Sati: A Historical, Social and Philosophical Enquiry Into the Hindu Rite of Widow Burning 0861321936, 9780861321933

Citation preview

..

SATI

By the same author

A.mrltsar : Past and Present Jalllanwa/o Bogh (tr. Hindi and Panjabi) New Light on Punjab Di1turbancu in 1919, vols. I-II A Nationalist Mu1llm and Indian Politics (co-author) Ma"'1n Lal Dhingra and the Revolutionary Mo,ement .Sourcu on National Mo_vement, vol. I, 191~1920 (co-authorJ Hiatory of Kurukah•tra (co-author) Biographical Dktlonary of Modem World Peace Leader, ('Jawalu.rlal Nehru') .

..

,_ ATI A Historical, Social and Philosophical Enquiry into the Hindu Rite of Widow Burning

•

V.l~j >ATTA

GT 33 0 .D37

l1tb ·

\

Sangam Books 1988

I~

1~;:;f\~li\ l!M!\/€RSIT'\' LIBRAR\ES

BLOOMINGTON

Sangam Books Limited 57 London Fruit Exchange Brushfield Street London El 6EP Published by Sangam Books Limited 1988 By arrangement with Manohar Publications 1 Ansari Road, Daryaganj New Delhi-110 002, India

©

Manohar Publications •

ISBN 0-86132-193-6

Printed in India by P.L. Printers, New Delhi

To the memory of my teacher Sir Herbert Butterfield

To generalize is to be an idiot. Truth only exist, in minutely organis~d partieen burnt), Government vs Ramdat and Balgobind (the widow was burnt before the daroga arrived), Government vs. Surnam Tevery (the widow was burnt without the husband's body), Government vs. Sheo Suhai (the widow was under age), Government vs. Ajoodhia Misser (the widow leaving behind infants), and Government vs. Ram Parsu (the widow was under age).171 The kom,al dismissed earlier on account of dereliction of duty for not preventing an illegal suttee was reinstated;171 and the magistrate at Mirzapore took no steps to punish the Kbettors in the illegality of suttees.171 The figures of 1826 show that only in a few cases suttees were preveinted. A large number of 'illegal' suttees continued to be practised but no one was· hanged or punished. It was not known to quite a number of officials what was allowed and what was not allowed. Confusion prevailed among them regarding the rules currently in force. A study of the official documents relating to the period immediately preceding 1828 shows that the Government suffered from inertia, and, contented itself with the distant hope of suppressing the practice of suttee through means of education and anti-suttee propaganda. The majority of judges of the Court of Nizamat Adalat and some local magistrates pleaded strongly for the prohibition of suttee by legislative enactment and felt that the Government had no choice but to embark on such a course if it was determined to bring about the suppression of suttee. But the Government was unwilling to accept this expert advice. The views of these experienced officials who recognised the futility of the existing rules on suttee, and who ridiculed in private the Government's apprehension of exciting disaffection among the natives were rejected by the Government. Individual British officials understood the problem better than the Government, which, even if it understood the problem, failed to tako

British Polley on Suttee

61

any decisive step in the matter. In the Government's entire dealing with suttee, no worthwhile advance had been made, and things stood in 1828 where they had been in 1813, when the Circular orders were first issued. It was widely held among the officials that the implementation of the Circular orders did n.:>t produce satisfactory results. These rules had merely exacerbated the fanatical spirit. Far from initiating any measure to deal with the question of · suttee, the Government almost retreated from its commitment to carry through the Circular orders, ~nd chose the safest course to wait and watch. The earlier phase of enthusiasm for the aboli-, tion visible from 1812 to 1811 had ended; and a period of indifference and apathy followed. A feeling of regret about having initiated a policy of limited interference by the Circular orders characterised the general mood of the Government. Even the Court of Directors acted as helpless spectators. lo their despatch of 25th July 1827, the Court harped on the old theme of leaving the question af suttee to the discretion of the local a11thorities, particularly in view of the divided opinion among the officials in India.180 In their despatch to India dated 24th June 1827 the Court of Directors wrote: We offer no obstruction to the Hindus and Muslims in the exercise of their religion, we fully tolerate their prejudices and opinions and all the voluntary acts connected with them but to interfere in the various observances of their public and private life or to uphold and promote the object of their superstitions by penal enactments and above all by the barbarous rules of their own codes is a course utterly inconsistent with the principle of our Governmcnt. 181 The Home authorities held the local Government to be the best judge of the probable etfects of any measure in social and religious matters. They regretted that on account of the hostilities in Burma and military operations on the North-Western Frontier, concrete measures on suttee could not be taken, a'ld the ,natter had been left hanging in the air. 181 They suggested that in the light of new returns on suttee, the Government ought to think of adopting a new measure. But Amherst's

-

62

Sa1i

Government was sluggish in this matter and thought it politic not to disturb the status quo. The annual suttee returns of 1826 submitted by the local magistrates the Court of N izamat Adalat raised a large issue on the policy regarding suttee. Like his predecessor, Amherst passed the, buck to his successors. Because of the strong views held by the Court of Nizamat Adalat whose members had recommended ··abolition of suttee during the last" few years, and · because of the keen interest evinced recently in the suttee question by the Court of Directors, the British Government in India felt compelled to examine the whole suttee policy from a practi.ca,1 viewpoint: whether the immediate abolition of suttee should cause any disaffection among the 'native troops.' This issue was thoroughly discussed .in the Court of .Nizamat Adalat. Smith, an ardent champion of the abolition of suttee, in his note dated 1 November 1826 ruled · out any possibility of disaffection . among_ the native troops, and this he djd in the belief · that the Muslim soldier was not concerned with suttee in. any ·way, as suttee was a Hindu practice; and further, t~at suttee was not practised among the lower class Hindus, -w ho were found in large numbers in the army .183 . . Ross wrote on 9 October 1826 that the regular corps of , the army was recruited from Behar, Benares, Oudh and the Western Provinces, and not from Bengal where the largest number of suttces took pl"ce. In view of the fact that a small number of recruits were supplied by Bengal there was no apprehension of disaffection among the native troops. R.N .C. Hamilton recommended on 12 August 1826 strong measures like the confiscation of all property and estates of the culprits involved in abetting suttee.184 W.H. Macnaghten, the Registrar, thought it highly objectionable to enact any regulation authorizing the sacrifice of suttee. In his ·minute dated 13 July 1827, W.B. Bayley made a proposal to abolish suttee ''in those part of our territories, where no such declaration or instructfons had been circulated''~ The territories that Bayiey had in mind were Delhi, Saugor and Nerbuda, Kumaon and the North-eastern portion of Rajastban. 185 This was a novel proposal. In his note .of February 1829, Harrington supported Bayley's proposal o·r prohibiting suttees in territories where no declara- . tion or Circular orders had been introduced; but as was common

or

.

.

.

•

Briti#I Policy on Suttee

63

with him, he insisted on the widows· relatives giving prior information to the police about the intending suttee.186 But in regard to tht: British territories in which Circular orders · had been issued, he wished to maintain the status quo. Charles Metcalfe, who had prohibited suttee in Delhi, while a Resident, suppJrted Bayley's proposal, and wrote on 29 December 1829 that if the prohibition of suttee hald., James Mill to Brougham, Vol. X, pp. 590-91, Vol. XI, p. 2. See A. Bains, op. cit., p. 391, Bentham MSS, Box-10, p. 178. 34. John Bowering, op. cit., Bentham to Col. Young, 18 December .1829,

'

pp. 576-77. 35. Ibid., Bentham to Rammohun Roy, 1829, p. 589.

36. Ibid. 37. Ibid., Bentham to Mr. Mulford, p. 450. See also Halevy, Philo~ oplucal Radicalism, p. 510. 38. BM, James Mill to Bentinck, 2 June 1829, see Alexander Bain, op. cit., James Mill to Mrs. Orote, August 15, 1835, p. 390; Mill wrote about Bentinck ''He is a man worth making much of I assure , you. When I consider what he is and what he has done in - a most importa~t and difficult situation I know no·t where to look for his like.'' 39. R.osselli, op. cit., p. 85. _ .O. Jkntham MSS., Box X, pp. 179-82, Draft Letter, Bentham to Bentinck, 18 November 1829. 41. C.H. Philips, Vol. I, p. xr. 42. Boulier, op. cu.. p. 54, Rosselli, op. cit., p. 36, H.H. Wilson, a profound scholar wrote harshly of Beotinck : 'He bas a viaorous mind •

·114

43. 44. 45. 46.

Satl and quick observation, but he never reads, and therefore often judges wrongly', see C.H. Philips, op. cit., p. XV, No. 1. John Bowering (ed.), op. cit., X, p. 589. Bentham admired the benevolent autocr~ts who preceded the French Revolution-Catherine the Great and the Emperor Francis. Sir Charles Webster, The _Foreign Policy of Ca3t/ereigh, Vol. I, p. 15. . B}rl, Thomas Fowell Buxter to Bentinck, October 22, 1827. See also Astell to B~ntinck, 5 June 1829. Ibid., Astell to Bentinck, S June 1829. Ibid.

41. 48. 49. Ibid. SO. Ibid., Astell to Bentinck, S June 1829. 51. Ibid., Sir Edward Ryan to Bentinck, 12 August 1829. 52. Ibid. . S3. Ibid., Thomas Fowell Buxton to Bentinck, 22 October 1827. ''The Friend of India'' contained Rammohun Roy's article wherein he had shown that the rite of suttee was not enjoined by the superior Hindu religious text. S4. _Ibid., Buxton to Bentinck. Ibid. SS. Ibid., E. Edward to Bentinck, 14 May 1830. 56. Ibid., l)entinck to Astell, 12 June 1829. 51. Ibid., Bentinck to Combermere, 12 November 1828. 58. BM, Bentinck to William Astell, 12 .January 1829; C.H. Philips, op. cit., Vol. I, p. 140. 59. B.M. Bentinck to C. Majoribanks, 14 August, 1828. 60. Victor Jacquement, Letters from India, (ed. C.A. Philips), p. 12. Sec: also Henry Lawerence, Adventure3 of an Officer in the Service of Ranjit Singh, p; 211. 61. BM, Bentinck to John Loch, 5 December 1829. 62. This notice was originally issued on 23· February J829. 63. BM. Bentinck to Astell; 12 January 1829. 64. Ibid. 6S. · WBSR, JCP, Confidential, 4 December 1829. Circular addressed to officers in the Military service of the Company, pp. 5-~l. 66. Ibid. 61. BM, Ben.t inck to Combcrmere, 12 November 1828. 68. WBSR, JCP, 4 December 1829, No. 11, pp. 5-11. 69. Ibid., p. 7. 70. Ibid., pp. 7-8. 71. Ibid., pp. 8-9. 72. Ibid., pp. 8-9. 73. Ibid., p. 9. 74. Ibid., pp. 10-11. 75. Ibid. 76. Ibid., p. 12. I

\

11 Ibid., _pp. 228-239. •

u,rd WIiiiam Bentl,rck

11 S

78. Ibid., p. 4S~ 79. lbld., p. 73. 80. Ibid. 81. Ibid., p. S9. 82. Ibid., p. 22. 83. For Wilson•s views see ibid., pp. 228-37. 84. Ibid., pp. 231-33. \ 8S. Ibid., p. 234. 86. David Kopf, British Orientalism and Bengal Renalnance,: p. 17S. no. 66. ,, . 87. WBSR, JCPI p. 200. 88. For Macnaghten's views, see ibid., pp. 125-139. 89. Ibid., pp. 127-28. 90. Ibid., p. 139. 91. Ibid., p. 128. 92. Ibid., pp. 138-39. 93. ll,id., p. 164. 94. Ibid., p. 156. 9S. Ibid., p. 250. 96. Ibid., pp. 119-120. 91. Ibid., p. 360. 98. For the account of the officials connected with the Sadr Diwani and Nizamat Adalat see WBSR, Judicial Criminal Proceedings, 4th December 1829, pp. 248-286, 293, 326, 344, 390 and 418. 99. Henry Thoby Prinsep was opposed to the prohibition which was pro'>ably due to the influence of his brother Jan,es Prinsep (1199-.1840), an Orientalist with a special feeling for the preservation of Hindu tradition and customs•. • 100. WBSR, JCP, No. 13, p. 422. 101. Ibid., No. 13, p. 429. 102. Ibid. 103. Ibid. 104. Calcutta Review, 1867 (January-June) XLV, p. 157; see also Demetrius C. BouJger, _op. cit., Bentlnck's Minute, p. 101. 105. V.N. Datta, 'Evidence of unpublished Documents on · William Beotinck's Administrative Ideas,' pp. 153-57, io Indian· Historical · iecords Commission. Vol. XVI, 1956. 106. John Rosselli, op. clt., p. 36.

100.~~

•

.

108. Lord Curzon who had love of the dramatic refers to the popular view held in Bentinck's time that the Taj was oo the point of bei111 destroyed for the value of its ~les, see Lord CurZ(ln in India, Being a Selection from the Speeches a8 Viceroy and Governor-(ieMral of India (1898-1905), (Sir Thomas Raleigh), sec W.H. Sleeman, Ramble8 and Recollectlotu of an Indian O§lclal, Vol. II, p. 36. Seo

116

Satl

also C. Lestock, ColtlJllff'a ad C01111Uat, p. 184. Curzon ICIU(1s Slee111an 's remarb u careless and exaaerated. The British soldiers spread this aossip because they were &Dll'Y with Bentiock over the reduction of double batta. For Curzon'a views see LQ.rd Cllrzo,i ;,, India, (ed. Sir Thomas Raleiah), p. 139. It is true that to Bentinck a hospital or an institution of public utility would be more useful than a royal building involving wastage of human labour and public money. He piloted a proposal to lease the gardens of Sikandra to the Executive Engineer at Agra for the purpose of Speculator cultivation. See Raleigh, op. cit., p. 139. Bcntinck had no intention of pulling the Taj and selling it but be sold the marble left as a part of public bath sent by Lord Hastings. to King George IV. For a detailed analysis see Percival Spear, ''Bentinck and the Taj'' in Journal of Royal A8ialic Society, London. 1949-51, pp. 180-117. Spear shows that Sleeman had spread a canard due to Bentiock's reducing the batta in the army. Spear concedes that Bentinck ordered the sale of some marble lumber in a Mughal bathroom in Agra fort. But the Taj story was an imaginative addition by Bentinck's military critics. In ,fact Sleeman has been misinterpreted. Sleeman only speculates that if the Taj had fttched good price, Bentinck would have sold it. 109. BM, Ravenshaw to Bentinck, 7 July 1828. l 10. The Journal of Mr.s. Arbuthnot, Vol. 11, p. 292. 111. El/enborough Papers, (PRO 30/9), 23 January 1829. 112. Colechester (ed.) Lord Ellenborough, A Political Diary, Vol. I. p. 6. l 13. John Rosselli, op. cit., pp. 303-304. 11-4. Colechester (ed.), op. cit., p. 14. llS. ll,id., Vol. II, p. ISO. 116. Ibid. 117. Ibid., p. 168. 118. BM, Bentinck to Mctacalfe (Uodated letter). 119. Cynthia Barret, Lord William Bentinck In Bengal, p. 9. 120. Ibid. 121. Demetrius C. ~u)aer, op. cit., p. 97. 122. Halevy, Philo,opllkal RadiCQ/um, p. SS. 123. De1netriu C. Boulger, op. cit., pp. 96·1·11. See C.H. Philips. op. cit.• Vol. I, pp. 33S-345. See Appendix I, pp. 237-250. 124. Demetrius C. Boutgcr, op. cit., p. 97. 12S. Ibid. 126. Ibid., p. 98. 127. loid., p. 99. 128. _Ibid., p. 98. 129. Ibid., pp. 100-101. 130. Ibid., pp. 97-98. 131. WBSR, JCP, No. IS, pp. 432-3.

Lord William Bentlnck 132. 133. 134. J 35. 136. 137. 138.

139. 140. 141.

142. 143. 144. 145. 146. 147. 148.

149. 150. 1Sl. '

1S2.

153. 154. lSS.

156. 157. 158. 159. 160.

161. 162.

163.

117

Ibid. D,id., :-10. 17, p. 437 • . BM, Cc,mbermere to Bentinck, 19 April 18~9. Ibid., p. 438. PP, (1821), XVIII, p. 242.

Ibid•. Eric Stokes, op. cit., p. 18. To Stokes the other members of tho group were Thomas Munro, John Malcolm and Mountstuart Elphinstone. BM, Bentinck to Metcalfe, 25 May 1831. Ibid., 2 December 1832. PP (1830), XXVIII, pp. 215-17. D,ld. · BM, Bentinck to Astell, 12 January 1829. WBSR, JCP, No. 15, p. 434. Ibid. PP, (1830), XXVIII, pp. 215-17. WBSR, JCP, No. 15, p. 435. C.H. Philips; op. clt., Vol. I, Letter No. 164, Regulation XVII of the Benpl Code, pp. 360-362. See Appendix II, pp. 251-253. John Clark Marshman, The Life Olld Times of Car6y, Marsh"""' and Ward, Vol. I, p. 412. C.H. Philips (ed.), op. cit., Vol. I, Letter No. 164, Regulation XVQ: of the Bengal Code, pp. 360-62. Frederick John Shore, Notes on Indian Affairs, Vol. II, pp. 217-18. See also Alexander•, East India MagaziM (1835), Vol. 10, pp. 231. ,rederick John Shore, op. cit. D,ld. ' Ibid., Vol. I, p. 95. Quoted in Calcutta &view, 1844, December, No. IV, Vol. II, p. 445. Demetrius C. Boulger, op. clt., pp. 85-96. Ahmad A.F. Salubud Din, Social ld~as and Social Change in Bengal (1818-38), p. 171. John Rosselli, op. cit., p. 213. . Benedicte Hjejli, The Social Policy of the Eart India Company with regard to Sati, Slavery, Thagi and Infanticide, p. 28. Be11gal Hurkaru, November 28, 1829. Ibid. Nemai Sadhan Bose, Indian Awakening and Bengal, .p. 205. R..C. Majumbar 'Presidential Address at tbo 10th Annual Historical Conference of the Institute of Historical Studies, Calcutta held at Kurubhetra (October 28, 1972). See also Majumdar, The Quarterly Review of Historical Studie,, Calcutta (1972-73), Vol. XI, No. 2, pp. 79-80. See also Majumdar, in Rammohun Roy, The .4,lallc Soc~ty, 1972, p. 43. ,

Sati.

118

164. Calclltto Rnlew, Me,-AupJt 1914, p. 200. The Rural Population ofBeupl. . 165. A B1111eh of Old L,tter$ w,h,_ mo.stly to Jawahar/al Nehru and •me written by him, Edward Thompson to Nehru, 3 M~h 1937, p. 230. 166. Glad.rto,w PaJ¥T8, Add. MSS. 44721, folios 121 to 125. See also

Command PIIJ}ff'8, no.

123◄5.

Raja Rammohun Ro y

- ----

4 Rammohun Roy

Any ~tudy of the abolition of suttee would _be incomplete , without estimating Rammohun Roy's role in the whole process. What was precisely his _role? Was he the central figure in this major reform as bis biographers have claimed for bim?1 In his anxiety to debunk Rammohun Roy in the year of his bicentenary Dr. R.C. Majumdar has criticised the general tendency . on the part of historians and some distinguished creative writers to exaggerate his part in social reforms, parti. cularly in tbe abolition of the practice of suttce. 1 Majumdar . has stated that in the abolition of suttee, Rammohun Roy was ' not the guiding spirit, but, on the contrary, he acted privately as a brake on Lord William Bentinck's scheme of the abolition. Also while showing that the practice of suttce had not been sanctioned by Hindu religion, Majumdar . maintained that Mritunjoy Vidyalankar, Head Pandit of Fort William College and Supreme Court, had anticipated Roy.1 . R.C. Majumdar's judgement is unduly harsh· and he does not take proper cognizance of difficulties which Roy had to face in bis time in supporting vehemently a cause which ,was dear to his heart. Majumdar is justifi,e d in denying to Roy the decisive role in the abolition of suttee but he goes to the other extreme when he shows a total disregard for his contribution in the campaign.' Lord William Bentinck and Rammohun Roy represented different viewpoints on his sensitive issue. Bentinck urged abolition by legislative enactment but Roy opposed it.5 It is a pity that not enough of Roy's private correspondence remains to clear up his views on the abolition of the rite. This I

✓

,

120

Satl

lack of private correspondence has led to much speculation about his position on the suttee question. Bentinck's Minute on Suttee, dated 8 November 1829 is the only document available on Roy's views regarding the legislative enactment of suttce. . Roy's interest in the abolition of suttee was consistent but it is not clear precisely when this interest had originated. At a meeting held on 10 November 1832 in Calcutta and presided over by Dwarkanath Tagore (179S-1846) who used his wealth in active philanthropy, the citizens of Calcutta adopted a resolution thanking Roy (he was in England then) for the services he had rendered in the abolition of suttee.• It praised him for having ''toiled hard," and ''suffered from the taunts of his countrymen the likes of which none has suffered.7 In view of the humiliations to which his countrymen subjected him for his advf daily communicating with Rammohua for yean. Serioqs doubts have been ca,t on the ae~uineness of tbia dletcb but to di-s· . rqard it as a labr~tion is rather aoina too·far. 53. Joaendra Chunder Ghosh, op. ell., Vol. I, p. 215.

Rllmmohun Roy

135

S4. Nirad C. Chaudhuri, Th. Auto~iograpl,y of an Unknown Indian, pp. 199-200•. 55. 0.0. Trevelyan, Life of Macaulay, p. 158. 56. Jogendra Cbunder Ghosh, op. clt., Vol •. I, p. _S. See also. John C. Marshman, Out Ii~ of the History of Bengal, p. 260. 51. Calcutta Review, 1844, Vol. IV, No. VIII, Rammohun Roy, p. 372. This article, thouah anonymous, is written probably by Alenander Duff'. 58. 'The Monthly Repo8itory of TMology and General Literature (1819), Vol. XIV, p. 562. ' 59.· Sophia Dobson Collet, op, clt., p. 258. Aahish Nundy, 'A Nineteenth Century Tale of Women,'Violence and Protest' in Rammohun and the Process of ModerniMZtion in Indio, (ed. V.C. Joshi), p. 162, f. 1. 61. Ibid., p. 191. 62. SSK, Vol. I, pp. 288-89.. See also Boulaer, op. cit., p. 101, Bentinck's Minute mentions Rammohun's ~eeting with him. See also Governmn,t Gazette, November 23, 1829 which mentions that the GoverQor-General will give audience to native gentleman on 24 November 1829. This notice was s;• ed by the Military Secretary R. BenSOD. 63. Sophia Dobson Collet, op. cit., p. 256. 64. Demetrius C. Boulger, op. cit., p. 101 •. 6S. Ibid., Bentinck's Minute. 66. Jogendra Chunder Ghosh, op. dt., Vol. I, pp. 171. 67. Ibid., Vol. I, pp. 4SS-S6. 68. Besworth Smith, The Life of Alexa11Mr Dlljf, p. 65. 69. Sir William Kaye, Life of Indian 01/icers, p. 282. 70. Jogendra Chunder Ghosh, op. clt., Vol. I, p. 22S. 71. A. AspinaJ, Three Early NiMteentl, Cent11ry Diaries, p. 95. 72. Jogendra Chunder Ghosh, op. cit., Vol. I, p. 169. 73. Ibid., p. 207. . 74. BouJ1er, op. cit., p. 101. Accordina to a writer in Calc11tta Rnkw, Roy advised Bentinck that the prohibition ahould be confined in Beqal and not extended to North-Western Provinces, inhabited by a hardy and less tractable race, but this view is not t~nable in the liaht of Bentinck's Minute. See Ca/c11tta Rnllw, Vol. I, ·MayAugust 1844, p. 363~ Soe also Calcutta Review, Vol. II, NQ. IV, O~ober-December 1844, p. 445. 75. Sophia Dobson Collet, OJI. cit., pp. 2S7-S8•. 16. Ibid. 77. Nemai Sadban Bose, op. cit., pp. 199 a~d 201. 78·. Ibid., P•. 205. 79. BM, Bentiock to Peter Auber. ·s.e also· Aubel' to Beatinck, 6 May 1831, 4 June 1831 and 7 J-1ly 1831. ·80,. R•cortb of India, Bristol, Surindernatb :Paotrje4''s ~te. 81,. Sir Lewis NaJQior, Crossr(!(ld, of Pow~r-.. pp.-itt-13.

r.o.

5 Pub]ic Reaction.

Lord William Be~tinck's Regulation of Suttee published on 8 December 1829 outlawed widow burning in Bengal. Bentinck was anxious to know the public feeling on his legisla,tive enactment. During his tour in the country, particularly at Benares he learnt to his satisfaction that the abolition of sutteo had occasio~ed no disquiet or tumult.1 He informed· William Astell, Chairman of the Court of Directors, in J83J)that no mob feeling against his reaction was noticed by any of the public officers.1 Bentinck wrote to John Loeb, Deputy and Chairman, Court of Directors, 1828-29, ''Honesty and truth compel me to say that there was never a greater bugbear than this question ·of Suttee."8 The information received from various quarters about . the public reaction to his legislative enactment confirmed his opinion that the suttee question had been unnecessarily a great bugbear. In reply to an Address presented to him by William Sleeman and others at Muradabad on 2 March 1830, Bentinck repeated his earlier view ''Jt is ·a matter of astonishment to me that the question (of suttee) should so Jong have continued to be the bugbear that it was''.' He wrote to John Goldsborough Ravenshaw, Deputy Chairman, Court of Directors, in the same spirit,. ''Suttee was happily ended. It has always been a bugbear''. 5 Bentinck's Regulation did not completely ~top the pr~c. tice of suttee in Bengal. Cases of suttee did _not become rai;-e. and the British officials eagerly.informed Bentinck of tlie prevention of several · cases of suttee within their jurisdiction. • Mr. G.N. Lucan, for example, wrote to Bentinck about the .

,

Public Reaction

137

prevention of suttee at Soona near Gurgaon, where the girl was 15 years old and bad a child. 7 Sometimes strong action was taken against the officials who had permitted a suttee. Mr. J.W. Sage, Judge of the 24 Parganas, had allowed the sacrifice of a widow under age. He had received a bribery of Rs. 800 to Rs. 900 for allowing this. He was dismissed.• Bentinck regarded the abolition of suttee as a means . rather than an end. Jn reply to a congratulatory. Address . presented to him Bentinck said, ''The main object of this act of legislation was the improvement and exaltation of human understanding''.' He believed that the question of suttee, if firmly settled, would elevate the moral character· of the people of India. Bentinck did not insist on the immediate acceptance of the Bengal Regulation by Bombay and Madras Governments that had resisted for long the Bengal policy of regulating suttees. He realised that suttce was not much of a serious problem in Bombay ~nd Madras where the number of suttees was small. Therefore Bentinck allowed Sir John Malcolm, Governor of Bombay, to take ''his course in a matter in which his intimate acquaintance with the native characters would appear..positively to .quilify him for forming a correct judgement''.18 Sir John Malcolm's solidly conservative mind found the abolition of suttee unacceptable. He continued to express his serious doubts about the policy of suppressing suttee by an act of legislation. That is why for some time he hesitated to take any action. 11 He regarded Bentinck's measure as ''an extreme act''.11 Ultimately John Malcolm as· well as S.R. Lushiogto_n , Governor of Madras, adopted Bentinck's Regulation with certain modifications that had been rendered necessary by local requirements. In Bombay, for example, the offence was murder only if the widow was under eighteen, and a limit of ten yea~' imprisonment was set for suttee that was not murder. Lord Ellenborough who was always critical of Bentinck thought that had rather gone too far on the suttee question.11 He wrote further;

he

He (Malcolm) has reluctantly and _fearfully abolished suttec making it culpable homicide to assist in murder to force the victim. He has done it wisely by a repeal of a clause in one

138 regulation and an amendment. Thus not vainly putting it forward as Lord William did in a poippous document.1'

Bentinck's countrymen lauded bis suppression of suttee. Cbades Grant, President of the Board of Control, congratulated Bcntinck saying that his action could of itself be enough to imuaortalize a Government.15 James Peggs, the perennial Baptist propagandist and author of the widely circulated pamphlet, ln4ia'1 Criu to Britub Humanity, also congratulated him and wrote:

Your leadership has pined honours compared with which it has ·justly beta s;,.id : That ]aural tba~ a Caeser reaps are weeds.1• · Peggs strongly urged the promulgation or the Regulation in other provinces.17 A meeting of the local citizeos·ofNottingham, the home town of Bentinck, presided over by Peggs on 2S March 1830 passed a resolution praising Bentinck's action.18 Bentinck's legislative enactment greatly disturbed the orthodox section of Hindu community in Calcutta. RadhakantaDeb, a distinguished Sanskrit scholar, Director of Hindu College, Calcutta, a pioneer in the cause of female education an