15 Satī

Satī ( Self-immolation of widows )

The word is often written as ‘suttee’ in English works and papers. This subject is now of academic interest in India, since for over a hundred years (i.e., from 1829) self-immolation of widows has been prohibited by law in British India and has been [[deolared|declared]] to be a crime. A portion of sec. 1 of the Regulation XVII of 1829 passed by the Governor-General Lord William Bentinck is set out below. We are now in [[&|a]] position to take a dispassionate view of the practice, to trace its origin and follow its working down to the date of its being declared illegal. It is not possible in the space available here to go into all details. Those interested may read the latest book on the subject by Mr. Edward Thomson. ¹ The burning

[[Seotion|Section]] 1 of Regulation XVII of 1829 [[whioh doclared|which declared]] the practice of [[san|satī]] illegal and a crime punishable in the courts (and passed by the Governor-General in Council on 4th December 1829 ) is, [[Tbe|The]] practice of [[Suttee|Satī]] or of burning or burying alive the widows of [[Hindoos|Hindus]] is [[revolt ing|revolting]] to the [[foelings|feelings]] of human nature; it is nowhere enjoined by the religion of the [[Hindoos|Hindus]] as an [[imporative|imperative]] duty; on the contrary life of
[[P625]]

Satī

widows was not peculiar to [[Brahmanism|Brāhmaṇism]], as many are prone to believe, but the custom owes its origin to the oldest religious views and superstitious practices of mankind in general. The practice of widow burning obtained among ancient Greeks, Germans, Slavs and other races (vide Die Frau pp. 56, 82-83 and [[Sobrader’s|Schrader’s]] ‘Prehistoric Antiquities of the Aryan People,’ English Translation of 1890, p. 391 and [[Wester marok’s|Westermarck’s]] ‘Origin and Development of Moral Ideas’, 1906, vol. I, pp. 472–476 ), but was generally confined to the great ones, the princes and nobles.

There is no Vedic passage which can be cited as [[incon trovertibly|incontrovertibly]] referring to widow-burning as then current, nor is there any mantra which could be said to have been repeated in very ancient times ² at such burning nor do the ancient [[gphy & sūtras|gṛhyasūtras]] contain any direction prescribing the procedure of widow burning. It therefore appears probable that the practice arose in [[Brahmanical|Brāhmaṇical]] India [[&|a]] few centuries before Christ. Whether it was indigenous or was copied from some non-Aryan or non-Indian tribes cannot be demonstrated. None of the [[dharmasūtras|dharmaśāstras]]

[[P626]] (Continued from last page) purity and retirement on the part of the widow is more especially and preferably inculcated and by a vast majority of that [[peoplo|people]] throughout India the practice is not kept up or observed; in some extensive districts it does not exist; in those in which it has been most [[froquent|frequent]], it is notorious that, in many instances, acts of atrocity [[bayo|have]] been perpetrated, which have been shocking to the [[Hindoos|Hindus]] [[thomselves|themselves]], and in their eyes unlawful and wicked……… Actuated by those considerations the Governor-General in Council, without intending to [[dopart|depart]] from one of the first and most important principles of the system of British [[Govorament|Government]] in India that all classes of the people be secure in the observance of their [[religiou8|religious]] usages, so long as that [[Bystem|system]] can be adhered to without violation of the paramount dictates of justice and humanity, has deemed it right to establish the following rules [[&o|etc.]],

H. D. 79626

[[P627]] except [[Viṣṇu|Viṣṇu]] contains any reference to [[sati|satī]]. The [[Manusmrti|Manusmṛti]] is entirely silent about it. It is stated in Strabo (XV. 1. 30 and 62 ) that the Greeks under Alexander found [[sati|satī]] practised among the Cathaei in the Punjab and that that practice arose from the apprehension that wives would desert or poison their husbands (Hamilton and Falooner’s Translation vol. III ). The [[Viṣṇu-dharmasūtra|Viṣṇudharmasūtra]] ³ says ‘On her husband’s death the widow should observe [[celibaoy|celibacy]] or should ascend the funeral pyre after him.’ The [[Mahābhārata|Mahābhārata]], though it is profuse in the descriptions of sanguinary fights, is very sparing in its references to widow burning. [[Mādrl|Mādrī]], the favourite wife of [[Pāṇdu|Pāṇḍu]], burnt herself with her husband’s body. ⁴ In the [[Virāṭa-parva|Virāṭa-parva]] [[Sairandhri|Sairandhrī]] is ordered to be burnt with [[Kicaka|Kīcaka]], ⁵ just as in ancient times it is said there was a custom to bury a slave or slaves along with the deceased ruler. The [[Mausala parva|Mauṣala Parva]] (7.18) says that four wives of [[Vasudeva|Vasudeva]], viz. [[Devaki|Devakī]], [[Bhadra|Bhadrā]], [[Rohiniand|Rohiṇī and]] [[Madirā|Madirā]] burnt themselves with him and (chap. 7.73-74) that [[Rukmiṇi|Rukmiṇī]], [[Gāndhāri|Gāndhārī]], [[Saibyā|Śaibyā]], [[Haimavati|Haimavatī]], [[Jāmbavati|Jāmbavatī]] among the consorts of [[Krṣṇa|Kṛṣṇa]] burnt themselves along with his body and other queens like Satyabhāmā went to [[&|a]] forest for [[tapas|tapas]]. The [[Viṣṇupurāṇa|Viṣṇupurāṇa]] also says that eight queens of [[Krona|Kṛṣṇa]], [[Rukmiṇi|Rukmiṇī]] and others, entered fire on the death of [[Krsna|Kṛṣṇa]]. ⁶ The [[Sāntiparva|Śāntiparva]] (chap. 148) describes how a [[kapoti|kapotī]] (female pigeon) entered fire on the death of her husband the bird. ⁷ In the [[Striparva|Strīparva]] (chap. 26) the Great Epic describes the death ceremonies performed for the fallen Kauravas, but no mention is made of any widow immolating herself on the funeral pyre though the chariots, clothes and weapons of the warriors are said to have been consigned to fire. From the above it appears

[[P628]] that the practice was originally confined to royal families and great warriors even in India and that cases of widow burning were rare. Several texts are cited by [[Aparārka|Aparārka]] from [[Paighinasi|Paithīnasi]], [[Angiras|Aṅgiras]], [[Vyāghrapād|Vyāghrapād]] which apparently forbid self-immolation to [[brābmana|brāhmaṇa]] widows. ² The authors of digests explain away these passages by saying that they only [[probibit|prohibit]] self-immolation by a [[brāhmaṇa|brāhmaṇa]] widow on a funeral pyre different from that of the husband i. e. a [[brāhmaṇa|brāhmaṇa]] widow can burn herself only on the funeral pyre of her husband and if his body is cremated elsewhere in a foreign land, his widow cannot, on hearing of his death, burn herself later. They rely on the text of [[Usadas|Uśanas]] that a [[brāhmaṇa|brāhmaṇa]] widow should not follow her husband on [[&|a]] separate funeral pyre. The [[Veda-Vyāsa-smṛti|Veda-Vyāsa-smṛti]] (11.53) says that [[&|a]] [[brāhmaṇa|brāhmaṇa]] wife should enter fire, clasping the dead body of her husband; if she lives (after her husband) she should give up adorning her hair and emaciate her body by austerities. ⁸ In the [[Rāmāyaṇa|Rāmāyaṇa]], ⁹ ([[Uttarakāṇda|Uttarakāṇḍa]] 17. 15) there is a reference to the self-immolation of [[&|a]] [[brāhmaṇa|brāhmaṇa]] woman (the wife of [[&|a]] [[brahmarṣi|brahmarṣi]] and mother of [[Vedavati|Vedavatī]], who when molested by [[Ravana|Rāvaṇa]] burnt herself in fire). The [[Mahābharata|Mahābhārata]] ([[Stri parva|Strīparva]] 23. 34 ff.) on the other hand describes how [[Krpi|Kṛpī]], the wife of [[Droṇa|Droṇa]], the [[brāhmaṇa|brāhmaṇa]] commander-in-chief of the [[Kauravas|Kauravas]], appeared with dishevelled hair on the battle-field on the death of her husband, but does not say that she burnt herself. ¹⁰ It appears therefore that the burning of [[brāhmana|brāhmaṇa]] widows began much later than that of [[kṣatriya|kṣatriya]] widows.

The burning of a widow on the death of her husband is called [[sahamarana|sahāmaraṇa]] or [[sahagamana|sahagamana]] or [[anvārohana|anvārohaṇa]] (when she

[[P629]] ascends the funeral pyre of her husband and is burnt along with his corpse ), but [[anumarana|anumaraṇa]] occurs when, after her husband is cremated elsewhere and she learns of his death, the widow resolves upon death and is burnt with the husband’s ashes or his [[pūdukūs ( Bandala )|pādukās (sandals)]] or even without any memento of his if none be available ¹¹ (vide [[Aparārka|Aparārka]] p. 111 and [[Madanapārijāta|Madanapārijāta]] p. 198). In the [[Kumārasambhava|Kumārasambhava]] (IV. 34) of [[Kālidāsa|Kālidāsa]], [[Rati|Rati]], the wife of [[Kama|Kāma]] who was burnt by [[Śiva|Śiva]], speaks of throwing herself into fire, but is held back by [[&|a]] heavenly voice. In the [[Gātbāsaptasati|Gāthāsaptaśatī]] (VII. 33) there is a reference to a woman being decked for [[anumarana|anumaraṇa]] ([[Nirṇ, ed.|Nirṇayasāgara ed.]]). The [[Kāmasūtra|Kāmasūtra]] VI. 3.53 speaks of [[anumarana|anumaraṇa]]. It has been shown (at p.579) how [[Varāha mihira|Varāhamihira]] admires women for their courage in being burnt with their husbands. The [[Harṣacarita|Harṣacarita]] ([[Ucchvāsa|Ucchvāsa]] 5) describes how [[Yagomati|Yaśomatī]], the chief queen of king [[Prabhākaravardhana|Prabhākaravardhana]] and mother of [[Harṣa|Harṣa]], consigned herself to fire when the king was dying. But this is not a proper case of [[sati|satī]], as she burnt herself even before her husband died. In another passage of the [[Harsacarita|Harṣacarita]] (V, in the description of night) the glory of moon-lotuses is said to be laughing like a woman intent on [[anumarapa|anumaraṇa]], who is decked with ear ornaments and wears garlands on her head. ¹² [[Bana|Bāṇa]] in his [[Kadambari|Kādambarī]] in a most eloquent and well-reasoned passage condemns [[anumarapa|anumaraṇa]]. ¹³ The [[Bhāgavatapurāṇa|Bhāgavatapurāṇa]] ¹⁴ I. 13, 57 speaks of [[Gandhārl’s|Gāndhārī’s]] burning herself on the death of her husband, [[Dhftarāṣtra|Dhṛtarāṣṭra]]. The

[[P630]] [[Rajatarangiṇi|Rājataraṅgiṇī]] cites in several places (e.g., VI. 107, 195; VII. 103, 478) examples of [[sati|satī]].

In numerous [[epigraphic|epigraphic]] records reference is made to the practice of [[sati|satī]]. Among the earliest is the one in 191 of the Gupta era (510 A.D.) in the Gupta Inscriptions (ed. by Fleet) p. 91. Vide also the Eran posthumous stone pillar [[Insoription|Inscription]] of [[Goparāja|Goparāja]] which says that his wife accompanied him on the funeral pyre when he was killed in battle; [[I. A. vol. IX. p. 164|Indian Antiquary, vol. IX, p. 164]] (Nepal Inscription of 705 A.D., where [[Rajyavati|Rājyavatī]], widow of [[Dharmadeva|Dharmadeva]], bids her son [[Mabādeva|Mahādeva]] to take up the reins of government that she may follow her husband); the Belaturu Inscription of [[saka 979|Śaka 979]] of the time of [[Rajendradeva Cola|Rājendradeva Coḷa]] (E. I. vol. VI, p. 213) where [[&|a]] [[śūdra|śūdra]] woman [[Dekabbe|Dekabbe]], on hearing of her husband’s death, burnt herself in spite of the strong opposition of her parents who then erected [[&|a]] [[stone monument|stone monument]] to her; E. I. vol. 14 pp. 265, 267 where a grant is made in [[saka 1103|Śaka 1103]] to a temple by [[Sinda Mahāmandalesvara Rācamalla|Sinda Mahāmaṇḍaleśvara Rācamalla]] on [[&|a]] request by two [[satis|satīs]], widows of his general [[Becirāja|Becirāja]]; E. I. vol. 20, p. 168 (of [[Cedi samvat 919|Cedi Saṃvat 919]]) which refers to three queens that became [[satis|satīs]]; E. I. vol [[X|X]], p. 39 where the [[Temara|Temara]] gate stone inscription of [[saka 1246|Śaka 1246]] speaks of [[Māṇikyadevi as sati|Māṇikyadevī as satī]] on the death of her husband [[Amana|Amana]] who was an officer of king [[Hariscandra|Hariścandra]]; E. I. vol. 20 p. 58 ([[Mistra Deoli Inscription|Miśra Deoli Inscription]] in [[Jodbpur|Jodhpur]] when two queens of a Gohila [[Rāṇā|Rāṇā]] became [[satis|satīs]]); E. I. vol. 16, p. 10, n. 4 and p. 11, n. 2 for [[sati|satī]] records of [[saka 1365|Śaka 1365]] and [[1362|1362]]. In an article on ‘[[Sati|Satī]] memorial stones’ in [[J. B. O. R. S.|J.B.O.R.S.]] vol. 23, p. 435 ff. it is shown how the memorial stones usually bear the figure of the [[upraised arm|upraised arm]] and of the sun and the moon on either side and a group of stars. Among the well-known latest historical examples of [[sati|satī]] is that of Ramabai, wife of the Peshwa Madhavrao I, in 1772 A.D. The [[Jauhar|Jauhar]] practised by the [[Rajput|Rājput]] ladies of Chitor and other places for saving themselves from unspeakable atrocities at the hands of the victorious Moslems are too well-known to need any lengthy notice.

[[P631]] In the [[Indian Antiquary vol. 35 p. 129|Indian Antiquary, vol. 35, p. 129]] there is a paper on ‘[[Sati immolation which is not sati’|Satī immolation which is not satī’]], where several examples of men who killed themselves out of devotion to their [[pasters|masters]] or for other causes are cited and it is pointed out how stone monuments (called [[māstikkal|māstīkkal]] i.e., stone monument for [[mahāsati|mahāsatī]] a great [[sati|satī]], and ‘[[virakkal|vīrakkal]]’ for brave and devoted [[mon|men]]) are erected

[[P632]] in memory of [[satis|satīs]] and men. The [[Harṣacarita|Harṣacarita]] (V. 3rd para from end) describes how many of the king’s friends, ministers, servants and favourites killed themselves on the death of [[Prabhākaravar dbana|Prabhākaravardhana]]. The [[Rājatarangiṇi|Rājataraṅgiṇī]] VII. 481 narrates how when the queen of king Ananta became a [[sati|satī]] on her husband’s death, her litter carrier and some other men and three of her [[dāsis|dāsīs]] followed her in death. There is the example of a mother burning herself on the funeral pyre of her son (vide [[Rājstarangini|Rājataraṅgiṇī]] VII. 1380). We shall see later on that [[suioide|suicide]] at holy places like [[Prayage|Prayāga]] was practised for attaining heavenly worlds and bliss. Life seems to have been deemed of small account in those ages and though the death of women or men on the funeral pyre of the husband or for their masters appears to us sophisticated people of modern days as very horrible, it did not so appear to the ancients. [[Sati|Satī]] was not in historic times a practice imposed by priests or men on unwilling women. It somehow grew and it is improper to say that men imposed it on women. It may be that examples of [[sati|satī]] occurred because of the force of popular sentiment. It was first confined to kings and nobles, because the lot of the wives of conquered kings and warriors was most miserable in all countries as well as in India. Vengeance for the truculence of their husbands was wreaked on the poor wives by carrying them as captives and making them work as slaves. Manu (VII. 96) allows a soldier to retain women (probably ‘slaves’) conquered by him along with other booty. When queen [[Yasomati|Yaśomatī]] narrates to her son [[Harṣa|Harṣa]] the great honour and glory that was hers during the reign of her husband king [[Prabhākaravardhana|Prabhākaravardhana]], she refers to the fact that the wives of the enemies defeated by her husband waved [[chowries|chowries]] over her. ¹⁵ From kings the practice spread among [[brāhmaṇas|brāhmaṇas]], though as shown above, several [[smṛtikāras|smṛtikāras]] disapproved of the practice among [[brāhmaṇa|brāhmaṇa]] wives. Once it took root learned commentators and digest writers were found to support it with arguments and promises of future rewards. Even in modern times we can secure learned writers to support any pet theory of a [[cotorie|coterie]] or [[oliquo|clique]]. When Manchester and Liverpool were prosperous, English economists preached the doctrine of free trade and laissez faire to all nations, but in more difficult times we [[bave|have]] now the apotheosis of Empire Preference and discriminating preference for home-made goods. Manu IV. 178 asks people to do whatever their forefathers did.

[[P633]] The rewards promised to a [[sati|satī]] were as follows: [[Saṅkba|Śaṅkha]] and [[Angiras|Aṅgiras]] ¹⁶ say ‘she who follows her husband in death dwells in heaven for as many years as there are hair on the human body, viz. 33 crores of years. Just as [[&|a]] snake-catcher draws out a snake from a hole by force, so such a woman draws her husband from (wherever he may be) and enjoys bliss together with him. In heaven she being solely devoted to her husband and praised by bevies of heavenly damsels sports with her husband for as long as fourteen [[Indras|Indras]] rule. Even if the husband be guilty of the murder of a [[brāhmaṇa|brāhmaṇa]] or of a friend or be guilty of ingratitude, the wife who dies (in fire) clasping his body, purifies him (of the sin). That woman, who ascends (the funeral pyre) when the husband dies, is equal to Arundhatī in her character and is praised in heaven. As long as a woman does not burn herself in fire on the death of her husband she is never free from being born as a woman (in successive [[birtbs|births]])’. [[Hārita|Hārīta]] says that woman who follows her husband in death purifies three families, viz. of her mother, of her father and of her husband’. The [[Mit.|Mitākṣarā]] after quoting the above passages adds that this duty of [[anvārohana|anvārohaṇa]] is common to the women of all castes from the [[brāhmaṇa|brāhmaṇa]] to the [[cāṇdāla|cāṇḍāla]], provided they are not pregnant or they have no young children (at the husband’s death). ¹⁷

There were old commentators who were opposed to the practioe of [[sati|satī]]. [[Medbātithi|Medhātithi]] on Manu V. 157 ([[Kāmam tu|Kāmaṃ tu]] &c.) compares this practice to [[øyenayāga|śyenayāga]] which a man performed by

[[P634]] way of [[blaok|black]] magic to kill his enemy. He says ¹⁸ that though [[Angiras|Aṅgiras]] allowed ‘[[anumarana|anumaraṇa]]’ it is suicide and is really forbidden to women. Just as the Veda says ‘[[syenenabbicaran yajet|śyenābhisaraṇ yajet]]’ and yet [[syenayaga|śyenayāga]] is not looked upon as dharma, but rather as [[adharma|adharma]] (vide [[Sabara|Śabara]] on [[Jaimini|Jaimini]] I. 1. %), so, though [[Angiras|Aṅgiras]] speaks of it, it is really [[adharma|adharma]]; and that a woman who is in a hurry and extremely anxious to secure heaven quickly for herself and her husband might act according to [[Angiras|Aṅgiras]], still her action is [[aśāstriya|aśāstrīya]] (not in accordance with the [[sāstras|śāstras]]); besides [[apvārohana|anvārohaṇa]] is opposed to the Vedic text ‘one should not leave this world before one has finished one’s allotted span of life.’ The [[Mit.|Mitākṣarā]] on [[Yāj. I. 86|Yāj. I. 86]] [[coinbats|combats]] these arguments. It says that [[śyenayāga|śyenayāga]] is no doubt undesirable and therefore [[adharma|adharma]], but that is so because the object of [[syenayāga|śyenayāga]] is injury to another. [[Anugamana|Anugamana]] on the other hand is not so; there the result promised is heaven which is [[&|a]] desir able result and which is enjoined by [[fruti|śruti]] in such [[sentenoes|sentences]] as ‘one should sacrifice a white goat to [[Vāyu|Vāyu]] if one desires pros perity’. Similarly the [[smrti|smṛti]] about [[anugamana|anugamana]] is not opposed to the [[fruti|śruti]] quoted, the meaning of which is different; that [[sruti|śruti]] means ‘one should not waste one’s life for securing heavenly bliss which is fleeting and insignificant as compared with the supreme bliss of [[Brahma knowledge|Brahman knowledge]]. As the woman in [[Anumarana|anumaraṇa]] desires only heaven, she is not doing anything cont rary to the [[sruti|śruti]] texts. This is the reasoning of the [[Mitakṣarā|Mitākṣarā]] which looks like special pleading. [[Aparārka|Aparārka]] p. 111, the [[Madang. pārijāta|Madanapārijāta]] p. 199, Par. M. II. part I pp. 55-56 follow the reasoning of the [[Mit.|Mitākṣarā]] and add that the Vedic text about the allotted span of life is a general rule, while the [[smrti|smṛti]] about [[anumarana|anumaraṇa]] is a special or exceptional [[sastra|śāstra]] and so there is no contradiction as the rule applies to all cases outside the excepted one. The [[Madanapērijāta|Madanapārijāta]] (p. 200) further explains that the texts about purifying a husband guilty of [[brābmaṇa murder|brāhmaṇa murder]] are not to be taken literally but only as [[byperbolically|hyperbolically]] extolling [[anvārohana|anvārohaṇa]].

[[P635]] The [[Sm. O.|Smṛticandrikā]] also expressly says that [[anvārohana|anvārohaṇa]], ¹⁹ though recommended by the [[Viṣṇu Dh. 8.|Viṣṇu Dharma Sūtra]] (25. 14) and [[Angiras|Aṅgiras]], is inferior to [[brabmacarya|brahmacarya]] (leading a celibate life), since the rewards of [[anvārohana|anvārohaṇa]] sre inferior to those of [[brabmacary8|brahmacarya]]. As against this may be cited the extreme view of [[Angiras|Aṅgiras]]: ‘For all women there is no other duty except falling into the funeral pyre, when the husband dies.’ ²⁰ The [[Suddhitattva|Śuddhitattva]] remarks that this extreme or sweeping statement is made by way of belauding [[sahamarana|sahāmaraṇa]].

We saw above that [[brāhmaṇa widows|brāhmaṇa widows]] were only allowed [[anvārohana|anvārohaṇa]], but not [[anumaraṇa|anumaraṇa]]. There were other restrictions enjoined by the [[smrtis|smṛtis]] on all widows’ wives who have [[&|a]] child of tender years, who are pregnant, who have not attained puberty and who are in their monthly course do not mount the funeral pyre of their husbands’ ²¹ –from the [[Bṛban-Naradiya puriṇa|Bṛhan-Nāradīya Purāṇa]]. There is a similar verse of [[Bphaspati|Bṛhaspati]]. The wife who was in her course was allowed to burn herself after she [[bathed|bathed]] on the fourth day.

[[Apagtamba|Āpastamba]] (verse) prescribes the [[Prājāpatys penance|Prājāpatya penance]] for a woman who having first resolved to burn herself on the funeral pyre turns back from it at the last moment. ²² The [[Rajatarangini|Rājataraṅgiṇī]] (VI. 196) refers to a queen who having pretended to have resolved on becoming [[sati|satī]] ultimately regretted the step and turned back.

The [[Suddhitattva|Śuddhitattva]] sets out the procedure of widow burning. ²³ The widow bathes and puts on two white garments, takes kuśa blades in her hands, faces the east or north, performs [[koamana|ācamana]] (sipping water); when the [[brāhmaṇas|brāhmaṇas]] say ‘om, tat sat’ she remembers the God Narayana and refers to the time (month, fortnight,

H. D. 80

[[P636]] tithi) and then makes the [[saṅkalpa|saṅkalpa]] (declaration of resolve) set out below. She then calls upon the eight [[lokapalas|lokapālas]] (guardians of the quarters), the sun, the moon, the fire &c. to become witnesses to her act of following her husband on the funeral pyre, she then goes round the fire thrice, then the [[brahmana|brāhmaṇa]] recites the Vedic verse ‘imā nārir &c.’ (Rg. X. 18. 7) and [[&|a]] [[Purāṇa|Purāṇa]] verse ‘may these very good and holy women who are devoted to their husbands enter fire together with the body of the husband,’ the woman utters ‘[[namo namah|namo namaḥ]]’ and ascends the kindled pyre. The long-winded preamble of the [[bamkalpa|saṅkalpa]] ‘[[arundhati|Arundhatī]]… [[patipūtatvakāmā|patipūtatvakāmā]]’ is based upon the verses of [[Angiras|Aṅgiras]] quoted above (in n. 1477). [[Toe Suddhitattva|The Śuddhitattva]] as printed is corrupt but it appears that it read the last quarter of Rg. X. 18. 7 [[A8|as]] ‘[[Orobantu jalayonim-8gne’|Arohantu jalayonim-agne’]] (let them ascend the watery seat or origin, O fire!) meaning probably ‘may fire be to them as cool as water’. Some writers have charged the [[brahmana priest-hood|brāhmaṇa priesthood]] (or [[Raghunandana|Raghunandana]]) with having purposely changed the reading of the [[verge|verse]] Rg. X. 18. 7 in order to make it suit the rite of immolating oneself in fire (i.e., ‘agne’ or ‘agneh’ was substituted for agre). But this charge is not sustainable. That the [[verge|verse]] Rg. X. 18. 7 as it actually is was held to refer to widow burning centuries before [[Raghunandana|Raghunandana]] follows from the fact that even the [[Brahmapurāṇa|Brahmapurāṇa]] ²⁴ and [[Aparārka|Aparārka]] (quoted above on p. 628) take it in that sense. It was therefore not necessary to alter the reading. Furthor even if some priests or [[Raghunandana|Raghunandana]] had changed it that fact would have been detected in no time, as in those days there were thousands of people who know every syllable of the Rgveda by heart. There fore it must be admitted that either the [[M89.|MSS.]] are corrupt or [[Raghu nandana|Raghunandana]] committed an [[inpocent|innocent]] slip. [[Tbat mantra|That mantra]] was not addressed to widows at all, but to ladies of the deceased man’s household whose husbands were living and the [[gļhyasūtra|gṛhyasūtra]] of [[Asy,|Āśvalāyana]] made use of it with that meaning. [[Raghunandana|Raghunandana]], a profound student of [[dharmasastras|dharmaśāstras]] and [[smrtis|smṛtis]] (and often styled [[Smārta-bhattācārya|Smārta-bhaṭṭācārya]]), could not have been ignorant of what [[Āśv. Baid.|Āśvalāyana said]]. The procedure as prescribed in the [[Nirnaya sindhu|Nirṇayasindhu]] ²⁵ of [[Kamalakarabhatta|Kamalākarabhaṭṭa]], whose mother became a [[sati|satī]]

[[P637]] and who pays a very tender and touching reverence to her memory in his works, is somewhat different and it is followed by the [[Dharmasindhu|Dharmasindhu]].

It appears from all accounts of travellers and others that [[widow-burning|widow-burning]] prevailed more in [[Bengal|Bengal]] during the centuries immediately preceding its abolition than anywhere else in India. ²⁶ If that was so, there were certain good reasons for that state of things. In the whole of India, except Bengal, the widows of members in a joint Hindu family are only entitled to maintenance and have no other rights over the property of the family. In Bengal, wherever the [[Dāyabbāga|Dāyabhāga]] prevails, the widow of a sonless member even in a joint Hindu family is entitled to practically the same rights over joint family property which her deceased husband would have had. This must have frequently induced the surviving ²⁷ members to get rid of the widow by appealing at a most distressing hour to her devotion to and love for her husband. This rule of the widow’s right was not for the first time propounded by [[Jimūta vāhana|Jīmūtavāhana]]; he makes it clear that he followed a predecessor called [[Jiten driya|Jitendriya]]. The figures given above lend support to the view expressed here, since [[Benares|Benares]], where the rights of widows were insignificant, was responsible for a small number of [[satis|satīs]] only. It is impossible, however, to believe that the number of widows in ordinary stations of life burning themselves was very large at any time or that most of the widows that did so were coerced into doing it. There is a good deal of epigraphic and other evidence particularly in other parts of India that relatives tried to dissuade the widow from taking the step. Even in Bengal the number of [[salis|satis]] must never have been very

[[P638]] large. [[Colebrooke|Colebrooke]], who had spent the best part of his life in Bengal and who was a profound [[Sanskrit scholar|Sanskrit scholar]], observes in a paper written about 1795 A.D. ‘Happily the martyrs of this superstition have never been numerous. It is certain that the instances of the widow’s sacrifices are now rare’. ²⁸ The very fact that there was no disturbance of peace or ebullition of popular feeling or even any great verbal protest from the vast Hindu population (except a petition to the Privy Council) against [[Bentinck’s|Bentinck’s]] sweeping measure [[indioates|indicates]] two things, viz. that the burning of widows was a rare occurrence and that people were not very keen on observing the practice [[nor bad they any very deep-seated|nor had they any very deep-seated]] convictions about its absolute religious necessity. ²⁹

Modern India does not justify the practice of [[sati|satī]], but it is [[&|a]] warped mentality that rebukes modern Indians for expressing [[sdrairation|admiration]] and reverence for the cool and unfaltering courage of Indian women in becoming [[satīs|satīs]] or performing the [[jauhar|jauhar]] for cherishing their ideals of womanly conduct. If [[Englishmen|Englishmen]] can feel pride in their ancestors who [[grabbed one fourth|grabbed one-fourth]] of the world’s surface or if [[Frenchmen|Frenchmen]] can feel pride in the deeds of their Emperor Napoleon who tried to enslave the whole of Europe and yet are not held up to ridicule or rebuke, there is no reason why poor Indians cannot express admiration for the sacrifices which their women made in the past, though they may condemn the institution itself which demanded such terrible sacrifice and suffering.