Bengal Sati Regulation, 1829 | |
---|---|
Governor-General of India, Lord William Bentinck, in Council, Calcutta. | |
| |
Enacted by | Governor-General of India, Lord William Bentinck, in Council, Calcutta. |
Enacted | 4 December 1829 |
Repeals | |
Sati (Prevention) Act, 1987 |
The Bengal Sati Regulation,[nb 1] or Regulation XVII, A. D. 1829 of the Bengal Code was a legal act promulgated in British India under East India Company rule, by the then Governor-General Lord William Bentinck. The act made the practice of sati—or the immolation of a Hindu widow on the funeral pyre of her deceased husband—illegal in all jurisdictions of British India and subject to legal prosecution.
The ban was the first major social reform legislation enacted by the British in India. It led to legislation against other old Hindu practices in the Indo-Aryan-speaking regions of India that limited the rights of women, especially those related to the inheritance of property.[2][3][4] The Regulation was repealed and superseded by the Sati (Prevention) Act, 1987 when attempts to revive the custom in the 1980s brought further legislative focus on the practice.[5]
The ban was enacted by Bentinck after consultation with the Army administration found little opposition to any such ban.[6][7] The most prominent campaigners to end the practice of sati were led by British Christian evangelists, such as William Carey, and Hindu reformers such as Ram Mohan Roy. The opposition came from some conservative Hindus led by Radhakanta Deb and the Dharma Sabha who saw the ban as an interference in Hindu religious affairs and violation of George III's Statute 37, which had assured Hindus complete non-interference with their religion. This resulted in a challenge to the decision to ban sati in the Privy Council, but the ban was upheld with four of the seven privy councillors supporting it.[8][9][10]
Cite error: There are <ref group=nb>
tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=nb}}
template (see the help page).
Therefore, by the time of the Mauryan Empire the position of women in mainstream Indo-Aryan society seems to have deteriorated. Customs such as child marriage and dowry were becoming entrenched; and a young women's purpose in life was to provide sons for the male lineage into which she married. To quote the Arthashāstra: 'wives are there for having sons'. Practices such as female infanticide and the neglect of young girls were also developing at this time. Further, due to the increasingly hierarchical nature of the society, marriage was becoming a mere institution for childbearing and the formalization of relationships between groups. In turn, this may have contributed to the growth of increasingly instrumental attitudes towards women and girls (who moved home at marriage). It is important to note that, in all likelihood, these developments did not affect people living in large parts of the subcontinent—such as those in the south, and tribal communities inhabiting the forested hill and plateau areas of Southern Asia where hindiusm was practised. That said, these deleterious features have continued to blight Indo-Aryan-speaking areas of the subcontinent until the present day.
The legal rights, as well as the ideal images, of women were increasingly circumscribed during the Gupta era. The Laws of Manu, compiled from about 200 to 400 C.E., came to be the most prominent evidence that this era was not necessarily a golden age for women. Through a combination of legal injunctions and moral prescriptions, women were firmly tied to the patriarchal family, ... Thus the Laws of Manu severely reduced the property rights of women, recommended a significant difference in ages between husband and wife and the relatively early marriage of women, and banned widow remarriage. Manu's preoccupation with chastity reflected possibly a growing concern for the maintenance of inheritance rights in the male line, a fear of women undermining the increasingly rigid caste divisions, and a growing emphasis on male asceticism as a higher spiritual calling.
Darkness can be said to have pervaded one aspect of society during the inter-imperial centuries: the degradation of women. In Hinduism, the monastic tradition was not institutionalized as it was in the heterodoxies of Buddhism and Jainism, where it was considered the only true path to spiritual liberation. (p. 88) Instead, Hindu men of upper castes, passed through several stages of life: that of initiate, when those of the twice-born castes received the sacred thread; that of student, when the upper castes studied the Vedas; that of the married man, when they became householders; ... Since the Hindu man was enjoined to take a wife at the appropriate period of life, the roles and nature of women presented some difficulty. Unlike the monastic ascetic, the Hindu man was exhorted to have sons, and could not altogether avoid either women or sexuality. ... Manu approved of child brides, considering a girl of eight suitable for a man of twenty-four, and one of twelve appropriate for a man of thirty.(p. 89) If there was no dowry, or if the groom's family paid that of the bride, the marriage was ranked lower. In this ranking lay the seeds of the curse of dowry that has become a major social problem in modern India, among all castes, classes and even religions. (p. 90) ... the widow's head was shaved, she was expected to sleep on the ground, eat one meal a day, do the most menial tasks, wear only the plainest, meanest garments, and no ornaments. She was excluded from all festivals and celebrations since she was considered inauspicious to all but her own children. This penitential life was enjoined because the widow could never quite escape the suspicion that she was in some way responsible for her husband's premature demise. ... The positions taken and the practices discussed by Manu and the other commentators and writers of Dharmashastra are not quaint relics of the distant past, but alive and recurrent in India today – as the attempts to revive the custom of sati (widow immolation) in recent decades has shown.