Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v2.c32: Chapter XV. Satī (Self-immolation of widows)

History of Dharmaśāstra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v2.c32

Language
English

Chapter XV. Satī (Self-immolation of widows)

v2.c32.2

The word is often written as 'suttee' in English works and papers. This subject is now of academic interest in India, since for over a hundred years (i. e. from 1829) self-immolation of widows has been prohibited by law in British India and has been declared to be a crime. A portion of sec. 1 of the Regulation XVII of 1829 passed by the Governor-General Lord William Bentinck is set out below. We are now in a position to take a dispassionate view of the practice, to trace its origin and follow its working down to the date of its being declared illegal. It is not possible in the space available here to go into all details. Those interested may read the latest book on the subject by Mr. Edward Thomson.¹⁴⁶¹ The burning of widows was not peculiar to Brahmanism, as many are prone to believe, but the custom owes its origin to the oldest religious views and superstitious practices of mankind in general. The practice of widow burning obtained among ancient Greeks, Germans, Slavs and other races (*vide* 'Die Frau' pp. 56, 82-83 and Schrader's 'Prehistoric Antiquities of the Aryan People,' English Translation of 1890, p. 391 and Westermarck's 'Origin and Development of Moral Ideas', 1906, vol. I, pp. 472-476 ), but was generally confined to the great ones, the princes and nobles.

v2.c32.3

¹⁴⁶¹ 'Suttee' (1928), which gives an account of it from the most ancient times, of the efforts made to suppress it by Raja Rama Mohan Roy and the British Government. In an appendix the author gives extracts from the accounts reported by those who witnessed widow burning from 317 B C. to 1845 A. D. Vide also Max Muller's H. A. S. L. p. 48 for references to the custom of widow-burning among Greeks and Scythians; 'Die Frau' pp. 74-79 for accounts of travellers and eye witnesses; Colebrooke's Miscellaneous Essays vol. I (ed. of 1837) pp. 114-116 (for description of the rite), vol. II. chap. III. pp. 153-158; Annals of the Bhandarkar O. R. Institute vol. 14. p. 219. In the 'Travels of Peter Mundy' (1608-1669) published by the Hakluyt Society in 1914 vol. II. pp. 34-36, the author gives an account of the burning of a widow at Surat in 1630 with a sketch showing the widow having on her lap the head of her deceased husband. That writer also notes that the practice had in his time become rare, as under the Mogul rulers a special license from the Ruler or Governor was required. Similarly Barbosa (a Portuguese) describes the burning of a *satī* in the Vijayanagar kingdom (vide translation by M. L. Dames, vol. I. pp. 213-216). Section 1 of Regulation XVII of 1829 which declared the practice of *satī* illegal and a crime punishable in the courts (and passed by the Governor-General in Council on 4th December 1829) is: The practice of Suttee or of burning or burying alive the widows of Hindoos is revolting to the feelings of human nature; it is nowhere enjoined by the religion of the Hindoos as an imperative duty; on the contrary a life of (*Continued from last page*) purity and retirement on the part of the widow is more especially and preferably inculcated and by a vast majority of that people throughout India the practice is not kept up or observed; in some extensive districts it does not exist; in those in which it has been most frequent, it is notorious that, in many instances, acts of atrocity have been perpetrated, which have been shocking to the Hindoos themselves, and in their eyes unlawful and wicked.........Actuated by these considerations the Governor-General in Council, without intending to depart from one of the first and most important principles of the system of British Government in India that all classes of the people be secure in the observance of their religious usages, so long as that system can be adhered to without violation of the paramount dictates of justice and humanity, has deemed it right to establish the following rules &c.

v2.c32.4

There is no Vedic passage which can be cited as incontrovertibly referring to widow-burning as then current, nor is there any mantra which could be said to have been repeated in very ancient times¹⁴⁶² at such burning nor do the ancient gṛhyasūtras contain any direction prescribing the procedure of widow burning. It therefore appears probable that the practice arose in Brahmanical India a few centuries before Christ. Whether it was indigenous or was copied from some non-Aryan or non-Indian tribes cannot be demonstrated. None of the dharmasūtras except Viṣṇu contains any reference to *satī*. The Manusmṛti is entirely silent about it. It is stated in Strabo (XV. 1. 30 and 62) that the Greeks under Alexander found *satī* practised among the Cathaei in the Punjab and that that practice arose from the apprehension that wives would desert or poison their husbands (Hamilton and Falconer's Translation vol. III). The Viṣṇu-dharmasūtra¹⁴⁶³ says 'On her husband's death the widow should observe celibacy or should ascend the funeral pyre after him.' The Mahābhārata, though it is profuse in the descriptions of sanguinary fights, is very sparing in its references to widow burning. Mādrī, the favourite wife of Pāṇḍu, burnt herself with her husband's body.¹⁴⁶⁴ In the Virāṭa-parva Sairandhrī is ordered to be burnt with Kīcaka,¹⁴⁶⁵ just as in ancient times it is said there was a custom to bury a slave or slaves along with the deceased ruler. The Mausala parva (7. 18) says that four wives of Vasudeva, viz. Devakī, Bhadrā, Rohiṇī and Madirā burnt themselves with him and (chap. 7. 73-74) that Rukmiṇī, Gāndhārī, Śaibyā, Haimavatī, Jāmbavatī among the consorts of Kṛṣṇa burnt themselves along with his body and other queens like Satyabhāmā went to a forest for *tapas*. The Viṣṇupurāṇa also says that eight queens of Kṛṣṇa, Rukmiṇī and others, entered fire on the death of Kṛṣṇa.¹⁴⁶⁶ The Śāntiparva (chap. 148) describes how a *kapotī* (female pigeon) entered fire on the death of her husband the bird.¹⁴⁶⁷ In the Strīparva (chap. 26) the Great Epic describes the death ceremonies performed for the fallen Kauravas, but no mention is made of any widow immolating herself on the funeral pyre though the chariots, clothes and weapons of the warriors are said to have been consigned to fire. From the above it appears that the practice was originally confined to royal families and great warriors even in India and that cases of widow burning were rare. Several texts are cited by Aparārka from Paiṭhīnasi, Aṅgiras, Vyāghrapād which apparently forbid self-immolation to brāhmaṇa widows.¹⁴⁶⁸ The authors of digests explain away these passages by saying that they only prohibit self-immolation by a brāhmaṇa widow on a funeral pyre different from that of the husband i. e. a brāhmaṇa widow can burn herself only on the funeral pyre of her husband and if his body is cremated elsewhere in a foreign land, his widow cannot, on hearing of his death, burn herself later. They rely on the text of Uśanas that a brāhmaṇa widow should not follow her husband on a separate funeral pyre. The Veda-Vyāsa-smṛti (II. 53) says that a brāhmaṇa wife should enter fire, clasping the dead body of her husband; if she lives (after her husband) she should give up adorning her hair and emaciate her body by austerities.¹⁴⁶⁹ In the Rāmāyaṇa,¹⁴⁷⁰ (Uttarakāṇḍa 17. 15) there is a reference to the self-immolation of a brāhmaṇa woman (the wife of a *brahmarṣi* and mother of Vedavatī, who when molested by Rāvaṇa burnt herself in fire). The Mahābhārata (Strī-parva 23. 34 ff.) on the other hand describes how Kṛpī, the wife of Droṇa, the brāhmaṇa commander-in-chief of the Kauravas, appeared with dishevelled hair on the battle-field on the death of her husband, but does not say that she burnt herself.¹⁴⁷¹ It appears therefore that the burning of brāhmaṇa widows began much later than that of kṣatriya widows.

v2.c32.5

¹⁴⁶² Raja Radhakant Deva relied upon two verses which he found in the Aukhya śākhā of the Tai. S. quoted in the 84th Anuvāka of the Nārāyaṇīya Upaniṣad as the most explicit authority for widow burning; *vide* Prof. H. H. Wilson's Works vol. II. pp. 293-305. The two so-called Vedic texts are: अग्ने व्रतानां व्रतपतिरसि पत्न्यानुगमव्रतं चरिष्यामि तच्छकेयं तन्मे राध्यताम्। इह त्वा अग्ने नमसा विधेम सुवर्गस्य लोकस्य समेत्यै। जुषाणो अद्य हविषा जातवेदो विशानि त्वा सत्वतो नय मा पत्युरग्रे (pp. 295-296). These, to say the least, are of doubtful authenticity.

v2.c32.6

¹⁴⁶³ मृते भर्तरि ब्रह्मचर्यं तदन्वारोहणं वा। विष्णुधर्मसूत्र 25. 14 quoted by the मिताक्षरा on या. I. 86.

v2.c32.7

¹⁴⁶⁴ आदिपर्व 95. 65 'तत्रैनं चिताग्निस्यं माद्री समन्वारुरोह।; आदि 125. 29 'राज्ञः शरीरेण सह ममापीदं कलेवरम्। दग्धव्यं सुप्रतिच्छन्नमेतदार्ये प्रियं कुरु॥'

v2.c32.8

¹⁴⁶⁵ सैरन्ध्रयाः सूतपुत्रेण सह दाहं विशां पतिः। विराटपर्व 23. 8.

v2.c32.9

¹⁴⁶⁶ अष्टौ महिष्यः कथिता रुक्मिणीप्रमुखास्त याः। उपगृह्य हरेर्देहं विविशुस्ता हुताशनम् ॥ विष्णुपुराण V. 38. 2.

v2.c32.10

¹⁴⁶⁷ पतिव्रता संप्रदीप्तं प्रविवेश हुताशनम् ॥ ततश्चित्राङ्गदधरं भर्तारं सान्वपश्यत। …… ततः स्वर्गं गतः पक्षी भार्यया सह संगतः। शान्ति 148. 10-12. This passage is quoted in the Mit. on Yāj. I. 86 in support of the plea that *satī* is enjoined and leads to great bliss in the other world.

v2.c32.11

¹⁴⁶⁸ पैठीनसिः । मृतानुगमनं नास्ति ब्राह्मण्या ब्रह्मशासनात् । इतरेषां तु वर्णानां स्त्रीधर्मोयं परः स्मृतः ॥ अङ्गिराः । या स्त्री ब्राह्मणजातीया मृतं पतिमनुव्रजेत् । सा स्वर्गमात्मघातेन नात्मानं न पतिं नयेत् ॥ व्याघ्रपात् । न म्रियेत समं भर्त्रा ब्राह्मणी शोकमोहिता । प्रव्रज्यागतिमाप्नोति मरणादात्मघातिनी ॥ quoted by अपरार्क p. 112. These are quoted by the मिता० on या. I. 86 but without name. पृथक्चितिं समारुह्य न विप्रा गन्तुमर्हति । अन्यासां चैव नारीणां स्त्रीधर्मोयं परः स्मृतः ॥ उशनस् quoted by अपरार्क p. 112 and by मिता० on या. I. 86.

v2.c32.12

¹⁴⁶⁹ मृतं भर्तारमादाय ब्राह्मणी वह्निमाविशेत् । जीवन्ती (v. l. ब्राह्मणी) चेत्त्यक्तकेशा तपसा शोषयेद्वपुः ॥ वेदव्यास II. 53 quoted above in note 1379.

v2.c32.13

¹⁴⁷⁰ अपरार्क p. 112 refers to the रामायण 'अत एव रामायणादौ ब्राह्मण्यादीनां स्वभर्तृशारिरालिङ्गनपूर्वकं स्वशरीरदहनमुपाख्यायते।'

v2.c32.14

¹⁴⁷¹ तां पश्य रुदतीमार्ता मुक्तकेशीमधोमुखीम् । हतं पतिमुपासन्तीं द्रोणं शस्त्रभृतां वरम् ॥ बाणैर्भिन्नतनुत्राणं धृष्टद्युम्नेन केशव । उपास्ते वै मृधे द्रोणं जटिला ब्रह्मचारिणी । स्त्रीपर्व 23.

v2.c32.15

The burning of a widow on the death of her husband is called *sahamarana* or *sahagamana* or *anvārohaṇa* (when she ascends the funeral pyre of her husband and is burnt along with his corpse ), but *anumaraṇa* occurs when, after her husband is cremated elsewhere and she learns of his death, the widow resolves upon death and is burnt with the husband's ashes or his *pādukās* ( sandals ) or even without any memento of his if none be available¹⁴⁷² ( vide Aparārka p. 111 and Madanapārijāta p. 198 ). In the Kumārasambhava ( IV. 34 ) of Kālidāsa, Rati, the wife of Kāma who was burnt by Śiva, speaks of throwing herself into fire, but is held back by a heavenly voice. In the Gāthāsaptaśatī ( VII. 33 ) there is a reference to a woman being decked for anumaraṇa (Nirṇ. ed.). The Kāmasūtra VI. 3.53 speaks of anumaraṇa. It has been shown (at p. 579) how Varāhamihira admires women for their courage in being burnt with their husbands. The Harṣacarita ( Ucchvāsa 5 ) describes how Yaśomatī, the chief queen of king Prabhākaravardhana and mother of Harṣa, consigned herself to fire when the king was dying. But this is not a proper case of *satī*, as she burnt herself even before her husband died. In another passage of the Harṣacarita ( V, in the description of night ) the glory of moon-lotuses is said to be laughing like a woman intent on anumaraṇa, who is decked with ear ornaments and wears garlands on her head.¹⁴⁷³ Bāṇa in his Kādambarī in a most eloquent and well-reasoned passage condemns anumaraṇa.¹⁴⁷⁴ The Bhāgavatapurāṇa¹⁴⁷⁵ I. 13. 57 speaks of Gāndhārī's burning herself on the death of her husband, Dhṛtarāṣṭra. The Rājataraṅgiṇī cites in several places (e. g. VI. 107, 195; VII. 103, 478) examples of *satī*.

v2.c32.16

¹⁴⁷² देशान्तरमृते तस्मिन्साध्वी तत्पादुकाद्वयम् । निधायोरसि संशुद्धा प्रविशेज्जातवेदसम् ॥ ऋग्वेदवादात्साध्वी स्त्री न भवेदात्मघातिनी । त्र्यहाच्छौचे तु निर्वृत्ते श्राद्धं प्राप्नोति शाश्वतम् ॥ ब्रह्मपुराण quoted by अपरार्क p. 111., where अपरार्क tells us that Vedic verses which render self-immolation free from the sin of suicide are verses like 'imā nārīr ' ( Ṛg. X. 18. 7 ) quoted in note 1450.

v2.c32.17

¹⁴⁷³ Vide the passage beginning with 'वृन्तामलपत्रप्रसाधितकर्णिकासु केसरमालाकल्पितमुण्डमालिकासु अनुमर्तुमिवोद्यतासु प्रहसितमुखीषु कुमुदलक्ष्मीषु' हर्षचरित V ( 6th para from the end ).

v2.c32.18

¹⁴⁷⁴ यदेतदनुमरणं नाम तदतिनिष्फलम् । in paragraph 177 of my edition of the pūrvabhāga, which Candrāpīḍa addresses to Mahāśvetā, where he gives instances of famous women like Rati, Pṛthā, Uttarā, Duḥśalā that did not resort to sahagamana and winds up 'अन्याश्च रक्षःसुरासुरमुनिमनुजसिद्धगन्धर्वकन्यका भर्तृरहिताः श्रूयन्ते सहस्रशो विधृतजीविताः'.

v2.c32.19

¹⁴⁷⁵ रघुनन्दन in his शुद्धितत्त्व (p. 242) quotes the passage of the भागवतपुराण.

v2.c32.20

In numerous epigraphic records reference is made to the practice of *satī*. Among the earliest is the one in 191 of the Gupta era (510 A. D.) in the Gupta Inscriptions (ed. by Fleet) p. 91. Vide also the Eran posthumous stone pillar Inscription of Goparāja which says that his wife accompanied him on the funeral pyre when he was killed in battle; I. A. vol. IX. p. 164 (Nepal Inscription of 705 A. D., where Rājyavatī, widow of Dharmadeva, bids her son Mahādeva to take up the reins of government that she may follow her husband); the Belaturu Inscription of śaka 979 of the time of Rājendradeva Cola (E. I. vol. VI, p. 213) where a śūdra woman Dekabbe, on hearing of her husband's death, burnt herself in spite of the strong opposition of her parents who then erected a stone monument to her; E. I. vol. 14 p. 265, 267 where a grant is made in śaka 1103 to a temple by Sinda Mahāmaṇḍaleśvara Rācamalla on a request by two *satīs*, widows of his general Becirāja; E. I. vol. 20, p. 168 (of Cedi *saṁvat* 919) which refers to three queens that became *satīs*; E. I. vol X, p. 39 where the Temara gate stone inscription of śaka 1246 speaks of Māṇikyadevī as *satī* on the death of her husband Āmaṇa who was an officer of king Hariścandra; E. I. vol. 20 p. 58 (Mistra Deoli Inscription in Jodhpur when two queens of a Gohila Rāṇā became *satīs*); E. I. vol. 16, p. 10, *n.* 4 and p. 11, *n.* 2 for *satī* records of śaka 1365 and 1362. In an article on 'Satī memorial stones' in J. B. O. R. S. vol. 23, p. 435 ff. it is shown how the memorial stones usually bear the figure of the upraised arm and of the sun and the moon on either side and a group of stars. Among the well-known latest historical examples of *satī* is that of Ramābāī, wife of the Peshwa Madhavrao I, in 1772 A. D. The Jauhar practised by the Rajput ladies of Chitor and other places for saving themselves from unspeakable atrocities at the hands of the victorious Moslems are too well-known to need any lengthy notice.

v2.c32.21

In the Indian Antiquary vol. 35 p. 129 there is a paper on '*Satī* immolation which is not *satī*', where several examples of men who killed themselves out of devotion to their masters or for other causes are cited and it is pointed out how stone monuments (called *māstikkal* i. e. stone monument for *mahāsatī* a great *satī*, and '*virakkal*' for brave and devoted men) are erected in memory of *satīs* and men. The Harṣacarita (V. 3rd para from end) describes how many of the king's friends, ministers, servants and favourites killed themselves on the death of Prabhākaravardhana. The Rājataraṅgiṇī VII. 481 narrates how when the queen of king Ananta became a *satī* on her husband's death, her litter-carrier and some other men and three of her *dāsīs* followed her in death. There is the example of a mother burning herself on the funeral pyre of her son (vide Rājataraṅgiṇī VII. 1380). We shall see later on that suicide at holy places like Prayāga was practised for attaining heavenly worlds and bliss. Life seems to have been deemed of small account in those ages and though the death of women or men on the funeral pyre of the husband or for their masters appears to us sophisticated people of modern days as very horrible, it did not so appear to the ancients. *Satī* was not in historic times a practice imposed by priests or men on unwilling women. It somehow grew and it is improper to say that men imposed it on women. It may be that examples of *satī* occurred because of the force of popular sentiment. It was first confined to kings and nobles, because the lot of the wives of conquered kings and warriors was most miserable in all countries as well as in India. Vengeance for the truculence of their husbands was wreaked on the poor wives by carrying them as captives and making them work as slaves. Manu (VII. 96) allows a soldier to retain women (probably 'slaves') conquered by him along with other booty. When queen Yaśomatī narrates to her son Harṣa the great honour and glory that was hers during the reign of her husband king Prabhākaravardhana, she refers to the fact that the wives of the enemies defeated by her husband waved chowries over her.¹⁴⁷⁶ From kings the practice spread among brāhmaṇas, though as shown above, several smṛtikāras disapproved of the practice among brāhmaṇa wives. Once it took root learned commentators and digest writers were found to support it with arguments and promises of future rewards. Even in modern times we can secure learned writers to support any pet theory of a coterie or clique. When Manchester and Liverpool were prosperous, English economists preached the doctrine of free trade and *laissez faire* to all nations, but in more difficult times we have now the apotheosis of Empire Preference and discriminating preference for home-made goods. Manu IV. 178 asks people to do whatever their forefathers did.

v2.c32.22

¹⁴⁷⁶ आपीतौ युष्माद्विधैः पुत्रैरमित्रकलत्रबन्दिवृन्दविधूयमानचामरमरुञ्चलचीनांशुकधरौ पयोधरौ। हर्षचरित V.

v2.c32.23

The rewards promised to a *satī* were as follows: Śaṅkha and Aṅgiras¹⁴⁷⁷ say 'she who follows her husband in death dwells in heaven for as many years as there are hair on the human body, viz. 3½ crores of years. Just as a snake-catcher draws out a snake from a hole by force, so such a woman draws her husband from (wherever he may be) and enjoys bliss together with him. In heaven she being solely devoted to her husband and praised by bevies of heavenly damsels sports with her husband for as long as fourteen Indras rule. Even if the husband be guilty of the murder of a brāhmaṇa or of a friend or be guilty of ingratitude, the wife who dies (in fire) clasping his body, purifies him (of the sin). That woman, who ascends (the funeral pyre) when the husband dies, is equal to Arundhatī in her character and is praised in heaven. As long as a woman does not burn herself in fire on the death of her husband she is never free from being born as a woman (in successive births)'. Hārīta says 'that woman who follows her husband in death purifies three families, viz. of her mother, of her father and of her husband'. The Mit. after quoting the above passages adds that this duty of anvārohaṇa is common to the women of all castes from the brāhmaṇa to the cāṇḍāla, provided they are not pregnant or they have no young children (at the husband's death)'.¹⁴⁷⁸

v2.c32.24

¹⁴⁷⁷ तिस्रः कोट्योऽर्धकोटी च यानि लोमानि मानुषे। तावत्कालं वसेत्स्वर्गे भर्तारं यानुगच्छति॥ व्यालग्राही यथा सर्पं बलादुद्धरते बिलात्। तद्वद्भर्तारमुद्धृत्य सा नारी सह तेनैव मोदते॥ तत्र सा भर्तृपरमा स्तूयमानाप्सरोगणैः। क्रीडते पतिना सार्धं यावदिन्द्राश्चतुर्दश॥ ब्रह्मघ्नो वा कृतघ्नो वा मित्रघ्नो वा भवेत्पतिः। पुनात्यविधवा नारी तमादाय मृता तु या॥ मृते भर्तरि या नारी समारोहेद्धुताशनम्। सारुन्धतीसमाचारा स्वर्लोके महीयते॥ यावन्नाग्नौ मृते पत्यौ स्त्री नात्मानं प्रदाहयेत्। तावन्न मुच्यते सा हि स्त्रीशरीरात्कथंचन॥ quoted by the मिताक्षरा on या. I. 86, अपरार्क p. 110, शुद्धितत्त्व p. 234. The two verses तिस्रः कोट्यो &c. are also पराशर IV. 32 and 33 and ब्रह्मपुराण, गौतमीमाहात्म्य chap. 10. 76 and 74.

v2.c32.25

¹⁴⁷⁸ अयं च सर्वासां स्त्रीणामगर्भिणीनामबालापत्यानामाचाण्डालं साधारणो धर्मः। भर्तारं यानुगच्छतीत्यविशेषोपादानात्। मिता० on या. I. 86; vide the same words in मद. पा. p. 196 and स्मृतिमु० (संस्कार p. 162), in which latter they are expressly quoted from विज्ञानेश्वर.

v2.c32.26

There were old commentators who were opposed to the practice of *satī*. Medhātithi on Manu V. 157 (Kāmam tu &c.) compares this practice to *śyenayāga* which a man performed by way of black magic to kill his enemy. He says¹⁴⁷⁹ that though Aṅgiras allowed 'anumaraṇa' it is suicide and is really forbidden to women. Just as the Veda says 'śyenenābhicaran yajet' and yet śyenayāga is not looked upon as dharma, but rather as adharma (vide Śabara on Jaimini I. 1. 2), so, though Aṅgiras speaks of it, it is really adharma; and that a woman who is in a hurry and extremely anxious to secure heaven quickly for herself and her husband might act according to Aṅgiras, still her action is *aśāstrīya* (not in accordance with the śāstras); besides anvārohaṇa is opposed to the Vedic text 'one should not leave this world before one has finished one's allotted span of life'." The Mit. on Yāj. I. 86 combats these arguments. It says that śyenayāga is no doubt undesirable and therefore adharma, but that is so because the object of śyenayāga is injury to another. *Anugamana* on the other hand is not so; there the result promised is heaven which is a desirable result and which is enjoined by *śruti* in such sentences as 'one should sacrifice a white goat to Vāyu if one desires prosperity'. Similarly the smṛti about *anugamana* is not opposed to the *śruti* quoted, the meaning of which is different; that śruti means 'one should not waste one's life for securing heavenly bliss which is fleeting and insignificant as compared with the supreme bliss of Brahma knowledge'. As the woman in *anumaraṇa* desires only heaven, she is not doing anything contrary to the śruti texts. This is the reasoning of the Mitākṣarā which looks like special pleading. Aparārka p. 111, the Madanapārijāta p. 199, Par. M. II. part I pp. 55-56 follow the reasoning of the Mit. and add that the Vedic text about the allotted span of life is a general rule, while the smṛti about *anumaraṇa* is a special or exceptional śāstra and so there is no contradiction as the rule applies to all cases outside the excepted one. The Madanapārijāta (p. 200) further explains that the texts about purifying a husband guilty of brāhmaṇa murder are not to be taken literally but only as hyperbolically extolling *anvārohaṇa*.

v2.c32.27

¹⁴⁷⁹ पुंवत्स्त्रीणामपि प्रतिषिद्ध आत्मत्यागो यदप्याङ्गिरसे पतिमनुम्नियेरन्नित्युक्तं तदपि नित्यवदवश्यं कर्तव्यम् । फलस्तुतिस्तत्रास्ति फलकामा याश्चाधिकारे श्येनतुल्यता । तथैव श्येनेन हिंस्याद्भूतानीत्यधिकारस्यातिप्रवृद्धतरद्वेषान्धतया सत्यामपि प्रवृत्तौ न धर्मत्वम्, एवमिहापि अतिप्रवृद्धफलाभिलाषायाः सत्यपि प्रतिषेधे तदतिक्रमेण मरणे प्रवृत्त्युपपत्तेर्न शास्त्रीयत्वमतोस्त्येव पतिमनु मरणेऽपि स्त्रियाः प्रतिषेधः । किं च 'तस्मादु ह न पुरायुषः प्रेयात्' इति प्रत्यक्षश्रुतिविरोधोयम् । मेधा॰ on मनु V. 156. The words of शबर are 'नैव श्येनादयः कर्तव्या विज्ञायन्ते । यो हि हिंसितुमिच्छेत्तस्यायमभ्युपाय इति तेषामुपदेशः । श्येनेनाभिचरन्यजेतेति हि समामनन्ति नाभिचरितव्यमिति । on जै. I. 1. 2. p. 19.

v2.c32.28

The Sm. C. also expressly says that anvārohaṇa,¹⁴⁸⁰ though recommended by the Viṣṇu Dh. S. (25. 14) and Aṅgiras, is inferior to brahmacarya (leading a celibate life), since the rewards of anvārohaṇa are inferior to those of brahmacarya. As against this may be cited the extreme view of Aṅgiras ‘for all women there is no other duty except falling into the funeral pyre, when the husband dies.’¹⁴⁸¹ The Śuddhitattva remarks that this extreme or sweeping statement is made by way of belauding *sahamarana*.

v2.c32.29

¹⁴⁸⁰ यत्तु विष्णुना धर्मान्तरमुक्तं मृते भर्तरि ब्रह्मचर्यं तदन्वारोहणं वा ... ... तदेतद्धर्मान्तरमपि ब्रह्मचर्यधर्माज्जघन्यम्। निकृष्टफलत्वात् । स्मृतिच० on व्यव. p. 254.

v2.c32.30

¹⁴⁸¹ सर्वासामेव नारीणामग्निप्रपतनादृते । नान्यो धर्मो हि विज्ञेयो मृते भर्तरि कर्हिचित् ॥ अङ्गिरस् quoted by अपरार्क p. 109, परा. मा. II. 1. p. 58, शुद्धितत्त्व (p. 234 reads साध्वीनामेव नारीणां). साध्वीनामिह नारीणां is also वृद्धहारीत XI. 202.

v2.c32.31

We saw above that brāhmaṇa widows were only allowed anvārohaṇa, but not *anumarana*. There were other restrictions enjoined by the smṛtis on all widows ‘wives who have a child of tender years, who are pregnant, who have not attained puberty and who are in their monthly course do not mount the funeral pyre of their husbands’¹⁴⁸²—from the Bṛhan-Nāradīya purāṇa. There is a similar verse of Bṛhaspati. The wife who was in her course was allowed to burn herself after she bathed on the fourth day.

v2.c32.32

¹⁴⁸² बालापत्याश्च गर्भिण्यो अदृष्टऋतवस्तथा । रजस्वला राजसुते नारोहन्ति चितां शुभे ॥ नारदीयपुराण quoted by परा. मा. II. part 1, p. 58, शुद्धितत्त्व p. 236, स्मृतिमुक्ताफल I. p. 162 (ascribes to और्व). ‘बालसंवर्धनं त्यक्त्वा बालापत्या न गच्छति । रजस्वला सूतिका च रक्षेद्गर्भं च गर्भिणी ॥ बृहस्पति quoted by परा. मा. and शुद्धितत्त्व.

v2.c32.33

Āpastamba (verse) prescribes the Prājāpatya penance for a woman who having first resolved to burn herself on the funeral pyre turns back from it at the last moment.¹⁴⁸³ The Rājatarangiṇī (VI. 196) refers to a queen who having pretended to have resolved on becoming *satī* ultimately regretted the step and turned back.

v2.c32.34

¹⁴⁸³ चितिभ्रष्टा तु या नारी मोहाद्विचालिता ततः। प्राजापत्येन शुध्येत्तु तस्माद्वै पापकर्मणः ॥ आपस्तम्ब quoted by अपरार्क p. 1193 and शुद्धितत्त्व p. 243.

v2.c32.35

The Śuddhitattva sets out the procedure of widow burning.¹⁴⁸⁴ The widow bathes and puts on two white garments, takes *kuśa* blades in her hands, faces the east or north, performs ācamana (sipping water); when the brāhmaṇas say ‘om, tat sat’ she remembers the God Nārāyaṇa and refers to the time (month, fortnight, *tithi*) and then makes the *saṁkalpa* (declaration of resolve) set out below. She then calls upon the eight *lokapālas* (guardians of the quarters), the sun, the moon, the fire &c. to become witnesses to her act of following her husband on the funeral pyre, she then goes round the fire thrice, then the brāhmaṇa recites the Vedic verse 'imā nārīr &c.' (Ṛg. X. 18. 7) and a Purāṇa verse 'may these very good and holy women who are devoted to their husbands enter fire together with the body of the husband,' the woman utters 'namo namaḥ' and ascends the kindled pyre. The long-winded preamble of the saṁkalpa 'arundhatī...patipūtatvakāmā' is based upon the verses of Aṅgiras quoted above (in *n.* 1477). The Śuddhitattva as printed is corrupt but it appears that it read the last quarter of Ṛg. X. 18. 7 as 'ārohantu jalayonim-agne' (let them ascend the watery seat or origin, O fire!) meaning probably 'may fire be to them as cool as water'. Some writers have charged the brāhmaṇa priest-hood (or Raghunandana) with having purposely changed the reading of the verse Ṛg. X. 18. 7 in order to make it suit the rite of immolating oneself in fire (i. e. 'agne' or 'agneḥ' was substituted for 'agre'). But this charge is not sustainable. That the verse Ṛg. X. 18. 7 as it actually is was held to refer to widow burning centuries before Raghunandana follows from the fact that even the Brahmapurāṇa¹⁴⁸⁵ and Aparārka (quoted above on p. 628) take it in that sense. It was therefore not necessary to alter the reading. Further even if some priests or Raghunandana had changed it that fact would have been detected in no time, as in those days there were thousands of people who knew every syllable of the Ṛgveda by heart. Therefore it must be admitted that either the MSS. are corrupt or Raghunandana committed an innocent slip. That mantra was not addressed to widows at all, but to ladies of the deceased man's household whose husbands were living and the gṛhyasūtra of Āśv. made use of it with that meaning. Raghunandana, a profound student of dharmaśāstras and smṛtis (and often styled Smārta-bhaṭṭācārya), could not have been ignorant of what Āśv. said. The procedure as prescribed in the Nirṇayasindhu¹⁴⁸⁶ of Kamalākarabhaṭṭa, whose mother became a *satī* and who pays a very tender and touching reverence to her memory in his works, is somewhat different and it is followed by the Dharmasindhu.

v2.c32.36

¹⁴⁸⁴ Vide appendix under 1484.

v2.c32.37

¹⁴⁸⁵ शुद्धितत्त्व (p. 235) itself quotes the ब्रह्मपुराण text 'ऋग्वेदवादात् साध्वी स्त्री'

v2.c32.38

¹⁴⁸⁶ Vide निर्णयसिन्धु III, उत्तरार्ध p. 623 and धर्मसिन्धु pp. 483-484. The निर्णयसिन्धु expressly refers to the Gauḍa procedure as different from his "गौडास्तु 'इमा नारीरविधवाः' इति 'ओं इमाः पतिव्रताः ... विभावसुम्' इति च विप्रः पठेहित्याहुः।".

v2.c32.39

It appears from all accounts of travellers and others that widow-burning prevailed more in Bengal during the centuries immediately preceding its abolition than anywhere else in India.¹⁴⁸⁷ If that was so, there were certain good reasons for that state of things. In the whole of India, except Bengal, the widows of members in a joint Hindu family are only entitled to maintenance and have no other rights over the property of the family. In Bengal, wherever the Dāyabhāga prevails, the widow of a sonless member even in a joint Hindu family is entitled to practically the same rights over joint family property which her deceased husband would have had. This must have frequently induced the surviving¹⁴⁸⁸ members to get rid of the widow by appealing at a most distressing hour to her devotion to and love for her husband. This rule of the widow's right was not for the first time propounded by Jīmūtavāhana; he makes it clear that he followed a predecessor called Jitendriya. The figures given above lend support to the view expressed here, since Benares, where the rights of widows were insignificant, was responsible for a small number of *satīs* only. It is impossible, however, to believe that the number of widows in ordinary stations of life burning themselves was very large at any time or that most of the widows that did so were coerced into doing it. There is a good deal of epigraphic and other evidence particularly in other parts of India that relatives tried to dissuade the widow from taking the step. Even in Bengal the number of *satīs* must never have been very large. Colebrooke, who had spent the best part of his life in Bengal and who was a profound Sanskrit scholar, observes in a paper written about 1795 A. D. 'Happily the martyrs of this superstition have never been numerous. It is certain that the instances of the widow's sacrifices are now rare'.¹⁴⁸⁹ The very fact that there was no disturbance of peace or ebullition of popular feeling or even any great verbal protest from the vast Hindu population (except a petition to the Privy Council) against Bentinck's sweeping measure indicates two things, viz. that the burning of widows was a rare occurrence and that people were not very keen on observing the practice nor had they any very deep-seated convictions about its absolute religious necessity.¹⁴⁹⁰

v2.c32.40

¹⁴⁸⁷ Thomson in his book on 'Suttee' (pp. 69, 72) gives the figures for *satīs* reported from the Bengal Presidency (which then included Bihar and extended up to Benares) during 1815-1828. The lowest figure was 378 in 1815 and the highest 839 in 1818. Out of the total of 2366 cases during the four years 1815-1818, the Calcutta division alone contributed 1485, the Benares division, the seat of orthodoxy, contributed only 343. Vide H. H. Wilson's 'History of India' (ed. of 1858), vol. III (for 1805-1835 A. D.), pp 185-192. At p. 189 a table of the number of *satīs* for 1815-1828 is given, from which it appears that in 1828 there were 463 cases of *satīs* out of whom 420 came from Bengal, Bihar and Orissa, out of which 287 were from the Calcutta division alone.

v2.c32.41

¹⁴⁸⁸ Vide दायभाग (ed. by Jīvānanda, 1893) 'अतोऽविशेषेणैव विभक्ताद्यनपेक्षयैव अपुत्रस्य भर्तुः कृत्स्नधने पत्न्यधिकारो जितेन्द्रियोक्त आदऱणीयः।' p. 46; 'पत्नी च भर्तृधनं भुञ्जीतैव परं न तु तस्य दानाधमनविक्रयान्कर्तुमर्हति' p. 56.

v2.c32.42

¹⁴⁸⁹ Vide Colebrooke's Miscellaneous Essays (ed. of 1837) vol. I. p. 122.

v2.c32.43

¹⁴⁹⁰ Vide Fitz-Edward Hall's paper in J. R. A. S. vol. III New Series (1868) pp. 190–191, footnote, where he quotes extracts from the writings of Prof. Wilson, Marshman and others that show how fears of violent resistance to Bentinck's measure were singularly falsified.

v2.c32.44

Modern India does not justify the practice of *satī*, but it is a warped mentality that rebukes modern Indians for expressing admiration and reverence for the cool and unfaltering courage of Indian women in becoming *satīs* or performing the *jauhar* for cherishing their ideals of womanly conduct. If Englishmen can feel pride in their ancestors who grabbed one fourth of the world's surface or if Frenchmen can feel pride in the deeds of their Emperor Napoleon who tried to enslave the whole of Europe and yet are not held up to ridicule or rebuke, there is no reason why poor Indians cannot express admiration for the sacrifices which their women made in the past, though they may condemn the institution itself which demanded such terrible sacrifice and suffering.

Linked texts (30)