The Position of Women in Hindu Civilisation, from Prehistoric Times to the Present Day c9.36

c9.36

There were, however, several thinkers, who were altogether opposed to the idea of giving even a qualified recognition to the custom. Thus Medhātithi admits that the custom has been mentioned by *Aṅgirassmṛiti*, but maintains that it has no authoritative value, for it is opposed to an express Vedic text which prohibits suicide to all². Virāṭa takes a more decisive stand and positively prohibits the custom. He points out that the widow can do some good to her husband, if she survives and offers him the prescribed oblations at the Śrāddha; if she ascends the funeral pyre, she will be only incurring the sin of suicide³. Devaṇabhaṭṭa, a 12th century writer from south India, maintains that the Satī custom is only a very inferior variety of Dharma and is not to be recommended at all⁴. To the poet Bāṇa (*c.* 625 A. D.), however, belongs the credit of offering the most vehement, determined and rational opposition to this new inhuman practice. ‘To die after one’s beloved,' says he, 'is most fruitless. It is a custom followed by the foolish. It is a mistake committed under infatuation. It is a reckless course followed only on account of hot haste. It is a mistake of stupendous magnitude. It does no good whatsoever to the dead person. It does not help him in ascending to heaven; it does not prevent him from sinking into hell. It does not at all ensure union after death; the person who has died goes to the place determined by his own Karman, the person who accompanies him on the funeral pyre goes to the hell reserved for those who are guilty of the sin of suicide. On the other hand, by surviving the deceased, one can do much good both to oneself and to the departed by offering prescribed oblations for his happiness in the other world. By dying with him one can do good to neither'¹.