Ban on sex????
that is so pathetic
in my country: it was belived that if a daughter is married when she is 72 months old the dorrway to heaven is open . nearly everyone would be married when they r 12.
this thing has been banned now.
we cremate by burning the dead; it was also that a widow was to be burnt alive with husband's body :surprised . known as sati. it is also banned now.
Those practices aren't mandated by Hinduism, they grew culturally, just like other weird practices all over the world. I still don't understand how sati works, I mean what level of dedication and love would you have for someone, if you are prepared to be burned with them.
It might not be that difficult to convince them when they are in the midst of grief of losing their husband. When they have burials in the US, usually they wait until the mourners have left the graveside before lowering the coffin into the ground (it's a little weird to walk away from a grave leaving the coffin above ground suspended over the hole and not actually buried yet), and that practice was because too many of the bereaved would try to jump into the hole with the coffin and beg to be buried with it. Nonetheless, what a horrible practice to permit that rather than help those women through their grief!
Isn't it that the women loose all their rights with their husband gone and are a burden for their family in law, so to save a life of being exploited and used as a slave they throw themselves into the fire? Or am I being over-dramatic by thinking that?
The traditional story is that Shiva in a rage cut off the head of his father-in-law, because he didn't want Shiva to marry Sati. Out of shame Shiva threw herself into an offering fire and died in the flames as a respectable woman, the practice was banned in 1829 by the Brits.
Shiva is a male.
You are being extremely overdramatic. I don't know where you got the bit about women loosing all their rights. There have been many famous Indian queens (for example Rani Jhansi who fought in 1857, after her husband was killed by the British) and women in the past. Also, slavery didn't exist in India. The caste system itself was fluid and spiritual(meaning the shudras could become brahmans and brahmans could become shudras; brahmans were one who achieved enlightenment and shudras were those who were beginning their spiritual journey), but as time went on and with the arrival of the invaders (mughals, british, etc.), it turned into a rigid, hereditary system, which went against the principles of Hinduism itself.
yeah, sure. Tell that to the pariahs, okay?
Did you read the second part? With time, it turned into a rigid, hereditary system with the so-called Brahmans taking advantage of the system to profit themselves. This untouchable crap doesn't have a basis in Hinduism, it is just like slavery used by the Europeans or Americans, it didn't have a basis in Christianity, but the people were selfish and greedy.
So why are the pariahs in India STILL treated as pariahs?
What the hell are you talking about? have you been to india in your life? These "pariahs" get reservations in every part of Indian society. If someone is classified as a forward caste and gets a 95 and a so called schedule caste person gets 80 in an exam, the schedule caste person gets the seat. This affirmative action is put in place in almost every part of Indian society.
America and India are in the exact same position regarding this. There are always liberals (regarding a.a.) in America and people like them in India complaining that blacks/sc don't get rights and there is a big conspiracy with the majority (a.k.a The Man) trying to do them in. Thing is the outside world seems to realize this with America, but with India, they still stupidly think what happened during the British rule still occurs.
Just citing from Amnesty International concerning the "dalits", dear:
Discrimination happens in every country. Am I denying that it doesn't exist? No, it does exist, but only in the most rural parts of the nation, you could compare it to the Deep South. The fact is that the government in both the countries and the majority of the people are not prey to this kind of behaviour.
Interesting to see it was posted on the Pakistan government's website, have they seen Amnesty International's report on Pakistan's human rights abuses?
"Males kept away because of the large fines involved. Girls know that now it is over, it does not mean they can start misbehaving, but how are we going to keep them away?” Sijabulile Mdluli, 16, said, indicating a group of smiling boys."
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Death by discrimination - the continuing role of race in capital cases
So, what now? Just because I posted this report here, will you accept that there is discrimination in their judicial system? There is always ground for arguments on this type of thing.
My point is this sort of discrimination tends to take place in every society among the people who are still uneducated and ignorant. But things are changing for the better.
Glad there are signs of progress in urban areas in India, then!
As for the Pakistani link, I used the first link I googled on; I have no illusions as to the state of human rights in Pakistan.
From what I've heard, barren wives there have the unfortunate habit of tripping over a tank of gasoline, endrench themselves and very unfortunately manage to burn themselves to death.
Can't say I've heard reports about this bad habit occuring among Indian wives.
It probably happens in India too. In a population of a billion people, where there is a definitive lower tier of ignorant, uneducated people living in poverty, many things are possible.
Agreed; it seems that the more educated ranks of today's India are commited to improve the situation, and this gives some hope for the future.
I meant sati.
In my book it says: "It must be said that in the higher casts the fate of widows is less than nice. They could not remarry, had to shave their hair off and were given a humble place in the household of the family of the passed away, where the rest of their life they served as a slave to the family [like cinderalla]. Widows are still considered impure to everyone besides their own children. They can never take place in religious ceremonies or festivals and can never return to the house of their parents. Especially young widows due to this often have no other choice than to follow their husband into the flames. In the present India the position of the widow is often not that sad anymore, but in the country side the traditions are still stronger than the renewal and so there are still widows that commit sati because of that." (I quickly translated it from dutch)
What! What book is this? I am sorry, but from my own experience, this is B.S. My grandfather died early and my grandmother continued the family business, while the same with my great-grandfather (both died from hyper-tension) and my great-grandmother continued with the farming. I don't know about this.
Anyways, here is a site from the British Government about sati during their rule in India.
Again, this is from the British government's website, so you can see their own bias in statements such as this: After the great rebellion in India in 1857-8 the British treated Indian religions with even greater respect.
Ofcourse I'm not saying it is happening on a large scale today and that it is the reason they do it in the cases that still happen today. But I'm not sure what the position of the women was many years ago?
I'm not talking about today, I am talking about the past. The link to the British report indicates a motive behind the exaggeration of the sati practice in the West. It was up to the wife to decide, not for her to be forced.
On the first couple of reads I thought the title said "Switzerland" and I was in a deep state of confusion. On the third try this started to seem less weird.
Separate names with a comma.