What’s the deal with suttee? For years I’ve been hearing that in India, widows are routinely thrown on funeral pyres alive. Is this just propaganda? And if not, is it just unpopular widows that it happens to? Since most men die before women, do all children burn their mom alive as a matter of course? Hindus seem so peaceful! –Mugg Mellish, via the Internet
Best of Chicago voting is live now. Vote for your favorites »
They do, eh? Then you haven’t been reading the newspapers. Suttee, properly known as sati, was officially banned by the British in 1829 but has never been completely stamped out. About 40 cases have been reported since Indian independence in 1947, mostly in the northwest state of Rajasthan, home of the traditional Rajput warrior caste. One instance in 1987 became a cause celebre, with some Indian women, believe it or not, demanding the right to immolate themselves. Gives new meaning to that old Hindu chant I’m a Hunka Hunka Burnin’ Love.
Many explanations for suttee have been offered, the most obvious being that it’s simply a male-centered culture’s way of eliminating unwanted women. Traditionally Indian widows can’t remarry and many spend the balance of their lives penniless. Others say it’s a peculiar excess of the Rajputs. In times gone by the warlike Rajputs lost a lot of men in combat, leaving a lot of widows without support. But whereas their Muslim foes dealt with the problem through polygamy, the Rajputs were said to be strictly monogamous. If you can’t marry off your surplus women, this line of thinking goes, the obvious alternative is to set them afire. Another take on it is that the women killed themselves rather than submit to their Muslim conquerors.
Art accompanying story in printed newspaper (not available in this archive): illusatrtion/Slug Signorino.
