Some interesting points about sati:
It seems to be a kSatriya practice of NW provenance as far as bhArata is concerned. However, the practice definitely had external roots.
Initial reaction by brAhmaNas, prominently medhAtithi, was stern opposition as the shruti condemns those who end their life before the expiry of its natural term. Even if brAhmaNas couldn’t prevent sahagamana’s popularity among kSatriyas, they disliked it for their own women. Subsequent rise in prominence & support for sahagamana rests on secondary citations of smRtis as exceptions to the shruti’s general rule against suicide; most of which are not traceable to the cited sources.
There are similar practices of “Widow-suicide” among Scythians & Manchus, with studies showing how Manchus inherited it from an Altaic culture. There is a genuine case for sahagamana having come from warrior tribes from far northwest of bhArata+Central Asia. sahagamana definitely predated Muslim invasions but this doesn’t necessarily make it a Hindu practice. It was a practice of origin that came to be accepted as a deshAcAra for certain regions’ kSatriyas before attaining a wider spread across varNas & deshas.
Nevertheless, one shouldn’t foolishly imagine that this spread of sahagamana translated into a large number of satis. Overall, it was a very small number everywhere in bhArata. The real value of the so-called reformers’ contributions should thus be carefully re-evaluated.
At any rate, similar to how the Confucian ideal of “widow chastity” prevailed over manchu “widow suicide” of Altaic roots, the native ideal of leading a pious life was far far more prominent than the relatively alien idea of sahagamana. There is epigraphic data which reflects many widows being patrons of pious works/endowments, who commanded high respect. But more importantly, sahagamana was simply not a reality for the vast majority of cases (See Meenakshi Jain). Just as widow suicides among manchus were dying off by the 18th century, sahagamana too was becoming a very rare practice. Being a largely kSatriya-centered practice, it was falling with the weakening of the old feudal norms/values.
To pigeonhole sahagamana as either regressive or dhArmika is not good. It was one among many similar practices belonging to the ‘warrior ethos’ across the world. In drAviDa culture, there is a record of men killing themselves upon the death of their chieftain in battle - Whether the drAviDa practice of men killing themselves for slain chieftains or sahagamana or jauhar are dhArmika practices per se. But to call them ‘regressive’ betrays an ignorance of the old world warrior ethos.
Now, there is an issue of sati’s “prominence” in vanga. The fact that people simply do not acknowledge in a discussion of sati in immediately pre-modern vangadesha is that it occurs in a context of a prevalence of dayAbhAga jurisprudence, which was much more supportive of various inheritance rights of wives & daughters. This position did not arise out of thin air. The wife’s joint ownership in the husband’s property was traced to the veda, something that the old, orthodox commentator shabarasvAmin forcefully defends in his ancient commentary on the mImAMsA-sUtra.
So, to sum up, an ancient warrior-centered practice, already very rare (see Jain) & dying off in bhArata by the 18th century, was revived by some property-hungry criminal minds in a region, where the prevailing Hindu jurisprudence was pro-Wife-inheritance. It is against this full factual context, the legacies of so-called reformers must be seen - And no perceived contribution to a reform can be so great that it can exempt a figure from a critical review or grant immunity from his esteemed place being revoked.
vangadesha was the land of navya-nyAya (new school of logic) & navya-smRti (new school of jurisprudence; where jimutavAhana’s dayAbhAga & raghunandana’s commentary on it, whose reasonable views on female inheritance became accepted law). It was the land of greats like kRSNAnanda AgamavAgIsha, an ocean of tantra, who was one of the pioneers who instituted kAlipUjA & caitanya. All of these are genuine contributions by vanga to sanAtana dharma by venerable persons whose Hinduness & integrity we can be sure of.
The reverence we show as Hindus is very precious. One should not isolate the context, over-exaggerate just one aspect of a person & ignore all serious flaws; especially when there is already so much heritage in vanga that is organically Hindu & genuinely worthy of pride.
In TN
As a digressive postscript, our literary & epigraphic record of prominent sahagamana attempts/acts from TN are all either kSatriyas or the landed shUdra class of vELALas, who had also taken up the military profession in earlier times. The pANDyan queen in ancient sangam text, puRanAnURu, the legendary shaiva saint appar’s elder Sister (vELALa) attempting sahagamana for her battle-felled fiancé but stopped by a young appar or rAjendra chozha’s queen committing sati are 3 examples at 3 different periods.
The kSatriya ethos of NW bhArata, derived from Altaic/Scythian roots was adopted by the drAviDas, whose warrior folks, both men & women, were known for their fierce ethos. sahagamana, essentially, was this. It was part of the same package as male warriors slaying themselves. gandArAditya chOzha’s widow, sembiyan mahAdeviyAr, was revered & adored by both the masses & the great rAjarAja for her piety & charity. She took personal initiative in leading the conversion of brick Temples into stone ones & ensured the rewriting of old inscriptions.
But these narratives are never shared. Or that of the noble ahilyabai holkar. Sure, there were issues & problems. But where on earth do we not have human evil that we should specially ignore all the positive narratives.
Neither sembiyan mahAdeviyAr nor ahilyabai holkar were revolutionaries. They lived as widows in deeply traditional societies & commanded reverence & love from all sections. But no, we don’t speak about this. We keep affirming the “Tradition=barbarity” equation.
sati was an obscure & extremely rare practice exploited by some criminals with the rise of the dayAbhAga system, which took a friendly stand on widow inheritance. Ignoring this context against which some of these satis turned out to be premeditated murderers is dishonest.
When an issue is this complex, it is intellectually dishonest to frame it through the simplistic discourse of “regressive patriarchy”, “reform” & “renaissance”. And no, nobody’s “good acts” are so important that their attitude/loyalty towards hindu dharma is irrelevant.
For the benefit of the interested, I will definitely dig up the verse from the veda that medhAtithi relies upon to condemn sahagamana/sati. Meanwhile, do see the argument of shabarasvAmin who defends the wife’s joint ownership in husband’s wealth.
In light of certain dharmavairis hating on kanyadAna, let me post above-mentioned sUtras & commentary on the related issue of bride-price
For the early opposition of smRtikAras to brAhmaNi women committing sahagamana: See following portion from aparArka commentary on yAj~navalkya smRti. See particularly those marked as paiThInasi (mRtAnugamanaM nAsti…), AGgiras (yA strI..) & vyAghrapAd (na mriyeta samaM…)
paiThInasi–
mRtAnugamanaM nAsti brAhmaNyA brahmashAsanAt
पैठीनसि–
मृतानुगमनं नास्ति ब्राह्मण्या ब्रह्मशासनात्
Following the death [of her husband] by a brAhmaNi woman is not [allowed] due to the rule of the brahma (the veda).
AGgiras–
yA strI brAhmaNajAtIyA mRtaM patimanuvrajet/ sA svargam AtmaghAtena nAtmAnaM na patiM nayet//
अङ्गिरस्–
या स्त्री ब्राह्मणजातीया
मृतं पतिमनुव्रजेत्।
सा स्वर्गम् आत्मघातेन
नात्मानं न पतिं नयेत्॥
AGgiras smRti states:
“That woman, of brAhmaNa birth, who follows her dead husband; by her suicide she leads neither herself nor her husband to svarga.”
vyAghrapAt–
na mriyate samaM bhartrA brAhmaNI shokamohitA. pravrajyAgatimApnoti maraNAd AtmaghAtinI..
व्याघ्रपात्–
न म्रियते समं भर्त्रा
ब्राह्मणी शोकमोहिता।
प्रव्रज्यागतिमाप्नोति
मरणाद् आत्मघातिनी॥
“That brAhmaNi who does not die like her husband, [although] deluded by grief, attains the goal of renunciation (by living a pious & chaste life); by death, she becomes one who has committed suicide”
how r u accting for its mention in mbh & sangam lit? that in former it was incorporated later, that in latter it was mentioned as it spread deep south by that time? we know it was there by 300 bce based on diodorus acct. -Rjrasva
Mbh: mAdri’s mAdradesha background, possibly or later incorporation.
sangam: As I later mention in thread, drAviDas borrowed this from Arya kSatriya culture that they were clearly familiar with. Given their own predilection for such fierce customs, the borrowing is unsurprising.