The columnist is using the argument just by using the issues of sati and brahmins.There is nothing wrong with assuming that brahmins were considered superiors.It is because in earlier times they wre tasked with preservation of the society,its moral base etc.In fact the very word brahmin neans "an enlightened person".It is because of the inherent weakness of the system which exists in any system the brahmin became synonymous with a particular person and its use became hereditary.In must accept the fact that brahmins have done a wonerful job for the society-they were the teachers,knowledge custodians etc.The pracice of sati came into existance because of the paculiar circumstances which existed at that time.It may appear cruel now but it was the means adopted to save the honour.To justify this practice now is wrong.Yes sati is worshopped even now because they laid their life at that time to safeguard the honour.Do not we honour our heros?Those who sacrifice for the sake of the society are the honoured lot.But to indulge in this practice today is not acceptable.I have travelled almost through out the country but I am yet to come across any one even a hindu by faith who subscribe
