From: selvakum@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca (C.R.Selvakumar - Electrical Engineering)
Subject: Re: Sati and Gita (Re:Sati system because of Islam (Gita's Teachings)).
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 01:12:46 GMT

In article <1992Dec28.140324.45928@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> dchatterjee@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu writes:
>In article <Bzy4ny.73J@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca>, selvakum@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca 
>>(C.R.Selvakumar - Electrical Engineering) writes:
>>...... (deleted)..............
>>        In Tamil Nadu, there were many communities where widow re-marriage
>>        or even divorce are not prohibited. Therefore Iswar Chandra
>>        Vidyasagar can not be said to have 'instituted' widow remarriage.
>> 
>>        In Salem District in Tamil Nadu certain communities allow
>>        'thumu aruppu' ( = breaking the bond) which lets a woman to
>>        divorce a present husband and remarry another and this is done
>>        in a Ur ManRam ( Panjayat) where the two parties present their cases
>>        and some period of separation is allowed before finally deciding
>>         on the divorce. In ThirunelvEli District in Tamil Nadu, there
>>        are some communities which practice 'aruththu kattu' ( break
>>        the bond and form a new bond). These are used for divorce and
>>        for widow remarriages although infrequently resorted to. 
>>        
>
>
>    I am *not* denying with what you said. The history books, that have 
>    been fortunately preserved and have been judged by most to be unbiased,
>    record that it *was* Vidyasagar who instituted the Hindu Widow Marriage
>    Act in 1860's formed a movement in Bengal on this issue. However, one
>    must accept that Vidyasagar *did* draw examples from other Hindu societies
>    contemporary/ ancient. In fact, Vidyasagar did know that in Southern
>    India, in certain societies, *not all*, this form of divorce and marriage
>    was prevalent. (But I do not recall whether it was specifically *widow
>    marriage* that he referred to. Though, I will give benefit of doubt to
>    your chauvinism.) The main credit of Viduasagar, and, although you maybe
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>    hell-bent to rob him of this credit, is to cite all the examples, form an
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

          Deb, please read my response carefully. If I point out some
          practices in South India why should it become a chauvanism ?!
          Please let me know how you came to the conclusion that I am
          hell-bent to ROB him of this credit. I thought he might not have been
          the FIRST person to have INSTITUTED this practice. I am perfectly
          aware that he did yeomen service to this cause. In fact I do have
          great respect for Iswar Chandra Vidyasagar and Raja Rammohan Roy.
          I wonder when our SCIers will learn to talk and discuss with balance!
        
>    organization and make it into a law that finally has been
>    constitutionalized. (All this efforts he *did alone* unlike our charming
>    religious gurus, commies etc.)
>
>    Furthermore, people like yourself should read more before trying to
>    denigrate others. In fact, quoting examples from South Indian societies
>    is *not* necessary. In West Bengal, in the Chotanagpur district, the
>    tribals had this custom. The point that Vidyasagar raised was that: are
>    these tribals not Hindus, etc. and etc. - making it conspicuous that there
>    should be an uniform law for women from *all* strata of the society. FYI,
>    Vidyasagar was not a politician - who cared only for his own vested
>    interests. Thus, if you carefully read all his correspondences with the
>    British Raj, you will see that he refers to the other Hindu societies 
>    elsewhere outside Bengal - who *did have* this practice.
> 
>
>>        -Selva
>
>          - deb chatterjee
>         (a good samaritan)


      -Selva