From: uds@wsu-eng.eng.wayne.edu (Seetamraju Udaybhaskar)
Subject: Re: why satti is practiced
Reply-To: uds@wsu-eng.eng.wayne.edu (Seetamraju Udaybhaskar)
Organization: Wayne State University, Detroit
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 21:04:38 GMT

In article <92232.115106U11983@uicvm.uic.edu> Shyamala Parameswaran <U11983@uicvm.uic.edu> writes:
>
>Nothing that I have read so far (sources below) indicates to me
>that the "noble" element of sati was what motivated women to do
>sati, at least in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.


I did clarify my poitn of view in reply to gopal aggrawal
's posting.  I was NOT arguing about the practise of sati,
but about the concept of sati itself.  I also pointed out
that since he was (like you  and others) concentrated more
on real-world problems, I am not continuiung this thread, as
it will construed as if I am insensitive to the reality.

I did mention about the `difference' in the origins and the
concept of sati, im my last post which should come between
these two postings.

>Indeed, sati derived from 'sat' -- being true to her ideals --
>was in the original term used differently, NOT, as it has now
>come to mean: widow burning. In the upholding of 'pativrata' as
>the highest ideal for women [ note: there was no patnivrata ],
>original Sati of mythology did NOT immolate herself on her
>husband's pyre. The story goes: Daughter of Daksha - the son....
>****
>Women were not merely persuaded to commit sati. They were also
>physically coerced into immolating themselves. There are numerous
>examples of women being led trembling and weeping, forced on to
>the pyre after their hands and feet were bound, held down with
>bamboo poles, or else weighted with heavy logs of wood..
>
>My questions: do you have evidence that sati was "voluntary"
>since elsewhere you claim sati to be a good practice?

Clarifications about my topic of postings have been
posted.  I thought this `murder-masquerading-as-sati' has been beaten to death
in India, that it does not need a revival here.

I clarify once again, my initial postings were to argue
that the concept of sati has othing inherently barbaric
ideas in it.  I argued from the point of view of hinduism.
I did not realize how thin the dividing zone was between
the `sati-as-practised' and the `sati-as-concept'.

>Would you, if we reinterpreted the various texts today, be
>a willing other half for immolation, should you outlive your
>partner? After all, bharthas are duty-bound in chastity, love,
>etc. as one may infer from your statements.

I wouldn't `sati' if my parents or sister died.  I havent
fallen in `true love' nor am I married.  So I guess I will
have to acknowledge my `insensitivity' in posting the various
statements `on sati'.  Clearly, not being female, I can be
pardoned for not being careful about what I speak in this regard.

>
>Sources:
>
>Altekar, A. S.  Position of Women in Hindu Civilization.
>
>Lata Mani  Cultural Theory, Colonial texts: Reading Eyewitness
>           Accounts of Widow Burning in Cultural Studies by
>           Grossberg et al., (eds.).
>
>           Contentious Traditions in Recasting Women: Essays
>           in Colonial History bu Sangari and Vaid (eds.)
>
>Datta, V. N. Sati: A Historical, Social and Philosophical
>           Enquiry into the Hindi rite of Widow Burning.
>
>Narasimhan S. Sati: Widow Burning in India.




Seetamraju Udaya Bhaskar Sarma
(email : seetam @ ece7 . eng . wayne . edu)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian