Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Date: Monday, 17 Aug 1992 11:04:42 CDT
From: Shyamala Parameswaran <U15297@uicvm.uic.edu>
Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian
Subject: Sati: prevalence since the Abolition Act.

This is reposted since it did not make it to all the sites.
The follow-up to this thread on Roop Kanwar, is an addendum.

=========================================================================
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Date: Sunday, 16 Aug 1992 10:34:09 CDT
From: Shyamala Parameswaran <U15297@uicvm.uic.edu>
Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian
Subject:    Sati: prevalence since the Abolition Act

Diane Bailey raises some interesting questions. However, I'm not
sure I can address all her queries here. This is in partial response,
picking up where Gauri left off i.e. since the Abolition Act
promulgated in 1829 by the British. What happened since then?

Often, this prohibitive legislation is viewed as a turning point in
Indian history and for Indian women, signifying the onset of
modernizing forces in curbing crude, "traditional" practices. In
recorded history and investigative writing, as we know now, this
practice does _not_ seem to have been contained, in contrast to what
is commonly thought. This may seem a startling revelation to those of
us who only heard of Roop Kanwar's much publicized case in 1987. The event
triggered off some serious investigations in recent years, resulting
in disturbing findings.

[In a separate follow-up, I can summarize Lata Mani's arguments
on the linkages between the colonial context, the 'equation of
scripture, law and tradition, and the representation of women
*as* tradition" -- producing a matrix of constraints within
which the issue of sati received focus -- if there is sufficient
interest, and time-permitting]

Although the British officially banned Sati in 1829, the then
princely states were required to introduce legislation of their
own for judicial enactment. This came about slowly over
successive decades. And while the practice of keeping an official
count was not mandated after the Abolition Act, cases continued
to be reported: in 1830, sati in Ratnagiri, Chibotu in Patna; in
1831, sati in Madhurikhand near Agra; in 1832, sati near Gaya; in
1833, sati in Mathura, etc. By the close of 1846, eleven out of
eighteen Rajput states and five others had ratified the Act. Other
states slowly followed suit in 1847-48. Two satis were recorded
in 1846 (Sobraon) and 1853 (Kuri, Gaekwar district). 1859 noted
incidents of self-immolation in Lucknow and Alwar; 1864 witnessed
one in Udaipur. In 1883, there was yet another instance in Jaipur.

The twentieth century did not bring respite. Gaya witnessed a sati
in 1903, Patna, one the following year, and Kanpur another, two
years later.

The Allahabad High Court heard a case and indicted those who
contributed ghee for the immolation, in 1914. The Patna High Court
similarly sentenced abettors and police officers who failed to
rescue the burning woman as she tried to save herself by
jumping into a nearby river, in 1928.

Post-independent years reported a sati at Madhav ka Vas in 1954,
and in 1957, in Rajasthan. 1960-61 produced two recorded cases
in Shewara; Surpura and Mawda Kalan village accounted for two
more in 1975 and three in 1980 - in Jhadli village, Nangaur district,
one near Barnala. 1983 brought to light two in Bilaspur, a case in
Madya Pradesh. 1984 recorded another, and 1986, a case near Jabalpur.

In all these post-independent cases, Shakuntala Narasimhan (Sati:
Widow Burning in India, 1990: Anchor Books) maintains that coverage
in the local press was scant. Rajasthan alone has totalled nearly
thirty cases with no one being brought to book.

For a quick social and historical overview, this book is recommended.


Shyamala Parameswaran
Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian