COUNTERING CRITICS
Mr. Gandhi’s Wavering Reply
Our readers may have read Mr. Gandhi’s reply to a correspondent who seeks his advice on the steps to be taken about his miserable sister driven out from her debaucherous (sic) and dissipated husband (see above pp. 419-421). The poor girl is said to have been “whipped and ill-treated by the rake who has no sense of honour. She was tied to a post to compel her to witness his debaucheries”. The correspondent concludes his pathetic letter with a painful but pertinent remark on Hinduism.
He says, “this is one of the most shameful aspects of Hinduism, where women is left entirely at the mercy of man and has no rights and privileges. If a man chooses to be cruel and heartless there is no remedy left to the unfortunate woman. The man may go on making random alliances, and not a little finger can be raised against him; but a woman once married is at the utter mercy of her lord. Thousands of such women are groaning and weeping. As long as Hinduism is not purged of these and such like evils, can there be any hope of progress?” The writer’s observation on Hinduism has stirred the Mahatma.
The protagonist of the Hindu religion, a role which Mr. Gandhi is actively playing after his severance from Indian politics, has a “prophetic” way of concealing the ignominious principles in HIS religion. He would rather twist his words to convey his vague ideas than willingly expose the iniquities of a dead phantom, euphemistically, called Hinduism. Mr. Gandhi says, “His (correspondent) condemnation of Hinduism, though pardonable under intense irritation, is based on hysterical generalisation from an isolated instance. For millions of Hindu wives live in perfect peace and are queens in their own homes. They exercise an authority over their husbands which any woman would envy”.
Mr. Gandhi is so overwhelmed by his appreciation of his religion that it utterly blinds his eyes to his erroneous remarks which are contrary to facts. The correspondent’s “hysterical generalisation from an isolated instance”, is not however as bad and misleading as Mr. Gandhi’s hysterical appreciation of an isolated religion. His remark about the Hindu wives being the “queens in their own homes,” shows how he has not studied the masses of India. A Sabarmati Rishi under his Brahmin-bodyguards cannot judge the conditions outside. And we cannot but pity a man in his intellectual fetters.
“Queens in their homes!” Verily. A Suttee-sanctioning religion will certainly make queens! “Millions live in perfect peace.” Certainly, they cannot but. About 7 millions of “untouchables” and an equal number of young widows also live in peace! Do they not? That is the greatness of our religion. It has made its adherents live always “in perfect peace.” The “queens” of India are more in the imagination of the well-meaning writer than in actuality. While appreciating Mr. Gandhi’s rosy view of the Hindu religion, we regret his deliberate attempts to hide the truth.
On the same point Mr. Gandhi proceeds “The case of cruelty brought to light by the correspondent is an illustration not of the evil in Hinduism, but of the evil in human nature which has been known to express itself under all climes and among people professing different faiths of the world… It is therefore in the interest of reform for reformers to avoid hysterics and exaggerations”.
With due deference to the Mahatma’s knowledge of human nature, a cloak under which he often wishes to hide himself, we cannot refrain from pointing out the special feature of the “human nature” in India. “Human nature” in its philosophic aspect or in its psychological standpoint may be the same “under all climes, among all people”; but not so in practicality. “Human nature” in other countries does not allow enforced widowhood. “Human nature” elsewhere does not recognise untouchability and unapproachability. “Human nature” outside does not require Devadasis for its gods. We need not tell Mr.Gandhi that a girl in any other country under the above circumstances would not wait to receive a reply through her brother. There is the difference in “human nature”. Mr. Gandhi’s advice to reformers, “to avoid hysterics and exaggerations” may be a soothing answer to his disciples at the Ashram, or a source of solace to his pious heart but never to the dynamic minds of the present generation.
“The remedy”, he says, “lies not through the law, but through the true education of women and through cultivating public opinion against unmanly conduct on the part of husbands”. That is again contrary to experience! The so-called eduction, Mr.Gandhi is aware, has not turned a wit the intelligentsia of the land, who form the foremost in opposing the Child Marriage Bill. Education did not stop the Suttee; it was only the law. Education did not stop burglary; it was the British Law. It is not education that forbids the committing of rape; it is the threatening sword of law. Therefore we are not able to understand what makes Mr.Gandhi throw the power of law to the background and dwell upon the oft-mentioned “education,” and “public opinion.” Then we come to Mr. Gandhi’s fantastical remark, “she may therefore without breaking the legal tie live apart from her husband’s roof and feel as if she had never been married”. We, with our plain thinking are not able to understand what exactly the Mahatma means. Where is the necessity for the legal tie, if she should “feel as if she had never been married”? This answer seems to be intended more for the superficial satisfaction of the readers of Young India than a sincere advice to the heartbroken girl. This is the sublimated portion of his vague reply to the correspondent.
The worst part of the answer lies in his advice on the question of the satisfaction of the sexual appetite. Mr. Gandhi says, “so far as I understand the correspondent’s letter, the grievance is not that the wife cannot satisfy her sexual appetite”. Indeed! A more easy way of cutting the Gordian knot, cannot be imagined by any other than Mr. Gandhi. In a former sentence, he has observed that “in the present instance the girl’s parents are well able to support her.” Then what else must be the intention of the correspondent in seeking the advice of Mr. Gandhi? Is it for a more solace through his paper?
Does Mr. Gandhi wish the correspondent to put in plain terms what anyone could so easily understand from the face of the letter? There is again the most amusing of his remarks, that “a woman whose marriage proves unhappy does not want to be married”. We think it better to leave this aspect of the question for the readers to judge. If Mr. Gandhi really intended to convey any definite idea to the correspondent, he should either say plainly, that the girl should marry again or not. Instead of answering point black, he has tried his best to give a pure NOTHING after all his speculations and generalisations. We on our part would straightway advice the girl to choose and marry whomsoever she likes. Will Mr. Gandhi be more definite and open in his answers?
Revolt, 13 October 1929
Friends and Foes
The orthodox Hindus of Bombay met on the 17th October with Sri Manmohan Das Ramji in the chair and protested against the decision of the Corporation of Bombay to observe no caste distinction in regard to the provision of pots for drinking water in Municipal schools. The meeting expressed the opinion that such a decision was against the injunctions of the Hindu religion and controverted the holy doctrine of Varnashrama Dharma. The meeting appointed a committee to collect funds for instituting legal action against the corporation if necessary. As a protest against the corporation’s action the stock exchange was kept closed for one day.
The orthodox Brahmins of Kumbakonam including Dewan Bahadur V. K. Ramanuja Achariar, Rao Bhadur N. Krishnaswamy Iyengar, Rao Sahib C. Lakshmi Varahava Iyengar, Rao Bahadur M. C. S. Ananthapadmnatha Rao and many other high officials and retired officials and pandits held a conference on the 21st and 22nd instants and unanimously decided that the shastras never allowed any betrothal after passing the age of twelve, that marriage should be preformed between eight and twelve and in no case after puberty, that there was no sanction in the shastras for the remarriage of widows and that to assert that there was no shastraic sanction for untouchability was an untrue and untenable statement.
We congratulate the Varnashramites of Bombay and Kumbakonam on the courageous fight they are putting up in defence of what they consider to be their religion. The honest Vydeeki is our friend. He is no pretender. He believes he is born big and he tells you so. He cannot reason; he will only quote. You can easily show him up. The moderates of India were not guilty of a single disservice to the cause of National freedom. They never assumed the role of heroes. They were out to beg which they did openly and in all humility. Unbending orthodoxy and obsequious moderatism openly oppose our movement. Their opposition is welcome. No good cause can be lost by straight attacks directly encountered. A trial of our prowess does but enhances our reputation.
Where then is the danger? Who is the real adversary? You cannot recognize him because he wears a mask. He defies description because he sticks at nothing. Is it social reform you discuss? Well, he is far too advanced for you; he denounces untouchability, enthuses for the freedom of women and is impatient to pull down the barriers of caste. He will move resolutions in the councils and congresses advocating equal opportunities for all. Is it his political views? You cannot imagine a greater patriot. He is out and out for complete Independence. He wants no sham Dyarchy. He is for consistent obstruction. His object is to destroy the machinery of Government. He is the most thoroughgoing revolutionary walking the earth. But the moment you pay heed to his verbiage and trust that his words connote the real man you are undone. Collect your thoughts resist the flourish of his language and begin to watch his acts. Ah, the difference! You realize with painful surprise that the lip service to the cause of progress was but a disguised advocacy for reaction.
Let us illustrate our meaning. Mr. Sarda’s bill is a measure calculated to protect the children of the country from being forced to enter into marital relationship without regard to their physical and mental well being. Marriage is a serious responsibility which should be entered into voluntarily by parties who realize its significance and are physically and mentally capable of discharging the onerous duties enjoined. The herding of immature children into matrimony by parents and guardians in accordance with blind tradition is an outrage which no civilized community should tolerate. A country may attain to political independence. But its freedom will not be worth a moment’s purchase if its youth is kept enchained and miserable. The amount of support that Mr. Sarda’s bill gets among our politicians is therefore a test of their Nationalism. The following are extracts from the statement by one of the leading advocates of ‘Independence” for India, who is opposing the child marriage bill (1): “That the Hindu society is not today all that it should be and that it needs reforming go without saying. I recognize fully the horrors of child widowhood and the difficulties of child motherhood. But any legislation which compels people to commit what they, sincerely and on reasonable grounds believe to be a gross sin will be resented throughout the country. I maintain that South Indian Brahmins have reasonable grounds to, and do sincerely believe, according to Parasara Smriti, which is the supreme authority for the Kaliyuga for them that they must marry their girls on their attaining their twelfth year, and that otherwise they commit a very heinous sin. In spite of many excrescences, marriage has to this day remained a sacrament with the Hindus. Once that conception is sought to be destroyed, and marriage becomes the thing of convenience that it is rapidly becoming in the west, I dread to think of the consequences to Hinduism and Hindu society”.This Independencewalla enthused for reform sheds tears for the plight of child widows and child mothers. But he enjoins you to marry your girls before they attain the age of twelve if you are to escape sins leading to hell fires. On pain of destroying your religion he tells you not to liberalise the law of marriage, for marriage is sacrament, a samskara. A little attention to such overt acts of “Nationalists” of this stamp, will penetrate the veneer of wordy froth and discover the support which they are rendering to the perpetuation of the most horrid tyrannies. The wordy extremist is the real opponent of progress in our country. That easy patriotism which runs to limitless extremism in words and points to low intrigues for self-aggrandisement in acts stultifies all dynamic endeavor towards National freedom.
Revolt, 7 November 1928
Women’s Conference and Justice
The proceedings of the Women’s conference held during last week and the resolutions passed there have created in us a feeling of gratification and ease at a time when we are fighting single handed, the reactionary forces of orthodoxy and obscurantism. While we are plunged in ecstasy at the signs of advancement made by our women, a section of the press is devoting its columns to an adverse criticism of the resolutions passed at the Conference. It is painful to record that our Non-Brahmin Contemporary has also joined the fray. The criticism of the Justice on the resolutions referring to the question of divorce has not only taken us by surprise but also shocked us to a little extent.
We remember the occasion when the Justice attacked us for passing the same resolution at the First Self–respect Conference at Chingleput. It ran that “marriage should be terminable at the will of either party and that no restrictions be placed on remarriage”. This and similar resolutions on the right of women were branded by the press, as “most revolutionary” and “anti-religious”. Bur we had to fight it out single handed, that is to say, without the declared support of those for whose direct benefit the resolutions were intended; and fight we did.
Now, after an interval of nearly a year, the Women’s Conference has given us an impetus through their emphatic resolutions proposed and seconded by the most cultured and public spirited women of the country. Whereas even the Hindu, the Swarajya and other orthodox papers did not commit themselves to any definite opinion on the resolutions that seem to be objectionable, it is a pity that our “Democratic Daily” of South India has launched upon an attack on the important resolutions and has also made itself bold enough to come forward with wonderful reflections and peculiar generalizations.
The Justice feels “that the advocates of women’s emancipation have not understood the position of women rightly in this country and by tending to create a separate caste, a caste of women, are alienating the sympathies of all well wishers of the causes and making it difficult where it as plain and smooth sailing at one time. It is unfortunate that women’s movement in most provinces in not in the hands of the natural leaders. The time is not yet ripe when those who, by education, talents and other equipments, would naturally come forward to give a lead to women, are in a position to do so. The result is that occasionally wrong and incorrect lead is given and the cause suffers thereby.” We know our readers would not believe their eyes when they see that the opinion is that of a “Democratic Daily.” For we ourselves could not believe our sense of perception and understanding when we read it in the leading columns of a Non-Brahmin Daily.
We do not quite understand how the Justice has worked itself up into such a passion and fury over a question which needs no other justification or evidence than its own existence. Our women are charged by our contemporary for “creating a separate caste, and alienating the sympathies of the well-wishers.” That is a problem over which we including our contemporary have wasted already more shots than necessary. How do we, the Self-respecters or the Justicites justify a separate organization for our cause? How will the Justice answer the question of its supporting communal organizations? What are we, we ask, to quote Shastras for and against the marriageable age for girls? That is why, we are bordering on 12 and 14, while we all know what they will fix if it is left to themselves. The Justice seems to be more fond of “Plain and smooth sailing” than any right of justice. An all round “democracy” for which the Justice stands, cannot be always “plain and smooth sailing“. Its pitiable lament for the absence of “natural leaders,” and the consequent “wrong and incorrect lead” is more intended as a precautionary measure for its opinion which is to come later, than any expression of the real state of affairs.
Let us see what our contemporary says, “The spectacular resolution claiming that there should be the same standard of morality for women as for men, that women should be given the rights of legal separation, and demanding an equal law of divorce with men, is in the first place most unhappily worded”. As regards the pleas for the same standard of sex morality, the Justice insists on a stricter code of ethics and morality for the stronger sex.”
The first and the main issue is who is to decide and how to decide which the stronger sex is, and which is the weaker? Then how can the Justice proceed on a code of morality or ethics upon an assumption which is fundamentally objectionable? We are sure that the Justice will live to see the contrary truth in the nearest future. “Again,” complains our contemporary, “the plea for a divorce law cuts at the very root of the idea which has been inculcated for thousands of years with reference to the solemnity of marriage and the obligation of the marital state.” We are sorry to put ourselves in a position to differ from our friend on so fundamental and rudimentary questions as this. We regret the new role taken up by our contemporary in utter defiance of the noble and enlightened spirit for which it stands. “Ideas inculcated for thousands of year!” Verily, Who inculcated them? And for whom?
Let the Justice listen to what Mrs. Venkatasubba Rao, the President of the Reception Committee, says on the question: “We are no longer leaving it to men to decide what is best for us. The downtrodden condition of women all over the world is due to the fact that they are governed by man made laws.”
Then again, the Justice “ventures to think that the very idea of divorce will be absolutely repugnant to millions of our women all over the country, and that the loathsome suggestion would be repudiated by them as strongly as possible.” This venturesome announcement does not become a paper like the Justice. If our contemporary is bent upon eschewing what all is “repugnant to millions” and echoing only wholesome sentiments, we are sorry it courts favour and popularity more than truth and justice. Characterising the resolution as “a loathsome suggestion” and predicting a “strong repudiation” of it by the public are not the methods that should be adopted by a fair-minded exponent of the cause of social reform.
The worst, the most unexpected and greatly disappointing part of the criticism lies in one of its concluding sentences, which says, “While therefore, the line of advance should have been to try to keep to the ideal of the Hindu Shastras, it is a great pity that some advanced women, in their caution-less zeal for reform and for approximating to what they consider Western standards, should have raised such issues.” We very much pity the pitiable plight of our contemporary which, being unable to justify its standpoint from any rational or human point of view, has pushed itself into the inevitable rut of the “Hindu Shastras” which is both unbecoming and cruel on the part of a “democratic” paper.” Has it come to this?” We are forced to ask in disappointment. We want to know why the Justice which quotes Shastras against the rights of women should fight with girded loins against those who quote the same Shastras in favor of the Varnashrama Dharma, the Devadasi institution, early marriage and other countless evils in our society! It is not only unfair but most cruel on the part of reformers if they utilize their power, intellect and prestige to grind their own axes. Let us not in our selfishness, allow womanhood to exclaim in derision, “After all, this is the state of Man,”
Revolt, 24 November 1929
Notes
1 The reference here is to S. Satyamurti, who consistently opposed all efforts at social reform with regard to women’s status. (See above note 6, p. 499)
