Thread by @shrikanth_krish

The custom of Sati is among the widely cited and the most reviled of Hindu practices, despite being more or less extinct for nearly 190 years

Long after its ban in 1829, Sati remains in public discourse by virtue of being a polemical weapon

Whenever there is a defense of any tradition, the common heard retort is -

"Oh...what about Sati? Was that not also a tradition. Did we not get rid of that?"

More often than not, this weapon is used rather liberally in contexts where it is out-of-place

Very recently the commentator @sardesairajdeep used Sati as a polemical weapon while arguing in favor of changing the rules of admission at the Keralite shrine of Sabarimala

Sati remains alive not just in Indian public discourse, but also continues to fascinate the West, some 300 years after modern Europeans first encountered the practice

It is used as a polemical tool by both Western liberals as well as conservatives albeit with different lenses

For some outsiders of a feminist persuasion Sati is a convenient stick to critique the "treatment of women" in traditional India

For others of a more religious disposition, it is a stick to critique Indian religion, and make a case for the superior "Christian" civilization

In the West for much of the past 300 years, Sati has been mis-translated as the practice of "widow burning" - implicitly suggesting murder

This is despite the fact that Sati for the most part was a voluntary act

The great Harvard political philosopher, Harvey Mansfield, once invoked Sati in an interview with the Harvard review of Philosophy in 1993, while critiquing multculturalism in the West.

Here's what he said -

"To appreciate another culture one should really try to see where it disagrees with ours, and why it does so. For example, why did the Hindus burn widows on the funeral pyre? It's not enough to simply reject that out of hand as an oddity"

(Contd..)

"Why did they do that? What was the reasoning behind that? .... In other words, what are the arguments on its behalf?"

To be perfectly honest, Mansfield's questions are valid.

However the Hindu response (more broadly the Indian response) to these questions has been somewhat confused, often defensive, and sometimes resigned, with the odd exception

Among Indian progressives / liberals, the responses have tended to border on self flagellation

Among the more right-wing Hindus, the responses go typically like this-

Response 1

"Oh...Sati was an incredibly rare practice, exaggerated by missionaries and dishonest East India officials"

Response 2

"Oh. Sati was non-existent in Ancient India. It is a medieval practice that arose in reaction to Muslim depredations among certain royal houses"

While it is true that Sati was a rare occurrence and that its incidence increased in medieval India, these responses are not entirely honest

Firstly there is a tendency to conflate the medieval practice of Jauhar in north west India with Sati, which predates it by many centuries

Secondly these somewhat defensive responses do not acknowledge the long history of Sati in India and the several arguments both for and against it within the Hindu tradition over the past two millennia

The Indian liberal reaction in contrast is one of self-flagellation. The typical response goes -

"Oh...ours was an evil religion We used to burn widows...We must thank Mr Bentinck and Mr Roy for reforming us"

This response has its own problems. It doesn't acknowledge the relative rarity of the practice

It is oblivious to the numerous critiques of Sati within the Hindu establishment for much of the past 1500 years

So Indian responses have mostly disappointed

There are some exceptions like the early 20th cen scholar Anant Sadashiv Altekar, whose work - "The Position of Women in Hindu civilization" published in 1938, remains a classic and worth reading to understand Sati, among other things

This thread is an attempt to trace Sati as a practice over the past 2000+ years.

While I have referred some primary sources, many of the pointers are taken from Anant Altekar's fine aforementioned work

The practice of the widow sacrificing her life upon her husband's death is not unique to India. It has been observed among Thracians by Heredotus, Manchus in China in later times, and also among ancient Scandinavians.

But these were not very widespread practices

It is quite likely that the practice was more prevalent among the warrior class and arose from the belief possibly that the departed may require all their "possessions" in the next life

In an Indian context, what strikes us is the total absence of Sati in the Vedic period. There is not even an intellectual justification of widow self-immolation in any of the Vedic texts, nor a narrative reference to an actual occurrence

In Rig Veda, Mandala 10.18.7/8 in fact implicitly exhort the widow to live on

इमा नारीरविधवाः सुपत्नीराञ्जनेन सर्पिषा संविशन्तु
अनश्रवो.अनमीवाः सुरत्ना आ रोहन्तु जनयोयोनिमग्रे
उदीर्ष्व नार्यभि जीवलोकं गतासुमेतमुप शेष एहि
हस्तग्राभस्य दिधिषोस्तवेदं पत्युर्जनित्वमभि सम्बभूथ

Translation (Ralph Griffith)

"Let these unwidowed dames with noble husbands adorn themselves with fragrant balm and unguent. Decked with fair jewels, tearless, free from sorrow, first let the dames go up to where he lieth"

(Contd..)

"Rise, come unto the world of life, O woman: come, he is lifeless by whose side thou liest. Wifehood with this thy husband was thy portion, who took thy hand and wooed thee as a lover"

So clearly there is no encouragement to the woman to ascend the funeral pyre here

In the Atharva Veda (Book 18), there is another hymn, which is even more unambiguous in encouraging the widow to in fact even remarry! Here's the verse

Translation from Hindi (Ram Sharma Acharya)

"O Dead man. This lady who cares for your lineage to continue, is practicing her Swadharma, and is now going to come near you. But let her in future have kids, grandkids, and prosperity"

This suggests that while the lady was present near the pyre and lay beside her husband in a symbolic way, after the funeral she was encouraged to live on and even remarry if necessary

So it is clear that at least in the early to middle Vedic period, there was no mention of Sati, nor was it likely practiced.

Even the later layers of Vedic literature like the Brahmanas and Upanishads do not mention Sati or anything even approaching it

In the Asvalayana Grihya Sutra, we have this verse, which in the latter part interestingly cross-references the Rig Veda verse we have already seen earlier in the thread

Translation (Hermann Oldenberg)

“After the wife lies beside the corpse at the funeral, her brother-in-law, being a representative of her husband, or a pupil of her husband, or an aged servant, should cause her to rise from that place with "Arise, O wife, to the world of life“

What's interesting is that the Rig Vedic injunction we referred to earlier in the thread (Arise to the world of life) is invoked in this Grihya Sutra verse many centuries later.

This shows the consistency of thought at work over a very long period of time.

Rig Veda Mandala X probably belongs to an epoch that is definitely some centuries preceding 1000 BC

And Asvalayana Grihya Sutra is a much later text probably belonging to 600-700 BC

Yet you see a verse in the latter referencing the former, to drive home the same positive point

In roughly the same epoch, in the Taittareya Aranyaka text, we come across this verse -

Translation (rough one using Altekar’s paraphrasing):

“On returning from the funeral pyre, the widow brings back with her the husband’s instruments like bow, jewels, etc. We hope the widow and her relatives can lead a prosperous life”

The early Buddhist literature (Pali canon) does not discuss Sati either. So it is clear that Sati was most likely non-existent in the centuries succeeding Buddha (5th to 3rd cen BCE)

Sati is not mentioned by Megasthenes and Kautilya (~300BCE). Nor is it prescribed in the early orthodox Smritis of Manu and Yajnavalkya (dated variously between 300BCE and 300CE)

In fact right up to the beginning of the Common Era, widows were not just encouraged to live on, but there was also the practice of Niyoga wherein a relative of the dead husband could potentially be authorized to have a kid with the dead man's wife if he died childless

But post 300BCE criticisms started brewing in orthodox Hindu society against Niyoga - a practice admittedly liable to great misuse.

Here's Manu on Niyoga

He first describes Niyoga but also condemns it, which suggests that even in his time, the practice was not totally extinct

देवराद् वा सपिण्डाद् वा स्त्रिया सम्यक्नियु क्तया ।
प्रजेप्सिताऽऽधिगन्तव्या सन्तानस्य परिक्षये ॥ ५९ ॥

Ganganatha Jha translation

"On failure of issue, the woman, on being authorised, may obtain, the desired offspring, either from her younger brother-in-law or a ‘Sapiṇḍa’

विधवायां नियुक्तस्तु घृताक्तो वाग्यतो निशि ।
एकमुत्पादयेत् पुत्रं न द्वितीयं कथं चन ॥ ६० ॥

"He who has been authorised in regard to a widow shall, annointed with clarified butter and with speech controlled, beget, at night, one son,—and on no account a second one"

But notice Manu here -

"विधवायां नियोगार्थे निर्वृत्ते तु यथाविधि
गुरुवत्च स्नुषावत्च वर्तेयातां परस्परम्

"When the purpose of the ‘authorisation’ in regard to the widow has been accomplished, the two should behave towards each other like an elder and a daughter-in-law" (!!)

But Manu was not happy with Niyoga, and positively discourages it

ततः प्रभृति यो मोहात् प्रमीतपतिकां स्त्रियम्
नियोजयत्यपत्यार्थं तं विगर्हन्ति साधवः

"Whenever any one, through folly, ‘authorises’ a woman whose husband is dead, to beget children,—him the good men censure"

While the discussion on Niyoga may seem like a digression in a Sati thread, it is important to understand it

It clearly suggests that the whole idea of widow self immolation would have been anathema in a society that was worldly enough to explore Niyoga to keep the lineage alive

In the two epics of Mahabharata and Ramayana, Sati is extremely rare, and possibly a later interpolation.

In Ramayana, there is one case of Sati in Uttara Kanda, but not in the main epic.

In Mahabharata we have the famous case of Pandu's second wife Madri who becomes a Sati

Even in the case of Madri, at least in some recensions, the sages and well wishers urge her against Sati

But Madri is adamant as she regards herself as responsible for Pandu's death and is suffused with guilt

So it is perhaps closer to a guilt-driven suicide than a case of Sati

While Madri is no doubt a very early Sati case in the history of Indian literature, she is an exception and not the rule.

Even in Mahabharata, there is no other widow who undertakes Sati, though this is a story of warrior widows.

Not the wives of Abhimanyu, Kauravas. None

In contrast Niyoga still is prevalent in the Mahabharata epic.

Most famously we have the instance of Vichitravirya's wives - Ambika and Ambalika (and their maid), bearing sons through Veda Vyasa, who was Vichitravirya's half brother

So right up to 400 AD or so, when the epics were finally set in their present form, Sati was hardly known in much of India. Practically unheard of.

And without a single justification or argument in its favor in the very vast corpus of Vedic literature AND Dharma texts

Even the Puranic literature, which mostly post dates the two epics, is largely ignorant of Sati, except for the odd exception like Padma Purana, which we will touch upon later.

We have discussed the earliest instance of Sati in "literature" which is most likely that of Madri in Mahabharata.

But what is the earliest historical occurrence of Sati that we know of?

The earliest historical occurrence is widely acknowledged to be that of the wife of the HIndu general Keteus who died in 316BC fighting against the Greek Antigonus

Keteus had 2 wives. As with Pandu's wives, both of Keteus' wives were eager to die but the younger one got her wish

But this is a very early instance of Sati, which seems a bit out of place, as the literature of that period is totally ignorant of Sati.

Post this instance, we don't get to hear about Sati for a long while except for the Madri exception in the Epic

But in the first few centuries of the Common Era, there is change in the air.

Ideals of asceticism have become increasingly popular in society, and this is reflecting in the literature of the time

Poets and dramatists of the classical period (200AD to 600AD) are gradually becoming aware of Sati. And this is reflecting in their writings.

Most notably Bhasa, Vatsyayana, Kalidasa and even Shudraka

In Bhasa's Urubhanga and Duta Ghatotkacha, we see the dramatist deviating from the older Mahabharata epic.

In Bhasa's adaptations of MB episodes, we see the wives of Abhimanyu, Duryodhana and Jayadratha committing Sati.

Not in Mahabharata

This is also the time when we see more historical occurrences most notably that of King Harsha's mother (circa 7th century AD).

She commits Sati even before her husband's death (Harsha's father) as there is no chance of his recovery from poor health (Source - Altekar)

This is also roughly the time when you see a new generation of Dharma texts that are more sympathetic to the practice, though they don't necessarily mandate it.

Most notably Vishnu Smriti, and Parashara Smriti - two v late Dharma texts of the second half of the 1st millennium CE

In Parasara Smriti, we come across this verse -

Translation -

"If a woman follows her departed lord, by burning on the same pyre, she will dwell in heaven for as many years as there are hairs on the human frame- which will reach the number of 3 crores and a half"

So there is a change in climate at work here.

Practices like Niyoga are now clearly a thing of the very ancient past. While the reform on that front was perhaps desirable, there was overcompensation in the other direction

Sati now did become idealized as a remarkable religious act of great merit.

Nevertheless it was still extremely rare. And hardly obligatory

Some late Smriti writers like Angirasa (in his Angirasa Smriti) went pretty far in suggesting that Sati is the recommended course for a widow -

Here's the verse from Angirasa

But this change in climate was also greatly opposed by other contemporary thinkers (Eg: Medathithi, Bana)

So it did not result in any major increase in the incidence of Sati. Actual occurrences remained extremely rare and practically unheard of throughout 1st millennium

Medhathithi represents a figure who is among the earliest commentators on Manu Smriti. He is usually placed after 8th century CE.

And his writings show that this inclination towards Sati among some Smriti writers was vociferously opposed by others like himself

In his commentary on Manu, Medhathithi (most likely a Kashmiri) argues -

"As in the case of men, even for women suicide is forbidden. As for what Aṅgiras has said—‘they should die after their husband’,—this also is not an obligatory act, and so it is not that it must be done

Before Medhathithi, the poet Bana (7th cen AD) is horrified by the emergence of Sati

"To die after one's beloved is most fruitless. It is a custom followed by the foolish. It is a mistake committed under infatuation. It is a mistake of stupendous magnitude"

(Source : Altekar)

Tantra literature also is very clear in opposing the emerging trend of Sati (albeit voluntary in character)

The Woman is the embodiment of the supreme goddess and if a person burnt her with her husband, he is condemned to eternal hell

(Source: Mahanirvana Tantra - from Altekar)

But Sati grew in popularity particularly in Kashmir, where several historical occurrences of the same are documented in Kalhana's history (Rajatarangini - the great 12th century work)

It remained rare everywhere else. Infact the oldest Sati stone in Rajputana dates only to 838AD

Rajatarangini of Kalhana documents several Satis as well as aborted Sati attempts.

Most notably the Kings Kalasha and Utkarsha were followed in death by their wives as well as concubines

The famous Kashmiri queen Didda of 10th cen avoided Sati by bribing a minister to come to the cremation ground and dissuade her from getting on the pyre.

An intriguing strategem.

Sati cases are also common in the 11th cen work Kathasaritasagara - possibly written in Kashmir

But outside of Kashmir, Sati remains extremely rare, notwithstanding the tacit support for it in some late Smriti works of the time like Parasara Smrti and Angirasa Smrti

In the coming few centuries, Sati did become fairly prevalent among ruling Rajput families. Ths was also the period of the rise of Jauhar

But it remained barred for brahmins
(source - Altekar)

So even as late as 15th century, it was primarily a Kshatriya practice

In the Deccan, Sati was an outlier event and extremely rare. Much much rarer than in North west and Kashmir

But even in Deccan we see inroads happening in the middle of 2nd millennium

1100-1400 - 11 cases
1400-1600 - 41 cases

Source - Epigraphia Carnatica (through Altekar)

In medieval times, we hear more about Sati from the travels of Europeans (who were arguably exaggerating).

When Ajit Singh of Marwar died in 1724, 64 women mounted the pyre

However when Shivaji died, just one of his wives became a Sati

But notwithstanding the rise in incidence, there is little to suggest that the practice had lost its voluntary character

There is an 11th cen inscription in Karnataka that tells of a lady named Dekabbe who would not listen to her parents and insisted on mounting the pyre

Much later in 18th century we have the instance of the great Ahilyabai Holkar's own daughter Muktabai, who became a Sati in 1792, despite the entreaties against the same by her great mother!

Tavernier, a 17th century traveler, tells of an instance where a girl of 22 went to Patna to show the ruler there that she was a willing party by burning her hands till they were reduced to ashes.

In terms of the rarity of the practice, Altekar estimates that even at the peak of its prevalence in the medieval period, perhaps one in thousand Indian widows became a Sati.

Though he also speculates that the % was way higher among Rajput rulers (possibly 25% in his words)

Now let's fast forward to East India Company rule in early 19th century. This was when we started collecting more concrete numbers on Sati cases, often through missionary organizations, which had every incentive to exaggerate.

Now two things strike us about the numbers collected in early 1800s -

Firstly the high concentration of numbers in Bengal - a region not hitherto associated with Sati ( a point remarked by Meenakshi Jain among others).

Second the v wide prevalence among Bengali Brahmins

Both these things are surprising, given that historically the practice was far more prevalent in Kashmir and Rajputana than in Bengal. Also it was for the most part a Kshatriya custom and banned among brahmins in earlier times.

However we see a change in the EIC years.

Here are the numbers of Sati occurrences from Bengal b/w 1815 and 1828 -

Calcutta - 5099
Dacca - 610
Murshidabad - 260
Patna - 709
Bareilly - 193
Benares - 1165

There is definitely room to be sceptical about these numbers.

Not because one doesn't trust EIC - that would be a tribalist attitude of not trusting the foreigner

But because the patterns are historically anomalous. Why Calcutta? And why had it picked up so much among brahmins?

The final blow to Sati came in 1829 when William Bentinck banned it all over British India. But this was for the most part received well by Indians.

In fact many Indian rulers had already taken measures against Sati before Bentinck's ban

Had it been a practice with very wide support, there definitely would have been far greater opposition to the ban placed on it than what was observed in the 1830s

Some thinkers like Radhakanta Deb (of the conservative Dharma Sabha) opposed the ban as they felt it was an interference in Indian matters by a foreign hand.

But these were anomalous reactions without serious popular backing

So that finishes the somewhat long thread.

While Sati is very much a thing of the very distant past, and was always a marginal practice, nevertheless studying its history teaches us a lot about Indian intellectual history more generally!

References for the thread :

AS Altekar's Position of Women in Hindu civilziation
Rig Veda translation- Ralph Griffith translation
Atharva Veda Samhita translation : Ram Sharma Acharya
Manu Smrti - Ganganath Jha