HISTORY OF SATI BAN IN INDIA..............
Historically, efforts to prevent Sati by formal means were extent even before the Moghul rulers came to power. Under the Delhi Sultanates (circa 1325) permission had to be sought prior to any Sati. In time this check against compulsion became a mere formality. In any case Hindu women from royal families continued to burn unchecked.
Humayun tried, but withdrew a royal fiat against Sati. Akbar insisted that no woman could commit Sati without the specific permission of his Kotwals. They were instructed to delay the woman's decision for as long as possible. Pensions, gifts and rehabilitative help was offered to the potential Sati to wean her away from committing the Act. Children were strictly forbidden from the practice. The later Moghuls continued to put obstacles in the way but the practice carried on in the areas outside Agra.
The Practice of Sati was first banned in Goa in 1515 by the Portuguese, but it was not that much prevalent there. This evil practice was banned by the Dutch and French also in Chinsura and Pondicherry respectively.
The British permitted it initially but the practice of Sati was first formally banned in city of Calcutta in 1798, but it continued in the surrounding areas. The Bengal Presidency started collecting facts and figures on the practice of Sati in 1813. The data showed that in 1817 only, 700 widows were burnt alive in Bengal alone.
From 1812 onwards, it was Raja Rammohan Roy, who started his own campaign against the Sati practice. His own sister-in-law had been forced to commit Sati. Raja Rammohan Roy used to visit the Calcutta cremation grounds to persuade widows not to so die. He also formed the watch groups. In Sambad Kaumudi he wrote articles and showed that it was not written in any Veda or epics to commit this crime.
In November 1829, Lord William Bentinck circulated a minute or memorandum in which he outlined his reasons for deciding to prohibit the ritual of sati. In this minute, written a year after his arrival, Bentinck provided reasons why the British first allowed sati, if it were legal, and then the justification for his decision to prohibit the practice and thus reverse the policies of his predecessors.
Bentinck approached the question with caution. He sent circulars to 58 of his administrators to discover whether the army would revolt, whether legislation was advisable and whether Hindu resistance could be contained. The consensus of opinion was that the army would pose no problem.
It was on 4 December 1829, when the practice was formally banned in all the lands under Bengal Presidency by Lord William Bentinck. By this regulation, the people who abetted sati were declared guilty of “culpable homicide.”
Even before the regulation was out, some three hundred orthodox Hindus petitioned Lord Bentinck to stop the abolition. They pleaded that the practise of "self immolation", was not merely a sacred duty but a "privilege" of believers. Bentinck however would not relent.
Orthodox Bengali Brahmins formed themselves into the Dharma Sabha, in all they collected more than Rs.30,000/- a huge sum in those days, to fight the Regulation all the way upto the highest court. By contrast Raja Ram Mohan Roy was given Rs.5000/- to assist the Government in their representations before the Privy Council in England. Both sides gathered petitions and pamphleteered extensively.
In 1830 Ram Mohan Roy travelled to the United Kingdom as an ambassador of the Mughal empire to ensure that the Lord Bentick's regulation banning the practice of sati was not overturned.
In 1832 the appeal was heard by the Privy Council. The petitioners argued that it went against the basic assurance given in George III Statute 37 whereby the Hindus were assured complete noninterference with their religion. The abolitionists argued that there was really no freedom of religion that could go beyond what was "compatible with the paramount claims of humanity and justice." Of 7 privy councillors, three finally voted against Bentinck's regulation but finally it was it was upheld.
With the last hurdle cleared, Madras and then Bombay followed suit with their own legislation banning Sati. Slowly local rulers who came under the yoke of the British also conceded legislation against Sati in conformity with the British regulations. The rulers of Jaipur banned it in 1846.
Historically, efforts to prevent Sati by formal means were extent even before the Moghul rulers came to power. Under the Delhi Sultanates (circa 1325) permission had to be sought prior to any Sati. In time this check against compulsion became a mere formality. In any case Hindu women from royal families continued to burn unchecked.
Humayun tried, but withdrew a royal fiat against Sati. Akbar insisted that no woman could commit Sati without the specific permission of his Kotwals. They were instructed to delay the woman's decision for as long as possible. Pensions, gifts and rehabilitative help was offered to the potential Sati to wean her away from committing the Act. Children were strictly forbidden from the practice. The later Moghuls continued to put obstacles in the way but the practice carried on in the areas outside Agra.
The Practice of Sati was first banned in Goa in 1515 by the Portuguese, but it was not that much prevalent there. This evil practice was banned by the Dutch and French also in Chinsura and Pondicherry respectively.
The British permitted it initially but the practice of Sati was first formally banned in city of Calcutta in 1798, but it continued in the surrounding areas. The Bengal Presidency started collecting facts and figures on the practice of Sati in 1813. The data showed that in 1817 only, 700 widows were burnt alive in Bengal alone.
From 1812 onwards, it was Raja Rammohan Roy, who started his own campaign against the Sati practice. His own sister-in-law had been forced to commit Sati. Raja Rammohan Roy used to visit the Calcutta cremation grounds to persuade widows not to so die. He also formed the watch groups. In Sambad Kaumudi he wrote articles and showed that it was not written in any Veda or epics to commit this crime.
In November 1829, Lord William Bentinck circulated a minute or memorandum in which he outlined his reasons for deciding to prohibit the ritual of sati. In this minute, written a year after his arrival, Bentinck provided reasons why the British first allowed sati, if it were legal, and then the justification for his decision to prohibit the practice and thus reverse the policies of his predecessors.
Bentinck approached the question with caution. He sent circulars to 58 of his administrators to discover whether the army would revolt, whether legislation was advisable and whether Hindu resistance could be contained. The consensus of opinion was that the army would pose no problem.
It was on 4 December 1829, when the practice was formally banned in all the lands under Bengal Presidency by Lord William Bentinck. By this regulation, the people who abetted sati were declared guilty of “culpable homicide.”
Even before the regulation was out, some three hundred orthodox Hindus petitioned Lord Bentinck to stop the abolition. They pleaded that the practise of "self immolation", was not merely a sacred duty but a "privilege" of believers. Bentinck however would not relent.
Orthodox Bengali Brahmins formed themselves into the Dharma Sabha, in all they collected more than Rs.30,000/- a huge sum in those days, to fight the Regulation all the way upto the highest court. By contrast Raja Ram Mohan Roy was given Rs.5000/- to assist the Government in their representations before the Privy Council in England. Both sides gathered petitions and pamphleteered extensively.
In 1830 Ram Mohan Roy travelled to the United Kingdom as an ambassador of the Mughal empire to ensure that the Lord Bentick's regulation banning the practice of sati was not overturned.
In 1832 the appeal was heard by the Privy Council. The petitioners argued that it went against the basic assurance given in George III Statute 37 whereby the Hindus were assured complete noninterference with their religion. The abolitionists argued that there was really no freedom of religion that could go beyond what was "compatible with the paramount claims of humanity and justice." Of 7 privy councillors, three finally voted against Bentinck's regulation but finally it was it was upheld.
With the last hurdle cleared, Madras and then Bombay followed suit with their own legislation banning Sati. Slowly local rulers who came under the yoke of the British also conceded legislation against Sati in conformity with the British regulations. The rulers of Jaipur banned it in 1846.
Comments
Post a Comment