**8. Discussion: Rethinking Chronotopicities**

In the light of the historical colonial intercultural frontier, Grimes' phrasing of the predicament was spot on: 'to criticize or not to criticize?', indicating, in this case, the predicament between siding with the British chauvinist horror and the relativist reaction of not wanting to mess with someone else's religious practices. Yet, at present, both approaches (criticize or refrain from criticizing) are driven by a need to come to a modicum of understanding of *sat¯ı*"s dramatically different 'otherness'.

Articulating proper ritual criticism would be dependent on a well-stocked interculturally and cross-culturally variegated toolbox; ritual studies so far haven't provided us with one. Rethinking the critical discourse of the long extinct practice of *sat¯ı* led us to admit defeat. To a certain degree we have summarized its history, its places, and its arguments. In oversized boots we made a tour around the practice in times and locations. But our imagination fails when it comes to the voices and attitudes and physical experiences of burning widows themselves. In the absence of their own testimonies—embodied and embedded in their dramatically different lifeworlds—we hand back the challenge to the person who brought this topic up for ritual criticism: Ronald Grimes.

Yet, our exercise has not been altogether fruitless. In a modest way we have contributed to type-3 ritual criticism. By pointing out the pitfalls of an a-historical presentation (as if the practice hadn't

<sup>42</sup> We refer back to note 2 here. Although most of our argument is about a certain lack of time–space sensitivity in both Grimes's and Post's presentation, Indian philosophy prescribes a third factor that should always be taken into consideration as well: the subjective person in her/his situation. We have made clear throughout this article that women's voices are conspicuously missing. In an Indian philosophical and moral perspective, this would imply that any representation of the *sat¯ı* practice would be incomplete, even if factors of time and place would have been given due attention.

<sup>43</sup> See also note 9.

been banned since some 200 years), we may have made readers more sensitively aware of its time limits, and by marginalizing the practice to particular situations at the fringes of the realm (far and wide apart both in time and space), we have set straight some of the practice's spatial limits. In terms of theorizing both ritual studies and ritual criticism, this article is a plea for chronotopicity.

**Funding:** This research received no external funding.

**Conflicts of Interest:** The author declares no conflict of interest.
