P
Peaceable
Guest
While Sati is horrible, it was never an authentic part of Hinduism.
There is no Sanskrit word for it, and no scriptural basis or justification for this specifically. The existing texts with respect to widows support quite the opposite.
In the one story of the goddess named Sati, the story does not appear to be prescriptive any more than any one of a gazillion stories about deities would be to humans.
It’s thought the root of this practice is in sort of pre-medieval history. Women in the royal families who faced conquering rulers, ended up committing Sati (willingly) if there was some risk of being killed, tortured or raped by a conquering ruler, who might have done both.
Apparently Sati increased in frequency though still wasn’t particularly common either in the context of foreign invasions that happened later In the medieval world. The intent was to commit suicide, to avoid being tortured or killed, becoming a political prisoner, or being raped and taken into the conquering ruler’s household, Or possibly being forced to convert.
Then it subsequently became a form of domestic violence in my opinion.
Ironically, one of India’s greatest saints, Mirabai, both refused to commit Sati, and rather joyously, flamboyantly, and spiritually wrote/sang about her rationale why. She essentially set an example and philosophical basis for why Sati is not Hindu. (she was also a royal). She also predates the British.
Across history, plenty of Hindus rejected this way before the British.
Ironically, it took a Hindu reformer to get the British to actually abolish this practice. There are interesting political cartoons from England at the time in which the British actually supported and romanticized Sati. At a time when Victorian women were demanding the right to vote, some Britons actually believed that Sati showed that Indian women were much more loyal to their men than the no good suffragettes…And were thus a better example of womanhood!
There is no Sanskrit word for it, and no scriptural basis or justification for this specifically. The existing texts with respect to widows support quite the opposite.
In the one story of the goddess named Sati, the story does not appear to be prescriptive any more than any one of a gazillion stories about deities would be to humans.
It’s thought the root of this practice is in sort of pre-medieval history. Women in the royal families who faced conquering rulers, ended up committing Sati (willingly) if there was some risk of being killed, tortured or raped by a conquering ruler, who might have done both.
Apparently Sati increased in frequency though still wasn’t particularly common either in the context of foreign invasions that happened later In the medieval world. The intent was to commit suicide, to avoid being tortured or killed, becoming a political prisoner, or being raped and taken into the conquering ruler’s household, Or possibly being forced to convert.
Then it subsequently became a form of domestic violence in my opinion.
Ironically, one of India’s greatest saints, Mirabai, both refused to commit Sati, and rather joyously, flamboyantly, and spiritually wrote/sang about her rationale why. She essentially set an example and philosophical basis for why Sati is not Hindu. (she was also a royal). She also predates the British.
Across history, plenty of Hindus rejected this way before the British.
Ironically, it took a Hindu reformer to get the British to actually abolish this practice. There are interesting political cartoons from England at the time in which the British actually supported and romanticized Sati. At a time when Victorian women were demanding the right to vote, some Britons actually believed that Sati showed that Indian women were much more loyal to their men than the no good suffragettes…And were thus a better example of womanhood!
Last edited: