mother." Thus the possibility of a woman being bound to her husband's corpse is taken away: the son is not to be, in the least degree, accessary to the mother's death; if she burn herself at all, it must be by throwing herself into the flames already kindled. And the Nirnuya-sindoo forbids the use of any bandage, bamboos, or wood, by way of confining the woman on the funeral pile; nor before she enters it must the least persuasion be used, nor must she be placed on the fire by others. Thus the practice as existing in Bengal is deliberate murder, even according to the legal authorities which recommend burning as optional. Mrityoonjuy shows, from various authors, that though burning is termed optional, it is not to be recommended. To this effect he quotes the Vijuyuntee:—" While Brumhachurya and burning are perfectly optional, burning may arise from concupiscence, but Brumhachurya cannot; hence they are not equally worthy, how then can they be equally optional? By Brumhachurya the widow obtains bliss, though she have no son." He then quotes several authors, as declaring that women ought not to burn, because it is merely a work of concupiscence; the Julwa mala-vilas and others as declaring that the practice is merely the effect of cupidity, and not the fruit of a virtuous and constant mind; and the Mitakshura as declaring that by embracing a life of abstinence the widow, by means of divine wisdom, may obtain beatitude; and hence, a woman's burning herself is improper adding, that in former ages nothing was heard of women's burning themselves: it is found only in this corrupt age. The following is the conclusion drawn by this able pundit and jurist: After perusing many works on this subject, the following are my deliberate ideas. Vishnoo-moonee and various others say, that, the husband being dead, the wife may either embrace a life of abstinence and chastity, or mount the burning pile; but, on viewing the whole, I esteem a life of abstinence and chastity to accord best with the law; the preference appears evidently to be on that side. Vyas, Sungkoo, Ungeera, and Hareeta, speaking of a widow burning, say, that by burning herself with her husband she may obtain connubial bliss in heaven; while, by a life of abstinence and chastity, she, attaining sacred wisdom, may certainly obtain final beatitude. Hence to destroy herself, for the sake of a little evanescent bliss, cannot be her duty; burning is for none but those who, despising final beatitude, desire nothing beyond a little short-lived pleasure. Hence I regard a woman's burning herself as an unworthy act, and a life of abstinence and chastity as highly excellent. In the shastras appear many prohibitions of a woman's dying with her husband, but against a life of abstinence and chastity there is no prohibition. Against her burning herself the following authorities are found:—In the Meemangshadurshun it is declared that every kind of self-inflicted injury is sin. The Sankhya says, that a useless death is absolutely sinful. The killing for sacrifice commanded by the shastras has a reasonable cause, and is yet sinful in a certain degree, because it destroys life. And while, by the Meemangsha, either of the two may be chosen; by the Sunkhya, a life of abstinence and chastity is alone esteemed lawful. But, by the Vedanta, all works springing from concupiscence are to be abhorred and forsaken; hence a woman's burning herself from the desire of connubial bliss ought certainly to be rejected with abhorrence. "No blame whatever is attached to those who prevent a woman burning. In the shastras it is said that Kundurpa being consumed to ashes by the eye of Shiva, his wife, Rutee, determined to burn herself; and commanded her husband's friend, Mudhoo, to prepare the funeral pile. Upon this the gods forbade her; on which account she desisted, but by Kalee-das no blame is attached to them for this conduct. Thus also in the Shree-Bhagubut; a woman, named Kripee, had a son, a mighty hero, from love to whom she forbore to burn herself with her husband; yet she was deemed guilty of no sin therein. Now also we hear of sons and other relatives attempting to dissuade a woman from burning; yet they are esteemed guilty of no crime. It is also evident that a woman, in thus burning herself, dies merely from her own self-will, and from no regard to any shastra; such the command of a thousand shastras would not induce to die. They merely reason thus: By the death of my husband I have sustained an irreparable loss; it is better for me to die than to live;' hence a woman deter mines to die and her relatives, seeing this mind in her, provide the funeral pile, and say, ' if you are determined to die, to die by falling from a precipice would be tedious, die in this manner:' thus a father who has a son determined to go to a distant country, finding all dissuasion vain, at length sends a guide with him who knows all the rivers and dan 6 gerous places. The various shastras therefore describe this action as being merely that of one who, having received an incurable wound, is determined to die, whether by falling from a precipice, by fire, or by water." After this full investigation, by one so able and possessing such opportunities, the subject, as far as relates to the law of the Hindoos, or to the countenance it receives from the Hindoo system, may well be supposed to be fully before the public. While the practice is allowed to have been recommended by certain writers, it is evident that it was never considered as a law, or as a religious injunction essential to the duty of a good Hindoo. If it be a law, the greater part of India must have lived in a state of direct disobedience to the laws of their own religion; for, as the recommendation is directed to widows of every cast, it must have been imperative on all, at least as matter of conscience. Yet, if the number of widows burnt in Bengal annually does not exceed five hundred, it cannot be obeyed even in Bengal, where it is most prevalent, by at least ninety-nine out of a hundred of the population, and in the western part of Hindostan by a still greater proportion;* while, in the southern part of the British dominions, it is scarcely regarded at all. But many have condemned the very principle on which it has been recommended. Those who contend for the burning of widows hold that certain deeds, though done from the most unworthy motives, are in themselves so available as to merit a certain degree of recompense. All these deeds the more learned treat with the greatest contempt, declaring them to be nothing more than vice in another shape. These writers, therefore, view a woman's burning herself as perfectly unlawful. Thus those who form the great support of the Hindoo system totally condemn the very PRINCIPLE on which the practice is at all recommended, while they insist that the law commands a widow to live a life of abstinence and chastity. That these compose the greater *"Supposing the entire Hindoo population of the Bengal Presidency to be 50,000,000, and the annual deaths to be 1 in 33, or above 1,500,000; a sixth of this number, or 250,000, might, on a general computation, be assumed as the number of Hindoo females becoming widows, of whom little more than 600 devote themselves on the death of their husbands." (Par. Papers, July, 1825, p. 11.) How easily might these be saved by Britain's paternal arm! AUTH. F f part of the Hindoos, may be inferred from the proportion of widows burnt alive when compared with the whole population of Hindostan. Such is the state of things relative to this practice, even when described by its most strenuous advocates. As a command it has hot the least foundation in the Hindoo system. As a recommendation it has not been supported by one-fifth of the Hindoo writers on ethics or jurisprudence, nor practically regarded by a thousandth part of those who profess Hindooism. It is in direct opposition to the command of the great Hindoo lawgiver, grounded on principles completely subversive of the Hindoo system, and opposed to that course which the Hindoos believe to be the only path to final happiness. Yet this practice, thus opposed to their great legislator's command—to the very nature of their religious system—and to all their best ideas of virtue, is kept alive in the metropolis and its vicinity by acts of unfeeling coercion; While in those provinces of Hindostan, Which are held to have been the chief seat of every important transaction detailed in their mythology, the practice has nearly expired beneath the feelings of common humanity. When it is considered that this practice causes the death of a greater number of persons in one year (who, if they Tought not to be thus burnt alive, involve the country in all the guilt of innocent blood) than are publicly executed for their crimes throughout the whole of India in the course of twenty years, it cannot be wrong to call to this momentous subject the attention of every friend to his country. How would Britain feel if within herself a hundred innocent per'sons suffered death by some mistake of the law in the course of a year! How then ought she to feel when, in her dominions in the East, seven or eight hundred innocent widows are every year burnt to death? Were this inhuman persecution (which, in the number of its annual victims, exceeds all that papal superstition ever brought to the stake in Britain in the course of a century) directed by the supporters of this practice against any particular sect, or class of men, they would long ago have appealed to their rulers for redress, or they would have left the spot where they were treated with such cruelty. But how can mothers and sisters make an appeal against their own relatives? How can a wife, a mother, withdraw from her own family? They may endure continual agony under the apprehension of the dreadful doom which they know awaits them—they may feel their anguish renewed at the sight of every female neighbour they behold led forth to the flames—they may tremble at every touch of disease that affects their husbands, and weep at every recollection of their hapless children—but can they leave the scene of suffering? can they make known their sorrows? dare they betray the anguish which preys on their vitals? They lie bound as sheep for the slaughter;—and thus they must remain, suffering in silence, till British sympathy shall duly realize their hitherto unknown, unpitied misery.* CHAP. V. The present partial interference of the British Government tends to promote the celebrity and supposed LEGALITY of Suttees. The sentiment of the poet, ""Tis but lame kindness that does its work by halves," applies with peculiar force to the regulations adopted in British India relative to the burning of widows. This will appear by the following extracts from the six volumes of Parliamentary Papers relating to Hindoo widows: printed July, 1821; June, 1823; June, 1824; July, 1825; May, 1827; and July, 1828. The " Draft of Directions to be issued by Magistrates to the Public Darogahs," sufficiently exhibits the nature of the system adopted by the British Government in India, for the regulation of Suttees, appears from the following:— "Whereas, it appears that, during the ceremony denominated Suttee,' certain acts have been occasionally committed in direct opposition to the rules laid down in the religious institutes of the Hindoos, by which that practice is authorised, and forbidden in particular cases; as, for instance, at several places pregnant women, and girls not yet arrived at their full age, have been burnt alive; and people, after having intoxicated women by administering intoxicating substances, have burnt them without their assent whilst insensible; and, inasmuch as this conduct is contrary to the shastras, and perfectly inconsistent with every principle of humanity (it appearing, from the expositions of the Hindoo law delivered by pundits, that the burning a woman pregnant, or one having a child of tender years, or a girl not yet arrived at full age, is expressly forbidden in the shasters; and also that intoxicating a woman, for the purpose of burning her without her assent or against her will, is highly illegal, and contrary to established usage), the police darogahs are hereby * Friend of India (monthly series), Vol. ii. page 4 €453—483. |