Sati, during the Mughal reign of India, was widely prevalent throughout the subcontinent and notably associated with elite Hindu Rajput clans in western India. Although the Mughals tampered with Hindu practices to a lesser extent, Sati was the one ancient ritual that they sought to abolish. The Mughals and the Muslim population, in general despised the practice of widows burning themselves on the funeral pyres of their spouses. Abu Fazl categorises Sati into four groups: those who consign themselves to the flames out of pure love for their husbands, those who surrender to the flames out of fear of re-approach, those who were swayed by family considerations and customs, and finally those who were forced to burn themselves with their deceased husbands.
Though a critical student’s interest in the Muslim state’s stance toward Sati under the Sultanate is irresistible, the scarcity of literature on the subject makes it difficult to understand the topic. However, given the absence of clear proof, one is forced to speculate, properly, that the Delhi Sultans, although not precisely apathetic, avoided interfering in the traditional customs of the newly conquered country. Muhammad bin Tughlaq was maybe the first Muslim ruler of India to speak out against the heinous tradition of burning widows in their husbands’ burial pyres. According to Ibn Battuta, the Sultan has made it mandatory to seek a licence or permission to burn the widow. The goal was to discourage and abolish the use of force and social pressure. However, the licence was typically given as a matter of routine. Therefore, outside of the system of formal permissions, no direct State action was taken against Sati during the Sultanate period.
During the 16th Century, Emperor Humayun was the first to try a royal accord against the practice. Humayun, the second Mughal emperor, took a firm stand against sati and attempted to eradicate it. He placed a ban on widows performing sati, in instances when the woman was beyond a child bearing age.This rule was implemented even when the woman voluntarily offered herself for sacrifice. But after a second thought, the God-fearing monarch revoked his instructions. He could have thought that interfering with and forcibly preventing Hindus from practising their “hallowed customs and religious rituals” would provoke God’s wrath, bringing about the demise of his dynasty and, possibly, his own death. However, the normal law – the system of formal authorization for burning a widow – remained in effect. According to Sidi Ali Reis, officials from the Padishah were present on such occasions to prevent any acts of violence.
Akbar issued broad orders to outlaw sati and, in one notable case, personally intervened to prevent a Rajput princess from immolating herself on her husband’s pyre. According to Akbarnama, Akbar designated vigilant and truthful individuals in every city and region to prevent the forceful burning of widows. Though it is debatable if Akbar considered an universal prohibition of Sati, it is known that he attempted to prevent forced Sati in his Kingdom. In 1582 an order was issued to prevent compulsion in Sati. In Ain-i-Akbari, he instructs the Kotawal, “He should not let a woman be burned against her inclination”. ‘If a Hindu lady desires to be burnt alongside her husband, they should not prohibit her; but she should not be forced against her will,’ his decree against sati states. His efforts to prevent indiscriminate self-immolation of widows become even more admirable when we learn from the Akbarnama that watchful and truthful persons have been chosen in every city and district so that the two groups of cases may be kept apart and forced burning is not authorised.
Figure 1: A painting by Mohammad Rizā showing Hindu princess committing Sati against the wishes but with the reluctant approval of the emperor Akbar. In the right foreground, attending the Sati on horseback, is the third son of Akbar, Prince Daniyal.
Figure 2: A Sati (widow-burning), Mughal Empire. Miniature painting from Storia do Mogor by Niccolao Manucci, 17th Century.
An order can be found in Tuzuk-i-Jahangiri that not only prohibits sati and infanticide but also stipulates punishment for its violation. According to Jean Baptiste Tavernier (1670-89), Shah Jahan issued a decree that without the special permission from the king or governor no widow was to be allowed to burn herself. He also prohibited women with children from burning themselves.
Aurangzeb issued an order in 1663 which prohibited the sacrificial burning of widows throughout Mughal India. Some traveller accounts suggest that Aurangzeb did not fully succeed in suppressing the practice but altogether saved a great number of women from being immolated in their husband’s pyre. He employed governors to stay vigilant so as to prevent the large-scale slaughter of widows throughout the subcontinent.
Bernier praises the Mughals’ hesitant approach toward widespread ban of Sati, writing, “They do not really outlaw it by a formal legislation, because it is a part of their policy to have the idolatrous populace, which is so much more numerous than their own, in the free expression of its faith.” On the authority of the travellers, it can be shown beyond any question that the practise of Sati was greatly curtailed during the Mughals through different ways. At the same time, it is true that ambitious Sati candidates and their family would occasionally purchase permission from governors and other officials. Still, it may be argued that the Mughal emperors’ and their officials’ zealous monitoring resulted in a significant reduction in the number of instances throughout the Mughal reign, a fact loudly stated by most tourists of the time.
References: –
- Annemarie Schimmel (2004). Burzine K. Waghmar (ed.). The Empire of the Great Mughals: History, Art and Culture. Reaktion. pp. 113–114. ISBN 978-1-86189-185-3.
- XVII. “Economic and Social Developments under the Mughals” from Muslim Civilization in India by S. M. Ikram, edited by Ainslie T. Embree New York: Columbia University Press, 1964
- Chaudhuri, Susil. “SATI AS SOCIAL INSTITUTION AND THE MUGHALS.” Proceedings of the Indian History Congress, vol. 37, Indian History Congress, 1976, pp. 218–23, http://www.jstor.org/stable/44138937.
The views, information, or opinions expressed above are solely those of the author(s) involved and do not necessarily represent those held by India Lost & Found and its creative community.
Hi, I’m Rohit Kumar Shaw …
Hi, I’m Rohit Kumar Shaw …A graduate student in Political Science from University of Calcutta. If I am to describe myself then it would be a person who is curious enough to know the depth of anything that lingers my interest especially on social & political issues, crime, food with an essence of history behind it. I am neither especially clever nor gifted. I am only very, very curious.
