I thought this practice had gone out of favor:
Police in India say a woman has burned to death on her husband’s funeral pyre, committing the outlawed Hindu practice of “sati”.
The incident took place on Monday in Tuslipar village in the central state of Madhya Pradesh.
Sati, or the practice of a widow immolating herself on her husband’s funeral pyre, is believed to have originated 700 years ago.
The rare practice mostly happens in parts of northern and central India.
Senior Madhya Pradesh police official Shahid Absar told the BBC that the woman, Janakrani, burnt to death on the funeral pyre of her husband Prem Narayan in Sagar district.
One report said she was in her 40s.
Mr Absar said Janakrani had jumped into the fire when her husband’s body was being cremated according to Hindu rites.
The police said early investigations had revealed Janakrani had not been forced or prompted by anybody to commit the act.
Must be one of those quaint diversity things we’re supposed to applaud, although the article does take pains to say that no one forced her to immolate herself. Which is nice, I suppose. Prolly just sprung into her head unbidden, like.
“You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours.” — General Sir Charles James Napier
Ewww. I didn’t think they did this anymore – forced or otherwise. Why didn’t anyone stop her, if she indeed wasn’t forced? No one there valued her life enough to stop her – to risk injury to themselves to save another life? Did they just stand there and watch it happen?
So where is Amnesty International going to be on this issue?
OK, following, my Amnesty International comment above was supposed to be a little “snark” insert – can’t do the HTML thing too well.
Yet another reason for American women to count our blessings.
I’ve read that in this part of the world it’s not uncommon for widows to be murdered by the husband’s family after his death, because they don’t want the expense of taking care of the widow. Course, I think I read that in the Los Angeles Times, so it may or may not be accurate.
Kristen,
It’s always good to be wary of anything printed in the Los Angeles Times. On the homefront, we have had widows in Los Angeles murdered by their husbands’ families who want to gain control of the insurance money, victims’ assistance funds or anything else resembling an estate.
Hate to be snarky after reading this..but, this barbaric “custom” ain’t nothing that couldn’t be eradicated with a little marketing of good’ol American life insurance.
Whoops- BomberGuy beat me to it.
b2
There’s an excellent book on this one of my feminist friends was reading, if I remember next time I see her I’ll ask what the title was…
Bomber Guy,
Yikes. I think that my in-laws are fairly nonviolent types, but just in case I’ll be praying even harder than usual for my husband’s continued good health.
Just reread my original comment and I should have written “in that part of the world” not “in this part of the world.” California has its flaws, but I don’t think widow-murder is all that high on the list.
I volunteer my ex-wife to stand in for one of these Indian widows………….
Think of the money I’d save……..