Why 'Goddess' Padmavati?

First Previous

Page

Next Last

Frequent Posters

Somebody

@BebaakBegum

Stunner

+ 6

Posted: 7 years ago

#11

Originally posted by: Angry_Birdie

Sati pratha was an act where women used to kill themselves on the event of their husban's death, usually by sitting on their funeral pyre.
While Jauhar was self immolation when the kingdom lost to the enemy or to protect one's honor.

But Jauhar was also commited when the husband couldn't be by your side, right? Tbh, I see no difference in both at its core.

Quote

222149

Hibernated

Posted: 7 years ago

#12

Originally posted by: StinsonIsHere
I have a genuine question. What is the difference between Sati Pratha and Jauhar at its core?

read this😳

https://www.indiaforums.com/forum/bharat-ka-veer-putra-maharana-pratap/3624333/jauhar-and-sati-meaning-and-difference

Quote

Looks like you are new here. Register for free, learn and contribute.

IPSO_FACTO

@IPSO_FACTO

Sparkler

+ 4

Posted: 7 years ago

#13

Originally posted by: StinsonIsHere

But Jauhar was also commited when the husband couldn't be by your side, right? Tbh, I see no difference in both at its core.

Sati was practiced by everyone i.e. The commoners as well. While Jauhar was practiced by the royal families at the time of war. It didn't mean the husband had to die in war, mere defeat at the hands of enemy led to Jauhar.

Quote

IPSO_FACTO

@IPSO_FACTO

Sparkler

+ 4

Posted: 7 years ago

#14

One more thing, Jauhar was an act of self immolation which could be done by any means.
But, sati was practiced by sitting on the husband's funeral pyre.

Quote

Angel-likeDevil

@Angel-likeDevil

Trailblazer

+ 3

Posted: 7 years ago

#15

Originally posted by: return_to_hades
Maybe SLB should have been more creative and called her "the face that caused a thousand swords to clash" (derivative of Homer's 'face that launched a thousand ships')

This is so good, I wish filmmakers in general were creative about movie-titles.. I really wonder at the lack of creativity

Quote

IPSO_FACTO

@IPSO_FACTO

Sparkler

+ 4

Posted: 7 years ago

#16

Originally posted by: Angel-likeDevil

This is so good, I wish filmmakers in general were creative about movie-titles.. I really wonder at the lack of creativity

Though it is good.
But, imagine the outcry by Karni sena. 😆

Quote

rebelheart

@iamrebelheart

Sparkler

+ 4

Fantasy Force

Posted: 7 years ago

#17

Originally posted by: StinsonIsHere
I have a genuine question. What is the difference between Sati Pratha and Jauhar at its core?

Sati pratha was different from committing Jauhar.

satidaha pratha was mostly forcefully done by in laws of the widow after her husband's death. It was a barbaric practice which got banned by the British.

While Jauhar was intentionally done to save honour.

Quote

return_to_hades

@return_to_hades

Stunner

+ 6

Posted: 7 years ago

#18

Originally posted by: Angry_Birdie

But, imagine the outcry by Karni sena. 😆

I'm ignorant. Who/What is Karni Sena? 😕

Quote

return_to_hades

@return_to_hades

Stunner

+ 6

Posted: 7 years ago

#19

Originally posted by: Krishnala-

Sati pratha was different from committing Jauhar.
satidaha pratha was mostly forcefully done by in laws of the widow after her husband's death. It was a barbaric practice which got banned by the British.
While Jauhar was intentionally done to save honour.

Sati was meant to be voluntary as well. Maadri in Mahabharata chooses to perform Sati. Over time it became something that was forced on widows.

Jauhar was usually limited to royalty and warrior classes. The women would commit Jauhar to avoid being captured as prisoners of war or losing their honor in any way. As the royalty and warrior classes faded, the practice faded.

Hence the British banned Sati. They could have banned Jauhar too, but it would be harder to implement and somewhat moot.

I personally find both practices archaic and barbaric. Mostly because the onus was placed 100% on women. Women were expected to follow their husbands through eternity (hence step in funeral pyre) or preserve their honor. Men had no such expectations. Sometimes even though voluntary, many women felt compelled to do so because they did not want to face societal ostracization or taunts.

However, historically and across the globe, suicide to save one's honor is not limited to women, nor is it archaic. Samurai have had the tradition of seppuku for centuries. Warriors across the globe in many cultures felt the obligation to commit suicide than risk being captured. Modern-day spies too carry poison pills to avoid being tortured into divulging secrets. During a war, many soldiers do shoot themselves to avoid being captured, especially if they could be used as bargaining chips, be tortured or abused. While suicide is quite disturbing and undesirable, I can empathize with this suicide under extreme circumstances. I find it palatable as it is for anyone and not just one gender.

Cults have also been known for suicides, including mass suicides. Now those are more f**ked up than Sati or Jauhar combined.

Quote

Somebody

@BebaakBegum

Stunner

+ 6

Posted: 7 years ago

#20

Both the practices seem to hint at the futility of a woman's life post husband's demise or if he's been defeated.
I remember Jules Verne in his Around the World in 80 days talks about Phileas's To-Be-Wife who they meet in a Jungle, where people of the tribe force her to do Sati coz of the demise of her old husband.
Both the practices sound regressive tbh. But that was how the times were.

Quote

1 2 3 4

Why 'Goddess' Padmavati? - Page 2

Related Topics

Explore Topics