Sati in Modern India: Legally Banned, Socially Persistent?

[Bhaag Viru Bhaag]

Brother in case you missed i have parted ways with this thread after a brother broke my heart. Hope you can understand and honour my stance.

Nope. You are just chickening out of this thread.

 

[Champ_Pal]

So the British had to invade India and than place a ban on Sati.

As an Indian, does this bother you? @Bhaijaan
Outsiders coming and banning your religious practices

Nope.
Sati was never widely prevalent in India. Some idiots may have been following it in 18th century. I am glad British banned it outright.

I have mentioned it before, there are tons of widows even in Hindu Texts that lived their full life. It has no religious stamp on it and there are no rules that it should be enforced. Just because some idiots do it to weed out women who they think are burden on the family does not mean it is part of Hindu culture.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

Brother in case you missed i have parted ways with this thread after a brother broke my heart. Hope you can understand and honour my stance.

I took will part ways from this thread as penance for inflicting pain upon you

 

[Champ_Pal]

@Major, didn't British ban Slavery in Arab countries? A religious practice among Muslims for the past 1400 years and some unbeliever comes and bans it?

 

[Champ_Pal]

For the mighty British that thankfully banned Sati in India, they were practicing the art of "Burning Witches" aka women they do not like until 17th century.
Scotland was burning women who were accused of witchcraft well into 18th century. An estimated 2000 women were burned alive by the people of British Isles. Very noble these people are.

Then again, we don't try to take moral high ground like some do on this board to feel better about themselves.

It was only after the West accepted scientific approach to issues, they started seeing the pathetic nature of religion in general and started outlawing or banning some religious and social practices in their homelands and the lands faraway they ruled.

 

[sweep_shot]

For the mighty British that thankfully banned Sati in India, they were practicing the art of "Burning Witches" aka women they do not like until 17th century.
Scotland was burning women who were accused of witchcraft well into 18th century. An estimated 2000 women were burned alive by the people of British Isles. Very noble these people are.

Then again, we don't try to take moral high ground like some do on this board to feel better about themselves.

It was only after the West accepted scientific approach to issues, they started seeing the pathetic nature of religion in general and started outlawing or banning some religious and social practices in their homelands and the lands faraway they ruled.

Why don't you condemn sati without resorting to whataboutism and deflection?

We are discussing evil of sati here. No need to bring up other topics. Stick to topic.

 

[Champ_Pal]

Why don't you condemn sati without resorting to whataboutism and deflection?

We are discussing evil of sati here. No need to bring up other topics. Stick to topic.

I have repeatedly condemned sati. Read my posts without the green tinted glasses. I called it a pathetic practice that some were doing. Also, do not conflate sati with Jauhar.

Pointing out what was happening in British isles is pertinent to the topic as the usual suspects are pitting Brits on a higher pedestal to put down Indian culture.

Both are similar. Burning women for which is not their fault. Your own glorified culture was no better for women. But it is a different topic

 

[sweep_shot]

Topic: Sati

Indians: What about slave trade? What about European witch burning? What about Timbuktu?

Very toddler-like mindset.

 

[Bhaijaan]

I took will part ways from this thread as penance for inflicting pain upon you

This act of neq-dili will be remembered for ages.

 

[Champ_Pal]

Topic: Sati

Indians: What about slave trade? What about European witch burning? What about Timbuktu?

Very toddler-like mindset.

Nah.

We condemned the practice as a backward stupid thing. Whoever practiced it are scoundrels and worst of humans ever.

Now, condemn the slavery in Arabia right from Prophet's time till 1960's if you have the same integrity that you claim to be.

 

[Rajdeep]

Trump imposed tariffs all over the world, stock market down world wide, rats as big as house cats swarming Birmingham streets, British MPs lining up to build airport in Mirpur, WAQF board bill been discussed in Indian parliament, Israel continuing its offence on Palestine, daddy league IPL is on...so many things happening world wide but we are discussing Sati.

 

[Champ_Pal]

Trump imposed tariffs all over the world, stock market down world wide, rats as big as house cats swarming Birmingham streets, British MPs lining up to build airport in Mirpur, WAQF board bill been discussed in Indian parliament, Israel continuing its offence on Palestine, daddy league IPL is on...so many things happening world wide but we are discussing Sati.

Its funny when the title of the thread says Sati is still persistent.

One can call something persistent if like 10-20% of the population are still practicing some abhorrent ancient custom. If the number of cases are 0.00000001% of the population, then it is not a persistent problem. It is more of an aberration.

The usual suspects want to feel good about themselves with nothing going their way. Its a coping mechanism.

 

[Hitman]

Nah.

We condemned the practice as a backward stupid thing. Whoever practiced it are scoundrels and worst of humans ever.

Now, condemn the slavery in Arabia right from Prophet's time till 1960's if you have the same integrity that you claim to be.

I except pin drop silence.

 

[Hitman]

I except pin drop silence.

Expect*

 

[Champ_Pal]

I except pin drop silence.

I am sure certain posters will become blind to certain things.

 

[Hitman]

I am sure certain posters will become blind to certain things.

When some questions are difficult to answer, you'll be accused of whataboutism.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

For the mighty British that thankfully banned Sati in India, they were practicing the art of "Burning Witches" aka women they do not like until 17th century.

Then again, we don't try to take moral high ground like some do on this board to feel better about themselves.

It was only after the West accepted scientific approach to issues, they started seeing the pathetic nature of religion in general and started outlawing or banning some religious and social practices in their homelands and the lands faraway they ruled.

To be honest, this is exactly what you do, and the whole of cyberspace is awash with your people doing it. If you didn't, then you would be like Sri Lankans or Chinese, just doing your own thing and not posting on here at all.

 

[sweep_shot]

To be honest, this is exactly what you do, and the whole of cyberspace is awash with your people doing it. If you didn't, then you would be like Sri Lankans or Chinese, just doing your own thing and not posting on here at all.

Sri Lankans and Chinese are pleasant and intelligent people. It is an insult to compare them to online bhakts.

Your post reminded me of this video:

 

[Champ_Pal]

To be honest, this is exactly what you do, and the whole of cyberspace is awash with your people doing it. If you didn't, then you would be like Sri Lankans or Chinese, just doing your own thing and not posting on here at all.

Nice try Cap. I criticize Hinduism for its own evils. I am calling Sati an evil practice.

All I am asking the usual suspects is to criticize the evils in their own cult. I don’t think it is too much to ask.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Nice try Cap. I criticize Hinduism for its own evils. I am calling Sati an evil practice.

All I am asking the usual suspects is to criticize the evils in their own cult. I don’t think it is too much to ask.

Nice try champ, but you are an atheist Hindu whatever that means. Your criticism is just veiled apologism. Your "criticism is just a cover so you can join in with your Hindu comrades in going after Islam.

 

[Champ_Pal]

Nice try champ, but you are an atheist Hindu View attachment 152907 whatever that means. Your criticism is just veiled apologism. Your "criticism is just a cover so you can join in with your Hindu comrades in going after Islam.

I criticize anything that is wrong. No cover up.
It is very obvious who ignores the obvious evils in their own cult.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

I criticize anything that is wrong. No cover up.
It is very obvious who ignores the obvious evils in their own cult.

Yes it is Hindus, and that is why their politicians need to go after even their own Muslims in order to appeal to their majority vote base.

 

[Champ_Pal]

Yes it is Hindus, and that is why their politicians need to go after even their own Muslims in order to appeal to their majority vote base.

Yes. Evil exists only in Hinduism. Others are all as white as milk.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Yes. Evil exists only in Hinduism. Others are all as white as milk.

There are a couple of genuine Indians here who are either atheist or agnostic Hindus, possibly even observant Hindus in their own understanding. They tend to see things without the overt saffron specs on, and are able to view their own leadership objectively. You for all your claims of atheism are definitely not one of them.

 

[Justcrazy]

I already mentioned where it was mentioned in Hindu Texts. One of them is Shiva's wife Sati(on whose name the practice was named). Then we have one incident in Mahabharata(Madri).

There were hundreds of widows in Mahabharata and Ramayana. No one ever committed Sati. For example Pandavas Matriarch Kunti was a widow. She lived her full life as a Maharani and she is the widow of Pandu. Same with Lor Ram's mother. They all lived after King Dashrath passed away. There are countless widows in the entire epics(Ramayana, Mahabharata) that never even considered Sati. They all lived on and moved on after their husband's death.

It is mentioned in other scriptures as well. Smriti and Purans , which also gives conditions of when it can be practiced.

For eg Parasara Smriti , Agni Puran etc.

In Valmiki Ramayan Vedvati also committed sati . Utara Kanda.

 

[Justcrazy]

No need to make it into a religious issue. Sati is despicable and was rightly banned. And thats how all religions should be. The religious books are a guide to be a better person, not something you follow to the T and not something that you cant question. And it should apply to "every" religion.

If according to you religious books are a guide to be better person , why did you need to reform that ?
You yourself sati is despicable , so how can a book to guide people have despicable thing ?

If we are not supposed to follow a religious book , how are we supposed to be guided? Guidance without following !

Can you kindly shed some light to what you wrote?

 

[Champ_Pal]

It is mentioned in other scriptures as well. Smriti and Purans , which also gives conditions of when it can be practiced.

For eg Parasara Smriti , Agni Puran etc.

In Valmiki Ramayan Vedvati also committed sati . Utara Kanda.

Vedavati -
Ravana tried to molest Vedavati and her chastity was sullied beyond Ravana's redemption when she was performing penance to become the consort of Vishnu. Vedavati immolated herself on a pyre to escape Ravana's lust, vowing to return in another age and be the cause of Ravana's destruction. She was duly reborn as Sita. She committed suicide. No one burned her forcefully.

Regarding Parashara Smriti, it was written by Maharshi Parashara. It is not a divine revelation. Not a sacred text like Ramayana or Bhagavad Gita.

Hinduism has Vedas, Shruti and Smriti.

Vedas are supposed to be divine revelations.
Shruti's are also considered second in line to Vedas. In fact, Vedas are part of Shruti and are considered the most sacred.
Smriti is what is written down from memory and are not authoritative.


Since you are a Muslim, I will give you a correlation. For you, Quran is the most authoritative followed by Hadiths and followed by the Seerah of Prophet Muhammad. You will not take the ramblings of Fakirs, Peers who studied Islam as authoritative. Its the same in Hinduism. Vedas, followed by Upanishads. That is for Brahmins. Outside of Brahmins, no one knows Vedas and Upanishads. Its all about Ramayana and Mahabharata and Bhagavad Gita.
What Rishis like Parashara or Yagnavalyaka or Gautama or Bhrigu etc said is immaterial. What they said is not authoritative.

If you show examples from Gita or Ramayana or Vedas, then it should be accepted.

 

[Champ_Pal]

There are a couple of genuine Indians here who are either atheist or agnostic Hindus, possibly even observant Hindus in their own understanding. They tend to see things without the overt saffron specs on, and are able to view their own leadership objectively. You for all your claims of atheism are definitely not one of them.

This is what you can come up with?

Everything should be condemned. Not selective. One is not holier than the other. I hope you agree with me at least on this.

 

[Justcrazy]

Vedavati -
Ravana tried to molest Vedavati and her chastity was sullied beyond Ravana's redemption when she was performing penance to become the consort of Vishnu. Vedavati immolated herself on a pyre to escape Ravana's lust, vowing to return in another age and be the cause of Ravana's destruction. She was duly reborn as Sita. She committed suicide. No one burned her forcefully.

Regarding Parashara Smriti, it was written by Maharshi Parashara. It is not a divine revelation. Not a sacred text like Ramayana or Bhagavad Gita.

Hinduism has Vedas, Shruti and Smriti.

Vedas are supposed to be divine revelations.
Shruti's are also considered second in line to Vedas. In fact, Vedas are part of Shruti and are considered the most sacred.
Smriti is what is written down from memory and are not authoritative.


Since you are a Muslim, I will give you a correlation. For you, Quran is the most authoritative followed by Hadiths and followed by the Seerah of Prophet Muhammad. You will not take the ramblings of Fakirs, Peers who studied Islam as authoritative. Its the same in Hinduism. Vedas, followed by Upanishads. That is for Brahmins. Outside of Brahmins, no one knows Vedas and Upanishads. Its all about Ramayana and Mahabharata and Bhagavad Gita.
What Rishis like Parashara or Yagnavalyaka or Gautama or Bhrigu etc said is immaterial. What they said is not authoritative.

If you show examples from Gita or Ramayana or Vedas, then it should be accepted.

I do not expect this from you. Muslims can talk about authenticity because they have a hadeeth grading system , rijal .
Hindus should not be talking about that.

The Ramayana or Gita itself have different versions , and you are also aware of that.

But I agree with your point about Shruti and Smriti. Yet , these smritis and dharamasutras act as jurisprudence.

Most Hindus do accept Purans and Upanishads.

 

[Champ_Pal]

I do not expect this from you. Muslims can talk about authenticity because they have a hadeeth grading system , rijal .
Hindus should not be talking about that.

The Ramayana or Gita itself have different versions , and you are also aware of that.

But I agree with your point about Shruti and Smriti. Yet , these smritis and dharamasutras act as jurisprudence.

Most Hindus do accept Purans and Upanishads.

Hindus also have the heirarchy of scriptures.

Vedas>>Shruti>>>Smriti

No one knows who Rishi Parashara or Kapila or Angirasa are. Everyone wrote their musings and opinions aka Smritis. Not belittling their work or their credibility. But these rishis are a dime in a dozen in ancient India. No one takes their opinions seriously.

There are several Smritis. 18 major ones and many other minor ones. Many rishis wrote and orated them. Yes, they do form the Hindu Jurisprudence. But not all of it. Sati was not part of Hindu Jurisprudence. If it were, most Indian women would have committed suicide upon their husband's death. Ex - Pandava's mother Kunti and King Dasarath's 4 wives who were widows upon Dasarath's death.

Ramayana and Mahabharata are Itihasas. They are the most sacred to all Hindus. Even Bhagavad Gita is part of Mahabharata which is part of Itihasa.

Vedas and Upanishads are only important for Brahmins and to some extent Kshatriyas. No other castes learned them and in fact many were barred from learning them as per Manu Smriti. Again, the same Smriti which I repeatedly lampoon and laugh at. No Hindu knows what Manu Smriti is and no one has ever read it. No one keeps a copy of them in their prayer room to read them.

To answer your question, Hinduism does not have a single scripture like Quran to Islam and Bible to Christianity. Different groups of Hindus follow different scriptures. Ramayana, Mahabharata and Bhagavad Gita are the most accepted Hindu Books that fits all castes. Vedas, Shrutis and Smritis are rejected by many Hindu communities.

 

[deltexas]

If according to you religious books are a guide to be better person , why did you need to reform that ?
You yourself sati is despicable , so how can a book to guide people have despicable thing ?

If we are not supposed to follow a religious book , how are we supposed to be guided? Guidance without following !

Can you kindly shed some light to what you wrote?

There is something called being rational. Common sense. And thats the issue worldwide. Common sense is not common. As I said its a "guide". You dont follow it word for word. So you can disagree with them as well. Doesn't mean if you disagree you are a k*. Women's treatment in these books for example. Rational societies adapt to modern norms unlike some . Plenty examples like these. And of something is wrong in the books- you criticize it . Thats why you have laws in place

 

[mominsaigol]

Salt is banned in India? How is that even possible? Don't think this is true lol. No way it's true

 

[mominsaigol]

Salt is banned in India? How is that even possible? Don't think this is true lol. No way it's true

Oh sati not salt . My bad

 

[Justcrazy]

There is something called being rational. Common sense. And thats the issue worldwide. Common sense is not common. As I said its a "guide". You dont follow it word for word. So you can disagree with them as well. Doesn't mean if you disagree you are a k*. Women's treatment in these books for example. Rational societies adapt to modern norms unlike some . Plenty examples like these. And of something is wrong in the books- you criticize it . Thats why you have laws in place

Rationality and common sense are something which is subjective in nature .

I am not going into whether the books are good or bad.

My basic question is that if you believe something is a guide , it comes with the implication that you follow.
Now if you say that laws have been placed , then that means that the books that you considered as guide are subordinate to the law makers.

 

[Justcrazy]

Hindus also have the heirarchy of scriptures.

Vedas>>Shruti>>>Smriti

No one knows who Rishi Parashara or Kapila or Angirasa are. Everyone wrote their musings and opinions aka Smritis. Not belittling their work or their credibility. But these rishis are a dime in a dozen in ancient India. No one takes their opinions seriously.

There are several Smritis. 18 major ones and many other minor ones. Many rishis wrote and orated them. Yes, they do form the Hindu Jurisprudence. But not all of it. Sati was not part of Hindu Jurisprudence. If it were, most Indian women would have committed suicide upon their husband's death. Ex - Pandava's mother Kunti and King Dasarath's 4 wives who were widows upon Dasarath's death.

Ramayana and Mahabharata are Itihasas. They are the most sacred to all Hindus. Even Bhagavad Gita is part of Mahabharata which is part of Itihasa.

Vedas and Upanishads are only important for Brahmins and to some extent Kshatriyas. No other castes learned them and in fact many were barred from learning them as per Manu Smriti. Again, the same Smriti which I repeatedly lampoon and laugh at. No Hindu knows what Manu Smriti is and no one has ever read it. No one keeps a copy of them in their prayer room to read them.

To answer your question, Hinduism does not have a single scripture like Quran to Islam and Bible to Christianity. Different groups of Hindus follow different scriptures. Ramayana, Mahabharata and Bhagavad Gita are the most accepted Hindu Books that fits all castes. Vedas, Shrutis and Smritis are rejected by many Hindu communities.

Common Hindus do not matter , they need not know or read everything. But those who studied above that level do know all the books mentioned above.

There are many Muslims who would not understand a word what is recited in Quran in original form without translation , does that mean that it is of no use? There are several law maxims or codes or sections which in India people do not know , so will they not be affected by them?

Yes Gita is the most widely read book among Hindus , but it does not deal with day to day life , it has no laws or rituals , in short it is basically a book of philosophy.

 

[Major]

Oh sati not salt . My bad

If they ever found a muslim connotation to it, they might.

Its India, you can never predict their lunacy

 

[Champ_Pal]

Common Hindus do not matter , they need not know or read everything. But those who studied above that level do know all the books mentioned above.

There are many Muslims who would not understand a word what is recited in Quran in original form without translation , does that mean that it is of no use? There are several law maxims or codes or sections which in India people do not know , so will they not be affected by them?

Yes Gita is the most widely read book among Hindus , but it does not deal with day to day life , it has no laws or rituals , in short it is basically a book of philosophy.

Except, one can reject Vedas or Upanishads or Shrutis and Smritis and still be Hindus. It is not like Islam where if you reject Quran or Hadith, you are out of Islam. You are looking at HInduism through Islamic lens. You will never understand it until you put the Islamic glasses down.

Gita does deal with how to live your life. All through the book, it deals with following Dharma and not look at the results. Ones duties and responsibilities are more important than relations and results. For specific situations, most of the punishments are generic and it depended on the King and the courtiers to decide the punishment based on which Dharmashastra they followed.

 

[Justcrazy]

Except, one can reject Vedas or Upanishads or Shrutis and Smritis and still be Hindus. It is not like Islam where if you reject Quran or Hadith, you are out of Islam. You are looking at HInduism through Islamic lens. You will never understand it until you put the Islamic glasses down.

Gita does deal with how to live your life. All through the book, it deals with following Dharma and not look at the results. Ones duties and responsibilities are more important than relations and results. For specific situations, most of the punishments are generic and it depended on the King and the courtiers to decide the punishment based on which Dharmashastra they followed.

One point I forgot to mention in post earlier is that Islam is not one book , there are several , there are hadeeth , fiqh and history as well. But along with that Islam has system of judging authenticity as well.

Now , when you say someone who rejects all and still can be Hindu , that is a farce statement. It is a contradictory statement. The reason is who is a Hindu or you can use a fancy word " Sanatani " . A christian or Muslim cannot be one. The reason is the person for whom you are using the word sanatani , is used for a reason , that person follows certain things whatever it might be . But those who are addressed by that term have something in common. What are those common grounds? Now once you identify those things common , next we see what is the source of those , then you will understand you have to go to those scriptures.

There are many things about day to day life that Gita does not answer , if you want I can show a list but it serves no purpose because you also know this.