thats it!“If it were not for that, I’m afraid I would have broken my virginity by now,” the 16-year-old Swazi maiden said quietly. “Today I am still able to walk tall with pride because I know I am pure.”
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!klusener said: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.
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?klusener said: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.
???Out of shame Shiva threw herself into an offering fire and died in the flames as a respectable woman
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.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?
yeah, sure. Tell that to the pariahs, okay?klusener said:. 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),
Despite safeguards in the Constitution and in law, certain groups remained particularly vulnerable to human rights abuses based on discrimination. Access to justice for women, dalits and others who suffer from social and economic discrimination remained problematic.
Glad there are signs of progress in urban areas in India, then!klusener said: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?
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.klusener said: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.
I meant sati.klusener said:???
Shiva is a male.
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)You are being extremely overdramatic. I don't know where you got the bit about women loosing all their rights.
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.# This print was produced in 1815. It was produced to support the campaign of Christian missionaries to get the Hindu custom of Sati abolished.
# When Hindus die their bodies are burned on fires called funeral pyres. In the Sati tradition the wife of a dead Hindu man might voluntarily throw herself on to the pyre.
# Christian missionaries were horrified by this practice. They believed that women were often forced to burn themselves to death by relatives who wanted to inherit the man's property.
# It is possible that Christian missionaries exaggerated the scale of the practice. They met a lot of opposition to their efforts to spread the Christian faith in India. Prints like this suggested that Hindus needing 'saving' from their own religion. This helped missionaries to get support back in Britain.
# The British made Sati illegal in 1829. This is a rare example of British rule interfering with local religious beliefs. On the whole the British rulers did not do this. After the great rebellion in India in 1857-8 the British treated Indian religions with even greater respect.
# The banning of Sati is a good example of why British rule in India was controversial. The British saw Sati as barbaric, but did they have the right to interfere?
# Also, Indian historians believe that Sati was already in decline before the British abolished it. Many Hindus believed it was not a good tradition.
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?klusener said: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.