From: prasanth@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Ravi K. Prasanth)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian
Subject: Re: why satti is practiced
Date: 1 Sep 92 19:54:06 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <92244.152737RIPBC@CUNYVM.BITNET>, RIPBC@CUNYVM.BITNET writes:
> -From: prasanth@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Ravi K. Prasanth)
> -Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian
> -Subject: Re: why satti is practiced
> -
> -The point is different. As I have stated before, no act on its
> -own is good or bad. There is also no need to recite scriptures
> -to justify or to oppose Sati.
> -
> I completely agree.  However, if we are discussing, not the question
> whether Sati is unacceptable - it IS unacceptable in these times - but
> whether Hinduism is to be condemned.  Then it becomes important to
> ask whether Hindu scriptures look kindly on the killing of women.
> If they don't, and Hindus acting unkindly to women are going against
> their own scriptures, then we can condemn the practice itself without
> having to condemn Hinduism or India.
>

What is Hinduism ?

> -Even if it happens only once in a millennium, some unfortunate
> -woman would have lost her life. That is not acceptable to me.
> -
> This LOOKS innocent but I will argue that it is not.  During the time
> when the Algerains were fighting for their independence and the French
> were opposing them by force (this was before de Gaulle gave independence to
> Algeria) it was the Frecnch policy that for every Frenchman killed, they
> would kill k Algerians where k is some large number.  They could say,
> just like you, `Even if one Frenchman is killed, it is unacceptable to us.'
> It seems to me that if I have to choose between saving one man and
> two women, then I must choose the two women.  If I have to choose
> between saving one woman and two men, then I must save the two men.
> But suppose, in the first case I say, `even if one man dies it is
> not acceptable' and leave the two women to their fate, then I am
> being unjust.  Similarly for the second case.
>

Let me clarify what I said. Sati is a hindu practice where a WOMAN
(un)willingly immolates herself. My earlier comments are devoid of
sexism. I have used "some unfortunate woman" because only women
are commit Sati. 

If you have to choose between saving Mother Theresa and saving 
Hitler and Ivan the terrible, would you choose the latter ? 

> During the Gulf war, many people, Iraquis, Indians, Indonesians,
> Sudanese etc. suffered.  Some sixty Sudanese fleeing to Jordan
> were (accidentally?) firebombed by US warplanes and burnt alive.
> Nonetheless, the four Iraelis who died received far more attention in

Why are you talking about French soldiers and Gulf war ? I was
under the impression that the topic was Sati.

> the US media.  This is, let us face it, racism.  I am sure that
> the life of a woman has the same value as that of a man.  But I do
> NOT accept that it has MORE value. So in my opinion, the thousands of

How much is a human life worth ? What is the sense in equating
the value of human lives ?

> men forcibly sterilised during the emergency SHOULD receive more of
> our concern than one woman who committed (or was forced to commit)
> Sati.  To say otherwise is sexist, reverse sexist perhaps, but
> sexist nonetheless.
>

I have never said anything about French soldiers, Iraqis, and
men who are forcibly sterilised. I dont see what they have to
do with Sati. Can we talk about Sati ?

> -RKP
> Rohit Parikh

RKP