Another form of infanticide was far more widely spread, especially among the Rajputs, Jats and Mewats in Central and Western India. Here, the difficulty of marrying girls led the parents to kill them, while infants, by refusing proper nourishment, or sometimes even poisoning the nipples of the mothers’ breasts. Enlightened and philanthropic British officers tried to stop this practice by persuasion, but this proved unsuccessful.
Ultimately laws had to be passed prohibiting both these forms of infanticide. Bengal Regulation XXI of 1795 and Regulation VI of 1802 dealt respectively with the second and first forms of infanti- cide, declaring both as murder.
But even the legislation of 1795, extended to newly added provinces by another Regulation in 1804, failed to remove at once the gross abuse of secret murder of girls, as by the very nature of the case it could often avoid detection. The practice, however, slowly died out, as a result of the influence of Western education and Western ideas.
The reforms of these abuses were followed by the suppression of another horrid custom. This was the so-called “Suttee” (Sati). The word means a chaste and virtuous woman but has by a curious process been applied to the practice of burning chaste women along with the dead bodies of their husbands.
Among primitive peoples of many lands there was a belief that life after death is more or less a continuation of the present life and subject to the same material needs. Accordingly a man needs his wife and attendants in the other world, and so the death of a king or a leading chief was followed by the immolation, either voluntary or forcible, of his wives, concubines, attendants and servants, so that they might keep company with their deceased lord and serve him in the same way as on earth. This custom prevailed in India, China, Babylonia and many other countries, and its traces linger in Japan where the death of the ruler is sometimes followed by the Hara-kiri or suicide of devoted subjects.
The burining, of the wife is in one aspect the last remnant of this widely spread primitive custom. It must have been prevalent in India from a very early period, and Greek writers have preserved detailed accounts of a case that occurred in the fourth century B.C. But still it was not enjoined as a sacred religious duty until centuries later. The practice is not referred to in the earliest law-books, and is merely permitted as an option to widows in later books. It is only towards the close of the Ancient period, or perhaps even later, that the practice was definitely enjoined as a religious duty. The last stage in this tragic drama was reached when the scriptures laid down self-immolation on the funeral pyre of her husband as the only meritorious course that a virtuous woman could follow. Not only would such a woman enjoy eternal bliss in heaven along with her husband, but her action would expiate the sins of three generations of her husband’s family, both on his father’s and mother’s side.
Such hopes and encouragements both to the victim and her natural protectors produced the inevitable consequences, and every year hundreds of women met with a cruel death in the name of religion. In many cases the material interests of the male relations, added to religious faith, induced them to persuade, sometimes even to force, the unhappy victim to the tragic course. Sometimes opium and other drugs were used to benumb the senses of the woman, so that she might be easily persuaded to adopt the fatal resolve. Cases are on record when the woman fleeing from the first touch of fire was again forcibly placed upon the funeral pyre. To prevent such incidents the male relations often took care to cover the body of the widow with wood, leaves and straw and then pressed it down by means of two bamboos before setting fire to the pyre. At the same time the thunderous noise of the crowd mingled with sounds of drums ensured that the cries of agony from the wretched girl would not be heard by any spectator.
The very fact that such practices could endure for centuries among an intelligent and cultured people, illustrates in a striking manner how faith in a supermundane existence, instead of enlightening and purifying the ideas and sentiments of man, at times warps his judgment and paralyses his noble instincts and human feelings.
It is gratifying to note that enlightened Mughul rulers like Akbar not only raised their voice in protest but also took effective steps to prevent the obnoxious practice. But the absence of an organized and sustained effort led to no permanent result. From the early days of British rule both officials and missionaries appealed to the Government to stop this baleful custom, and an agitation was set on foot in England to force the hands of the authorities at home. But hampered by their declared policy of laissez-faire in matters of religion, and afraid to offend the religious susceptibilities of a large class of subjects which might ultimately affect the military, the British Government in India long hesitated to take any decisive step. The Supreme Court, however, refused to tolerate it within the precincts of Calcutta, and the Dutch, the Danes and the French prohibited it respectively in Chinsura, Serimpur and Chandernagore.
The Government at first instructed its officers to take no further step than dissuading the intended victims by gentle persuasion. In 1789 the Collector of Shahabad referred the matter to Lord Cornwallis in the following words:
“The rites and superstitions of the Hindu religion should be allowed with the most unqualified tolerance, but a practice at which human nature shudders I cannot permit without particular instructions.” In reply he was told that his action must be “confined to dissuasion and must not extend to coercive measures or to any exertion of official powers”.
