Gender and History in Modern South Asia - Research Paper Example

 Gender and History in Modern South Asia The colonial history in India is one of the most diverse because it shows many similarities and contradictions in the policies that were instituted by the colonial government. The people of India during this period received colonial policies in different way with some accepting them while others resisted or protested against them. Among the most controversial policies adopted by the colonial government was the abolition of sati, which met with both resistance and support from the Indian population. The motivations behind the abolition have been discussed at length but most of these are from a colonial perspective rather than that of Indians at the time. This paper seeks to assess an essay by Lata Mani, in a bid to discuss the parallels between the contemporary scholarship and official colonial knowledge in a bid to show that colonial policies were not always put in place with an understanding of the wishes of the local population. Mani states that one of the reasons that the colonial government abolished the right known as sati was as a result of the belief that it was an inhuman practice that did not put into consideration the rights of the women who underwent it.1 Colonial officials believed that sati was done because the family of women’s husbands did not wish to be saddled with the upkeep of widows. Furthermore, it was believed that these families did not wish widows to contest their husbands’ estates and this was a reason why they were coerced to undergo the right. The result was that the colonial government came to believe that the women who underwent sati were coerced to do so by greedy relatives and members of the Brahmin caste who were called upon to officiate the occasion. Colonial officials wished to institute laws that were designed to ensure that women were protected against what they saw as the depravity of the whole practice of sati, hence the move to abolish it. However, contemporary scholarship shows that despite there being some cases of women being coerced to undergo sati, a significant number of them went willingly and there were instances where despite being held back by their relatives, they fought their way to the pyre so that they could go with their husbands. In addition, contemporary scholarship shows that some people within the local population were also opposed to sati and made arguments that mirrored those of colonial officials. Contemporary scholars are shown to believe that the sati would have eventually have come to an end in India without the intervention of the colonial government and despite the belief among the latter that sati was practiced all over India, was not as widespread and had fallen into disuse except for Calcutta and the areas surrounding it. The arguments made by the colonial government for the abolition of sati were mainly based on Hindu religious rather than Christian beliefs. Most officials believed that if they were to arbitrarily declare sati abolished, there would have been political discontent within the Indian population, which would have viewed the move as being aimed against their religious beliefs. This belief was so powerful that it influenced colonial officials to base their arguments for the abolition of sati on Hindu scriptures because this was the only way through which they felt the people of India would accept it. Moreover, colonial officials viewed Indians as being a people who were completely influenced by their religion and who could not take any action that was contrary to their religious beliefs. This created a situation where it was difficult for colonial officials to understand the Hindu population because contemporary scholars show that these people were quite capable of thinking for themselves and take action independently from their religion. Contemporary scholars also argued for the abolition of sati and this was also based on their religious beliefs rather than their being influenced by the British way of life. Therefore, these scholars argued for the abolition of sati on the grounds of Indian tradition as well as Hinduism and this was a similar manner to the way colonial officials defended their move to abolish this practice.2 This implies that despite their different approaches to different issues within the Indian society, both colonial and contemporary scholars pursued a course that sought to align their stances with the religious beliefs of the local populace. The need to argue stances based on local religious beliefs was paramount because it enabled the development of support for these stances within the local population and this helped further causes. One of the main reasons behind the colonial government adopting policies such as the abolition of sati was as a result of the belief that Indians were so dominated by their religious leaders that they did not understand the realities behind it. This was especially the case where some colonial officials argued that some of the practices carried out by some Hindus were done out of ignorance rather than an intimate knowledge of the religious practices. It was believed that the Brahmin caste, which essentially headed religious activities, had gone out of its way to ensure that the population remained ignorant and that they kept the scriptures from the population in order to retain their influence in society. As a result, such practices as sati, despite not being sanctioned by religion or by the scriptures, were practiced and carried out in society with the full sanction of the Brahmin. It was argued that the Brahmins always stood to gain financially from the money that they were given to officiate sati and this was a reason for them to continue promoting it within society. Contemporary writers disagree with the official colonial stance and argue that while some of the Brahmin might have been motivated by financial gain in their bid to ensure that some traditional practices were carried on, some practices had fallen into disuse in most parts of the country even before the intervention of the colonial government.3 They state that the argument made by colonial officials justifying their intervention in the internal affairs of the local population was based on their so-called civilizing mission rather than on any need to change any part of the traditions being practiced. They argue that colonial officials had tolerated such practices as sati for a long time and that to suddenly change their stance was not based on any humanitarian reason but because there came a realization that there would be not serious political repercussions if sati were abolished. The colonial government wished to portray itself as one that was just and humane and that was a reason for the abolition of sati and other practices that were deemed to be against human dignity. Women were mostly seen as victims of a male dominated society where religious obligations were required of them rather than on the men. The abolition of some traditional practices that were deemed harmful was done in a bid by the colonial government to show that it protected the weak against the powerful in society.4 This followed European tradition where women were considered to be vulnerable and had to be protected from those who would harm them. The abolition of sati can be considered to have been a move by the colonial government to perpetuate the stereotype of women not being able to make independent choices and being under the complete dominance of the men in their societies. Thus, in order for their practices to be accepted by the Indian society, the British came to use Hindu scripture as a basis for their arguments and this allowed for their policies to take root. Contemporary scholars state that the colonial government failed to note that most Hindus were not dominated by their religion and that some traditions such as sati were not homogenous in the society. Instead, each region had its own way of living and had its own variation concerning the manner in which they viewed sati. Therefore, it is essential to note that while in some regions, sati was an important practice, in others, it was no longer being practiced and this was based not on religious beliefs, but on their traditions. In conclusion, this paper has discussed the parallels between the contemporary scholarship and official colonial knowledge in a bid to show that colonial policies were not always put in place with an understanding of the wishes of the local population. It has shown that the colonial government wished to portray itself as one that was just and humane and that was a reason for the abolition of sati and other practices that were deemed to be against human dignity. In addition, it has discussed the argument made by Mani that among the reasons the colonial government abolished the right known as sati was as a result of the belief that it was an inhuman practice that did not put into consideration the rights of the women who underwent it. Moreover, it has been argued that a reason behind the colonial government adopting policies such as the abolition of sati was as a result of the belief that Indians were so dominated by their religious leaders that they did not understand the realities behind it. Finally, the discussion has shown that the arguments made by the colonial government for the abolition of sati were mainly based on Hindu religious rather than Christian beliefs. Bibliography Lata, Mani. “Contentious Traditions: The Debate on Sati in Colonial India.” Cultural Critique, 7 (1987): 119 – 156. Read More