Some debates around practice of 'Sati' during colonial India
Introduction: -
Sati, the inhumane practice of widow immolation,
which was as a parameter for a devoted and virtuous wife was prohibited by the
British in 1829, however it didn't vanish completely and debates supporting and
opposing it emerged and most initiated by men. Women, under whose context all
these arguments were made was silent. This patriarchal society was arguing
around, in the name of women and for the sake of woman but for their own
purposes and woman was not voicing her own issues. For example- the evangelicals
used to write and spoke about woman for raising funds for their missions and
societies. So, here in the essay, I will discuss about some of the debates
related to sati during colonial era, situated in and around the region of
Bengal.
Debates around Sati: -
The practice of Sati fell under the colonial
criminal law and varied government bodies had right to frame policies and laws
regarding this. The governor-general and his council, officials of criminal
justice system in Bengal like Nizamat Adalat and sardar Nizamat Adalat, East
India Company’s court of directors and privy council, magistrates and police
officials etc. Before 1829, Sir John Anstruther, chief justice of Calcutta
Supreme court outlawed Sati in 1798. The British criminal justice system in Bengal
was founded upon the judicial reforms initiated by Warren Hastings after the conferment
of Diwani, the revenue collection rights in 1765 to East India Company. Hastings,
believed in governing native people with their laws because governing people
with an alien legal system was considered iniquitous by him. So, during the
Mughal era Islamic laws were practised in criminal cases on both Hindus and
Muslims. In civil jurisdiction like matters related to family divorce and
marriage etc. native customs and established principles of Hindu law and Muslim
law was practised for both the communities. But there was an issue while codifying
law, although the law was made intending uniformity and to minimise official
dependence on Hindu Pandits and Muslim Qazi to interpret the law, Quran was
considered a book for Islamic law but in the case of Hinduism no single book or
primary text existed on which Hindu law could be based. Therefore, Brahmin
pandits designated at courts, were instrumental in codifying law but there was
no, one uniform interpretation available to frame law which was a contention in
framing rule for Sati as well.
The Discussion around Sati’s
legality started in early century regarding which four official circulars were
promulgated before 1829. The first one was issued as a response to M.H. Brooke,
Shahbad’s collector, where he wanted instructions on Sati, he had prohibited a
widow burning and sought govt.’s approval for his decision, though his action
was appreciated but he was asked to use his personal influence in the subject.
The second one was of James Rattray, acting magistrate of Midnapore, in 1797,
where he notified Governor-General, John Shore, about his successful dissuasion
of a widow from immolation. He, also received sanction for his action. The
third one was in 1805, where J.R. Elphinstone reported his intervention in a
case where an intoxicated twelve-year-old girl was drawn to pyre. He also
sought instruction from Governor-General and council but the secretary to the
govt. referred to Nizamat Adalat and in turn it referred it to the pundit
Ghanshyam Sharma, all this was done to seek inscriptional interpretation,
sanction and conjuncture on Sati. It is here when we see the irony in the official
interpretations and the reality of society on the other, which will be
clarified later. In 1813, a circular was issued which laid framework for
official policy on Sati in 1829. The circular mentioned that Sati to be a practice
founded in religious texts and ‘Hindu’ beliefs, performed by widow to ensure
and afterlife for her and her husband; any widow less than the age of sixteen,
intoxicated, pregnant or forced to pyre, was prohibited from immolation and she
can change her mind without fearing loss of caste. Magistrates were instructed
to inform Nizamat Adalat about each incident of practice taking place including
prohibitive measures. So, these kinds of instructions kept coming till the act
of 1829.
In
the years of 1815-1819, the numbers of widow burning raised from 378 to 839
despite the issuance of detailed circulars, many claims were provided by
Nizamat Adalat and one of them was of Walter Ewer where he mentioned that how
these circulars, authorised the Sati he says that, “government had given a sort
of interest and celebrity to the sacrifice.” He demanded that all notices to be
rescinded because they modify and legalise the usage” which made legal Sati a
better one than illegal. Although officials like C.T. Sealy and A.B. Todd
argued in favour of circulars that these circulars merely ensured voluntariness
of Sati while others like W. Caracroft asked for more rigorous enforcement of scriptural
law codified in the form of circulars. It was also hoped that spread of education,
along with the opposition from the high caste against the practice would make
it unpopular. Raja Rammohan Roy became a prominent icon of native anti-sati
lobby, in 1818, he published his first tract condemned the Sati. The official
analysis of Sati by caste revealed the highest number of incidents among
Brahmins, 234 followed by Kayasthas and Vaishya and second highest among
Shudra, 239. Benoy Bhushan Roy’s analysis available in ‘Parliamentary Papers’
shows that caste and social status were uniform index of widow burning
incidents. Around 64% of incidents were recorded between 1815 and 1827 which
diminishes the hope of European influence’s result in its declining popularity.
Some streps were taken locally by officials to abolish the practice like W.L. Millville
in 1823 to propose its abolition in certain districts. In 1824, March, Court of
Directors also vocalised for abolition of Sati but hesitated to take further
action. When William Benctick, the governor-general at the time of abolition,
gathered information regarding the possibilities of unrest from army-personnels
which can occur after the imposition of law. So, from above discussion we can
see that how much intricate the question was for the British on the subject,
where they were willing to abolish the practice but hesitant to take any action
fearing social unrest.
After the legislation, Sati was outlawed ‘officially’ and Zamindars and
Talukdars were made responsible to report of any incidence to the police,
courts were given rights to impose death penalty on active participants etc.
Statistics were not collected, but newspapers like Samachar Chandrika (pro Sati
lobby), reported such incidents in defiance of govt. orders. Although they were
challenged by Sambad Kaumudi and Samachar Darpan, who belonged to anti-sati
lobby.
The notions of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ Sati also raised. The ‘good’ were
defined as ones which were in compliance to the regulations and thus,
magistrates in their annual reports used to mention about the widow burnt “in
conformity of Shastra.” The official conception about colonial subjects was
held that natives were ignorant to their ‘true religion’. Religion was equated
with scriptures for example- Bernard Cohn argued about the pundits and Brahmins
that their knowledge was corrupt and self-servicing. However, local influence
pre-dominated Sati in every aspect and variations existed among society
regarding the practice as observed by officials. The ‘Parliamentary Papers’
contained both accounts of Sati where women resisted and willingly immolated
themselves.
The
scriptural basis had been dubious and after 1818, Rammohan Roy and others
provided scriptural evidences for abolition of Sati which was somehow similar
to post-Reformation in Britain where Church and Papacy was called to question;
and scriptures was counterposed to the fallibility of papacy.
Letters, pamphlets, petitions, articles in newspapers and journals were
sent to editors containing eye-witness accounts of widow burning which were
published in English, pro and anti-Sati newspapers although having their own
intentions. But one thing to note here is absence of women’s identity who
immolated with their husbands, published in obituaries including date, place,
time and name of male deceased, having no mention of ‘virtuous’ wives who were
burnt, except sometimes addressed with their husband’s last name not their own
complete name found at Bengali newspapers, not even published at Baptist
missionary press at Serampore.
Rammohan Roy claims evidences from various scriptures to prove his
arguments on Sati, like at one place he quoted Manusmriti- “Manu in plain terms
enjoins a widow to continue till death forgiving injuries, performing austere
duties, avoiding every sensual pleasure, and cheerfully practising the
incomparable rules of virtue which have been followed by such women as were
devoted to only one husband.” (Lata Mani, 1998) and Yajnavalkys regarding
women’s right to live even after husband’s death. He also quoted Smritis saying
“From a desire during life, of future fruition, life not to be destroyed.” This
most “pointed and decisive” statement counters, in his view, the claims of
advocates of Sati who also argue their case with reference to Vedas, but by
drawing on the passage that Rammohan finds abstract and open to multiple
interpretations.” (Lata Mani, 1998). The pro-Sati faction also proposed
their arguments, both from scriptures and in reality. The petition against its
prohibition argues “Under the action of a immemorial
usage as well as precepts, Hindu widows perform of their own accord and
pleasure, and for the benefit of their husband’s soul and their own, the
sacrifice of self-immolation called Sati, which is not merely a sacred duty but
a high privilege to her who sincerely believes in the doctrines of their
religion; and we humbly submit that any interference with the persuasion of so
high and self-annihilating a nature, is an unjust and intolerant dictation in
matters of conscience.” (Lata Mani, 1998). However, the petition wasn’t aimed
at eulogizing Sati but to point out erroneous interpretation of scriptures by
East India Company. They also argued about the antiquity of Hinduism which
implies an equal status for voluntary and involuntary Sati. The differences
between the opinions of pro and anti-Sati participants of debate were reduced
to an opposition between believers and non-believers. Another excerpt from Niraya
Sindhu was used to defend Sati as “On the
death of her husband, if, by chance, a woman is unable to perform concremation,
nevertheless she should preserve the virtue required of widows. Here, the
petitioners claim, “the order of meaning has preference over that of reading”:
in other words, that ascetic widowhood is a secondary option and one intended
for women unable to perform Sati. Thus, they conclude patently stretching their
case, “it appears from the Shastra that the first thing which a widow ought to
do is to ascend the flaming pile.” (Lata Mani, 1998). It indirectly dumps the
second option of ascetism for a widow. Mrityunjay Vidyalankar, the official
pundit at Supreme Court, also emphasised upon the ambiguous scriptural position
and value of Sati, but in his Vyasthwa he argued that, “in privileging acts
which were performed without expectations of reward over goal-oriented ones the
scriptures accorded a low status to Sati.” (Lata Mani, 1998).
So, from the
above discussion we can see that how the whole debate got diverted to
intelligent scriptural interpretations of Sati, they were less concerned about
women and marginalised her in the discourse. According to Raja Rammohan Roy, in
19th century Dyabhaga law eroded women’s ancient rights. He also
held it accountable for incidence of Sati in Bengal relative to regions where
it prevailed as Mitakshara Law. The opponents also argued that it is the
Shastras and fear of God which governs lives of women and prohibit her from
improper conduct and men who observed special favours in society.
William
Carey, William Ward and Joshua Marshman are some of the key figures in Sati
discourse. They belonged to missionary and evangelical societies like Baptist Missionary
Society, and reached India to promote Christianity and evangelical work.
William Carey came to India and was joined by John Fountain in 1796. William
Ward with others was invited by Colonel Ole Bie to found their mission in
Serampore which was under Danish control, he was joined by Marshman later. All
three of them got engaged with their work and published grammars of indigenous
languages, translation of scriptures, monographs and periodicals etc. they also
published materials on Sati. However, Carey and Marshman were less consistent
compared to Ward, their journals were also highlighted and printed in
‘Periodical Accounts and Circular letters etc. of Baptist Missionary Society.
They used to preach people around street corners, temples and markets etc. and
sometimes argued for their preachings and principles with Pundits and Brahmins.
Missionary activities were illegal in East India Company’s territory till 1813
although limited missionary work continued. William Carey used to maintain a
diary having his personal experiences. Not every time Carey had to struggle, to
gather crowd to deliver his sermon. For example- when he was established at
Serampore, he had a regular group of people who came to listen his word which
included members of mission and neighbouring Europeans, potential converts etc.
and sometimes people used to approach missionaries personally for information
on Gospel and similar response can also be observed at Jessore, Ghoshpara and
Lukhpool etc. missionaries adopted two-pronged approach to fulfil their motive;
firstly, being critical about indigenous religion and secondly, eulogizing the
superiority and greatness of Christ as a saviour. On an occasion Carey mentions
a story, “I had occasion to go and to preach to a company of people who were
worshipping Saraswati, the patroness of literature. The general opinion of the
learned is, that the idols are only images, having no power in them; but that
it is well pleasing for God to worship them in honour of the person they
represent, who they say, were eminent for virtue or goddess to men. The Brahmin
who attended the ceremony told me plainly that, this image was God. When I
asked him by what authorities he did this? he answered, that the Shastra
commanded it. I enquired, what Shastra, he said The Vyakaran, which I knew to
be only a grammar. I was much drawn out in love to their souls, and was enabled
to warn them against the devices of their teachers.” (Lata Mani, 1998). On the
other hand, there is an incident where the Baptist preaching and holiness was
being questioned by a native. “A brahmin from Chandranagar, said to
be a businessman, similarly makes the point that lying and cheating maybe
sinful but that they were endemic to his profession. Ward writes, “he said he
could not sell a rupee’s worth of things without lying; and if he became holy
as I talked, how was his business to go forward. I appealed to the people and
exposed his wickedness.” (Lata Mani, 1998). Carey also criticised blindfold
devotion of youth on Hindu practice, gods, culture, brahmins and scriptures
etc. a conditioning which resulted in mindless devotion to practices, caused
due to lack of education leading to Sati. However, what kind of education
actually has not detailed upon.
Missionary societies also used various ways to fund their missions like,
William Carey adopted teaching job at college of Fort William which helped him
to fund missionary activities; publishing incidents of Sati in journals like
‘Missionary Register’ which created horror and sympathy towards women, which
led to donation for funding activities and these were also published in Britain
and other regions as well. Harsha and misleading sketch of upper caste women
were also drawn sometimes, in various literatures like in ‘Farewell letters’,
Carey in his letter to Miss Maria Hope of Liverpool, who was an activist, did so.
Women from societies were invoked to adopt children orphaned due to Sati, so
that, they can get good care.
Eyewitness accounts were also produced by Europeans in India, but not to
work towards discouragement for widow immolation but to raise funds, “Sati was considered “news,” and publications of its details
required no explanation. It was only from mid-1927 onwards that reports were
increasingly accompanied by discussions of East India Company policy. The lay
press in Britain treated widow burning incidents in a similar fashion. The
‘Asiatic journal’ for example- mostly published accounts in its sections on
‘Asiatic intelligence’. As for Evangelical press Sati was as we have seen
newsworthy in a different sense.” (Lata Mani, 1998).
There
are accounts which present various concerns of women which led them to Sati
like economic, an account in ‘Asiatic Journal’ mentions about it, where a woman
ascending to pyre was dissuaded from doing Sati. But she said that there is no
meaning to her life and she is unable to sustain her children.
The
aura created by Mitakshara law also led women to Sati, like, “A widow said to
be under the age permissible for Sati was prevented from Burning. Her
prevention was however, not the consequence of concern for her. Rather it was
said to have been the outcome of a contest between her in-laws, anxious to
promote her destruction in order to control the property that would fall to her
and her deceased husband's spiritual mentor, equally anxious to prevent it,
since, she was a minor and in all probability the expenditure of a property
will principally pass through his [the mentor’s] hands.” (Lata Mani, 1998).
Sometimes women were physically coerced to commit Sati and there are numerous
examples of it, where women were being tied to pyre or tortured to immolate
herself. The ‘Asiatic Journal’, ‘Bengal Haraku’ and ‘Baptist Magazine’ etc.
published such accounts.
So, from all of the above discussion we can
see that how intricate was question for women immolation or Sati was for
everyone and everyone was talking about it except the women who is the victim
of society’s tyrannous practice.
References:
-
Lata
Mani, Contentious Traditions: the debate on Sati in colonial India (California:
University of California Press, 1998)
Well done abhinav...I read this post your post so nice and very informative post..keep it up.
ReplyDeleteKeep it up 👍👍
ReplyDelete