Even then I could not find a single link that gave concrete proof of Aurangzeb being the one to ban Sati practice. In fact, it was Akbar who did so and even saved Rani Damyanti from being forced to commit Sati. Why are secularists so hell bent in trying to sublimate a monster that Aurangzeb was??

From the same sources you are ready to believe that Akbar banned sati but not about Aurangzeb doing so. No one can force anyone to believe against their resistance to do so.

From the same sources you are ready to believe that Akbar banned sati but not about Aurangzeb doing so. No one can force anyone to believe against their resistance to do so.

Here's what I came across on Wikipedia-

About Akbar-

According to Annemarie Schimmel, the Mughal Emperor Akbar was averse to the practice of Sati; however, he expressed his admiration for "widows who wished to be cremated with their deceased husbands".^[90] He was averse to abuse, and in 1582, Akbar issued an order to prevent any use of compulsion in sati.

About Aurangzeb-

Aurangzeb issued another order in 1663, states Sheikh Muhammad Ikram, after returning from Kashmir, "in all lands under Mughal control, never again should the officials allow a woman to be burnt". The Aurangzeb order, states Ikram, though not mentioned in the formal histories, is recorded in the official records of Aurangzeb's time. Although Aurangzeb's orders could be evaded with payment of bribes to officials, adds Ikram, later European travelers record that sati was not much practiced in Mughal empire, and that Sati was "very rare, except it be some Rajah's wives, that the Indian women burn at all" by the end of Aurangzeb's reign.

So basically, Akbar removed the compulsion from Sati and Aurangzeb banned it altogether.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sati_(practice)

Thanks for the Wikipedia info Abhishek, but what I was referring to was proof in the form of old firmans or bakhars about the decree issued by the Moghals. What I have come across very often is that Sati practice started as a way of protecting themselves against the Arabs and Moghals who raped and assaulted Hindu women after killing their husbands and sons in the first place. So where is the heroic attribute attached to it if the Moghals forbade the practice? Maybe it was indeed a good deed on their part, but that does not negate or uplift the vicious crimes they did commit against Hindus and Hinduism in any manner!

Kalyani Nandurkar wrote:

Thanks for the Wikipedia info Abhishek, but what I was referring to was proof in the form of old firmans or bakhars about the decree issued by the Moghals. What I have come across very often is that Sati practice started as a way of protecting themselves against the Arabs and Moghals who raped and assaulted Hindu women after killing their husbands and sons in the first place. So where is the heroic attribute attached to it if the Moghals forbade the practice? Maybe it was indeed a good deed on their part, but that does not negate or uplift the vicious crimes they did commit against Hindus and Hinduism in any manner!

Of course. Based on what I've read about him till now, I totally despise him. He's destroyed numerous temples and committed serious crimes. 

But i found the link, so decided to put it up for interpretations from other members.

Sati practice has been reported during  Alexander's invasion of India so Mughals had no role in it. Let bias not be there in ones conclusions.

Sati from what I understand was a deplorable Hindu custom where a widowed wife was expected or forcibly burnt with her husband's body whereas self immolation practiced by the Rajasthani royal ladies was called Johaar. They did it out of their own free will when they came to know that their husbands were defeated against the Mughals knowing fully well that the Mughals would abuse them !