ON MARRIAGE AND CHILD BEARING
The Marriage Question Mr Murugappa’s Marriage
The success or failure of a movement depends more upon the results achieved, than upon the empty noise made by its followers. The marriage of Srimati Maragathavalli with Mr. S. Murugappa, Editor of ‘Kumaran’ following as it does, closely upon the heels of the Pattukkottai Self-respect Volunteers Conference, is a unique one in many respects. In the first place it is a love marriage, unlike other marriages among Hindus, which are mostly business transactions undertaken by the parents of the couple. It is again an inter-caste marriage which is very rare especially among rich communities like the Dhana Vaisyas (a mercantile caste – editors). And lastly, it is a widow marriage, which is very often emphasized upon by all well wishers of our country. It goes very much to the credit of Srimati Maragathavalli the Joan of Arc of the Self-respect movement, in having revolted from her parents, boldly marched to the battle field and dealt the final blow to religion and custom, which faced her in her onward march to the goal of individual freedom and equal justice (We ask, has our sister destroyed ‘Hinduism’ or not?) It will be no credit to the youths if they fail even now to wake up from their slumber, and make ready for the march. It is with overwhelming joy, that we take this occasion to congratulate the couple most heartily for the bold example they have set before the younger generations.
Revolt, 7 July 1929
An Inter-Caste Self-respect Marriage At Erode.
Mr. E. V. Ramasami’s mansion at Erode witnessed the celebration of the self-respect inter-caste marriage between Mr. S. Guruswami Sub-editor, “Revolt” and Srimati T. S. Kunjitham, Student, B.A. Senior, Queen Mary’s College.
There was a very large gathering of ladies and gentlemen, besides the members, workers, leaders and other followers and admirers of the self-respect movement. The marriage was conducted wholly under self-respect methods, there being neither the usual ceremonies, nor the intermediary. This is the first instance of a member of the “Mudaliar” community which in South India is next to the Brahmins in orthodoxy and privilege of birth, entering into an inter-caste marriage.
Among those who sent messages of congratulations are, Hon. Mirza S. Ismail Sahib Bahadur, Dewan of Mysore, Hon. Dr. P. Subbarayan, Chief Minister; Hon Sir Muhamad Usman Sahib Bahadur, Home Member; Hon. S. Muthia Mudaliar, Health Minister; Dr. P. Varadarajalu Naidu, Editor, “Tamil Nadu”; Miss De La Hey, Principal Queen Mary’s College; Mr. R. K. Shanmugham Chettiar, M.L.A. and Janab. M. Jamal Muhammad Sahib, Sir A.P. Patro, Mr. K. Ayappan, Editor “Sahodaran”, Mr.W. P. A. Soundrapandya Nadar, Mr. T. K. Chidambaranatha Mudaliar, M.L.C., and Mr. P. T. Rajan, M.L.C.
In the evening there was held a public meeting under the presidency of Mr. S. Ramanathan, M.A. B.L., when the married couple besides others addressed the gathering on “Social Reform”.
Revolt, 19 January 1930
Our Achievements
Elsewhere is published the news of the Self-respect inter-caste marriage of the Sub-Editor or our paper, Mr. S. Guruswami with Srimathi T.S. Kunjitham. The Self-respect movement in its manifold activities and all-embracing programme of social reconstruction, has done (all only with the co-operation and sympathy of the thinking public) what little it has been able to do within a short period of about five years. In the abolition of priesthood, which was its first programme of work, thousands of ceremonies and rites, were, within the first two years, either wholly stopped or done without the interference of the priestly classes. Such news of stopping the meaningless rites and ceremonials and doing away with the intermediary either in worshipping ‘God’ or in obsequies, came to us in such large numbers, that, as time went on, we were forced, due to want of space, to stop publishing such news in our vernacular weekly, the ‘Kudi-Arasu’.
Then the next stage came when the Self-respect League demanded its members and sympathisers to encourage widow-marriages and inter-caste marriage. Such marriages besides being devoid of the intermediary are also conducted without any of the meaningless ceremonies and superstitious observances. And it is unnecessary to inform that inter-dining also becomes a concomitant necessity on such occasions. And the marriage of Mr. Guruswami can be said to satisfy all the above conditions. Inter-caste marriages are looked upon as something of a revolutionary idea or even as a blasphemy especially by certain orthodox castes in our country; and among such castes, the bridegroom’s is also one. So it is no wonder that this back numbered community cries, ‘blasphemy!’ at this event and laid at the time of the marriage, as many hindrances on his way as they could. It is a matter rather, for pity than shame, that all his nearest relations boycotted the marriage en bloc. For, has not caste been polluted when a member of the ‘Mudaliar’ community married a member of the ‘Vellala’ community! (1)
But the very fact that such prominent men as the Dewan of Mysore, the Members and Ministers of Government, Editors of Newspapers, big businessmen, wealthy landlords, members of the Legislature and other innumerable influential ladies and gentleman have sent messages of congratulations to the married couple indicates that there is not only a strong support to such reforms, but also there is a remarkable change in the social atmosphere itself. We heartily congratulate the bride and the bridegroom for their bold step, and “eagerly welcome even inter-provincial and inter-racial marriages”, as one of the messages of congratulations ran.
Revolt, 19 January 1930
An Up-to Date Announcement
A Shanghai message of December 30 says: the trend towards modernism in China was never more clearly illustrated than by an announcement in this morning’s native news papers by a wedded Chinese couple: “Why go to all the bother of having a wedding ceremony in the presence of witnesses and with the permission of the elders? This is to announce we are now husband and wife, having married yesterday.”
Simplification of marriage ceremonies and the avoidance of unnecessary wedding expenses is one of the pressing problems that has got to be faced by every progressive nation to-day. We in India are not very much behind hand of the Chinese as some may imagine. Somebody in Calcutta recently conceived the idea of issuing invitations to his friends on the occasion of his marriage in the following terms: “Mr. So-and so and Miss. So-and-so have agreed to live together as man and wife. You are invited to tea on such-and-such (date) at such-and-such (hour).” The Chinese have evidently found out that invitations and tea are a costly affair. They have therefore sought the aid of the Press and have taken to matrimonial announcements. We in South India have done one better. We have realized that advertisements in the Press are too costly for us. Again we should seek freedom from the thralldom of the Press magnates and advertisement managers. We have wisely taken to the platform. Numerous weddings are to-day celebrated all over the Tamil Districts at ad hoc public meetings assembled under the auspices of local branches of the Self-respect league. One fine morning the tom-tom goes round the village announcing a public meeting at the local chavadi during the afternoon. The village folk assemble at the appointed hour. They choose a chairman who presents the couple to the audience and announces the fact of their marriage. Speeches are made wishing prosperity for the happy pair. The meeting dissolves and that ends the ceremony. No flowers, no sandal paste, no pansupari. No lighting charges incurred, the meeting is during daytime. No feasts; no, not even tea. But then there is one bill to be paid. Four annas is due to the Vetti (a ‘low caste’ village servant – editors) with the tom-tom. Well, until communism comes to stay, publicity must cost something or other. The poor Vetti is a necessary evil. We need not grudge him the four annas. Shall we recommend the prudent economy of the Self-respect League to those self conceited “up-to-date” Chinese?
Revolt, 23 January 1929
Marriage and Divorce (Chapman Cohen)
If one wishes for a crucial example of the unadulterated nuisance religion in general and Christianity in particular is, when social questions are on the carpet, one may find it in the discussions going on concerning marriage and divorce. The important thing about marriage and the one that should govern consideration is its social aspect. And the fundamental fact of this social aspect is the family and the perpetuation of the race. Whatever secondary and tertiary developments may take place with regard to the relations of the sexes, however much mere sexual attraction may be sublimated into love, this fact remains true. The attractions of sex is nature’s lure for the perpetuation of the race. Apart from children it need be no concern of the State on what condition men and women choose to live together. In fact, it is of no concern to the State. The State does not say that a man may not live with one woman or more, or a woman live with one man or more, on whatever conditions they please. It does not even say that they may not beget children as the fruit of such unions. All it says is that if the State is asked to enforce a contract between two persons, then the contract must be one to which it is a party, and it lays down the main lines of the contracts it will enforce. Up to that point everything is quite clear. It is the child that creates the problem: it is the child and all that the child involves that is least talked about. But for the child there would be no reason at all for marriage laws. Social opinion is quite another question. That is often more drastic than legal enactment and badly needs education.
Now a sanely civilized society would recognize marriage laws and marriage customs as social facts to be discussed along lines of social service or disservice. Laws and customs of marriage that best serve the interests of all concerned are the best and there is no other reasonable basis for discussion. To talk of any institution as ‘sacred’, meaning that it must be neither modified nor destroyed, is downright nonsense and treason to the real interests of Society. Either in theory or in fact changes take place and are generally the more unpleasant because theory does not admit their legitimacy. Make it a crime to question the powers of a king and an axe, or a bullet, settles the problem. Make marriage the one contract between human beings that must be neither modified nor cancelled and both men and women find irregular and often unpleasant ways out of the difficulty. The contract is cancelled in fact, while remaining uncancelled in theory. No power on earth, and we need not bother about power anywhere else, can compel a man and a woman to be loyal to each other if the affection that is the cement and the essence of the union, no longer exists. Whether a man and a woman can live together in terms of affection and mutual esteem that man and woman alone can tell, and if it is impossible real marriage has ceased to be. The State in such cases does not annul marriage, it merely sets its signature to an amendment that already exists.
So also with the question of children. Whether a man and woman have one child, a number of children or no children at all, are their business and theirs alone. It is useless talking about a decline of population or the evils of a stationary one. A stationary population is an evil only to politicians and militaries who count the value of men and women in terms of soldier power or in terms of the capacity to beat down other nations; or to Roman Catholic priests who wish to see men and women breeding like rabbits and for exactly the same reason that stock-breeders like to see an increase in their cattle. As Ruskin said, it is not a vital question whether a man have one child or six children. But it is a vital question whether the children he has deserve to be hanged or not.
The whole question might be sensibly discussed and solved with comparative ease but for the intrusion of religion. From that fog of superstition which shrouds all institutions in their earlier stages, marriage is the last to emerge. For various reasons women in her fundamental functional aspects is a special object of superstitious dread and her relations as woman with man has to be surrounded with a number of precautions against supernatural dangers. For this reason the priest, the medicine man, obtained a fairly solid grip on the institution of marriage and vested interest has prompted him to fight hard to retain it. In our own times marriage and the child represent his last remaining hope. In social and scientific affairs his grasp is palpably weakening, so much so that large numbers of priests no longer claim supremacy there; they are content if they can be admitted to the rank as students on a level term with others.
But when the question of marriage or divorce or birth control is raised, we at once find the clergy rushing in with talk about what Our Lord said, as though anything could equal the stupidity of going back a couple of thousand years to see what a mythical celibate had to say about family relations, to settle the question for men and women living today. Not alone do a number of celibate and other priests set themselves up as the final authorities on marriage and divorce but our glorious press, with its determination to support anything established and its resolve to do nothing and say nothing that can offend the most stupid of its subscribers, appeal to the clergy for their opinion on marriage as though their claim for supremacy was beyond question.
In all these discussions much is said about marriage being a religious institution. Marriage is nothing of the kind. Biologically it has nothing to do with religion. Sociologically it has nothing to do with religion. And, legally, in this country at least, it has nothing to do with religion. The only legal marriage in this country is the civil marriage. It is true that marriages are performed in a Church, and that a parson is the official who ‘ties the knot’. But that is by the way. The parson performs the marriage because he receives a license from the secular Stare to do so, precisely as a Registrar has his authority from the same source. For legal purposes the Church simply takes the place of the Registry Office is recognized. The religious ceremonies that accompany the marriage are of no more legal consequence than jumping over a broomstick. The proof of this is that while the religious ceremonies differ and are permitted to differ, the secular part must remain unaltered. So far as the legal marriage is concerned, the parson, with the authority of the State, for the time being and for the purpose of the marriage, takes the place of the Registrar.
Moreover, the Church, having been licensed as a place in which marriages can be performed by a person licensed by the State to perform them, and by such a person only, no citizen, whatever his opinions can legally be denied the right of a Church marriage. An Atheist has as much right to be married there as anyone else. I do not know that any particular parson could be compelled to marry him, but another might be found, and it is an open question of how far an action in the Courts might compel some parson, probably a bishop – if the bishop declined to compel one of his subordinates to act. The parson is not appointed by the State, and so the State may not be able to compel him honestly to perform the duties for which he is paid. In any case the fact, the vital fact, is that when a clergyman talks of a religious marriage, the reply is that no such marriage is recognized by English Law. There are marriages accompanied with religious ceremonies, but that is another question. And in Scotland, marriage is so clearly a civic contract that marriage before witnesses is, I believe, still legally recognized.
In any case, if we wish to see such subjects as Marriage, Divorce or Birth-control discussed reasonably, or settled profitably, we must clear religious influences out of the way. It is a pity that those who stand forward as reformers in these matters do not say so plainly and boldly. I do not say it is a pity they do not see this, because to say as much would be a reflection on their intelligence. But there is often a long step between ceasing to believe in religion and ceasing to be afraid of its malignant activities. Every one of the questions touched on – Marriage, Divorce, Birth-control has found its bitterest, its most ignorant and its most intolerant opposition in those who were animated by religious belief. With every one of these questions the trail had to be blazed by Freethinkers before it could be discussed in the light of a more or less complete publicity. Rational ideas of marriage and divorce and of the conscious control of population owe the publicity they have today and the more enlightened opinion that prevails to the Freethinkers of the past who saw, and said, that the influence of religion must be curtailed if advance was to be made. And that statement is as true today, and as pertinent today as ever it was. If the essence of marriage is mutual love and respect, let us have a little less of the policeman in the picture, whether he wears the familiar dress of the ‘bobby’, or the black gown of the priest. Where love and respect have no existence the outlook for the man, the woman and the child is black and bad. If man is ever to become really master of his own destiny, it cannot be a crime for him to say whether he shall have one child or a dozen. But such subjects must be discussed with the priest shut out if we are ever to reach reasonable and healthful conclusions. It is the health and happiness of men and women with which we are concerned. The opinions of gods and Church Councils are interesting only so far as they help to illustrate aberrations of which the human mind is capable
Revolt, 27 October 1929
Marriage
Prof. R.D. Karve writes in the Congress special Number of the Bombay Chronicle:
A Mouse-Trap
Marriage almost in all countries bears at present a great resemblance to a mouse-trap. It is very easy to get in, but extremely difficult to get out of it, even where this is at all possible. This is in fact the only kind of contract which cannot be broken even when both the parties wish to break it. Even in countries and communities where divorce is allowed, it is never allowed on the ground that both the parties want it. Adultery by one party has to be alleged and proved in court, and if the court suspects that both parties wish it to be proved, it is called collusion and divorce is refused – a very curious state of affairs, and one which does not argue much commonsense on the part of legislators. Is it any wonder that this results in much unhappiness even where divorce is possible and, of course, much more where it is not. Is it any wonder that Marriage as it stands today has to answer the formidable charge that instead of contributing to human happiness as all desirable social institutions should, it becomes one of the greatest obstacles to happiness for the majority?
Love not a Matter of Will Power
One cause of this state of things, at any rate, lies on the surface. Marriages in this country and to a large extent in some other countries too, are arranged by parents or guardians, who naturally tend to give importance to things which the parties concerned, would probably ignore, and ignore aspects which are of the utmost importance to the young persons concerned. Even when marriages are not entirely arranged by parents, it very often happens in this county that the two persons have not even casually met before; they are indissolubly bound together for life. Even in civilized Europe, marriages are more often a matter of economic convenience than of a genuine liking for each other, not to speak of romantic love. If such a marriage is successful, it can only be so by accident. Even where a mutual liking exists to start with, there is no guarantee that it will last for a life-time, and this is where the very idea of a permanent marriage becomes ridiculous, as the husband and wife are supposed to promise to love each other for life. Love is not a matter of will power. Nobody can experience genuine love for another merely because he or she has made a promise, perhaps twenty or thirty years back. It is possible to remain faithful to each other a physical way, but this can hardly be called happiness. Indeed it may become positive misery to be compelled to stay with a person who may have become completely indifferent or even hateful. But this is what marriage means, and respectability requires people to grin and bear it, however much they may suffer inwardly. As I have said, this tells more especially on the woman.
Deeper Causes of Unhappiness
But the causes of unhappiness in marriage are often of a deeper origin than mere incompatibility of temper though this is bad enough. For woman, marriage is the only recognized way of satisfying the sex urge which, in spite of certain defective or superannuated persons, is one of the most powerful in nature. Happiness in marriage is only possible for the woman if this fundamental need is satisfied by the husband. Otherwise she has either to suffer in silence as a good many of them do, or seek other men’s company with or without the husband’s permission (for there are husbands who permit it), or apply for divorce in case that is possible, in order to find happiness in another marriage and take the risk of another failure. Sexologists are aware that one of the most frequent causes at the bottom of divorce cases is sexual incompatibility though of course, this is not alleged in court very often.
Sexual Incompatibility
Now sexual incompatibility is a thing which cannot even be guessed at from a mere acquaintance, however intimate, if it stops short of actual sex experience. In other words, it cannot be ascertained except by a trial marriage. Though this will horrify people who are not accustomed to scientific reasoning, such marriages were actually common in Scotland and Germany. In Scotland it appears that a man and woman could, by a public declaration, take each other on trial and stay together for any year and a day and then get married definitely or break off as they chose. If there was a child, the responsibility in case of separation would lie on the one who wanted to discontinue. In Germany, a trial marriage was allowed till pregnancy, when a definite marriage was obligatory. The child in these cases obviously hampered the complete liberty of the couple. But now that artificial means of contraception are known in all civilized countries and can be obtained if one takes the trouble, this difficulty has practically disappeared.
Economic Dependence of Woman
They only other difficulty in the way of complete liberty for women, was their economic dependence on man. In America even this has disappeared, and is fast disappearing in other countries, and women are becoming better qualified to earn their living. The result is that girls who would normally in former times have married for a living are taking advantage of contraceptive knowledge to enjoy of (sic) being cast off by their lovers. Indeed if we are to take Judge Lindsay’s word for it, men now complain that it is the girls who cast them off when they no longer like them. Of course the parents of the girls do not know what they are doing, but we have the learned judge’s word for it that it is happening on a very large scale. Girls have been known to say quite openly – in America – that women can never be the equals of men so long as they are not quite as safe from the consequences of occasional adventures in sex experience as men are. What audacity! Nay, they are even claiming the right to become mothers, if they choose, without becoming wives, or slaves.
Not only have girls acquired this unheard of effrontery, but people of Judge Lindsay’s standing are declaring themselves openly in sympathy with them if not in agreement. He advocates what he calls Companionate Marriage. Another writer puts forward the view that the satisfaction of the sex urge should not be confined to procreative purposes as the Mahatma would have it, but is perfectly allowable for recreative purposes. This open revolt against the old standards may take a long time to reach India, but it is bound to come, and I for one will not try to hamper it.
Revolt, 13 February 1929
Divorce in Hindu Marriage
We publish elsewhere in this issue, the text of the resolution concerning the dissolution of Hindu Marriage, passed in the U. P. Social Conference, presided over by the veteran woman leader, Mrs. Uma Nehru. We wish to draw the attention of our readers to the note of warning sounded by Mr. Chintamani that if men were lukewarm to the cause of women, the inauguration of a husband’s protection league will be the inevitable sequel. No reform is complete without marriage reform, and in our opinion, nothing is crueler than the so called sacrament of Hindu marriage. In countries where monogamy is in vogue, it may be argued that divorce is unnecessary as affecting both parties. But in the Hindu Society, man is free to contract as many marriages as possible, but woman is left in the lurch, a prey to man’s cruelty and desertion. While advanced marriage systems are found wanting in perfection, even such small attempt at marriage reforms as this must not find opposition in a country that clamours for liberation. Orthodoxy will be also busy with their interpretations of the Vedas, and the learned expositions of the subtleties of Hindu Philosophy. Advocates of Devadasi institutions and Child marriages will be quoting their usual scriptures. The pandits are already busy with their sing song lectures interspersed with profuse quotations from the puranas. And there is the inevitable god to help these preservers of religion. We wish to remind them that Miss. Mayo’s second book is already out. Let us not, in our piety and godliness make her purse heavier, by supplying more materials for a third volume.
U.P. Social Conference: Dissolution of Hindu Marriage
The fifth session of the U. P. Social Conference was held on Sunday the 31st March at Lucknow, under the Presidency of Mrs. Uma Nehru. The following resolution was moved by Mr. Pandit Krishna Prasad Kaul:
“This conference is of opinion that steps be taken at an early date to enact legislation to sanction of dissolution of Hindu Marriage at least in cases of (1) desertion and (2) cruelty by husband.”
He said that it was natural that a new movement should meet with misgivings, fears and unintelligent opposition. His appeal was not addressed to those who were opposed to all reform but to the supporters of the social conference to the advocates of social reform.
This resolution was complementary to the resolution on widow remarriage. If the conference allowed a widow to remarry in the event of the physical death of the husband, why should the conference not allow remarriage in the event of desertion and cruelty by husbands when her condition was no better than that of widowhood? It was no use quoting statistics from France, America and other foreign countries as the grounds of divorce were limited only to desertion and cruelty.
Indian conditions were different. It might be urged that this innovation was not necessary for Hindu society in view of the rarity of cases covered by this resolution. But he was not convinced that such cases were as few as not to call for a legal remedy. Statistics were not available but his investigations had shown that in the small community of Kashmiri Brahmans there were 14 cases of desertion of wives by husbands, out of which in about half the cases, the husbands had taken to new wives. He gave further instances of widows’ homes, a fair percentage of the inmates of which were not widows, but deserted wives either actually driven out by husbands or forced to leave their husbands because of the impossibility of living with them. He then took up the commonly urged plea that the Hindu marriage was a spiritual sacrament, not a civil contract. If it was a religious sacrament, an indissoluble spiritual tie, it must be so for both parties, not only for the weaker party. In practice it was the reverse of an indissoluble spiritual tie for the husband.
He further instanced cases of contractual marriage from the Vedas and said that though such marriages might have been few, they were not unknown. He then quoted from Manu who contemplates five causes under which a wife can remarry in the lifetime of the husband. Katyayana and Vashista also recognize about half a dozen causes similarly. Though the word divorce might not occur in the authorities, remarriages were recognized. Even if it be granted that the causes calling for the legal remedy of divorce were very few among them, there was no valid reason why justice should be denied to even a few dumb and oppressed victims. He wound up with a passionate appeal to the audience to carry his resolution unlike the previous conferences which had thrown it out.
Mr. Chinthamani, seconding the resolution, first referred to the militant statement hung right above the head of the president that women must be emancipated from the bondage of men and said that he had been discussing with some friends whether the time had not come for a husband’s protection league to be formed so that the tables might not be turned against them. Proceeding, he said that the resolution before them was a serious proposition which deserved the complete and active support of every enlightened man. If the basis of the social reform movement was to secure justice to every individual unit of society, if its motive and purpose was to see that no section of the community suffered from disabilities on account of birth or of sex, he thought that no one could offer any valid opposition to the resolution. Mr. Chintamani added that the delegates who had assembled in the conference would forfeit all title to be called social reformers or advocates of justice and liberty if they did not vote for their resolution.
Mr. Surendra Nath Verma moved an amendment which urged a dissolution particularly in cases of misconduct, bigamy, desertion and cruelty by either party to the marriage. Pandit Iqbal Narain Gurtu seconded the amendment moved by Mr. Verma. Pandit Krishna Prasad Kaul, the mover, announced that if the conference was in favour of widening the scope of his resolution he was wholeheartedly in favour of it. He restricted its scope only to make it more acceptable to the conference. He accepted the amendment.
The resolution as amended was put to vote and carried.
Revolt, 24 April 1929
Revision of Social Customs: Bane of Consanguineous Marriages
The following is an extract of the speech delivered by Dr. J. Munsiff, Director of Public Health, Bombay at a public meeting of Parsis:
I have chosen the subject of “Social Customs and Race Degeneration” for this evening’s discourse, not without some misgiving. I admit, knowing how very sensitive people are where their cherished customs are concerned, because I feel, and felt it very strongly too, that unless some of our customs are revised, India will not be able to produce the type of man needed to face the present day competition. Most of us are content to leave well alone in the happy belief that everything is for the best in this good old world. Things may or may not be for the best. But those of us, who have the good of our country at heart and are responsible for the physical welfare of their countrymen would be failing in their duty if they were to keep the truth back from their people merely because it was unpalatable. After these remarks, I hope you will believe me that whatever I say on this subject is not said in any narrow spirit of carping criticism, but with a profound belief, in the necessity for revising some of our customs and an ardent desire to see Indians holding their own with men and of other civilized countries.
The terrific quantitative and qualitative loss in our country is often attributed to various causes from machinations of a Foreign Government to the malign influence of the climate, according to the creed of the author. But what we are far too prone to forget is that we breed, rear and feed out men on the Tenth century principles and they cannot bear the Twentieth century strain. The greatest tragedy in India is that a sound body and a cultured brain are seldom combined in the same person, or even in the same race.
We come across many “brainy”, “nervy” individuals who in spite of all their brilliancy lack sound judgment. On the other hand, we meet athletes, in smaller numbers, perhaps, whose brains would do no discredit to a sparrow. Neither of this class is going to benefit the State or the country because the exacting conditions of the present day civilisation demand a type of man sound in physique with an alert intellect, and a well-balanced judgment.
Sentiment may be all right for domestic use, but believe me; it often provides the biggest barrier to National advancement. Customs creep insidiously and outlast their utility. India is the home of “Mamul” (custom – editors) and it is not my intention to attack any time-honoured custom whether beneficial or otherwise. All I wish is to place before you a few facts and leave it to you to decide whether you need to put your house in order or not. There must be one or more custom prevailing among us which is responsible for our going down hill physically, and, I personally, am inclined to attribute most of our troubles to cousin marriages. I am fully conscious of the diversity of opinions which exists on the subject and I am also aware of the fact that cousin marriages have been prevalent in our community from time immemorial. But I have good reason to believe that the instinct of keeping the money of the family in the family has brought the fashion of such consanguineous marriages a good deal more in vogue, with the advancing material prosperity of the race, during the last three or four generations. Also, it would not be wrong to conclude that while the baneful effects of such consanguineous marriages may have been counteracted by the environmental influences of the easy open air life our forefathers led a hundred years ago, the exacting conditions of the modern life intensify their effects and produce the harmful results we are just becoming conscious of.
It is a universally acknowledged fact that if there is a taint or defect in a family, it is likely to be intensified in the offspring if consanguineous marriages occur in that family. Our everyday life begins in that family. Our everyday life brings us in contact with men and women who are descended from consanguineous families as well as offsprings of independent stocks and if we only take the trouble to observe we should not fail to notice that the latter are of far finer material.
Leaving aside the parsis for a moment, I shall give you the examples of two other small communities. There is a sect of Mahomedans in this city (Bombay) who on account of their small numbers, high standard of culture and education, and emancipation of their women, have had to limit their choice in marriage to their own community, and you see visible signs of physical degeneration in this, one of the most enlightened communities in the Moslem world.
Another example – in Bradford – there is a small community of settlers from Somerset, who migrated to Yorkshire, about 60 years ago. They all belong to the working class, but for some reason best known to themselves, they have remained exclusive and married only among their own people. The result of this consanguinity is that the average intelligence of a child from this colony is 38 percent below that of Bradford child. They all belong to the working class, work in the same industries as the Bradford folk, and have the same standard of living. And we cannot ascribe the mental inferiority of their children to any circumstances other than consanguinity of blood.
Whatever the Doctrinaire may say and whatever theories he may hold, we cannot get away from the hard facts I have placed before you. As I have told you already I am not here this evening to “down” any custom, to ask you to introduce radical changes merely on the strength of my word. All I want is to convince you of the need of an independent enquiry being undertaken into our customs and the causes of our racial degeneration and if I have convinced you of the necessity for such an enquiry I shall feel I have attained my object in coming here this evening.
(The lecturer has admirably pointed out the physiological reasons for the degradation of families contracting consanguineous marriages. In this connection we wish to remind our readers of an article about “Mixed Marriages in Turkey” which appeared in our journal some time back (See below pp. 596-597 – editors) This extract of the speech further shows how apart from the evil of narrow-mindedness, consanguineous marriages have also a deleterious effect upon the mental and physical developments of mankind. It is really a miserable lot of India, (we fear we would be labeled as pessimistic) that while other nations are favoring racial mixture, she does not come forward even for inter-caste marriages. The lecturer therefore aptly remarks that “mamul” has already done its worst in India. And if “mamul” should go, we need not say its mother and foster-mother God and religion should vanish; and that is possible only if their raw material – Brahminism is destroyed. That is what the Self-respectors are striving to do – Ed.]
Revolt, 1September, 1929
The Marriage Tragedy (By Kirk)
Place: A furnished drawing room in a bungalow.
Time : Evening.
Kamala, the English educated landlady is seated in a chair, in a pensive mood. Vasudev, Kamala’s husband, comes in with a tennis racket in his hand.
Vasudev: So, you are here, Kamala, up, up. It’s high time we are in the club. Make haste, or we shall be late for the tournament. We shouldn’t, you know, disappoint our friends that eagerly await our presence in the tennis court.
Kamala: Ah, my! beloved! (hides a deep sigh behind a beguiling smile)
Our friends? Yes, yes, I mustn’t disappoint them, but …
Vas: Well, Kamala, I can’t be lending any ears to your buts. I don’t know what’s happening to you nowadays. Make haste, it’s already late.
Kam: Your ears can’t forbear my buts, is that so? Then … have I your permission to say no?
Vas: (in a fury) I am completely upset, Mrs. Vasudev, I am alive to the fact that you are becoming cold day by day. The fault is not yours. I curry your favour, and you spurn at me. I worship you and you crush me under your feet. The fault is absolutely mine, that of my love, my care and my sacrifice.
(Kamala stares straight a Vasudev’s face, and peals of contemptuous laughter roll from her lips).
Vas: You laugh, madam, to make me burn with shame? I can put up with your coldness and contempt no more. No more shall I be the docile fool that I was, to be excusing your willfulness, foolhardiness.
Kam: Well done, my dear Sir. Please don’t be startled when I address you Sir. Once in your life, you speak in my presence like a man. Can your courage, the badge of your race, face a naked truth, uttered from the lips of one whom you call Mrs. Vasudev?
Vas: (Throws away the racket in a fury) Give the beggar a horse and the devil will ride it! Go on.
Kam: My dear sir, I want to be plain to you. We have lived together these five years and you know I have played my part very well. I cannot do so any more. I will never more be your wife, a dandy adorned to please others, a slave girl dancing to the tune of her master, incense to the vanity of an autocrat. The rebellious nature in me, so far dormant is asserting itself and I shall say what I feel. In short, I can never more be your female. I say I am a woman.
Vas: The devil take you! Aye, I was a fool indeed. I implicitly believed you. It was my fault, none other’s. Dare you say before the thinking world that you are a woman, only now that you discard your husband. Nay, nay! It is only now that you have degraded yourself to the position of a female, a wretched bitch.
(Feels for the revolver in the waist coat pocket but is overpowered with passion and with difficulty checks an outburst of tears.)
I now see, clear as crystal, what is wrong with you. The devil of Ramakant, the bragging vagabond of a social reformer has worked you up. I now understand why you are cold to me, why you turn pale in my presence. Your tenderness for that villain, you’re panting after his presence, is an open book to me. You don’t speak all this. It is he that speaks from your stealthy bosom. Alas! I am undone. For God’s sake, Kamala remember that you are a mother of two children. I beg of you not to become the mother of infamy and degradation as well. Don’t be ungrateful to me. Oh God!.
Kam: (With indignation) ‘Ungrateful’! No more of such nonsense, please. I need none of your gods to threaten me into servility, wretchedness and hypocrisy. Nights and days have I spent bestowing deep thought on your adoration, your care on my behalf. The blood of a wife has completely gone dry in me. I only burn with indignation. I don’t mind your shooting me down as you would do your bitch when she is no more useful. I will be glad that my life’s mission is fulfilled. You hunt me down with your revolver even as you hunted after me in those days. You will be hailed as a martyr for your chivalry. Why should I shrink from such an honourable death? I welcome with all my heart a death that will end the life of shame and hypocrisy, the life of a wife.
Vas: (temper cools down) Kamala, my beloved! Pardon my folly I provoked you unwittingly. You are sick. Your face is as pale as marble. I was a fool to have spoken harsh words that cut you to the quick. You are getting delirious, my darling. Rest, rest Kamala on the sofa. (lending his hand to help her to the sofa) Pardon me, my heart’s delight! I am sure Kamala, you are not serious.
Kam: (tearing away from Vasudev’s clasp) Sick indeed, Sir! I am neither delirious nor playful. I am really serious when I tell you that no true love can exist between man and woman. I can never be a wife. Don’t doubt my seriousness. I was never so serious before in my life. You crave for my love and I will be too glad to give it, but alas! I have tried and tried in vain. It is not possible for any woman. Let me tell you what I feel. Truth is like a mountain torrent which no human hand can prevent from pouring forth with all its force.
Pause and think you cannot but realize that no woman can love a man under the present circumstances of our society. Nobody is at fault if love is so strained. Love is the life blood of equal partners. To expect love of a slave girl for her master is utter idiocy. That is the bane of our race, as well. We may play our parts as wives too well, win the applause of men, be praised for the so-called virtue of chastity, be even worshipped for our feminine qualities of head and heart. The seed of slavery all the while lies hidden in the tell-tale bosom of a wife. It is no wonder if we hate men the husbands, and hide it behind the kiss of our rosy lips.
(Kamala speaks out)
Know ye, Gentleman, I am born of educated parents. I have a brother named Shanker, two years younger than myself. Please lend your ears to my life’s story which is the story of the woman-race as well. Our parents were English educated People. They surrounded us with all comforts.They brought us up in a style which will win for them applause from the present day society. Ever since the day I was able to think, I began to feel that I was a girl. My parents bestowed special attention on me. My brother, even though younger then myself, used to wait upon me at home and escort me when outside. The boys of my locality looked upon me and girls of the place with awe as something abnormal that requires special attention. It was in this fashion that society sowed in us the seed of feminism. Then came the days of dress and ornaments. The boys were free to roam about and loot all pleasure in play. They need pleasure, no beauty. But beauty is a thing specially needed for a girl. She must be well dressed. She must be made attractive. There is nothing in her of intrinsic value. She must be made loveable. So I was made to shine in coloured saries and shining blouses. My nose and ears were bored and pendants of barbaric lustre were thrust in them.
This was the first schooling I had in my house and I had learnt to look upon myself as one who has no right of existence but for the attraction, pleasure and adoration of others. Subsequently I was sent to a school where all girls were segregated. I graduated in the Queen Mary’s College. The education that we received then could not cure us of our inferiority complex but I should even say, aggravated it. Epic works and romantic novels bristling with sentimental love made women feel that they were beautiful doves, whom men should hunt after, capture and fondle. This is the essence of romance. Man overtures and women swoon is the crux of epic theme.
We had our religious books too. They taught us that we were fallen ones who are a stumbling block to the heaven bound pilgrims. Scriptural morality taught me to look down upon women and enjoined upon them to forsake themselves if they should follow the path of righteousness. The burning sense of our slavery would have burst forth into a conflagration but we were helpless. We were merely groping in the dark.
It was then that the women in the West rose up against the tyranny of man, I mean the Suffragist movement. A ray of hope in the dark horizon, and we thanked ourselves. A sense of womanhood asserted itself in us mingled with a passionate hatred for man. No more shall man feast his hungry eyes upon the long black tresses, we thought. Some of us shingled our hair and this raised a storm of protest in the country. Scandal was rife and my parents were unhappy for a time. Time cured society as well as my parents of their superstition. At least they begin to think that it is a calamity that they cannot avert. The women won their battle and the women franchise was an accomplished fact.
Our revolution, silent though it was, worked a miracle in some of the young men of our country, whose catholicism of love made them knight-errands. Our hearts beat violently to find them boisterously praising to the skies the shingled heads and the spectacled eyes. Flowing tresses and lotus eyes had ceased to charm them.
It was at this stage I married Mr. Vasudev. I thought I had freedom, I had love, but alas! It was a startling revelation. Marriage is a fall, a literal fall – for a woman and her freedom in marriage is a sham. Once more I felt I was a degraded being. I discovered that a woman in womanly features cannot be a man’s equal partner. She must be masculine if she should attract man. This created a disgust in my womanhood, the gilded slavery. Marriage with a man called Vasudev made me Mrs.Vasudev. There was no place for my ego. I longed to hear my name Kamala pronounced. None but my husband did dare to address me by my name but that could not please me, because, behind the sentimental wordy phrases lay hidden the naked fact that I was his appendage.
The man who calls himself my husband says he lavished his love upon me. He says he sacrificed everything for my comfort. True, but he wants me to be grateful for all that. Gentlemen, you see for yourselves if I have not repaid all his adoration in the same coin? He played the husband and I played the part of a wife. I pleased his friends, who were satisfied with my masculine portrayal. It pleased him to lavish every thing valuable on me and the praises of his friends was sufficient recompense. I played his games of tennis and football and made my husband feel proud in his possession of a well trained animal. Some of the ill informed sisters laughed at my new ways but it only added to my value and I was a Kohinoor in the diadem of my husband-king. I gave birth to two boys so that they may inherit his property and feed his fancies. He never felt that I had an individuality.
No man ever feels that a woman has her ego as well. She has as much right as man to think for herself and to act for herself. Man wants that she must be a good wife, in other words a licensed prostitute.
Now, the woman in me stands up in revolt against the shams of religion, tradition, morality and culture enslaves women. My voice is the voice of a woman, the voice of my race. I shall declare from house tops that a free woman can never more be the wife of a man. The future woman shall be a potent woman, the guiding star of her own destinies.
(Turning to Mr. Valued)
Sir, do you now understand why I am resolved not to be a wife. I am sick in flesh, blood and soul. The society with its ignorant brutality and impotent enlightenment makes life intolerable for me. Mr. Vasudev, shoot me, I beseech you, I beg of you, in the name of the love you bear me, to shoot me down, and end the life of a woman’s shame. With your chivalrous shot, complete the marriage tragedy.
(Screen falls)
Revolt, 24 April 1929
The Marriage Problem – A Dialogue (By Miss Gnanam)
(Saraswati, a Brahmin girl of 16 is reading in the Sixth Form. Her brother Balan who has just passed his B.L., has married in a wealthy family and is living with his wife as a young ‘pensioner’. Their parents died when the girl was 8 and Balan has been looking after his sister as a guardian. One evening on her return from school, Balan meets her at the park, and they sit down to talk).
Saraswati: Brother dear, I suppose you know my examination is very near. Don’t you?
Balan: Yes, sister. That is why I do not wish to disturb you often about your ma…
Saraswati (interrupting): Damn it, brother. How is it whenever I talk of my school you never pay heed to it, but begin something else which is bitter to me? Have you settled with our uncle to arrange for my college study? The sooner you do it, the better for…
Balan (interrupting): That’s not so urgent sister. Do you not think it proper to get yourself married before you enter the college? It is most likely that Nathan will marry some other girl, in which case, you will be unfortunate to …
Saraswati (in an angry mood, interrupting): Will you not refrain from talking about my marriage? Is the marriage for me or for you? If it is for me, then leave it to me. Thereby you are not only wounding me, but are wounding others by creating in me an unreasonable hatred of others, which I regard as one of the worst crimes that one like me should shudder to commit. Please talk of something else; otherwise I shall be forced to depart from this place.
Balan (scrutinizing his sister’s facial expressions): Saraswati, don’t be irritated so soon. While I am proud to possess an intelligent and modest sister in you, I cannot but wonder why, even in our cool moments, you lose your temper whenever I begin to talk of your marriage. I as your brother and guardian, am bound to marry you to a good husband, and as far as I have tried, I cannot see better one among our relations than Mr. Nathan. You see, he has a large fortune besides being a lawyer like me. He excels others of our community in personal accomplishment, as well. What more do you want? He is such a prominent figure among our people that to marry him is not only a blessing to you, but a pride to me. I am sure he will treat you as his idol, adorn you with diamonds and pour his wealth at thy feet. Make up your mind and don’t fail to take time by the forelock. If you lose this chance you are sure to regret it throughout your life.
Saraswati: Brother, don’t be offended if I use harsh words in my anger, I am younger than you and may be liable to utter something which may not altogether pleasing to you. In that case, I have the right to be excused by my elder. I don’t deny the excellent qualities you attribute to the gentleman. He may be a millionaire and also the best accomplished in our community. He may worship me like an idol. But…
Balan (interrupting): He is a lawyer too.
Saraswati: Yes, he is. I don’t grudge him the degree given by a mighty university. But that doesn’t mean a lawyer should recommend another of the same profession. You talk of his treating me as an idol. I have a husband – kindly excuse me – I require a husband who will treat me like a human being and never as an idol. Idols can be pleased by diamonds, but human beings are not. Girls there may be who can sell themselves literally and figuratively to diamonds or gold, but I do not belong to that fraternity of marketable commodity.
Balan: Sister, you have of late, cultivated a philosophic temperament, and always seem to be ruminating on something whenever you are not engaged in your study (so saying Balan takes a note book from her and turns over the pages, in a careless manner)
Saraswati (perturbed): Please give it here. That is my friend’s notebook (snatches up the note book in haste).
(A piece of paper and a card-like thing fall from the note book. Balan takes them at once, and makes a hasty perusal of both. Then with a furious look stares at her.)
Balan (enraged): Who is this wretch? (throws the picture at her face) Abdul Kareem! Nonsense! A Brahmin girl receiving love letters from a Muhammedan! Most sacrilegious! And you have signed your name under his photograph! Shame upon you! Let the curse of the Rishis pour down upon your sinful head. Now I see the reason for your philosophy. I am not a fool to let you go anyway you like and bring down shame upon a reputed family. I shall give you a week’s time to mend or end yourself. Do you understand?
Saraswati (brushing the beads of tears and with a face gleaming with blush) Kindly bear with me, brother. I don’t feel for the discovery of the truth; but what has really stirred me is the unexpected manner of it. Time there was when I thought it better to inform it myself. But my modesty prevented it. And the natural shyness of my sex stood on my way. Now I am paying the penalty. And I don’t know what more is in store for me. But anyhow I am prepared.
Balan: Absurd! Prepared! For what? Prepare to hang yourself or change yourself. That devil of your classmate, you think, is better than a rich lawyer! Foolish! Are you mad? Whilst I am arranging for your marriage amidst many difficulties, where’s the fun of your making love to a Non-Hindu? Explain your action or, you, you… damn’t. I don’t mind doing it.
Saraswati (composedly, taking her brother’s hands in hers): Cool yourself, brother. I shall explain my action. My marriage, you say, is being arranged by you. Marriage, my dear brother, is not a thing of arrangement. It is not a question of haggling and bargaining. It is not a business transaction to be settled by others who are no parties to it. As a function or a celebration which is secondary and purely conventional, it may involve a third person or persons. But as a contract marriage is the culmination of the bond of love existing between two parties. It is not easily breakable, for a marriage in the true sense of the term, bends but never breaks. Marriage is purely personal, and never complementary. It is solely and wholly left to the liberty of the individual, and wherever that liberty is tampered with, the result is an unhappy union. It is a surprise to me how a learned lawyer like you can think of ruining a girl’s life by tearing the roots of her love. I implore you, dear brother.
Balan (rising up to go): Tush! Nothing of your Nonsense! A week’s time. Remember that. Take care! Don’t rush into danger with your eyes open. (goes away)
(A week passes by, and Balan receives the following telegram at his father-in-law’s house: “Abdul Kareem Saraswati married under Self-respect methods – Ramasami)
Revolt, 6 October 1929
Notes
- S.Guruswami was in a fact a member of an upper non-Brahmin caste, known as the Vellalas, whose male members often took the title, ‘Mudaliyar’. Kunjitham belonged to the Devadasi community, which took to referring to itself as the ‘Isai-Vellala’ community.
