Reported By:
| Edited By: Sangeeta Pranvendra |Source: DNA webdesk |Updated: Nov 13, 2017, 04:12 PM IST
After three decades, Sati is back in the spotlight. It started with a PIL in the Allahabad High Court demanding a ban on Padmavati for violating the provisions of Sati (Prevention) Act, 1987. The litigant had pleaded before the court that the film glorifies Jauhar that is a form of Sati.
The PIL was turned down, but it brings back memories of the infamous Roop Kanwar Sati case of Devrala village in Sikar district of Rajasthan in the year 1987. An 18-year-old was immolated on a pyre along with her husband who had died at the age of 24, just eight months after their marriage. While the village celebrated, there was uproar in the country. What ensued was a long legal battle by social rights bodies. The only positive thing that came out of the entire gruesome incident was the formulation of a law - The Sati (Prevention) Act 1987 - that prevented attempt, abetment and glorification of Sati. The 200-page judgement by Justice Guman Mal Lodha and Justice Pana Chand Jain can be termed as the most comprehensive verdict across courts of the country to end the practice of Sati.
Incidentally the ancient tradition of Jauhar as well as the modern Sati Prevention Act 1987 have their origins and roots in Rajasthan. It makes one wonder what were the ancient rules; is Sati the same as Jauhar? Is the modern law sufficient to protect women from being compelled to perform Sati? Does portrayal of Jauhar on celluloid violate the law?
For this, one needs to delve into the historical traditions of Rajasthan. History shows Jauhar can never happen in isolation. It has to be accompanied by Saka, by the men. When the rulers of a kingdom faced a battle that could not be won, they performed Saka ceremony. They tied saffron turbans; signalling battle till death and held an opium ceremony. Taking opium together implied standing together for the cause and promise. In modern times, one could interpret it as an intoxication used to boldly face imminent death.
The women would send their men for the final battle and then commit Jauhar. A collective jump into the flames led by the wife of the feudal chief. Historically, it was considered as a way to protect honour and dignity of women from invaders, who were about to win the battle. Even Col Todd mentions this in his writings.
The children used to be sent to safe places to protect the family line from extinction. History has ample proof that Jauhar was not just performed by Rajput women. Wives of all soldiers and courtiers, maids and attendants; belonging to all castes took part.
On the contrary, Sati was done by an individual after the death of her husband. This increased possibility of coercion. People glorified such incidents and built monuments. This is exactly what is prevented by the law. It was abolished way back by Lord William Benedict after Raja Ram Mohan Ray raised his voice against it. The law was further refined in 1987 after the Roop Kanwar Sati incident.
The litigation in Allahabad High Court, by Kamta Prasad Singhal, puts forward a suspicion, about whether the litigant is ignorant of the present provisions of law, or it is merely an attempt to cash in on the ongoing controversy.
