본고는 사띠(Sati, 영어명 Suttee)를 둘러싼 담론(discourse)을 통해 외부의 영국 통치자와 내부의 힌두 바라문엘리트라는 남성의 타자(他者)로 배치되는 근대 힌두여성의 위상을 파악하는 것에 목적이 있다. 1987년 루쁘 깐와르의 사띠는 인도여성이 무고한 희생자라는 측면과 위대한 힌두의 승리자라는 양분된 논쟁을 촉발했고, 남성과 여성, 제국과 식민, 서양과 동양이 대립되는 역사 속의 인도여성의 사회적 지위를 알려주었다. 영국지배시에 사띠는 서구식민정책과 지배담론으로 제작되어 인도의 야만적 문화로 규정되었다. 그 과정에서 인도여성은 희생자, 인도남성은 범죄자, 힌두교는 미개한 우상으로 고착되었다. 반면 힌두 근본주의자들은 사띠를 힌두교의 순수한 전통으로 조직하고 신격화시켰다. 사띠담론을 제작한 서구식민지배자들과 힌두근본주의자들 모두 산스끄리뜨 텍스트를 사상적 근거로 활용하였고, 그 전통의 헤게모니를 통해 식민담론과 힌두이데올로기를 강화하였다. 근대의 사띠담론은 서구와 힌두의 남성적 시각에서 논의되었고 아이러니하게도 주체인 힌두여성의 고통은 배제되었다.
The purpose of this article is to study have focused on Sati("suttee" in English) and the debates from colonial to postcolonial interpretations. Sati, the immolation of a Hindu widow on her husband’s funeral pyre, is highly controversial practice, which has inspired a scholarly studies in the last twenty years. A ramification of what Foucault calls the collaboration of power and knowledge in the production of discourse is present in the history of Sati in India. As I shows in regard to the religion, hindu law scholars, intellectuals(Brahmin pundits) and Orientalists appropriate the hegemonic ideologies and produce, to the advantage of the dominant class, a certain deformation of the reading of hindu scriptures. In this paper, I have three objectives : (1) The origin of suttee is still a subject of debate and the term "Sati" is associated with the Hindu goddess Sati. This custom was more dominant among the warrior communities in Rajasthan and also among the higher castes in Bengal in east India. I should clarify that Sati in Rajasthan is located in a rather different history than Sati in Bengal which is what I have been discussing here. (2) I analysis focused on Sati in colonial india. Sati was prohibited by the British Government in 1829. Regulation XVII of 1829 declared Sati illegal as homicide amounting to manslaughter. I argues that the women was over the civilizing missions of colonialism and evangelism, and the proper role of the colonial state. (3) I discuss how discourse was controlled by the patriarchal structure which inflicted injustice on women. In my view Brahmanical scripture only became a privileged source of tradition because the colonial authorities established it as such in their need for an indigenous legal basis for their rule over Indian society. A genuine Sati could be made by asking Brahman scriptural authorities(pandits) to give a legel opinion on the basis of sanskrit tradition. In this contexts, I also supplement most significant organised female voice against sati during this debate, which presented Sati as a women’s rights to be understood for its ideological as subjects, rather than as victims or goddess(devī). In India, women, due to their position in society have rarely been in the forefront of ideological production, to the effect that the experience and the measures of women were not reflected in the discourse.
The purpose of this article is to study have focused on Sati("suttee" in English) and the debates from colonial to postcolonial interpretations. Sati, the immolation of a Hindu widow on her husband’s funeral pyre, is highly controversial practice, which has inspired a scholarly studies in the last twenty years. A ramification of what Foucault calls the collaboration of power and knowledge in the production of discourse is present in the history of Sati in India. As I shows in regard to the religion, hindu law scholars, intellectuals(Brahmin pundits) and Orientalists appropriate the hegemonic ideologies and produce, to the advantage of the dominant class, a certain deformation of the reading of hindu scriptures. In this paper, I have three objectives : (1) The origin of suttee is still a subject of debate and the term "Sati" is associated with the Hindu goddess Sati. This custom was more dominant among the warrior communities in Rajasthan and also among the higher castes in Bengal in east India. I should clarify that Sati in Rajasthan is located in a rather different history than Sati in Bengal which is what I have been discussing here. (2) I analysis focused on Sati in colonial india. Sati was prohibited by the British Government in 1829. Regulation XVII of 1829 declared Sati illegal as homicide amounting to manslaughter. I argues that the women was over the civilizing missions of colonialism and evangelism, and the proper role of the colonial state. (3) I discuss how discourse was controlled by the patriarchal structure which inflicted injustice on women. In my view Brahmanical scripture only became a privileged source of tradition because the colonial authorities established it as such in their need for an indigenous legal basis for their rule over Indian society. A genuine Sati could be made by asking Brahman scriptural authorities(pandits) to give a legel opinion on the basis of sanskrit tradition. In this contexts, I also supplement most significant organised female voice against sati during this debate, which presented Sati as a women’s rights to be understood for its ideological as subjects, rather than as victims or goddess(devī). In India, women, due to their position in society have rarely been in the forefront of ideological production, to the effect that the experience and the measures of women were not reflected in the discourse.
