You were born in the 20th century. This is the 21st century. You were brought up to believe that religious practices like Sati, Devadasi, child marriages and polygamy are social 'evils'. The people who lived centuries ago weren't. Stop judging a culture using your own standards.
On one hand you want to claim that women were better off before in pre-independence era, but on the other hand you don't want the plight of the situations to be compared with present times.
If I'm comparing two diffrent cultures of the same era, then I wouldn't judge them by my own standards. I'd have to do a comparative study to see which culture had better social standing and gender equality practices. But here I'm comparing what was then with what is now, and there is no rational way to day it other than judging it with all the information that is available to me at present.
By the way, I'm not the only one who is thinking such. There were many movements to restore equality even before the British stepped foot in India. A few examples are the Bhakti movement to reform Hinduism and the emergence of Sikhism.
Sati was performed only once in the entire lifetime of a married woman. So technically, it isn't a form of mental/physical abuse unless the woman was consciously married off to a terminally ill man. But its certainly barabaric to be practised in modern times.
What? How is that a defence for the horrific practice? Widowed men weren't subjected to the same, but only women were. Not to mention widowed men were allowed to remarry, whereas women weren't. It is a perfect example of gender discrimination, which makes it entirely clear that a women is a property of man, and she should be taken care of if her owner dies.
It was barbaric then, and it is barbaric now.
In respect to social standing, Devadasi is similar to positions like high priestesses/temple priestesses in early greek culture, etc.. It was considered a privilege to serve in such a position and they probably did so to bring honor to their family.
Why was it considered a privilege? Because the society demanded so. Thus, women weren't better off in that society than they are in today's India. Your initial claim was that women in pre-independence India were better off than they were now, not compare it with the ancient Greek culture.
All the practices point to the exact opposite.
