MG Singh wrote:

anil wrote:

MG Singh wrote:

There does not seem to be much interest on this topic on Boddunan unlike some other sites which I write( not worth mentioning here) where it generated a lot of interest. I repeat in case Lord Canning had not passed the act of 1829 equating Sati with murder( it was going on for 4000 years) Sati would still be in practice today like obscurantist laws of Islam ( like stoning to death in Yemen and Afghanistan). I shudder to think if the Mughal rule had continued or teh British had not come. 

Stoning to death is a sati tradition. I am not agree with it. Stoning to death is punishment, but sati is not a punishment.

I am mesmerised with this comment. If sati was not a punishment then what was it?

I don;t know about sati system of 4000 years ago. I read only about it in Rajasthan. Here women had sati when their husbands were went for last fight and they had not any chance to come back. To save their pride and honor. 

anil wrote:

MG Singh wrote:

anil wrote:

MG Singh wrote:

There does not seem to be much interest on this topic on Boddunan unlike some other sites which I write( not worth mentioning here) where it generated a lot of interest. I repeat in case Lord Canning had not passed the act of 1829 equating Sati with murder( it was going on for 4000 years) Sati would still be in practice today like obscurantist laws of Islam ( like stoning to death in Yemen and Afghanistan). I shudder to think if the Mughal rule had continued or teh British had not come. 

Stoning to death is a sati tradition. I am not agree with it. Stoning to death is punishment, but sati is not a punishment.

I am mesmerised with this comment. If sati was not a punishment then what was it?

I don;t know about sati system of 4000 years ago. I read only about it in Rajasthan. Here women had sati when their husbands were went for last fight and they had not any chance to come back. To save their pride and honor. 

What you are talking off is the practice of Jauhar, which came up after the Muslims invaded India and Hindus were defeated. You may like to read about Sati in the ref below. It is as old as Hindu history and was stopped only in 1829 by Lord Canning. The Hindus appealed against this law to the Privy Council in London which upheld Lord Canning's law.

https://www.stmuhistorymedia.org/ancient-indian-practice-of-sati/

MG Singh wrote:

anil wrote:

MG Singh wrote:

anil wrote:

MG Singh wrote:

There does not seem to be much interest on this topic on Boddunan unlike some other sites which I write( not worth mentioning here) where it generated a lot of interest. I repeat in case Lord Canning had not passed the act of 1829 equating Sati with murder( it was going on for 4000 years) Sati would still be in practice today like obscurantist laws of Islam ( like stoning to death in Yemen and Afghanistan). I shudder to think if the Mughal rule had continued or teh British had not come. 

Stoning to death is a sati tradition. I am not agree with it. Stoning to death is punishment, but sati is not a punishment.

I am mesmerised with this comment. If sati was not a punishment then what was it?

I don;t know about sati system of 4000 years ago. I read only about it in Rajasthan. Here women had sati when their husbands were went for last fight and they had not any chance to come back. To save their pride and honor. 

What you are talking off is the practice of Jauhar, which came up after the Muslims invaded India and Hindus were defeated. You may like to read about Sati in the ref below. It is as old as Hindu history and was stopped only in 1829 by Lord Canning. The Hindus appealed against this law to the Privy Council in London which upheld Lord Canning's law.

https://www.stmuhistorymedia.org/ancient-indian-practice-of-sati/

I am agree it is old ritual in India, some Indian like Raja Ram Mohan Roy also do much work to remove this evil ritual. I read history of Bhati of Jaislmer. More than 1 wife of king satti with them.

In India historically and even now , women especially married or unmarried women have rights only when the husbands ,father's and brothers allow them to have any. A few ladies might rise above that but that isn't the norm , we have a long long way to go before we can.ever callourselves an equal society based on gender as well..

There is inequality at every level  

usha manohar wrote:

In India historically and even now , women especially married or unmarried women have rights only when the husbands ,father's and brothers allow them to have any. A few ladies might rise above that but that isn't the norm , we have a long long way to go before we can.ever callourselves an equal society based on gender as well..

There is inequality at every level  

this Practice is not only in Indian society. It  is also in another society too.

anil wrote:

usha manohar wrote:

In India historically and even now , women especially married or unmarried women have rights only when the husbands ,father's and brothers allow them to have any. A few ladies might rise above that but that isn't the norm , we have a long long way to go before we can.ever callourselves an equal society based on gender as well..

There is inequality at every level  

this Practice is not only in Indian society. It  is also in another society too.

Yes, that's true but in India, at least in the big cities it is changing and women are more asertive.

The major difference is that they have lawsin place to minimize gender discrimination unlike us. 

usha manohar wrote:

The major difference is that they have lawsin place to minimize gender discrimination unlike us. 

Well,  when they make gender equality laws they are trashed.  The laudable triple Yet the bill didn't get passed and when SC opens door to Sabarimala temple for all an agitation fanned by BJP spreads. What is one to do. The BJ P has its own concept of gender equality rooted in Ram Rajya. How silly considering Ram made Sita go through a Agniparikshan. It is a party with medieval roots. 

MG Singh wrote:

anil wrote:

usha manohar wrote:

In India historically and even now , women especially married or unmarried women have rights only when the husbands ,father's and brothers allow them to have any. A few ladies might rise above that but that isn't the norm , we have a long long way to go before we can.ever callourselves an equal society based on gender as well..

There is inequality at every level  

this Practice is not only in Indian society. It  is also in another society too.

Yes, that's true but in India, at least in the big cities it is changing and women are more asertive.

Yes it is some what good in big cities but now awareness is also increasing in small town even in villages. How females are doing in these days in village, it is news in today news paper that a girl a small village passed our NET examination with any coaching. She did it with help of internet.