Revision as of 23:29, 31 March 2022 editWikiLinuz (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, IP block exemptions10,237 editsm linkage← Previous edit |
Revision as of 06:14, 3 April 2022 edit undoSimLibrarian (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users123,928 editsm periods only for complete-sentence image captions (MOS:CAPFRAG), punctuation fixes for logical quotation style (MOS:LQ), changed curly to straight punctuation (MOS:CURLY), rm same-section duplicate linksTag: Visual editNext edit → |
Line 19: |
Line 19: |
|
|
|
|
|
== Sati == |
|
== Sati == |
|
] |
|
] |
|
{{Main|Sati (practice)|l1=Sati}} |
|
{{Main|Sati (practice)|l1=Sati}} |
|
|
|
|
Line 28: |
Line 28: |
|
The ] (1526–1857) rulers and the Muslim population were ambivalent about the practice,<ref name=annemarie113>{{cite book|author=Annemarie Schimmel|editor=Burzine K. Waghmar|title=The Empire of the Great Mughals: History, Art and Culture|url=https://archive.org/details/empireofgreatmug00anne|url-access=registration|year=2004|publisher=Reaktion|isbn=978-1-86189-185-3|pages=–114}}</ref>{{Sfn|Sharma|2001|p=23}}<ref name=pirbhai108>{{cite book|author=M. Reza Pirbhai|title=Reconsidering Islam in a South Asian Context |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=szKwCQAAQBAJ&pg=PA107 | year=2009| publisher=Brill Academic| isbn=978-90-474-3102-2|page=108}}</ref> with ] forbidding the practice,<ref name=Columbia/> and later European travelers record that ''sati'' was not much practiced in the Mughal empire.<ref name=Columbia> from ''Muslim Civilization in India'' by S. M. Ikram, edited by Ainslie T. Embree New York: Columbia University Press, 1964</ref> It was notably associated with elite Hindu ] clans in western ], marking one of the points of divergence between Hindu Rajputs and the Muslim ]s.<ref name="AsherTalbot2006">{{citation|last1=Asher|first1=Catherine B.|last2=Talbot|first2=Cynthia|title=India before Europe|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=1GEWAwAAQBAJ&pg=PT268|year=2006|publisher=Cambridge University Press|isbn=978-1-139-91561-8|pages=268–}}</ref> |
|
The ] (1526–1857) rulers and the Muslim population were ambivalent about the practice,<ref name=annemarie113>{{cite book|author=Annemarie Schimmel|editor=Burzine K. Waghmar|title=The Empire of the Great Mughals: History, Art and Culture|url=https://archive.org/details/empireofgreatmug00anne|url-access=registration|year=2004|publisher=Reaktion|isbn=978-1-86189-185-3|pages=–114}}</ref>{{Sfn|Sharma|2001|p=23}}<ref name=pirbhai108>{{cite book|author=M. Reza Pirbhai|title=Reconsidering Islam in a South Asian Context |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=szKwCQAAQBAJ&pg=PA107 | year=2009| publisher=Brill Academic| isbn=978-90-474-3102-2|page=108}}</ref> with ] forbidding the practice,<ref name=Columbia/> and later European travelers record that ''sati'' was not much practiced in the Mughal empire.<ref name=Columbia> from ''Muslim Civilization in India'' by S. M. Ikram, edited by Ainslie T. Embree New York: Columbia University Press, 1964</ref> It was notably associated with elite Hindu ] clans in western ], marking one of the points of divergence between Hindu Rajputs and the Muslim ]s.<ref name="AsherTalbot2006">{{citation|last1=Asher|first1=Catherine B.|last2=Talbot|first2=Cynthia|title=India before Europe|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=1GEWAwAAQBAJ&pg=PT268|year=2006|publisher=Cambridge University Press|isbn=978-1-139-91561-8|pages=268–}}</ref> |
|
|
|
|
|
With the onset of the British Raj, opposition against sati grew. The principal campaigners against Sati were ] and ] reformers such as ] and ].{{sfn|Sharma|2001|pp=6–7}}<ref name="marshman">{{cite book|last=Marshman|first=John Clark|title=History of India from the earliest period to the close of the East India Company's government |publisher= Edinburgh: W. Blackwood |year=1876|page=374|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=tbmT_Tv-VGUC&pg=PA357|isbn=9781108021043}}</ref> In 1829 Lord Bentinck issued Regulation XVII declaring ''Sati'' to be illegal and punishable in criminal courts.<ref>Sharma pp. 7–8.</ref> On 2 February 1830 this law was extended to ] and ].<ref name=hist>{{cite book|last=Rai|first=Raghunath|title=History |page=137|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Z4-8Z0gqBkoC&q=RAM+MOHAN+ROY+SATI+PRACTICE&pg=PA137|isbn=9788187139690}}</ref> The ban was challenged by a petition signed by “several thousand… Hindoo inhabitants of Bihar, Bengal, Orissa etc”<ref>Dodwell 1932 p. 141.</ref> and the matter went to the ] in London. Along with British supporters, Ram Mohan Roy presented counter-petitions to parliament in support of ending Sati. The Privy Council rejected the petition in 1832, and the ban on ''Sati'' was upheld.<ref>{{cite book|last1=Kulkarni|first1=A.R.|last2=Feldhaus|first2=Anne|page=192|chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=1YSU9Qp9w0MC&pg=PA192|title=Images of Women in Maharashtrian Literature and Religion|chapter=Sati in the Maratha Country|publisher=SUNY Press|year=1996|location=Albany, NY|isbn=978-0791428382}}</ref> |
|
With the onset of the British Raj, opposition against sati grew. The principal campaigners against Sati were ] and Hindu reformers such as ] and ].{{sfn|Sharma|2001|pp=6–7}}<ref name="marshman">{{cite book|last=Marshman|first=John Clark|title=History of India from the earliest period to the close of the East India Company's government |publisher= Edinburgh: W. Blackwood |year=1876|page=374|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=tbmT_Tv-VGUC&pg=PA357|isbn=9781108021043}}</ref> In 1829 Lord Bentinck issued Regulation XVII declaring ''Sati'' to be illegal and punishable in criminal courts.<ref>Sharma pp. 7–8.</ref> On 2 February 1830 this law was extended to ] and ].<ref name=hist>{{cite book|last=Rai|first=Raghunath|title=History |page=137|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Z4-8Z0gqBkoC&q=RAM+MOHAN+ROY+SATI+PRACTICE&pg=PA137|isbn=9788187139690}}</ref> The ban was challenged by a petition signed by "several thousand... Hindoo inhabitants of Bihar, Bengal, Orissa etc"<ref>Dodwell 1932 p. 141.</ref> and the matter went to the ] in London. Along with British supporters, Ram Mohan Roy presented counter-petitions to parliament in support of ending Sati. The Privy Council rejected the petition in 1832, and the ban on ''Sati'' was upheld.<ref>{{cite book|last1=Kulkarni|first1=A.R.|last2=Feldhaus|first2=Anne|page=192|chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=1YSU9Qp9w0MC&pg=PA192|title=Images of Women in Maharashtrian Literature and Religion|chapter=Sati in the Maratha Country|publisher=SUNY Press|year=1996|location=Albany, NY|isbn=978-0791428382}}</ref> |
|
|
|
|
|
== Caste system == |
|
== Caste system == |
|
<!-- How is the caste-system a defining feature of Hinduism, and not of South Asian society? Criticisms by Buddhists, Bhakti traditions, Islam, British rulers & evangelists, contemporary Dalit activists and international NGO's. --> |
|
<!-- How is the caste-system a defining feature of Hinduism, and not of South Asian society? Criticisms by Buddhists, Bhakti traditions, Islam, British rulers & evangelists, contemporary Dalit activists and international NGO's. --> |
|
{{Main|Caste system in India}} |
|
{{Main|Caste system in India}} |
|
] describes the caste system as a "discriminatory and cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment"<ref name="hidden apartheid"/> of over 165 million people in India. The justification of the act on the basis of ], which according to HRW, "a defining feature of Hinduism,"<ref name="hrw"/> has repeatedly been noticed and described by the United Nations and HRW, along with criticism of other ] worldwide.<ref name="hrw">{{Cite web|title=CASTE DISCRIMINATION:|url=https://www.hrw.org/reports/2001/globalcaste/caste0801-03.htm|access-date=2021-01-09|website=www.hrw.org}}</ref><ref name="hidden apartheid">{{Cite web|date=2007-02-12|title=Hidden Apartheid|url=https://www.hrw.org/report/2007/02/12/hidden-apartheid/caste-discrimination-against-indias-untouchables|access-date=2021-01-09|website=Human Rights Watch|language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|title=OHCHR {{!}} Caste systems violate human rights and dignity of millions worldwide – New UN expert report|url=https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=18497&LangID=E|access-date=2021-01-09|website=www.ohchr.org}}</ref><ref>"". CBC News. 2 March 2007.</ref> |
|
] describes the caste system as a "discriminatory and cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment"<ref name="hidden apartheid"/> of over 165 million people in India. The justification of the act on the basis of ], which according to HRW, "a defining feature of Hinduism",<ref name="hrw"/> has repeatedly been noticed and described by the United Nations and HRW, along with criticism of other ] worldwide.<ref name="hrw">{{Cite web|title=CASTE DISCRIMINATION:|url=https://www.hrw.org/reports/2001/globalcaste/caste0801-03.htm|access-date=2021-01-09|website=www.hrw.org}}</ref><ref name="hidden apartheid">{{Cite web|date=2007-02-12|title=Hidden Apartheid|url=https://www.hrw.org/report/2007/02/12/hidden-apartheid/caste-discrimination-against-indias-untouchables|access-date=2021-01-09|website=Human Rights Watch|language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|title=OHCHR {{!}} Caste systems violate human rights and dignity of millions worldwide – New UN expert report|url=https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=18497&LangID=E|access-date=2021-01-09|website=www.ohchr.org}}</ref><ref>"". CBC News. 2 March 2007.</ref> |
|
|
|
|
|
==See also== |
|
==See also== |
With the onset of the British Raj, opposition against sati grew. The principal campaigners against Sati were Christian and Hindu reformers such as William Carey and Ram Mohan Roy. In 1829 Lord Bentinck issued Regulation XVII declaring Sati to be illegal and punishable in criminal courts. On 2 February 1830 this law was extended to Madras and Bombay. The ban was challenged by a petition signed by "several thousand... Hindoo inhabitants of Bihar, Bengal, Orissa etc" and the matter went to the Privy Council in London. Along with British supporters, Ram Mohan Roy presented counter-petitions to parliament in support of ending Sati. The Privy Council rejected the petition in 1832, and the ban on Sati was upheld.