical arguments in the light of rational logic and not just for the sake of using them. There couldn’t possibly have any other reformist stand on Sati than to ask the government to ban it. Any other stand wouldn’t have been truly reformist in nature. The argument about the civilising mission of the colonial British is often given to critique their social law-making practices. In many cases these hold ground and are well-argued. But here, to argue that if the British made the law to ban Sati they were on a civilising mission and initiated shifts in indigenous viewpoint is to argue in absurdity. The hard truth is that Sati was a barbaric practice in certain sections of Bengal and it was on the rise in the 19th century. If the British called it barbaric and banned it by law, they stood on firm ground and they were justified in creating a shift in the indigenous perception which was much needed at that point of time in context of Sati. To call it civilizing mission is to completely ignore the problem, even to the extent of being insensitive. An honest scholar should accept that this was a barbaric practice in some sections of Bengal and the British did well to ban it. Even if it was a civilising mission, then in the context of Sati it was well deserved because Bengal needed this kind of civilising mission with regards to the practice of Sati. Finally, the point about only upper class and caste women enjoying the benefit of the law while lower class and caste women being restricted in their wide practices sounds good in theory, but in context of Sati it is completely meaningless. Because we cannot talk in terms of diversity of practices of Sati that could have been allowed in law. In other contexts this argument hold water, but not in context of Sati. So, this particular arguments don’t seem meaningful in the context of Sati. While using these theories, one must be careful that they should have a meaningful context and not be applied indiscriminately. The most glaring flaw in this scholarship is that it fails to note that the practice of Sati was not a widely prevalent practice ever in Indian history, nor was it a pan-Indian practice. Hence, if at all the civilizing mission of the British can be critiqued, it can be done so on this ground, that a practice that was most prevalent in Bengal in the 19th century has been taken by the Indian as well as many Western scholars as a “marker” of the entire Indian society and has been used to blacklist the entire Indian civilisation. The reality is that it was essentially

a Bengali practice and even in Bengal it was restricted to a few families, who followed it only on certain occasion. The history of a practice of a section of Bengal cannot be made into a history of the whole of India. Hence, this practice has to be seen in its regional context and not as a pan-Indian context meant to civilize India. Another arguement makes the case that the reformers were reiterating colonial viewpoints and ignoring the tradition that sati actually gave power to the woman (Ashish Nandy, Oxford University press, New Delhi, 1980, pp. 1-31). This view has been critiqued by some scholars on the grounds that this scholar has not taken into account that a critique of Sati was not a specifically colonial phenomenon. It had existed throughout history as has been shown above. Hence, it can’t be called a specifically colonial perception. Moreover, to assume that “traditional villagers” didn’t have any political or economic agenda is to ascribe a simplistic interpretation of the practice of Sati. Indian society cannot be divided into sweeping categories of “simple traditional villagers” and “colonised educated urban elites,” because even the traditional people in India have their own political agenda and they demonstrate it quite efficiently (John Stratton Hawley, Oxford University Press, New York, 1994, pp. 149-174). The most insightful study of Sati has been done by another group of scholars who have taken care to study the incidents of Sati in history, attempts by the pre-colonial Indians to denounce, restrict and prohibit this practice and have also dwelt on the complexity of 19th century Bengal without making sweeping theoretical statements that have no meaning. Where they have applied theory, it makes sense in context of Sati. They have brought the study to present day by including the case of Roop Kanwar in 1987 and have rightly called it as disguised murder and different from 19th century Bengal. They have not only studied Sati in its historical context across the various stages of history, but have also critically evaluated the various modern scholars’ writings on the practice, including the ones discussed above. They make an interesting point that the practice of Sati was sporadic in nature and its incidents increased in times of wars and conquests by the enemy. The reference by the is important in this context, so are the references to Rajasthan and Sikhs in the light of the number of invasions they had to face. In case of Bengal too, the incidence increased in the 19th century when Calcutta became the seat of the British power. This is a viewpoint that is worth studying in further detail and is certainly worth considering. ((John Stratton Hawley, Oxford University Press, New York, 1994, pp. 149-174).