Talk:Sati (practice)

Why is it called Sati?

Sati was the consort of lord Siva, and she set herself alight with mystic yoga, it had nothing to do with a funeral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.144.245.115 (talk) 11:48, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

shrine image

The shrine image is great. It would be helpful to give a bit more context for the sentence "The palm prints are typical"; why are they typical? For all shrines, or just shrines for sati? --Lquilter (talk) 22:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

For shrines dedicated to sati. Relata refero (talk) 12:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

references

The references section(s) are a mess -- there are three individual sets of refs; one that is automatically generated with {{reflist}}; a few references added below that; and a lot of numbered references that are manual. Before I start cleaning this up and putting it all into {{reflist}} format, I thought I would check to see if anyone else is working on this or has some other scheme in mind. --Lquilter (talk) 22:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• I am mostly complete with consolidating the reference formats. In the process, I found some references where the original text had been deleted, but not the reference. There's been a lot of vandalism to this article over time so I'm adding these here to make sure we don't miss things we want to have in the article. --Lquilter (talk) 19:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I removed this orphaned cite: pp351, Moore, Barrington. Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy. Boston: Beacon Press, 1967. which accompanied this text:

    Noted political scientist Barrington Moore mentions the practice of sati in his book Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy. Moore says of sati that "Such a custom might indeed test the beliefs of even the most firm present-day believer in the equal worth of all cultures"{{ref|bmoore}}. Moore goes on to state that the British suppression of sati and other religious and cultural activities was a factor in the Mutiny of 1857.

    #{{note|bmoore}}pp351, Moore, Barrington. Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy. Boston: Beacon Press, 1967

    The text was added 2006/3/22 by Xijjix diff; and deleted 2006/10/28 by Imc diff who stated that there were more prominent critics, e.g., Gandhi.
  • Another set of two orphaned cites had the accompanying text removed sometime around December 2005, but I cannot find the specific diff -- it was perhaps removed from the edit history.

    The view of sati as a core practice of Hinduism, including the idea that it was compulsory, continues to be held and disseminated by various groups today, some within India, and many in the rest of the world. In recent years in Poland, criticisms and attacks by Catholics on the Hare Krishna movement in that country included charges that they planned to introduce sati into Europe{{ref|Catholics}}. The practice is often quoted as the ultimate example of the subjection of women, and this sometimes provokes resentment and criticisms from Hindus and Indians.{{ref|resentment}} <!-- need a section on modern feminist criticisms and attitudes.-->

    #{{note|Catholics}}Defending Religious Freedom in Poland: Polish Catholics Persecute Krishna Worshippers by Ella Serwin and Magdalena Mola on the Poland (VNN). The Vaishnava News Network (VNN) is an independent network of collaborating Vaishnavas worldwide providing the world Vaishnava community with news and forums of communication.

    #{{note|resentment}}Women and Hinduism in U.S. Textbooks by: David Freedholm on Feb 5 2003 on his blog site. backup site

    The original text was in the document prior to December 6, 2005 (2005/12/4 version); see 2003-Dec 2005 version), and somehow the text was removed in December 2005 (see diff). Since there's no explanation of the deletion, I suggest this text (or a modified rewrite of it) be put back in. It includes the point that the practice is highlighted as an extreme horror and that the perception that it was a "core practice" of Hinduism is offensive to Hindus; that source of conflict and tension in fact helps to explain some of the edit warring that happened in December 2006, and is not presently addressed in the article. I'm not sure about the Poland material -- it seems a bit singular -- but I propose something like:

The idea that sati was a core practice of Hinduism or widespread throughout India sometimes provokes resentment and criticism from Hindus and Indians.[cite Freedholm].

We could combine it with the previously requested, and never addressed, point about feminism, e.g.,

Feminist critiques of the practice have increased awareness of it, and exacerbated those tensions.[need cite].

And perhaps add a sentence to address the controversial revisionist scholarship and ideas that led to the edit wars of Dec 2006 -- this would be hard to write in an accurate and NPOV way, but maybe something like,

Tensions around the historical genesis of the practice have led some revisionist scholars to deny Hindu historical ties to the practice, to tie it to waves of invaders, or to challenge modern accounts of alleged incidents of sati.

My thinking is that the last sentence, if worded correctly, could help stave off efforts to add this material to the article in a non-neutral way, by acknowledging the substance of the issues in a neutral way.

Thoughts on any of these sentences, or the older material? --Lquilter (talk) 02:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your work on this article LQuilter. As you have probably noticed, my own PoV must have crept into much of the current article. My comments on your detailed suggestions;

• . On the Barrington Moore quote, that I removed; I think that first, it contributes little to the article. Second, as another condemning view from a westerner, it is both superfluous and is the sort of thing that provokes edit wars from the likes of user Maleabroad. As I said before, there are numerous condemnatory Indian views that have not been quoted. Regarding his statement that it was a factor in the Indian rebellion of 1857, there are many primary sources in British histories of the rebellion suggesting this. This claim of it being a cause of the rebellion should be taken with a large dose of salt; the rebellion took place in areas of northern India where sati was little known, the rebellion was part led by the Muslim, and to a lesser extent the Hindu ruling classes of those regions, and the rebellion did not extend into areas where sati was most prevalent.
• On the section starting The view of sati as a core practice of Hinduism, including the idea that it was compulsory,..., yes I think that should be reinstated in some form. Your suggestions seem fine to me.

Imc (talk) 09:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC).

• Hi Imc -- You've been doing great work, and I have no criticisms of it. I have no disagreement on the Barrington Moore quote; I liked it, but thought your comment was completely reasonable. I put it here for transparency -- there's been so much vandalism (that you have been primarily responsible for reverting over the past couple of years) that I'm sure it's been very hard to keep everything straight. It was just an orphaned reference, so I wanted to make sure we noted why we were taking it out. On the second material about "The view of sati as a core practice of Hinduism...", glad to hear that works for you; let's let it sit for a couple of days & see if any other regular contributor/policers have opinions (although you've been the main one). Cheers, Lquilter (talk) 16:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that Barrington Moore was one of the leading lights of political science, and the book in question is one of the most heavily cited in political science academia. I don't think that there's a good enough reason to remove it. Relata refero (talk) 12:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Unless I see a good reason why not here in a bit, I'll restore it. Relata refero (talk) 12:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

In or out, both are fine with me. --Lquilter (talk) 18:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

The origin of sati

Why develop a custom that forces widowed women to either 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?

2008-02-16 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.229.19.152 (talk) 11:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Like female circumcision? Poisoned coolaid? Maybe some religious practices and traditions spring out of mere stupidity.--IronMaidenRocks (talk) 16:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Female genital cutting does serve a known function. However, it exists quite independent of religion. Some people may rationalize it with religion but these individuals are ignorant of the fact that not all members of their own religion practice it. I have never heard about poisoned Kool-Aid before and see no connection to any religion at all.

2010-05-15 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.

See: Jonestown. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 10:03, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

The most likely explanation for the origin of the practice of Sati is to prevent wealthy wives poisoning their (often elderly) husbands leaving the woman rich, free, and available to other (perhaps more attractive) men. Most of these sort of traditions originate amongst the wealthy members of societies, and requiring that any widow be expected to sit on her late husband's funeral pyre and be burnt to death ought to at least have some effect in making the wife (or wives) ensure the husband lives to be a ripe old age, and is not replaced by a younger lover likely to be attracted by the widow's (subsequent) great wealth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.81.192 (talk) 20:39, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

On SR Bakshi

It's been brought to my attention that SR Bakshi is a professional historian and was formerly associated with the ICHR. There is no indication that he was a fellow there - in fact the implication is that he worked there - and ICHR is in any case a political rather than scholarly organisation as has been well documented. That being said, I've had a look at the appropriate paragraph in the book, which clearly attributes purdah to Muslim kidnapping, child marriage to Muslim rape, and Sati to Muslim liberties with widows. I think its fairly representative of a certain sort of ahistorical view of these events (even up to the bit that claims the shastras were rewritten in the 13th century to retrospectively legitimise child marriage because of Muslim savagery) and so, as long as the passage quoting it is appropriately written, suppose there' no harm in including it. Relata refero (talk) 12:12, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

not only Sati, child marriage & purdah, the Muslims also brought non-vegetarian food (in particular, Pulao, Kabab & Kofta!), drinking and gambling to the Hindus.(p. 7) A 1500 page advanced history, with nary a reference in sight, makes for interesting reading. Doldrums (talk) 13:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Similar texts to the newly added ones blaming Islam have been in the article before and have been removed. I've moved it to the origins section. Imc (talk) 20:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

In Popular Culture

Sati is feature prominently in episode 75 of Highlander the Series titled "Wrath of Kali". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.176.93.130 (talk) 20:02, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Cite notices

A number of cite notices have been added to the article over time. Several deletions were made resulting from this, including [1]. I've reverted two of these since they are referenced elsewhere in the same section. Another deletion, at [2] has multiple sources, including some quoted in the article; however these assertions in the removed section mostly cannot be said to have academic credibility, so I'm leaving this out for others to judge the value of.

If cite notices are put into old text that was composed before the current practice of providing inline citations for every remotely contentious fact, then surely it is advisable to do research first to ensure that the removal of material is justified.

12:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Use of word prevalence for Sati

I have strenous objection to the use of the word prevalence as it makes it seem that the practice is ongoing and was at one time "prevalent." there is simply NO evidence of that. Murders of American women by their spouses are far greater, and yet we do not claim that as an American "tradition." Only SOME Hindu communities practiced this, and it was never practiced outside of those communities. Further, as for Roop, there is too much evidence to indicate that this was coercian on the part of her husband's family. She may have been burned but it hardly relates to Sati. It, in fact, relates more to the modern recent phenomenon of dowry-murder, also not an Indian or Hindu "custom."

To think that every time a woman in India is burned is Sati is akin to saying that anytime a woman is burned in Europe it is a revival of witch burning.

See Narayan for a comprehensive and scholarly discussion of Sati.

````washnahiotha —Preceding unsigned comment added by Washnahiotha (talk • contribs) 18:31, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

The word 'prevalence' does not mean it is common, unless confused with 'prevalent'. See for instance the article Prevalance for its epidemiological use. However, I've changed it to incidence. Imc (talk) 22:24, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

The racist comparison with the murder of American women by their wives is a false analogy. Murder in the West is not a "matter of honour and pride", but a crime. The problem with Sati is that it has the "sanction" of culture, even though is a form of human sacrifice, barbaric and inhuman. Attempts to glorify Sati (itself a criminal offense in India, incidentally) do nothing to alter that fact that such savagery is out-dated by at least 3,000 years. By all means live in the stone age, but the rest of the world has moved on.124.197.15.138 (talk) 20:22, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point here (124.197.15.138). What is being asked is if it has "social sanction." British missionaries liked to portray it as so, but they also advocated the Juggernaut myth, that Indians were thrown under the temple wheels as sacrifices, that this had social "sanction" and therefore Hinduism is bad. The point above your post is valid in that it addresses whether or not sati actually had social sanction or was a fringe practice that came about through a number of complex social factors. 24.84.37.231 (talk) 04:35, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Sati Rate is Incorrect?

Hi,

I was looking for some more precise records concerning the rate of sati, and came across this article "Central Sati Act - An Analysis" written by Maja Daruwala (http://www.pucl.org/from-archives/Gender/sati.htm). What's interesting, is it says "Perhaps Bentinck was spurred on to Legislation by the unacceptable rise in Satis in his province, Bengal. In the 10 years between 1815 and 1825, the figure had doubled to 639 deaths by burning" which is quite different from the values quoted in this wiki article (although they include Bihar, etc). I think it's a good idea to put in. 24.84.37.231 (talk) 04:31, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

It seems you are correct. Would you care to add this text into the article? Imc (talk) 20:42, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Madhavacharya

Removed both references to Madhvacharya as information presented was patently incorrect (he was never the minister of any empire, more so of any which were established 100 years after him). Not even Shastri's book mentions Madhvacharya as a chief proponent of Sati - these inclusions seem to have come from sectarian viewpoints - the laudatory inclusion of "Sri Vaishnavites" is especially suspect as it quotes a newspaper article from 1999, and similar sources can be found for virtually every sect in India from random sources.

-- Jayaram Uparna (talk) 02:37, 16 May 2010 (UTC)upparna

Above comment moved from the 'Cite notices' section, above into new section, by user Imc or 16 May 2010

Your comment confuses Madhavacharya (which is the name in the article) with Madhvacharya, an unconnected figure. I have restored the text in the article. The sources are clear enough, but I will add detailed references since they can be found online. What Sri Vaishnava has to do with any of this is unclear. Imc (talk) 08:43, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Pending changes

This article is one of a number selected for the early stage of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.

The following request appears on that page:

Comments on the suitability of theis page for "Penfding changes" would be appreciated.

Please update the Queue page as appropriate.

Note that I am not involved in this project any much more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 23:56, 16 June 2010 (UTC).

Folklore

This discussion is continued here after the request of User_talk:Imc, the beginning of this discussion can be found at my talk_page. This discussion was started after my My Addition to this article. The Basic problem is where to place this content. I want to place it on LEDE. I was asked by User_talk:Imc to explain that "the caste theory is generally accepted as the reason for the practice".

I have seen few discussion on this article_talk_page like The_origin_of_sati, which could not conclude anything, they might be in requisite of My Addition. But the basic fact we can find in this content is that it does not explain the time of origin, but it explains the purpose of origin and some similar customs intended for the same purpose.

In few more sections we can find the discussions about purpose of this custom. We can see that everyone have said that it is related to some thing divine with out any materialistic objective. In Sati_(practice)#Justifications_and_criticisms section it states that "It was deemed an act of peerless piety, and was said to purge the couple of all accumulated sin, guarantee their salvation and ensure their reunion in the afterlife" What it surprises me is why this practice was not done with man, why only women? "Because only men had the upper hand in society" and moreover he had the option of second marriage that too Girl marriage(Child Marriage similar purpose custom).

As stated in [Vishnu Smriti] "preserving her chastity(strict Widowhood similar purpose custom)" or Sati are the two options for women after her husbands death, but mostly Sati was encouraged. As being(or)following strict widowhood is more bigger task than Sati which will burn her at once.

Whatever the origin might be, these three practices Sati, strict Widowhood and Girl Marriages are the customs intended to achieve similar purpose that is "ENDOGAMY" of castes. The excess(or)surplus widow and widower in a society is a real threat to Endogamy of caste system. Only this evil traditions ensured the Endogamy of Castes--Ranjithsutari (talk) 17:42, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

For ease of reference, the original text added by Ranjithsutari to the article was;

Sati, Enforced Widowhood and Girl Marriage are customs that were primarily intended to solve the problem of the surplus woman and surplus man (widower) in a caste and to maintain its Endogamy.

This is still in the article, though I've slightly modified and moved it to one of the body sections. My opinion is that while there is now at least one reference that says caste endogamy is a reason for the custom, I don't see that it is universally or widely accepted as the prime reason for the custom. Hence while it should be in the article, it should not be included in the lead, which is for a summary of what is known and accepted. Imc (talk) 21:35, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

ps. it might be better to title this section something other than 'Folklore'; how about 'Caste endogamy'? Imc (talk) 21:36, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Few more references . As per WP:LEDE, to enter this controversial content in to the lead, anyone has to provide proper WP:reliable sources. I think arguing about its universal acceptance is not of any use. With regards--Ranjithsutari (talk) 18:20, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Notes

Editor User:Anthonzi, I hope you can find enough reference to keep this important point in the lead. In any references, it is not stated that it is a theory or imagination. If you think so, then you better provide any references. If you consider this statement as minority view point, then you should show reference and explain how it differ from majority view. I consider it as the only viewpoint for which I have given enough references. -Ranjithsutari (talk) 16:31, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Ranjithsutari, neither scholarly use nor Wikipedia use a count of collected references to decide what is 'majority view'. The material you have contributed is provided at a suitable place in the article. WP:LEAD says that the lead should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article. It also says Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article, You have provided a single sentence of significant information complete with references, which you put into the lead. This is inappropriate; it belongs in the body, as per WP: LEAD. Further, none of the references you have provided are online, so it is difficult to check and make judgements on otherwise. Hence they could do with some expansion, and if you have access to these works, it would be useful if you could write this. Also, if online references are available, can you provide these. Thanks. Imc (talk) 10:10, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Opposed by Tantrics

From page 94 of the book Sati: historical and phenomenological essays by Arvind Sharma:

And according to the Tantra writers anyone responsible for burning a woman-an embodiment of divinity- on the pyre is bound for hell, vide A. S Altekar, op. cit., pp 124-5, wherein the Sanskrit originals are also quoted. A. L. Basham also acknowledges that sati "was condemned by the humane poet Bana, in the 7th century, and by the Tantric sects" (The Wonder that was India, pp. 188).

Hokie Tech (talk) 01:09, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Marxist "post-colonial" anti-Western bias

In the article, under the "non-Hindu" section, Muhammad bin Tughluq the Sultan of Delhi is portrayed as some sort of noble and enlightened man for opposing the "barbaric" practice of Sati. You can almost hear Chomsky or some other critical theory professor chiding in, "Islam is quite tolerent", proto-champions of "womens lib" against "patriarchy", etc. Yet the mention of the Portuguese and British opposing the exact same thing, is filled with Marxist anti-Western propaganda, as if its some evil imperialist conspiracy to oppose burning widows a live. Why different standards for a Muslim Turk and a European Christian on the exact same issue? - 90.215.164.30 (talk) 16:27, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

One short sentence about bin Tughluq, cited to Web Journal of Current Legal Issues. Rather weak sourcing for history, but it is prima facie an academic article. If you can find a different view in another academic source, add it. Gayatri Spivak is mentioned in the same para - she is a well known academic who takes a marked "post-colonial studies" stance. Again, could be complemented by a different view if one can be found. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:37, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Ouch?

Isn't this a quite painful way to die? --89.204.153.194 (talk) 01:40, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I've read that it isn't that painful as the nerves are destroyed from the extreme heat quite quickly. BodvarBjarki (talk) 22:41, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Compulsion

The "compulsion" section of this article seems to be stepping beyond the bounds of the source provided and may be relying on original research:

"Sati was supposed to be voluntary, but it is known that it has often been forced. Setting aside the issue of social pressures, many accounts exist of women being physically forced to their deaths. Pictorial and narrative accounts often describe the widow being seated on the unlit pyre, and then tied or otherwise restrained to keep her from fleeing after the fire was lit. Some accounts state that the woman was drugged. One account describes men using long poles to prevent a woman from fleeing the flames."

This paints the picture that, somewhere in the grey area between as few as "many" and as often as "most", Sati was being forced. Whether or not this was the case, the source provided just doesn't support that. Hargrave suggests that "there were surely cases involving the use of force, drugs, or restraints." but that statement is only offered as hearsay and only one one documented case of forced Sati is provided, An Account of a Woman burning herself, By an Officer. In this account, an officer describes a girl who appears to be drugged (although others in attendance claim she is not) who lays herself on the pyre and is then restrained with ropes "that however great her resolution might be, it was very possible, when the fire was first kindled, she might attempt to rise, which the ropes would hinder her from doing."

Given that this is the only cited example, I am going to soften up this section of the article. Please understand that I am only removing objectionable material until it can be cited. If you are aware of any other sources related to forced Sati, please add them. Thanks for your understanding. Scoundr3l (talk) 07:49, 6 December 2011 (UTC)