Talk:Sati (practice)

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.

Sati practice is not part of original Hindu religion

Sati practice was never part of Hindu tradition. It came into practice after the Mughal invasion. Mughals eye women and would take away them when they are widowed. These women would then have to undergo immense sexual torcher in the hands of Mughals. To avoid this Sati system came into practice in Northern parts of India. 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:

• Michael Witzel (22 December 1996). "Little Dowry, No Satī. The Lot Of Women In The Vedic Period". Journal of South Asia Women Studies. 2 (4).

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..."[2] 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)

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'[3]

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.

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 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.[4]. 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. [5] 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 [6] 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') - [7]

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

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)