Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Source: [11] A regulation for declaring the practice of sati, or of burning or burying alive the widows of Hindus, illegal, and punishable by the criminal courts, passed by the governor-general in council on 4 December 1829, corresponding with the 20th Aughun 1236 Bengal era; the 23rd Aughun 1237 Fasli; the 21st Aughun 1237 Vilayati; the 8th Aughun 1886 Samavat; and the 6th Jamadi-us-Sani 1245 ...
[9] [10] [2] [11] [12] The term sati was originally interpreted as 'chaste woman'. Sati appears in Hindi and Sanskrit texts, where it is synonymous with 'good wife'; [13] the term suttee was commonly used by Anglo-Indian English writers. [14] The word sati, therefore, originally referred to the woman, rather than the rite. Variants are:
Lieutenant General Lord William Henry Cavendish-Bentinck GCB GCH PC (14 September 1774 – 17 June 1839), known as Lord William Bentinck, was a British military commander and politician who served as the governor of Fort William (Bengal) from 1828 to 1834 and the first governor-general of India from 1834 to 1835.
The Nawab of Bengal agreed to pay Rs. 1.2 million annually as the chauth of Bengal and Bihar, and the Marathas agreed not to invade Bengal again. [3] [29] The Nawab of Bengal also paid Rs. 3.2 million to the Marathas, towards the arrears of chauth for the preceding years. [4]
Being a conservative Hindu, Bhabani Charan wanted to prevent the breach between the old and new forms of religion in the society, taking sides with the former. He reprinted many scriptures in the form of ancient manuscripts with notes and glossary, on a kind of paper made of cotton pulp, and distributed them among the common people.
The act was created after the sati of Roop Kanwar in 1987 and applied to all of India except for Jammu and Kashmir. The act incorporated many colonial suppositions about the practice of sati, with the first paragraph of the preamble of the Act copying the opening lines of Lord William Bentinck’s Bengal Sati Regulation , or Regulation XVII of ...
The editorial in the Calcutta Journal on February 14, 1823 observed, "The paper which was considered so fraught with danger and likely to explode over all India like a spark thrown into a barrel of gunpowder, has long since fallen to the ground for want of support; chiefly we understand because it offended the native community by opposing some ...
The movement questioned the existing customs and rituals in Indian society – most notably, the caste system, and the practice of sati, idolatry – as well as the role of religion and colonial governance. In turn, the Bengal Renaissance advocated for societal reform – the kind that adhered to secularist, humanist and modernist ideals. [9]