• This forum contains old posts that have been closed. New threads and replies may not be made here. Please navigate to the relevant forum to create a new thread or post a reply.
  • Welcome to Tamil Brahmins forums.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our Free Brahmin Community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.

Is the devadasi system once again to resuscitate?

Status
Not open for further replies.

prasad1

Active member
Devadasi system is a remnant of the effects of a historic mistake. The people who invented this perhaps were sincere in their belief that the Deities in the temple needed dedicated souls to serve them. but the idea was badly conceived. The single woman soon found it difficult to carry on in the society without a male's support and fell prey to rich men looking for pleasure for money. Sathir was a dance form in which special stress was placed on certain movements to appeal to the carnal desires of men. This was modified by later artistes and it became the popularly accepted Bharatanatyam dance form.

I feel there is no need to revive the Devdasi system as temples do not need them. For men looking for a nights stand there are regular whorehouses and they need not look for artistes.


I support this view wholeheartedly.
It was a bad idea, there might have been some incidental advantage.
Just as cannibalism is a bad idea, but sick person may justify it as feeding the hungry (sic!!!!).
 
Last edited:

Raji Ram

Active member
Is it true that rich men DON'T 'search' for artists? :spy:

Please see the web to know the plight of some pretty women artists! :sad:

Men are men.
 
Is it true that rich men DON'T 'search' for artists? :spy:

Please see the web to know the plight of some pretty women artists! :sad:

Men are men.

Well. The people come with different tastes and different levels of understanding of arts.

If there are men with a taste for arts it would be natural for them to look for artistes for company. That is an aspect of creation.

For some men, arts = brains. A beautiful body with brains -- any male will fall for it wholeheartedly. LOL.
 
OP
OP
shansnrmp
The Colonial-India took steps to prevent the Devadasi system.


The British Raj has taken steps to prevent the Devadasi system in their colonial, but for the political reasons, some of our leaders hide the facts, and trying to divert the common peoples' attention against them. There is no mood to accept the facts that we have been exist with negative arguments. A wrong idea, like that the English is our enemy has been imposed upon us aged longer.The neutrality will be realized if examined.


We should not refuse that the British Raj played an important role in abolishing the cruel 'sati' practice were widely spread in the North India. It has been revealed by an evidence that a Devadasi woman in Tamil Nadu also take into the sati. While this, the British India forbidden all these ill-practiced by stern action
 
The Colonial-India took steps to prevent the Devadasi system.


The British Raj has taken steps to prevent the Devadasi system in their colonial, but for the political reasons, some of our leaders hide the facts, and trying to divert the common peoples' attention against them. There is no mood to accept the facts that we have been exist with negative arguments. A wrong idea, like that the English is our enemy has been imposed upon us aged longer.The neutrality will be realized if examined.


We should not refuse that the British Raj played an important role in abolishing the cruel 'sati' practice were widely spread in the North India. It has been revealed by an evidence that a Devadasi woman in Tamil Nadu also take into the sati. While this, the British India forbidden all these ill-practiced by stern action
Sati was not a Hindu practice. It came into the culture midway because of Muslims forcefully taking away the women from a vanquished king. When Dasarath died his wives did not end up with him in funeral pyre. That is sufficient proof. When Muslims lost power in India sati was no more a self preservation measure. So it went without any one lamenting.
 
OP
OP
shansnrmp
I am also obliged to tell here that the view of the devadasis in the eyes of Europe writers was very high. Sir Monier Williams says in his book ''Life and Religiousness in India'' ''மதம்சார்ந்த ஆழ்ந்த நம்பிக்கைகளையும், உடமையுணர்வையும் பொதுவாக மற்றவர்களுக்கு எடுத்துக்காட்டுகளாக விளங்குகிற வகையில் பேணிக்காத்தவர்களாக தேவதாசிகள் இருக்கின்றனர்'' நவீன யுகத்தில் தேவதாசிகள் திரிபடைந்து விபச்சாரிகள் என்ற நிலைக்குத் தள்ளப்பட்டுவிட்டவர்கள் என்றபோதிலும்கூட , அவர்களின் பாரம்பரியம் மிக பிரமாண்டமான பங்கினை ஆற்றியுள்ளது''.


In general Devadasis are in religious deeper believers and bravery are normally preserved as illustrations for others.In the modern era, the tradition has played a tremendous role, even though the devotees are inclined to become prostitutes.Even in the modern era, the Devadasis (தேவரடியாள்) have turned into prostitutes, even though they are prostitutes, their tradition has played a tremendous role.
 

prasad1

Active member
Sati was not a Hindu practice. It came into the culture midway because of Muslims forcefully taking away the women from a vanquished king. When Dasarath died his wives did not end up with him in funeral pyre. That is sufficient proof. When Muslims lost power in India sati was no more a self preservationWhen Padu measure. So it went without any one lamenting.


In mahabharata:

When Pandu died, Kunti decided to die on her husband’s pyre being a Sati but Madri insisted that she will not be able to live in the world alone with the guilt that her husband died because of her. She chose to become Sati instead and leaped on Pandu’s pyre leaving her two sons with Kunti. Kunti was now a mother of five sons with no husband and no palace.
https://thegreatindianepic.com/tag/madri/

I do not believe there was Islam at the time of Mahabharata. So Islam was NOT the cause of Sati.

It was the Greed that was the cause of Sati (one less mouth to feed).

In this age of ascending feminism and focus on equality and human rights, it is difficult to assimilate the Hindu practice of sati, the burning to death of a widow on her husband's funeral pyre, into our modern world. Indeed, the practice is outlawed and illegal in today's India, yet it occurs up to the present day and is still regarded by some Hindus as the ultimate form of womanly devotion and sacrifice.

Sati (also called suttee) is the practice among some Hindu communities by which a recently widowed woman either voluntarily or by use of force or coercion commits suicide as a result of her husband's death. The best known form of sati is when a woman burns to death on her husband's funeral pyre. However other forms of sati exist, including being buried alive with the husband's corpse and drowning.
The term sati is derived from the original name of the goddess Sati, also known as Dakshayani, who self-immolated because she was unable to bear her father Daksha's humiliation of her (living) husband Shiva. Sati as practice is first mentioned in 510 CCE, when a stele commemorating such an incident was erected at Eran, an ancient city in the modern state of Madhya Pradesh. The custom began to grow in popularity as evidenced by the number of stones placed to commemorate satis, particularly in southern India and amongst the higher castes of Indian society, despite the fact that the Brahmins originally condemned the practice (Auboyer 2002). Over the centuries the custom died out in the south only to become prevalent in the north, particularly in the states of Rajasthan and Bengal. While comprehensive data are lacking across India and through the ages, the British East India Company recorded that the total figure of known occurrences for the period 1813 - 1828 was 8,135; another source gives the number of 7,941 from 1815 - 1828, an average of 618 documented incidents per year. However, these numbers are likely to grossly underestimate the real number of satis as in 1823, 575 women performed sati in the state of Bengal alone (Hardgrave 1998).
Historically, the practice of sati was to be found among many castes and at every social level, chosen by or for both uneducated and the highest ranking women of the times. The common deciding factor was often ownership of wealth or property, since all possessions of the widow devolved to the husband's family upon her death. In a country that shunned widows, sati was considered the highest expression of wifely devotion to a dead husband (Allen & Dwivedi 1998, Moore 2004). It was deemed an act of peerless piety and was said to purge her of all her sins, release her from the cycle of birth and rebirth and ensure salvation for her dead husband and the seven generations that followed her (Moore 2004). Because its proponents lauded it as the required conduct of righteous women, it was not considered to be suicide, otherwise banned or discouraged by Hindu scripture. Sati also carried romantic associations which some were at apparent pains to amplify. Stein (1978) states "The widow on her way to the pyre was the object (for once) of all public attention...Endowed with the gift of prophecy and the power to cure and bless, she was immolated amid great fanfare, with great veneration". Only if she was virtuous and pious would she be worthy of being sacrificed; consequently being burned or being seen as a failed wife were often her only choices (Stein 1978). Indeed, the very reference to the widow from the point at which she decided to become a "Sati" (Chaste One) removed any further personal reference to her as an individual and elevated her to a remote and untouchable context. It is little wonder that women growing up in a culture in which they were so little valued as individuals considered it the only way for a good wife to behave. The alternative, anyway, was not appealing. After the death of a husband an Hindi widow was expected to live the life of an aesthetic, renouncing all social activities, shaving her head, eating only boiled rice and sleeping on thin coarse matting (Moore 2004). To many, death may have been preferable, especially for those who were still girls themselves when their husband's died.


https://kashgar.com.au/blogs/history/the-practice-of-sati-widow-burning

So the men of the family literally forced this crime under the guise of religion.
 
Last edited:
OP
OP
shansnrmp
Sati was not a Hindu practice. It came into the culture midway because of Muslims forcefully taking away the women from a vanquished king. When Dasarath died his wives did not end up with him in funeral pyre. That is sufficient proof. When Muslims lost power in India sati was no more a self preservation measure. So it went without any one lamenting.


Vaagmi

I have appreciated your knowledge in the history in particular about the Hinduism. In fact, the history has two corners means plaintiff and defender. It is always harmful to hearing one side of the argument instead of both. Generally, I do not want to impose my ideas on you. Nevertheless, I requested to read Prasad 1 's postings (#33). It is enough to prove that this 'sati' practice had been practiced since the 'Mahabharata Yugam' as well.
 
In mahabharata:

When Pandu died, Kunti decided to die on her husband’s pyre being a Sati but Madri insisted that she will not be able to live in the world alone with the guilt that her husband died because of her. She chose to become Sati instead and leaped on Pandu’s pyre leaving her two sons with Kunti. Kunti was now a mother of five sons with no husband and no palace.
https://thegreatindianepic.com/tag/madri/
I do not believe there was Islam at the time of Mahabharata. So Islam was NOT the cause of Sati.

This does not change the position of facts one small bit.

It is Kunti who decided on her own. It is Madri who decided on her own. They decided with their own free will on the basis of their own circumstances like my friend's wife who died the moment she knew that her husband was no more.

This does not change the position that there was no Sati practised as an established ritual in the Hindu dharma. So Dasarath's wives decided not to die and they lived. Ramayana is older than Mahabharata chronologically.

Whereas, it is a fact that the sultans and mughals who ruled from Delhi and elsewhere did take away by force the women folk from a defeated king and it is also recorded history that such women died either in the pyre of their husband or by lighting a funeral pyre for themselves to escape the fate of ending up as a sex slaves in the harem of a sultan or a lesser General. So even Sati as we know it and as we call it was a later day phenomena and that practice came about with all its halo of veneration only because of the Muslim kings and their aboriginal ways. Britishers ended this abominable practice by using their law making powers because they were in power after defeating the muslims and they did not have the kind of harems that the muslims had.

The Englishman has also a lot in the history of his evolution to feel ashamed off. Burning at the stakes is just one of the many examples. Not that they were born angels.

This answers post #33 and 34.
 
Last edited:
OP
OP
shansnrmp
This does not change the position of facts one small bit.

It is Kunti who decided on her own. It is Madri who decided on her own. They decided with their own free will on the basis of their own circumstances like my friend's wife who died the moment she knew that her husband was no more.

This does not change the position that there was no Sati practised as an established ritual in the Hindu dharma. So Dasarath's wives decided not to die and they lived. Ramayana is older than Mahabharata chronologically.

Whereas, it is a fact that the sultans and mughals who ruled from Delhi and elsewhere did take away by force the women folk from a defeated king and it is also recorded history that such women died either in the pyre of their husband or by lighting a funeral pyre for themselves to escape the fate of ending up as a sex slaves in the harem of a sultan or a lesser General. So even Sati as we know it and as we call it was a later day phenomena and that practice came about with all its halo of veneration only because of the Muslim kings and their aboriginal ways. Britishers ended this abominable practice by using their law making powers because they were in power after defeating the muslims and they did not have the kind of harems that the muslims had.

The Englishman has also a lot in the history of his evolution to feel ashamed off. Burning at the stakes is just one of the many examples. Not that they were born angels.

This answers post #33 and 34.


Excuse me, I do not have deep knowledge in the Mahabharata or Ramayana. This is the message about 'sati' that prasad1 has told you. Otherwise, I have nothing to say about it.
 
Sati as self-preservation. Wow! What are they preserving and who are they preserving for?

It is well-known that the main Indian person who worked with the British to outlaw sati was Raja Rammohun Roy. He was not fighting the Muslims.

Roy was a Bengali who saw the plight of 100s of widows who were forced to commit sati when their decrepit old husband died. This was often the case in Bengal where 100s of old girls were married to one old man so that the girls' caste was "preserved".
 

prasad1

Active member
Sati as self-preservation. Wow! What are they preserving and who are they preserving for?

It is well-known that the main Indian person who worked with the British to outlaw sati was Raja Rammohun Roy. He was not fighting the Muslims.

Roy was a Bengali who saw the plight of 100s of widows who were forced to commit sati when their decrepit old husband died. This was often the case in Bengal where 100s of old girls were married to one old man so that the girls' caste was "preserved".


Important achievements are dismissed flippantly because they are inconvenient truths.

Even though "sati" is outlawed, but still today widows are deprived of getting any share of husbands wealth. Poor women have to flock to Vrindavan.
 
Sati as self-preservation. Wow! What are they preserving and who are they preserving for?

It is well-known that the main Indian person who worked with the British to outlaw sati was Raja Rammohun Roy. He was not fighting the Muslims.

Roy was a Bengali who saw the plight of 100s of widows who were forced to commit sati when their decrepit old husband died. This was often the case in Bengal where 100s of old girls were married to one old man so that the girls' caste was "preserved".

Ask the questions loudly to yourselves. You will find answers.

I am sure that you know what a sex slave is. Escaping from that ordeal is preserving oneself.

Just recall these:

1. Arjuman Banu Begum aka Mumtaz mahal. She lived with a mughal sultan for 18 years and delivered 14 children for him.

2. During the partition of the country there were hundreds of bodies of women recovered from wells along the the line that later became the border in Punjab. They all escaped from sure rape to preserve themselves with their dear values.

Even today you keep hearing the song in the villages of Punjab ........kuvan hai. kuwe mein paani hai. paani mein dub maroongi.........

People exploit such noble sacrifices for narrow ends and that is a different story.

My purpose here was only to point out that the Hindu Dharma has nothing to do with sati. Sati was a practice which was found to be useful for a certain section of the society while it was later misused by others. There is nothing to wow about it.
 
Important achievements are dismissed flippantly because they are inconvenient truths.

Even though "sati" is outlawed, but still today widows are deprived of getting any share of husbands wealth. Poor women have to flock to Vrindavan.

Sati is certainly not desirable and was to be stoped at all costs.

In Bengal sati was used to exploit the helplessness of women and so Rammohanroy fought against it. The Government of the day (British) was sensible to understand the issue and so stopped it by legislation.

In south,west or the mid India sati was not heard of and was not practised.

It is not a practice of Hindu Dharma. Those who would like to link it with Hindu Dharma are people who flippantly turn truths into lies and make the history stand on its head.
 

prasad1

Active member
In south,west or the mid India sati was not heard of and was not practised.

Mahabharat did not happen in South India, Sati was practiced there.

The ancient Hindu tradition called ‘sati’ (or ‘suttee’), wherein a widow would burn herself to death on her husband’s pyre, was initially a voluntary act that was considered to be quite courageous and heroic, but it later became a forced practice. Although sati is now banned all over India and no longer practised, it has a rather dark history that you must know.


According to ancient Hindu customs, sati symbolised closure to a marriage. It was a voluntary act in which, as a sign of being a dutiful wife, a woman followed her husband to the afterlife. It was, therefore, considered to be the greatest form of devotion of a wife towards her dead husband.
With time, it became a forced practice. Women who did not wish to die like this were forced to do so in different ways. Traditionally, a widow had no role to play in society and was considered a burden. So, if a woman had no surviving children who could support her, she was pressurised to accept sati.




Historical records tell us that sati first appeared between 320 to 550 CE, during the rule of Gupta Empire. Incidents of sati were first recorded in Nepal in 464 CE, and later on in Madhya Pradesh in 510 CE. The practice then spread to Rajasthan, where most number of sati cases happened over the centuries.
Initially, the practice of sati was confined to royal families of the Kshatriya caste and only later spread to the lower castes, becoming widely practised among all social classes.
Sati was at its peak between the 15th and 18th centuries. During this period, as many as 1000 widows were burned alive every year, most commonly in India and Nepal.

https://theculturetrip.com/asia/ind...behind-sati-a-banned-funeral-custom-in-india/

So Mr. Vaagmi as usual partial Knowledge or accepting only the facts convenient to your position.
 
Mahabharat did not happen in South India, Sati was practiced there.

The ancient Hindu tradition called ‘sati’ (or ‘suttee’), wherein a widow would burn herself to death on her husband’s pyre, was initially a voluntary act that was considered to be quite courageous and heroic, but it later became a forced practice. Although sati is now banned all over India and no longer practised, it has a rather dark history that you must know.
According to ancient Hindu customs, sati symbolised closure to a marriage. It was a voluntary act in which, as a sign of being a dutiful wife, a woman followed her husband to the afterlife. It was, therefore, considered to be the greatest form of devotion of a wife towards her dead husband.
With time, it became a forced practice. Women who did not wish to die like this were forced to do so in different ways. Traditionally, a widow had no role to play in society and was considered a burden. So, if a woman had no surviving children who could support her, she was pressurised to accept sati.

Historical records tell us that sati first appeared between 320 to 550 CE, during the rule of Gupta Empire. Incidents of sati were first recorded in Nepal in 464 CE, and later on in Madhya Pradesh in 510 CE. The practice then spread to Rajasthan, where most number of sati cases happened over the centuries.
Initially, the practice of sati was confined to royal families of the Kshatriya caste and only later spread to the lower castes, becoming widely practised among all social classes.
Sati was at its peak between the 15th and 18th centuries. During this period, as many as 1000 widows were burned alive every year, most commonly in India and Nepal.

https://theculturetrip.com/asia/ind...behind-sati-a-banned-funeral-custom-in-india/

So Mr. Vaagmi as usual partial Knowledge or accepting only the facts convenient to your position.

So friend, You are as usual copy pasting "convenient" material available on the net dozen a dime.

I make a simple request to you. Please give me proof that Sati was a part of practices stipulated in Hindu Dharma.

If you have any material from Dharmic scriptures(Sruti, Smriti etc.,) please validate your position with them. Then I will accept Your position. Till then your words will remain unvalidated.

Your copy pasting convenient passages from some unheard of sites in the net is just as good as manufacturing them for argument's sake. Period.
 

prasad1

Active member
So friend, You are as usual copy pasting "convenient" material available on the net dozen a dime.

I make a simple request to you. Please give me proof that Sati was a part of practices stipulated in Hindu Dharma.

If you have any material from Dharmic scriptures(Sruti, Smriti etc.,) please validate your position with them. Then I will accept Your position. Till then your words will remain unvalidated.

Your copy pasting convenient passages from some unheard of sites in the net is just as good as manufacturing them for argument's sake. Period.


As usual, your understanding is muddied.
Show me where I said that Sati was prescribed in Dharmic scripture?

It was practiced and I have shown more than enough proof for that.

It is similar to saying:

Show me you have Vashnava Gene in your body, then I will believe that you are an Iyengar.
 
As usual, your understanding is muddied.
Show me where I said that Sati was prescribed in Dharmic scripture?

It was practiced and I have shown more than enough proof for that.

It is similar to saying:

Show me you have Vashnava Gene in your body, then I will believe that you are an Iyengar.

LOL. You are losing your temper now. And you are indulging in name calling.

Read my posts again before going to sleep. You will find that I have been saying right from the begining that Sati has nothing to do with Hindu dharma and that you have been arguing against that quoting lengthy C&P passages from net.

And it is obvious from what you have written above that you are losing sleep because of Iyengars. LOL.

Tell them that you have a friend in me-an iyengar and they may relent.

Dont get nightmares of Iyengars. They are sharp but good people

God bless you. Sleep well.
 
LOL. You are losing your temper now. And you are indulging in name calling.

Read my posts again before going to sleep. You will find that I have been saying right from the begining that Sati has nothing to do with Hindu dharma and that you have been arguing against that quoting lengthy C&P passages from net.

And it is obvious from what you have written above that you are losing sleep because of Iyengars. LOL.

Tell them that you have a friend in me-an iyengar and they may relent.

Dont get nightmares of Iyengars. They are sharp but good people

God bless you. Sleep well.

I get the odd feeling that you have stolen my style (not fully) of responding LOL
You have not given any credit for that, dearie
 
OP
OP
shansnrmp
It's an important thing to note that no Mughal or Nawab rulers ruled in the Rajasthan

Dear friends

With the serious efforts taken by the Raja Ram Mohan Roy the Bengal viceroy, Lord William Pending has enacted the law in the year 1829 and banned the 'sati' practice. However, this practice adopted in some independent states were not under the British Raj's direct control. Only in the year 1987 the Rajasthan Govt enacted the law in her state, and this was conceded as an act in the assembly in 1988.

Here a reasonable doubt may rise to the readers as that, why the Rajasthan Government takes a very long time to enact this act, even it was enacted as a law to prevent 'sati' in the Britis Raj, say in the year 1829. Does it really need 159 years to frame a law to the Rajasthan state in freedom India, though the British- India achieved 159 years ago?

One who easily understands at that time the Hindu Kingdoms were ruled over in the Rajasthan and it is an independent state as well. It's an important thing to note that no Mughal or Nawab rulers ruled in the Rajasthan at that time. Here this was why the HINDU KINGS couldn't take steps to prevent the sati practices in their native state? What else could it have been except for the reactionary 'Hindutva' policies of our Hinduism?
 
Dear friends

With the serious efforts taken by the Raja Ram Mohan Roy the Bengal viceroy, Lord William Pending has enacted the law in the year 1829 and banned the 'sati' practice. However, this practice adopted in some independent states were not under the British Raj's direct control. Only in the year 1987 the Rajasthan Govt enacted the law in her state, and this was conceded as an act in the assembly in 1988.

Here a reasonable doubt may rise to the readers as that, why the Rajasthan Government takes a very long time to enact this act, even it was enacted as a law to prevent 'sati' in the Britis Raj, say in the year 1829. Does it really need 159 years to frame a law to the Rajasthan state in freedom India, though the British- India achieved 159 years ago?

One who easily understands at that time the Hindu Kingdoms were ruled over in the Rajasthan and it is an independent state as well. It's an important thing to note that no Mughal or Nawab rulers ruled in the Rajasthan at that time. Here this was why the HINDU KINGS couldn't take steps to prevent the sati practices in their native state? What else could it have been except for the reactionary 'Hindutva' policies of our Hinduism?

It is suggested that you at least have a cursory look at wikipedia or do some google search before you spin your opinion as matters of fact and make unsubstantiated and wild distortion of historical facts and put the sentence in bold letters like "it is important to note....."

You also seem to have not read about the Battle of Haldighat in your school days nor have heard or read about "jauhar" - an act of self immolation of womenfolk on funeral pyre of their husbands in order to protect their chastity and self respect.

From your post it would appear that Rajasthanis' named their cities like Ajmer, Fatehpur etc. in profound recognition of utopian Mughal Rule from a distance and so many people converted to islam so much so that about 9% population are muslims now!

Your thread started with devadasi system and it is said to have prevailed only in South and East India and Rajasthan is in neither of the two zones. Why are you now jumping to sati and Rajasthan?

If you have an axe to grind against "reactionary policies of Hindutva" do so with some cogency rather than these leaps and jumps which are mostly devoid of facts.

Here is a link for quick primer for Moghul Rule in Rajasthan and the reasons (may be one of the many) for sati called "jauhar" over there:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Rajasthan
 
Last edited:
Are Iyengrs sharp compared to Iyers or is it a general statement?

I do not know about Iyers.

People who are sharp and good generally do not hurt others wantonly. But if people meddle with or provoke such sharp and good people, they may get hurt badly. They will only have themselves to blame. It is like the monkey playing with the peg in the cleavage. When its tail is caught tightly in the wood, it will cry oh Iyengar, My vaal. LOL.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top
Thank you for visiting TamilBrahmins.com

You seem to have an Ad Blocker on.

We depend on advertising to keep our content free for you. Please consider whitelisting us in your ad blocker so that we can continue to provide the content you have come here to enjoy.

Alternatively, consider upgrading your account to enjoy an ad-free experience along with numerous other benefits. To upgrade your account, please visit the account upgrades page

You can also donate financially if you can. Please Click Here on how you can do that.

I've Disabled AdBlock    No Thanks