Talk:India/Archive 15

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Sati

Proof that RRR's role was adstratum to the British Law and NOT substratum:


History of Medieval India by Hukam Chand P461:

“ Raja Ram Mohan Roy counterpetitioned that Sati was inhuman and unjust. It was because of his cooperation that in 1829 Lord William Bentick could declare Sati against the Law [all over British India] ”

Hkelkar 06:22, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Also read Social Structure of India by Ajit Kumar Sinha P234.Hkelkar 06:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
In fact, "Role of the Social Reformer in a Welfare State" by Bhalchandra Narayan Gokhale P6 states that some Maratha rulers prior to the British had also banned sati in their confederacy but we don't take that into account because it was localized like the Bengal Presidency ban (The Maratha Confederacy, at it's zenith, was bigger than the Bengal Presidency would be later on).

Furthermore, Sati was also declared illegal in Rajputana (Rajasthan) around 1820 but, again, the implementation failed. It was only RRR's success at lobbying for and enforcing the ban that created a chain reaction that spread throughout the colonies, eventually even the Princely States like Rajputana:

Rajputana Agency, 1832-1858: A Study of British Relations with the States of Rajputana During the British Raj by Vijay Kumar Vashishtha.Hkelkar 07:00, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


Also, see Raja Rammohun Roy : An Apostle of Indian Awakening/edited by S.K. Sharma

Furthermore, RRR first criticized sati in writing in 1818, BEFORE the presidency banned it in 1829. Thus, his campaign started FIRST.

Sati: Historical and Phenomenological Essays by Arvind sharma P7 Hkelkar 07:10, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, there are a lot of books on the subject which confirm this point of view. One only needs to take a glance at books such as The Socio-Political Philosophy of Swami Vivekananda by Bhaiya Subhash Chandra Prasad and History of Medieval India by Hukam Chand to name a few. This matter is addressed in many books and reseach papers.

I found Human Rights and Societies in Transition: Causes, Consequences, Responses by Shale Horowitz, Albrecht Schnabel particularly interesting. A couple of quotes from page 364 of the book are mentioned below:-

In modern history, Raja Ram Mohan Roy can be considered as the father of the India's human rights movement. He was the first to oppose all discriminations and evil practices against women. He pursued his efforts against polygamy and sati (widow burning) at two levels: first, he approached the British rules directly to legally ban such practices; second, he mobilized the masses in favour of such a ban.

As a result of Raja Ram's efforts, Lord William Bentick, then Governer General, passed resolution XVII in December 1829, which declared Sati illegal and punishable.

In addition, Alokmonjari, a woman in RRR's relation was subjected to sati (presumably against her will) and RRR's work against this custom is traced to his very rise to prominence. His work in the Samaj is highlighted though.

On request a series of papers and more books substantiating the matter to greater extent will be provided. I'm saving this exertion on grounds of assumption that those opposing this POV will understand that like most cases of selective revisionist history, their case is extremely thin on actual evidence and citation.

Best Regards.

Freedom skies 09:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


Unfortunately, the references above seem very obscure. I have not heard of any of these "historians." The publishers (where known) are equally obscure. Here's what the amazon.com search turned up for them:
  1. History of Medieval India by Hukum Chand: doesn't turn up on Amazon.com
  2. Social Structure of India by Ajit Kuman Sinha. Published by Sinha Publishing House (Distributed by Firma K.L. Mukhopadhyay). First edition 1974. Out of print since 1974! Not a standard history text.
  3. Role of the social reformer in a welfare state, (Bombay Gandhi Smarak Nidhi. Vaikunth L. Mehta memorial lecture) (Unknown Binding, total 24 pages). 1967. Does show up on Amazon, but has been out of print since 1967! This is certainly not a standard history text.
  4. Rajputana Agency, 1832-1858: A Study of British Relations with the States of Rajputana During the British Raj by Vijay Kumar Vashishtha. Doesn't show up on Amazon.com
  5. The Socio-Political Philosopy of Swami Vivekananda by Bhaiya Subhash Chandra Prasad is a Ph.D. thesis (unknown university) published on-line by dissertation.com!
  6. Human Rights and Societies in Transition: Causes, Consequences, Responses (Paperback) by Shale Asher Horowitz (Editor), Albrecht Schnabel (Editor), it turns out is an edited book. The quote is from an article in the book by D.R. Kaarthikeyan, who it turns out is a former director of the Central Bureau of Investigation of India (and not a professional historian)!
HKelkar and Fredom Skies, please don't inflict any more of your "references" either on me or on other Wikipedia readers. I'm not going to revert what you have written. Wikipedia readers can make up their own minds. I'm providing 4 references below (from standard history books published by Oxford, Cambridge, and Penguin--references that you will find on amazon.com and can even search in). Fowler&fowler 18:15, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Listen dude. All of the refs cited are available in the Perry-Castañeda Library of the University of Texas at Austin, which is one of the premier libraries in North America.I can get them and cite them precisely if needed, so please don;t waste my time with spurious claims as their availability in notable scholarly repositories attest to their reliability.Hkelkar 01:06, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Apparently, two of the books cited by you and Freedom skies do not even show up (where you claim you can find them) in the catalog of the Perry-Castañeda Library of the University of Texas:
  1. Search results for "History of Medieval India" by Hukum Chand
  2. Search results for the "Socio-Political Philosophy of Swami Vivekananda" by Bhaiya Subhash Chandra Prasad
Fowler&fowler 04:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Take a trip to the PCL stacks and look at it. Not all books are catalogued online:


Information on the book: ISBN : 8126123133

Year of Publication : 2005

552 pages

Anmol Publications PVT. LTD.

I did not cite the Prasad book.

Also, see:

  1. Social Structure of India by Ajit Kumar Sinha P234, where he states RRR's role in banning sati BEFORE the British role.
  2. British Imperialism and Indian Nationalism by By K. (Kasturiranga) Santhanam


Hkelkar 05:30, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Sati: Bentinck vs. Rammohun Roy

No one is saying that Raja Ram Mohan Roy didn't play an influential role in the abolition of Sati, but, as far as I can tell, his role was not primary. Bentinck was influenced by British utilitarians (primarily Bentham and Mill) and the Christian evangelists who had been clamoring since the mid-eighteenth century for the abolition of sati. It certainly helped Bentinck that Roy was also active in opposing sati and he used Roy's support initially. However, in the end, Roy opposed the legal abolition of sati, but that didn't stop Bentinck from abolishing it. See fourth reference below. To imply that the impetus came only from RRR and the Indians and that the British would not have acted on it otherwise, is a distortion of history. Here are references (followed by the quotes):

1) From: Stein, Burton. 1998. A History of India. Basil Blackwell Oxford (Reprinted by Oxford University Press India 2001). ISBN 0195654463

The most celebrated of Bentinck's interventions concerned the abolition of sati (or 'suttee', the immolation of Hindu widows in the cremation fires of their husbands), which along with that of other 'odious practices', was pressed on the Company as an objective of reform by the increasing number of Christian missionaries and British business travellers present in India. The issue of Sati abolition gave rise to a great controversy. Most notably it divided the generation of Indian intellectuals and commercial men who had grown up with the rise of British power and were now obliged to confront its fuller meaning for the future of their own society. On one side stoood the likes of Ram Mohun Roy, who was strongly opposed to the practice. Roy not only brought to bear a variety of learned arguments to support his case, but showed deep sympathy over the cruelties and indignities women were forced to endure in everyday life; (p222)

Metcalf, Thomas R. 1997. Ideologies of the Raj (New Cambridge History of India), 256 pages, Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0521589371

With the coming of Lord William Bentinck as Governor-General in 1828, the British avowedly embarked upon a thorough-going programme of reform. Building upon what had previously been little more than a vague expectation that somehow British rule ought to bring "improvement" to India, free traders, utilitarians, and evangelicals created a distinctive ideology of imperial governance shaped by the ideals of liberalism. From Bentinck's time to that of Lord Dalhousie (1848-56) this reformist sentiment gained a near universal ascendancy among the British in India.

From: Spear, Percival. 1990. A History of India, Volume 2 Penguin Books. 298 pages. ISBN 0140138366:

Lord William Bentinck, Governor-General from 1828-35, was the pilot mainly responsible for trimming the sails of the British Indian state to the winds of change.... In 1813 the Company's trading monopoly was abolished. The country was opened to missionary actitvity but without government support and £10,000 was set aside annually for the promotion of learning among the people of India. It needed a further puff of wind to implement this clause by the creation of a Committee of Public Instruction, which at once began to argue about the relative merits of western and eastern learning. By 1828 the wind was blowing more strongly for we find a Tory President of the Board of Control writing to Bentinck, 'We have a great moral duty to perform in India'. It was this change of sentiment on India which enabled Bentinck to survive the hostility of Wellington's Tory government during his first two years in India and to achieve so much thereafter. It happens that a radical was in charge of India at a time of radical change in England. (p 124)

Finally, from: Hawley, John Stratton (ed). 1994. Sati, the Blessing and the Curse: The Burning of Wives in India Oxford University Press. 232 pages. ISBN 0195077741

As for the colonial period, it is not widely known that Rammohun Roy (1772-1833), the social reformer whose name is most closely associated with the struggle against sati in historical times, was himself ambivalent toward a legal ban on sati; according to some, he opposed such a ban. (p140: Ashis Nandy, Sati as Profit Versus Sati as a Spectacle: The Public Debate on Roop Kanwar's Death 131-148.)

In his remarkable Minute giving his reasons for banning sati, despite the opposition of many of the leading officials of his government, Bentinck noted that Rammohun Roy, "that enlightened native," who hated the custom, as well as "all other superstition and corruption," opposed taking legal action, since the Hindus would interpret this as an attempt by the British to force their religion on the conquered people.... Roy's main reason for not supporting Bentinck's decision, however, was probably his conviction that it was society's attitude toward widows that needed to be changed. Making sati illegal would not change the attitude and belief systems that produced the custom; that could only be done through education. (p154: Embree, Ainslie T. Comment: Widows as Cultural Symbols, pp. 149-158)

Please, Hkelkar and Freedom skies, please don't dump more of your "references". You've had your chance, let Wikipedia readers make up their own minds. I am not going to revert what you've written. That is for others to do (or not do) on the basis of the evidence provided. Fowler&fowler 18:15, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


This article is meant to be an overview on the entire country of India. It seems to me that mention of any specific person in discussion of the abolition of sati is inappropriate, but that if we were to mention an individual, Lord William Bentinck would be the obvious person to mention. But really, all that ought to be said is that the British abolished sati. Whatever role was played by Indian reformers is stuff that should go in articles that are able to go into more detail. This kind of thing, where one minor issue gets blown up into a whole heap of weird explanations and counterexplanations, is a continuing problem. I would add that I find Fowler&fowler's references much more convincing than those provided by Hkelkar and Freedom Skies. john k 19:22, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

On what basis did you arrive at such an outlandish conclusion?Besides, I will fact check each of the Fowler&fowler refs, of course, and RRR is too important a figure in Indian history to ignore in an article about India.Hkelkar 20:37, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
What's really a distortion of history is Macaulayist nonsense. The government of India is clear on this [1].Bakaman Bakatalk 22:53, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately this reference has nothing to do with Government of India policy (if that were relevant)! That article you quote: Raja Ram Mohan Roy - Reformer Par Excellence is written by Usha Bande, a journalist. The web site is the Press Information Bureau Features site. It does not reflect the policies of the Government of India. Here are a few other features from that same site:
So, unless the Government of India also has the official truth on the stock market, Siberian Cranes, Vipassana meditation and the future of cricket, please stop wasting our time with bogus references. Sanjay Tiwari 00:56, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Er, excuse me, but are you suggesting that the article is "bogus"? Is every reference (all legitimate per WP:RS) cited against the racialist British POV "bogus", regardless of the attribution? Judge by content and, not by the attribution given by the poster.Hkelkar 01:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
RRR has not only played an influential role in abolishing Sati but his role was "the role" and his mention in esteem can not be left out. A person in chair (Bentinck) had the opportunity to legalise public sentiments and for his administrative duty he can not be projected superior to a reformist with burning heart. Why someone is so keen of excluding or pushing back RRR? If a history book last printed in 1967 or 1974 lose it's value as history? Why an attempt to exclude Indian book refs. on an article "India" or an attempt to ridicule Indian editors? With due apology, all actions of Britishers was in preserving and promoting British interests in India so much so that thumbs of weavers were cut to promote cloth sales made out of Indian cotton. In any wrong situation, burn exists in if not all, many, be it Britishers with human minds or Indians. RRR should be mentioned with due esteem for his "the role" in abolishing "Sati Pratha". F&F has approached some admin with western background for support on article "India"! Swadhyayee 02:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Right, let me present my take on this matter in a non-emotive way. There are two aspects to the issue of banning Sati, political and cultural. Culturally, there is no doubt that RRR was strongly influenced by Western thought and Western ideals into regarding the immolation of widows as inherently amoral.Thus, from a cultural standpoint, western ideals got the upper hand. The Brahmo Samaj was a unilateralist Hindu movement that had the same role in Indian history that similar reform movements in Christianity did in the west (who advanced that the immolation of "heretics" was inherently amoral, for instance).However, the implementation of this ban was largely Indian, with westerners playing a nominal role in the process. The latter is a political matter, not a cultural one.Politically, the unilateralists of the Brahmo Samaj have the upper hand here.I believe that the sentence, as it stands, reflect both aspects of the situation. I am not some rabid hesperophobiac and won't deny the cultural contribution of the Europeans in this matter. I have advanced sufficient evidence to support the contention that the political aspect was different from the cultural one.Hkelkar 03:29, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler, so the pro raj lobby from eminent British publications have printed that the Raj was the reason why the natives could free themselves from the shackles of illitracy and lack of reason ?? How convincing.

Unfortunately your use of Oxford University Press, Cambridge University Press and Penguin Books weakens your case. All you have done is convince the readers that the British authors have been hard at work glorifying the imperialist British Raj, trying to convince the people that they would never have broken free of any evil native rituals if it were not the British taking away all their wealth and heroically contributing in a few native movements in the process.

The funny thing is the average reader is already convinced of the British nationalist attempts of revisionist history. Anyone who reads William Dalrymple in real life is more than familiar with the attempts and even the patterns of revisionist history. Very good try, not in compliance with the WP:NPOV rules at all, but good try nonetheless. Freedom skies 03:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Wait Helkar, what makes you say that RRR was strongly influenced by western thought and western ideals? Likes and dislikes are part of human nature. In a given situation, rise and fall take place. On an average, how many would have supported Sati Pratha from bottom of one's heart? It's very difficult to voice your dislikes against any ugly social system, the result of which is to invite intimidating, vengeful and violent reactions from established selfish supporters of evils. Usually, it is waiting for a right time to voice, a loud. Would RRR have got support to his movements in uplifting women of India without existing number of burning kind hearts of Indians? An alien governor with all security can easily voice against a social evil than a common man living in midst without security and it would be idiotic to claim that Britishers were more sympathetic to Indians or Indian women and bothered for their well being. Their invading in India was backed by utterly sinister selfish desires and their selection of bureaucracy would certainly be aimed at meeting the purpose. Baring few, the bureaucrates were monsters. Think of Jalianwala Baug killings and other atrocities. If you say that RRR was influenced by western thoughts and ideals, someone would say that Gandhi, Tilak, Netaji and thousands behind were influenced by western thoughts and ideals to free India as politically India was freed by Britishers. What western ideals are you talking of? Just think about Vietnam war and Iraq war of today's westerns. If all of them have real ideals in their hearts, wars would have not been on this planate. Even the present controversy here to exclude RRR would not have been. What would any kind and noble Britisher be it a governor would have been able to do against British Rule unless Indians wanted and acted in the direction to compel British Rule? Had influential westerns been idealistic, either we would not have come under British rule or would have at least freed long back and ugly bloody partition could have been avoided, scars of which are in roots of today's hostility between India and Pakistan. Chameleons change colour in every different situation. Swadhyayee 05:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Well I'm just trying to arrive at a compromise here.Hkelkar 05:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Also, the British committed worse atrocities than JBagh (though JBagh is more resonant in our collective memory due to the fact that Dyer was a unique breed of sociopathic kooks). Just for the record, lemme mention the Bengal Famine (holodomor) perpetrated by the British where the death toll was in the millions.Hkelkar 05:44, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

What's the need and propriety of compromise? Are you here to please the people or uphold truth? No compromise at the cost of merit should be the motto. This sort of attitude weaken you than strengthening which would be a personal loss, lose to cause and also loss to Wikipedia. If insignificant, keeping mum would be better than such compromise which create an impression that you are usually wrong. In case of slip, one can tender apology. It would be upkeeping self reverence and social prestige. Swadhyayee 06:05, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

You are a shame Mr.TerryJ-Ho.

The practice of Sati continues till this day..mostly due to religious sanction TerryJ-Ho 11:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Mr.TerryJ-Ho, If, your above statement is intentional, you are doing the worst thing of tarnishing the image of our country. I do not know your back-ground. Hope you will appreciate that sentiments of any person get hurt when his/her nation/religion/societies come under false attack. How would you feel, if so done to you? India has a population of 120,00,00000. I have completed 56 years in this country and sufficiently informed about things going in this country. I have moved in villages regularly and live in Mumbai from birth. I have hardly heard of one or two instance of Sati during my life of 56 yrs. You can't help the people who wants to self immolate. We have rich & poor, educated and un-educated, modern and orthodox, good and bad all kind of people like any other country would have. Sati Pratha came in social practice because of Muslims invaded small kingdoms, killed or captured males, raped and made women folk their wives. Indians mostly were strict vegetarians. Muslims are non-veg. The women preferred death over being raped or marrying for the second time against Hindu culture and customs. The pride of woman-hood and un-civilised behaviour of Muslims are the route cause of this deprecative social system. Though people like me who borned later are also full of wounds of the root cause of Muslims behaviour. Pl. don't make fun of our pitiable social system which do not exist anymore from more than 5 decades. You shall make yourself and your society a shame for such remarks. Can you show me a single evidence that the system of Sati exist and the roots are our religion? Where did you get this information from? You are a shame Mr.TerryJ-Ho. God will not forgive you for such in-human behaviour. Swadhyayee 14:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dmcdevit"

ALL INDIANS AND HUMANS PL. APPEAL TO MR.TERRYJ-HO IN STRONGEST WORD FOR HIS SUCH COMMENTS ON TALK PAGE OF Dmcdevit. Swadhyayee 14:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

The problem here is. . .

The problem here is that each side in the debate is trying to show that the westernerers or the Indians had more influence on the abolition of Sati. The easiest way to resolve the dispute is to just say that they both had influence, and don't say one way or the other whose influence was greatest. That is what I tried to do with my most recent edit. I'll even give you a citation to a scholarly source.HeBhagawan 14:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

By the way, the sentence to which I am citing in "Modern South Asia" says:

[Rammohun Roy] had campaigned against sati since 1818 and his defence of Bentinck's 1829 abolition of sati, which he called a 'barbarous and inhuman practice', helped ensure that the measure was not overturned by the privy council, the ultimate court of appeal in London.

The book also goes on to explain how Roy based his arguments against sati primarily on his interpretations of Vedic teachings. So it is clear that both Roy and the British were important to the abolition of sati. There is no need to elevate either one over the other in the article. HeBhagawan 14:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

By the way, for your convenience, here is my edit:

The British also began implementing social changes, such as the legal abolition of Sati, as advocated by reform leaders and movements such as Raja Ram Mohan Roy and the Brahmo Samaj,[16] and instituting Western education on a limited scale.

HeBhagawan 15:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't see your message when I wrote mine. How about the following: The British also began implementing social changes, such as the abolition of sati as a result of the joint efforts of Lord William Bentinck, the Christian evangelists, and Raja Rammohun Roy." (I don't know that Brahmo Samaj did much outside of what Raja Rammohun Roy did.)Fowler&fowler 16:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Indian Anti-Colonialist Historians on Sati & Compromise Language

To the people above who wrote to say that the first set of references I supplied were somehow British colonialist because they were written by British or American authors and published by Oxford, Cambridge, and Penguin presses, here are three references by Indian (anti-colonialist) authors, including one, Dr. Arvind Sharma, who was referenced by Hkelkar himself. Before I give the references, let me summarize.

The broad facts are the following. The Christian evangelists were the first people to mobilize around the issue of Sati. The first official submission to the East India Company was made by them in 1799. 1n 1813, William Wilberforce (a prominent evangelist) brought it up in the House of Commons in England. Raja Rammohun Roy's first pamphlet came out only in 1818 (a full seven years after the immolation of his sister-in-law). Once involved, however, Roy was extremely active in the Indian press writing critiques of the practice. However, he initially didn't support laws banning the practice. When in 1828, Lord William Bentinck consulted him about banning sati, Roy opposed the idea. Eventually, he got on board and became an active supporter and wrote many articles in the press in support of the new law.

This history does not support the contention that Raja Rammohun Roy and the Brahmo Samaj were the primary advocates for the movement against sati and that the British were somehow pushed into enacting the ban by Roy and the Brahmo Samaj. In the orginal wording in the history section of the India page, Hkelkar had written: "The British also began implementing social changes, including the abolition of Sati, at the behest of Raja Ram Mohan Roy and the Brahmo Samaj." That is a complete distortion of history. The wording was later changed to, "..., such as the legal abolition of Sati due to the efforts of reform movements by Raja Ram Mohan Roy and the Brahmo Samaj." But this too is historically inaccurate because it doesn't mention the Christian evangelists nor Lord William Bentinck himself.

I propose the following compromise language: "The British also began implementing social changes, such as the abolition of sati by Lord William Bentinck with notable synergistic efforts by Christian evangelists and Raja Rammohun Roy" I think the language is fair in that it assigns credit to all parties. (Raja Rammohun Roy's name, incidentally, is misspelt in the Wikipedia page on him.)

Now here are the references and the quotes from them:

Dr. Sharma:

Amidst the kudos which is showered on Raja Rammohun Roy for his role in the advocacy of the abolition of sati, one crucial fact is often overlooked: that when Lord William Bentinck sought his advice on the matter of the British prohibiting the practice of sati, he advised Lord William Bentink against such a step. (Search Dr. Sharma's quote in Dr. Sen's book)

Dr. Sen:

This need to be independent of British influence dominated men like Rammohun Roy who did not approve of governmental interference in the sphere of Hindu social life. However, when Lord William Bentinck took it upon himself to abolish sati in 1829, Rammohun Roy came out in open support of the Act and became an active and vocal campaigner, using Hindu scriptures to challenge the notiion that sati played a part in the enhancement of Indian society.( Search Dr. Sen's book)


Dr Sharma goes on to trace the development of Christian missionary involvement with sati:

In November 1793 Rev. William Carey of the Baptist Mission arrived in Calcutta. After nearly six years, in the spring of 1799, he saw widow-burning one evening. It was in a place thirty miles away from Calcutta. He tried to stop the ceremony and to reason with the widow and the Brahmin priests. 'I talked till reasoning was of no use, and then began to exclaim with all my might against what they were doing, telling them it was shocking murder. They told me it was a great act of holiness.' Carey was greatly agitated ... He sent investigators to every village within a radius of thirty miles of Calcutta, to learn how many widows had been immolated there in the previous twelve months, and their ages, and the children they had left behind them. 'Four hundred and thirty eight was the damning total in this specific area alone, the toll of a single year's superstition, cruelty and waste.' The Serampore Missionaries under the leadership of Carey implored the Government to forbid the rite by law. Carey made use of his position as a lecturer in the College of Fort William to collect from the pundits there various texts from the Hindu sastras on which the practice of sati was allegedly based. The missionaries places all these documents, together with the statistics of sati they had compiled, in the hands of George Udney -- a member of the Supreme Council and an ardent abolitionist. Udney's submission on sati was the first official notice regarding female immolation which had appeared in the records of the government.

Dr. Sen:

As a result of these activities, the missionaries began to mould public opinion both in India and Britain and on 22 June 1813, William Wilberforce raised the matter in the House of Commons, quoting the statistics on sati which the Baptistics had compiled.

Raja Rammohun Roy's first pamphlet came out only in 1818 almost 20 years after Carey and Udney had made their first submission. Dr. Sharma:

Between 1815 and 1818 the number of satis doubled, from 378 in 1815 to 839 in 1818 in the Presidency of Bengal. The 1815-1818 records -- 'truly awful records for any Christian Government'-- had a disquieting effect on officials. In 1818, 'when the pyres blazed most fiercely', Raja Rammohun Roy launched his journalistic attack on the rite, 'which aroused such anger that for a while his life was in danger'.

Dr. Mani:

In Rammohun Roy's first pamphlet of 1818, ..., the opponent of sati concludes, it is not control but wisdom and fear of God that effectively causes both men and women to abstain from improper conduct. While it may be unrealistic to expect from Rammohun Roy a full-scale critique of the desire to control women's sexuality, it is indeed disappointing that, confronted with this issue which is at the very heart of widow immolation, the opponent in this staged dialogue can only see fit to assure the advocate of sati that he has, in fact, nothing to fear; that effective mechanisms already exist for controlling women, thus precluding the need to burn them. (Search Dr. Mani's book)

Dr. Mani:

In addition to the press reports, public meetings on sati were held in Britain in 1823, 1827, and 1829, and petitions were presented to Parliament in 1827 and 1828. For the most part, the British press, both lay and missionary, merely replayed arguments advanced in India, whether by East India Company officials, evangelists, or the indigenous male elite (i.e. people like Roy). British discussions of widow burning differed only in the sense that they began with the desirability of abolition and then proceeded to its feasibility, as against in India, where questions of practicality always came first.

Again the compromise language I am proposing is: "The British also began implementing social changes, such as the abolition of sati by Lord William Bentinck with notable synergistic efforts by Christian evangelists and Raja Rammohun Roy"

Fowler&fowler 15:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

As a result of HeBhagawan's helpful message above, I am proposing the following compromise: "The British also began implementing social changes such as the abolition of sati due to the joint efforts of Lord William Bentinck, the Christian evangelists, and Raja Rammohun Roy, ..." Fowler&fowler 16:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
I have changed the wording to: "The British also began implementing social changes such as the abolition of slavery sati due to the joint cumulative efforts of Lord William Bentinck, the Christian evangelists, the British utilitarians, Raja Rammohun Roy, and the Brahmo Samaj, ..." I know this is a little verbose, but it mentions everyone who deserves credit.
I have left in the footnote referring to Sugata Bose and Ayesha Jalal's book: Modern South Asia: History, Culture, Political Economy (added by user HeBhagawan) because Bose and Jalal mentions both the evangelists and the utilitarians:

The most creative strand (among the Indian groups opposing sati), however, was led by Rammohun Roy, who attempted to adapt elements from all he considered best in Indian and Western learning. Well-versed in Sanskrit, Bengali, Arabic, Persian and English, Rammohun Roy aimed at a regeneration of India society and culture through a process of thoroughgoing reform which would weed out the evils and anachronisms. He set up a society called the Brahmo Samaj which rejected caste and idolatory and sought a return to the original monotheistic purity of the Upanishads. He derided the evangelists, but generally supported the utilitarians. He had campaigned against sati since 1818 and his defence of Bentinck's 1829 abolition of sati, which he called a 'barbarous and inhuman practice', helped ensure that the measure was not overturned by the privy council, the ultimate court of appeal in London.

Fowler&fowler 17:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC) Corrected: slavery-->sati; joint-->cumulative Fowler&fowler 20:05, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Fowler, I don't have any problem with the current wording of the sentence. However, if you have a reference that speaks about the contribution of the christian evangelists, you need to add it to my reference. The way it is now, it seems to say that my "modern south asia" book supports that assertion that christion missionaries were partly responsbile for banning sati. However, this book does not mention the missionaries. You are probably right that they played a role, but I don't want to give a misleading impression about what facts my reference contains. Thanks. HeBhagawan 23:02, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

This has been done. I have also updated your citation. The final version now reads: "The British also began implementing social changes, such as the legal abolition of Sati, due to the cumulative efforts of Lord William Bentinck, the Christian evangelists, the British utilitarians, Raja Rammohun Roy, and the Brahmo Samaj,[1][2]and instituting Western education on a limited scale."
  1. ^ Sen, Mala. 2002. Death by Fire: Sati, Dowry Death, and Female Infanticide in Modern India. Rutgers University Press. 288 pages. ISBN 0-813-53102-0
  2. ^ Bose, Sugata & Ayesha Jalal. 2003. Modern South Asia: History, Culture, Political Economy Routledge, 2nd edition. 304 pages. ISBN 0-415-30787-2
Thanks. Fowler&fowler 23:30, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Good work. It looks ok to me now.

On another note: Whoever thought that Roy's name was spelled wrong on the page dedicated to him was wrong. It is just an alternative spelling, but not an incorrect one. It's like Mao Tse-tung versus Mao Zedong. The problem is really with trying to put such foreign names into Roman/English script. The 'correct' spelling is to be found only in the Indian script, which in the case of his name would be Bengali.HeBhagawan 02:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

That was me. Yes, I did see that "Rammohun Roy" is an alternate spelling on that page. I guess what I meant was that since seven out of the eight authors mentioned by you and me above (including Bose and Jalal, and all the Indian authors) spell his name as "Rammohun Roy" and not "Ram Mohan Roy," it is quite likely (although not certain) that he himself spelled his name "Rammohun Roy" when writing in English. So, perhaps that should be the primary spelling. But it's not a big deal, since all spellings are mentioned. Thanks. Fowler&fowler 11:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)