Debates on the Age of Consent and Child Marriage Restraint Bills

Marriage or Consent

Dr. Gour and Mr. Sarda are moving the legislature to liberalise the law governing the relationship of the sexes in our country. The one attempts to prevent the undue exercise of parental authority blasting the happiness of the young. The other seeks to raise the age of consent and protect womankind from being utilized by the stronger sex as the vehicle for lustful expression. Children are considered to be merely property meant to gratify the parental craving for domination. Women are but utensils intended to pander to men’s sensuous proclivities. Dr. Gour’s is a fight against the abuse of youth by elders for the satisfaction of the latter’s possessory instinct. Mr. Sarda’s is a protest against the abuse of youth for the carnal gratification of the temporarily intoxicated. Both the reformers have to struggle against ingrained elements of human nature.

Of the two, Dr. Gour’s endeavour is undoubtedly by far the more serious and the more important, considering the interests at stake for the well-being of posterity. The instinct for possession is deep rooted in our being, is fortified by prevailing ideas of morality and finds expression by conscious, deliberate acts conceived in advance in all their details and carried out with determination and precision. While, on the other hand, the sensuous passion, in those inebriated cases to which the law relating to the age of consent applies, is superficial in its origin, deterred by condemnation of the popular moral code and is expressed in fitful, desultory acts conceived in haste and carried out with hesitation and in fragmentary manner. It is easier to fight a fleeting emotion than a stratified instinct. The damages wrought by the former are much less in quantum and duration than those caused by the latter. A chance injury is easily cured. But the conditions bringing about a chronic offence are ever present, involving a perpetual repetition of injuries that neither the doctor nor the lawyer can hope to counteract. The marriage law which compels a wife to sell her body to the husband in exchange for board and bed brings in incalculable harm to both the sexes. The hardships and sufferings that it creates in the life of a single married couple are not equaled by the cumulative sufferings endured through an age of chance injuries. The Devadasi can say nay to unwelcome solicitations. The wife cannot. Mr. W. R. Thurston well observes in his booklet on Philosophy of Marriage:-

“The daily and nightly juxtaposition of the male and female, which is a result of present marriage laws and customs, leads to unrestrained sexual intercourse, which perverts the natural instincts of both male and female, and makes partial prostitutes of 90 percent of all married women. This condition arises from the fact that married women have been led to believe that such prostitution of them selves is right and natural because it is legal.

Our present marriage laws must be amended to conform more closely with natural laws. The marriage contract should provide that the man may have sexual intercourse with the woman only when and if she desires it.”

The law of consent ought to be made to apply equally within marriage as well as outside it. If we rid our minds of the current superstition that postulates property in women, we would clearly perceive that the husband pledged to protect and safeguard the interests of his companion in life, stands in a fiduciary relation towards his wife and a violation by him of her rights deserves to be more seriously dealt with in law than an offence by a mere stranger. In the law of property this is recognized. Criminal misappropriation is the more heinous if committed by a clerk, servant or any person in a fiduciary relation regarding the property misappropriated. Theft by a police officer meets with condign punishment. But it is given to certain eminent members of the Age of Consent Committee to suggest the contrary doctrine to the large body of the witnesses appearing before that body. We publish elsewhere extracts from the remarkable evidence tendered before the committee by Miss L. Krishnabai, the Secretary of the Madras League of Youth. We commend the courage of the young lady who dared to speak out against the prevailing trend of opinion in the committee which sought to perpetuate the immoral provisions of the present law which deals leniently with the husband and drastically with the stranger.

Neither Dr. Gour nor Mr. Sarda has attempted to alter marriage and consent laws generally. Their present endeavour is restricted to the narrow sphere pertaining to the age for marriage and the age for consent. An overhauling of the law in respect of the grown-ups is also urgent and vital to national progress. Let us hope that success in the present limited endeavour will lead to wider reforms in the future.

Revolt, 26 December 1928

Youth Speaks Out

The following are extracts from the oral evidence tendered by Miss L. Krishnabai, Secretary, The League of Youth, Madras before the Age of Consent Committee on the 20^th November.

Q: You do not differentiate the offence by the husband from the extra marital cases so far as the age of consent is concerned.

A: No. Because the consequences are the same.

Q: I may bring to your notice that the consequences in the case of a stranger are worse because there will be a moral depravity attached to the act, while in the case of the husband, there will be no moral depravity attached. Would you therefore not think that the age should be higher in extra marital cases than those inside marriage?

A: No.

Q: You seem to think that reform of the law of marriage is the prime necessity. That is more urgent and necessary than the fixing of the age of consent.

A: Yes.

Q: If marriages below 16 are prevented by legislation, will you accept the law of court?

A: It wouldn’t be absolutely necessary but it may be accepted.

Q: Supposing there is no marriage law, would you accept the age of consent only?

A: That would be absolutely useless.

Q: If there is a marriage law of 16, then age of consent law is not necessary and standing by itself, is it useless?

A: Until public opinion reaches complete understanding the age of consent may be retained. As public opinion gets enlightened we can do away with the age of consent.

Q: You want to put the extra marital and intra marital cases on the same basis as far as age goes. What is your reason for it?

A: We do not believe that there is any difference between the two.

Q: But the consequences of the two are different. In one case a girl suffers physically while in the other she suffers morally as well as physically. She is victimized for the whole of her life. She becomes an outcaste from society.

A: We stand for higher order of society. We do not draw this difference.

Q: ( Mr. S. C. Mitrai): The persons who advise a higher age for extra marital cases argue in this way: that in marital cases only physical development of the body is to be looked after while in extra marital cases physical development, understanding and mature intellect are also to be considered. But you think that no such difference is really necessary.

A: There is no meaning in such distinctions. I think I will stick to what I have said.

Q: Girls in provinces where there is the purdha system and where they are not properly educated cannot understand the consequences. When women are not allowed to exercise legal rights before 18 how do you think they can exercise power over their parents at 16?

A: This right which is more important than any other right should be exercised at 16.

Revolt, 26 December 1928

Mr. Sarda’s Bill

“Look here upon this picture, and on this, the counterfeit presentment of two brothers.”

The Government of India has committed a breach of faith with the people of this country by siding the reactionaries in the Assembly and postponing the consideration of Mr. Sarda’s Bill to prevent child marriages. Their misconduct was all the more flagrant in that they have already expressed support to Mr. Sarda’s Bill and their sudden change of front has taken unawares the progressives in the Assembly and has prevented a proper marshalling of their voting strength. The problem of the age before the world, especially before the nations of the East is one of social reconstruction. Governments and peoples are today straining their every nerve to pull down systems of society which, whatever the utility in a by-gone age, are no longer applicable to themodern conditions and serve only to hinder individual liberty and social efficiency. Turkey has launched a militant programme to attain freedom from the clutches of an old world religion and an outworn social order. Across the Indian borders, King Amanullah has squandered a kingdom in an heroic struggle with the mullas to dethrone religious supremacy. Young China has abandoned the torturing of women’s feet out of shape. Everywhere in the world Governments are co-operating earnestly with enlightened attempts among the peoples for the removal of the social evils and the fashioning of the free society.

In our own country the awakening of the masses is keeping pace with the spread of modern ideas of enlightenment and progress. The movement for the securing of manly rights has caught along with lightning rapidity. But while Governments elsewhere are in the forefront of the struggle for social emancipation, the Government of India keep themselves at a safe distance from the firing line. The Government here has so far played a safe game by adopting non possumus attitude and guaranteeing religious neutrality. But the problem is fast assuming such proportions that the Government cannot afford any longer to keep out of the fight if they would keep themselves in living touch with the people.

The Government are certainly reading alright the sign of the times in that they express unwillingness to throw in their lot altogether with the reactionaries. They not only do not openly oppose Mr. Sarda’s measure but they often express their lip sympathies with the principle of reform. But they lack the courage to undertake and pilot measures of reform which may rouse the ire or vested interest and endanger their own safety. The result is a policy of vacillation that sometimes gets shown up as was done in the case of Mr. Sarda’s Bill. It is an unedifying sight to see Government members walking into the same lobby as Mr. M. K. Acharya (1) with intent to obstruct the passing of a measure to prevent child marriage. The excuse offered by Government in explanation of their strange conduct intensifies the wrong they have committed. It is said that the Government expect the report of the Age of Consent Committee before they determined on their attitude towards Sarda’s Bill.

What connection there can be between the conclusions of a philosophical enquiry relating to psycho-physiological problem, as to mortgaging the happiness of children to serve their selfish purposes on the strength of outworn Sastras, passes our understanding. The Age of Consent relates but to the inception of sexual life in an individual while marriage as interpreted by the primitive laws under which we are living, governs the entire duration not only of his sexual life but of the totality of all life in him from the date of marriage right up to death. The law relating to Consent relates to but a single act of trespass, while the law of marriage dominates a whole life time. The consequences of indiscreet consent are as nothing compared to the evils of a misalliance in wed-lock. A greater degree of maturity of intellect is therefore needed to agree to undertake the serious responsibilities of marriage than is required for giving intelligent consent to a chance relationship. The Government of India however seek to decide the question of Child Marriage on the evidence gathered regarding the Age of Consent. As well may they determine their foreign relationship – say with Afghanistan – in the light of C.I.D. reports of Mr. Shaukat Ali’s (well-known Muslim nationalist associated with the Khilafat agitation – editors) speeches. The want of courage on the part of the Government is making them look extremely ridiculous.

Revolt , 6 February 1929

Bad Logic

Mr. T. R. Venkatarama Sastri C.I.E., the ex-Advocate General who had a thrilling, hairbreadth escape from the Law Membership has written a learned disquisition on marriage legislation. We publish elsewhere extracts from his valuable article. As a skilful lawyer he draws conclusions just the reverse of what his data would warrant. His conclusion is “In this country the age of 12 for marriage and 14 for consummation may be the best step for the moment.” Elsewhere in the article however, he admits that “16 would be suitable for the age of consent” and “21 and 18 for man and woman respectively” as the age for marriage. The latter statements are obviously made when his examination of the conditions in other countries tempt him to our application of similar measures in his own county. But the Brahmin in him resists the temptation and the lawyer in him furnishes means of escape from an awkward corner. He clutches, as every advocate of orthodoxy does, at the social evils in other countries as a weapon to be used against reformers in our own country. He dilates upon the errors and irregularities in the sexual life of other Nations and quotes with gusto Upton Sinclair who declaims against late marriage. The evils of late marriage may be true and may hold good of certain countries with an exaggerated sex psychology. But does Mr. Venkatarama Sastri seriously contend that we in India have not had enough of the orgies of early marriage?

Upton Sinclair propounds a theory and suggests an experiment when he advises young people to get married before going off to College in order to be saved from “fussing, flirting and dancing.” But Indians have before their eyes everyday the grim tragedy enacted of husband students worrying the life out of their fathers-in-law for college fees and saving money to pile up dowry money for their daughters who are already reaching marriageable age. An Upton Sinclair can afford to indulge in his fancy free, building colleges in the air, filled with sex-satiated undergraduates. But under Indian conditions, no, not even an orthodox Brahmin lawyer, should venture to tread the footsteps of writers who prescribe for a different stage of civilization.

Age of Consent and Marriage. (By Mr.T. R.Venkatarama Sastri, C.I.E)

I would ask those who have to fix the age of consent to read what Havelock Ellis says in regard to it in his essay on “Immorality and the Law.” I can only summarise it here as follows:-

“Preservation of chastity until adult age is established may be desirable. Sexual maturity however, is reached earlier and with it goes responsibility. At sixteen a developed human being on the sexual side, more mature than a youth of corresponding age and capable of seducing as well as being seduced, a woman cannot be protected against her consent without injustice to her partner in the act, without demoralization to herself and without confusion of the boundary between serious crime and natural though morally reprehensible act. 16 is the farthest limit to which the age of consent may be raised and wherever as in New York or New South Wales it was pushed beyond that age, no successful prosecution ever occurs and the law becomes practically inoperative as regards the age clause. An attempt at raising the age from 16 to 19 has been defeated in England by the Liberals who realized that it would introduce intolerable social conditions.

The first question is, should the age of marriage be higher than the age of consent or lower?

The surprising diversity of opinion which characterizes individuals, characterizes countries and nations also. According to a Geneva publication on the age of marriage and the age of consent in 41 countries, it would appear that as many as 23 countries consider the responsibilities of marriage so serious that they make the minimum age of marriage higher than the age of consent, as if no serious responsibility were involved in the consent to an indecent act. The minimum age for marriage is, however, lower than the age of consent in the eight following countries: Belgium, Great Britain, Greece, India, Irish Free State, Siam, South Africa and Venezuela, and the age is the same for both in the nine countries : Austria, Haiti, Italy, Monaco, New Zealand, Spain (Civil marriage), Roumania (Bukovina), Turkey and Uruguay.

Now about the age to be fixed for the marriage. If I were asked “what do you consider to be the proper age for marriage”, I should ask in return, “By proper age, do you mean that which I should commend as desirable or that which should be fixed as the age below which marriage should be prohibited?” The Answer is different according as the one or the other is the question and the considerations in each case must vary.

I should readily agree generally to commend 21 & 18 for man and woman respectively. If that is accepted by the individuals concerned, I should hope for very good results. Propaganda for making these ages of consummation the rule among the people would be very desirable. Even orthodoxy might accept 21 and 16 for consummation. But imposition of a rigorous rule by legislation is another matter. It may easily produce harm. I can conceive of cases where marriage at 18 may be desirable and wise and it admits of no question that marriage at that age involves no injury. There is no use ignoring the fact that years before 21 a young man is sexually a developed person. And if the mind is not diverted by any engrossing occupation the idea of sex cannot be kept out of the mind and might become an obsession. It will not be difficult to imagine what would happen if he were then not allowed to marry. The same may not happen to women in this country at least to the same extent. What is happening to men, and even to women in countries in which they have been completely emancipated from the regime of old ideas, is described in more than one modern book. It would seem that sex experience at 14 or even 12 is not uncommon among them. Unless one feels that no cost is too much to get rid of the depressing effect of early matrimony and its responsibilities, he cannot contemplate with equanimity the prospect of serious irregularities and errors of life or even sexual diseases arising from postponement of marriages. Elsewhere the irregularities and their consequences have become so unbearable that it has been suggested that boys and girls should be married and then sent to colleges. Upton Sinclair says, “I very much question whether if we should apply our wisdom to the task of getting our young people happily mated before we send them off to college, we should get a lot more serious study out of them than we now do with all their fussing and flirting and dancing.” It seems to me with all respect that those who suggest high ages for marriage with legislative prohibition and punishments have bestowed insufficient thought to the probable consequences of that which they commend. Nor have they cared to examine experiences of other countries.

The following facts drawn from the Geneva publication deserve attention at the hands of those who care to study this problem carefully.

The age of marriage for man and woman is 14 and 12 in Queensland, Tasmania. Victoria, Western Australia, Great Britain, Greece, Irish Free State, Italy, New Zealand, Russian Poland, Uruguay, Venezuela, eight of the United States, Phillipine Islands, and under the Spanish Civil Law.

It is 14 for both in Austria, Bohemia, Moravia, Silesia, Austrian Poland, Bukovina, Croatia and Slovenia.

It is 12 for both in Slovakia, Sub-Carpathian Russia and Hungary.

It is 15 for both in Turkey.

It is 16 for both in China, Bosnia and Herzegovina.

It is 18 and 16 in Egypt, Esthonia, Latvia and thirteen of the United States.

It is 15 and 13 among the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes.

It is 21 and 18 in ten of the United States. Seven of the United States have 18 and 15; five have 17 and 14; two have18 for both; two have 21 for both; one has 15 and 12 ; one has 14 and 13; one has 18 and 14.

South Africa has 12 for women with no age for men.

These are said to be the absolute minima subject to no exception. The Geneva publication says that these ages do not probably represent the actual age of marriage in countries where the age fixed is low. It is however difficult to be sure that in counties in which 21 and above are fixed as the age for marriage, cases do not occur of marriages between 12 and 16. Upton Sinclair calls attention to the startling fact that Hopkins hospital bulletin for January 1922 brings to light that on an examination of 500 cases of delivery, where the mother was between 12 and 16, it appeared “that pregnancy and labour at these ages were no more dangerous than in older women; and that on the other hand, the duration of the labour was actually shorter and the size of the children was not inferior” and adds that he leaves the commenting to feminists and others opposed to early marriage. We may next glance at ages for marriage not absolute, i.e., subject to special permission for earlier marriages by an authority empowered to grand such permission.

These ages are 18 and 15 for Haiti, Italy, Luxembourg, Monaco, Surinam and Curac (sic) and Roumania (old provinces).

Russian Poland, Bassarabia, Transylvania and Voivodine.

It is 21 and 18 for Iceland and Sweden.

It is 17 and 15 for Japan, Serbs, Croats and Slovenes; 20 and 18 for Norway and Switzerland and 21 and 16 for Russia Poland.

Revolt, 6 February 1929

The Age of Consent

Now that the recommendations of the Age of Consent Committee have been unanimously supported by its members, and submitted to the Government of India for approval, it needs no special mention that the public should extend its full support, if it should be enacted into a law. Though the full report is not published yet, from the scanty information available, we understand that the committee has recommended 14 years as the minimum marriageable age for girls, 15 years as the age of consent in marital cases and 18 in extra-marital cases. Regarding the low age of marriage, the committee observes that owing to the pressure of orthodox opinion it had to fix 14. We are glad so far as the committee has succeeded in breaking the time-worn customs, that were hurled upon society in the name of religion. Advocates of pre puberty marriages and their moth-eaten religious texts can no longer parade the land under the masks of god and religion. We reserve our comments till the full report is published. Meanwhile farewell, a long farewell to orthodoxy!

Revolt, 30 June 1929

The Need for Marriage Legislation (Dr. S. Mudhulakshmi Reddi, M.L.C.,)

Having been invited to an evening marriage function in an orthodox Brahmin family in the city, I was present at a small party specially arranged for ladies. As I happened to know many of those present intimately I began making enquiries after their education, their state of health, home life etc.

I felt deeply grieved when I was informed that those young girls have been not only married but their marriages also have been consummated and further those girls who were hardly 14 have been sent to their husbands homes in response to the wishes of their mothers-in-law who were eagerly looking forward to the advent of a grand child.

As I was very much moved by the story of one girl in particular who was hardly 15 and whose husband having already got tired of her, was spending his days in his mistress’s house and had sent the girl to her parental home to spend her days in sorrow and loneliness. For the sake of this grief stricken child, I pleaded with the husband a medical practitioner in this very same city, who having unreasonably excited himself to a temper, bluntly refused to have anything to do with the girl, for no other fault than that of her childish frankness and candour in having complained to her mother-in-law about her husband’s wayward behaviour and absence from home at nights.

What is the remedy, I asked the heartless husband, you would suggest for a minor girl like your wife, whose faults whatever they may be are excusable. He condescendingly replied that he would feed and clothe her as he would a servant, if she should serve his parents.

Then I suggested that he might at least out of humanity’s sake admit her into some educational institution, like the Seva Sadan or the Sarada Home, that she might spend her youthful time usefully and profitably till he makes up his mind to take her back to his home to which he replied curtly, that he could not afford any such luxury.

I may inform the reader that this poor specimen of humanity has taken Rs.2,000 from the poor girl parents as the bridegroom price, with which amount he is running a small dispensary at a profit. These scenes are enacted daily and we in the South do not seem to give any serious thought to such a devastating disease in our midst; while the majority of the parents themselves, whether rich or poor, whether educated or ignorant, submit helplessly to these time honoured customs and ascribe what follows to the inexorable fate. Except a few Brahmin families here and there, whose number can be counted on one’s finger ends (many of whom are to be found only in the cities) who have defied society and custom in having postponed the marriage of their girls and in having permitted them to enjoy the full benefit of higher education, the rest not possessing the necessary mental courage to place their daughters happiness before anything else in the world, repeat the same blunder of early marriage and early consummation, and will never listen to any reason or rhyme. . .

It is a most painful fact to record that the sufferings of these girl mothers and their children and the self imposed racial deterioration are going on without sufficiently arresting the attention of our South Indian leaders and without stimulating them to effective and immediate action; because while at least some propaganda is being done by the members of all parties to put down drink and to remove untouchability, we feel grieved to note that even the famous leaders of the North who had been on a visit to the South, namely Dr. Moonje and Pandit Madan Mohan Malaviya, left these topics – the deplorable condition of women and the need for reform in this Presidency – untouched, and out of their programme of talk.

So, the natural inference is that even they were afraid of losing their influence with the orthodox section of our community. The talk on the evils of untouchability and prohibition has become the fashion of the day and is on everybody’s lips and how far the mere preaching on platform against untouchability has produced any change in the mentality of the upper classes will be seen by a visit to our villages; and as for prohibition, the increase in the excise revenue this year has its own significance to temperance workers.

What is the remedy then? The only effective remedy that I would suggest is the widespread education of our women on the right lines and the provision of ample facilities for their all round development, physical, moral and intellectual. I hope and I feel sure that with the rapid spread of education and knowledge among the women population, our social problems would solve themselves automatically. Invidious caste distinctions, early marriage, purdah and sanctified vice will persist so long as the mothers of the nation are kept in ignorance of the rapidly changing world conditions and the cause of India’s backwardness. Moreover, I honestly feel that unless and until we reform and recast our home life so as to suit modern conditions and remedy our defective social system, there is no hope or salvation for the large home that is the country – which change is possible only when free, enlightened and liberal minded women feel strongly the need for reform in their daily habits and customs and the necessity for a change in their mental outlook. Now the fire of enthusiasm for reform that dimly burns here and there, is in constant danger of being extinguished unless it is kept alive by constant appeal to the good sense of our people by honest reformers and the awakened, emancipated Indian womanhood.

Revolt, 14 July 1929

Orthodoxi-ki Jai!

During the next few weeks, Madras has to prepare itself for a most ghastly sight. Thousands of people will be giving up their life in redemption of a vow they recently took. As a last step to prevent the Age of Consent Committee from violating the orthodox traditions, they gave the solemn warning in open conference that if the marriageable age of girls be raised they would give up their life, one and all.

The Committee has disregarded the threat and it is now fairly certain that the Government will accept its modest recommendation. In fact when Sarda’s Bill next comes up for consideration, the ultimatum of these Madrasis will expire. So the glorious day – for them and for humanity – when they will teach a never to be forgotten lesson to the reformers is now only a question of time.

You may think that they merely bluffed, but that is hardly likely.Whatever their first thoughts, they have now no alternative but to carry out their threat. If they fail how can they show their face in public? And is it conceivable – I at any rate decline to think so badly of them – that these pillars of the Sanatana Dharma will stand before the world as cowards and thus disgrace that whole race? In fact, I learn most of them have already made the necessary arrangements for departure. Their only fear is that the police may prevent an organized spectacular harakiri but astute people that they are they should have no difficulty to hoodwink the guardians of law – The Sunday Times.

Revolt, 14 July 1929

Orhodoxy at its work

Mr. Srinivasachar of Mysore, the veritable Avatar of Mahavishnu who presided over the Sri Vaishnavites Conference at Velur, has strongly condemned the social legislations which are under consideration in the Assembly, as being “unwarranted, unjustifiable and irreligious”. Similar attacks on the interference of the Government in social matters and resolutions protesting the marriage legislations are being published in the orthodox papers of our province, as having been passed at the religious conferences. We knew, as a matter of fact, that such oppositions or supposed oppositions would arise from the orthodox quarters.

The legislation is said to be “unwarranted, unjustifiable and irreligious”. We doubt whether the president wants to revoke the ancient ‘holy’ customs of human sacrifice and suttee, which were enjoined by the ‘divine’ Vedas. However much we may din into the ears of orthodoxy that religion is the creation of man and hence should change with the advancement of humanity, it turns a deaf ear to our thunders and works its own mischief whenever possible. The legislation, let the orthodox elements understand, is not unwarranted, but the result of the frequent attempts made by the three fourth of the population of the so called Hindus. It is no surprise to us, why a handful of people should take particular care of religion which is said to belong also to a class of people who are numerically stronger. That is simply to keep their pot boiling. Will they not understand at least now, that it is futile to cry over a matter which is almost nearing the end? Instead of roaring in the village corners, it would be a better and nobler thing if they prepare themselves for their wholesale suicide, which they promised to do if the Government interfered in society and religion. The human species will not be sorry for it, or at any rate, we shall never.

The marriage Bills are specially condemned by individual patrons of orthodoxy. That is no fault of theirs. If the masculine orthodoxy should be taught a severe lesson, we would suggest one thing. The lady members of the legislature should bring in a resolution at the earliest possible time, asking the Government to enforce widowhood and its concurrent effects on man also, so that no difference is made in administration of law. Widowers should not be allowed to remarry nor should they be allowed to appear before the people; they should be supplied with black clothes and their heads should also be made completely bald. They should be repulsed by the people as ‘bad omens’. This kind of a resolution would not only teach a lesson to orthodoxy, but would enable the fair sex to think awhile of the ridiculousness of their present situation. This may look like a funny suggestion but it has its own effect.

Revolt, 21 July 1929

The Child Marriage Bill

I

Mr. Harbilas Sarda’s Child Marriage Bill will be one of the non-official Bills that will come up for discussion at the forthcoming session of the Legislative Assembly. The Bill has received the entire support of the sane section of the people and the passing of the Bill will be looked upon as nothing less than a boon granted by the Government.

The immediate need for legislation in the matter of this age-long evil has been very often emphasized by responsible organizations and well-wishers of the country. It was about twenty years back that gentlemen like Mr. Rangachari, Mr. Mani Iyer and Mr.V. Krishnasami Iyer held Conferences and passed resolutions for increasing the age of marriage for girls (2). The Hindu Samajam, gave away a prize of Rs. 100 to Mr. Varada Iyengar of Kurnool for writing the best essay on, “Post-puberty Marriage is Shastraic.” The Right Hon.V. S. Srinivasa Sastri compiled a book on the same subject both in English and Sanskrit. We have given only the very few of the instances that come to our memory at this moment (3). Recently the South Indian papers are busily publishing news of protest meetings of the marriage Bill – meetings most of which are manufactured by irresponsible, unscrupulous, reactionary nonentities, and manufactured under various names from that sanctum sanctorum, the notorious Kumbakonam, the divine dwelling place of that illustrious bandit chief, Sri. Sankarachariar (4). We doubt whether Miss Kumbakonam is so wide-armed as to embrace the whole of India within her tender arms. Or else, what is the idea, we want to know, of all the protest meetings, (not to mention that distinguished deputation) cropping from the fertile soil alone! It is a riddle left to the editors of Newspapers, who can only best solve them. Then turning to some of the orthodox journals who have just cropped up for the time being by the pecuniary assistance of some of the bandit-chiefs, we feel immensely sorry for the necessity of answering to such insignificant journals which cover an infinitesimally small area of circulation.

One of these journals writes thus:

“The great gurus who are undisputed experts in our sacred books, their Holinesses…(etc) have clearly stated often times that marriage is a necessary religious sacrament according to our scriptures and that the regulations of our sages enjoining pre-puberty marriages ought to be obeyed to avoid the wrath of God. Before their learning and insight how can we compare ours! We who at best can carry some tit-bits of Shastras like Sriman Malaviyaji but never the thorough knowledge of the scriptures.”

The distinguished journal further continues,

“You misled the government to drift into this unhappy step even for the introduction of the Bill, when they learned it to be religious, by telling them that the Bills were social, not religious. You could easily convince them because, with them in the West a line of demarcation between social and religious subjects has been possible. But in our country the truth is different.”

Before we deal with the objections (for courtesy’s sake, we call them objections) raised by this celebrated journal, we would very much like

The Hindu answer:

“Religious and social usages have no doubt been intertwined among Hindus to a larger degree than among other communities, but every true Hindu will acknowledge that these usages and customs have varied from age to age and period to period and the text-writers of the of the Shastras have expressly based their successive modified codes, on this definite ground. It is also within the experience of Hindus-the conservatives and reformers like – that LEGISLATION, PASSED IN THE FACE OF PROTEST ON SUCH GROUNDS HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THEM AS BEING IN CONSONANCE WITH THE PREVAILING STANDARDS OF SOCIAL LIFE AND CONDUCT (Mark that!) Nor can it be doubted that the supporters of the Bill are so much concerned with the maintenance of Hindu religion and the preservation and progress of Hindu society as those who oppose the Bill from the conservative point of view.”

We shall examine other aspects of the question in our next issue.

II

The enlightened editor of the journal referred to in our last issue, points out the statement of their Holinesses that marriage being a religious sacrament, the regulations of the sages enjoining pre-puberty marriages ought to be obeyed to avoid the wrath of god. Certainly! Not merely marriage. Even drinking is a religious sacrament, for have not the sages drunk the soma juice? Is it not enjoined by the Vedas? So will their Holinesses leave their shameful profession of honourable beggary and resort to the contract of toddy shops? Will their Holinesses make frequent visits to the Bosotto (5) even as their disciples are doing? There is another sacrament sanctioned by the Vedas and the Rishis of old, which their Holinesses and their ardent followers of the type of the editor, can arrange to be shown in the next World Exhibition. That is the Powndriga Yagam. It will be a fine sight for the Westerners to see the sanctity of the sacrifice performed with the Yagyam resulting from the union of a widow and a widower. That will well adorn the pages of the “London Illustrated Weekly,” and the editor can very well be proud of this “religious sacrament”.

And there is another religious sacrament sanctioned by the Vedas and the Rishis, which we immediately recommend to the editor and his clan. That is the Purushametha Yaga or human sacrifice referred to in the Sadapadha Brahmana (Slogams, 1, 2, 6, and 39.) If their Holinesses could only follow their Rishis in this respect as faithfully as they want to do in the question of marriage, we know where we would see the Achariars, Mahants and Jeeyars (generic names of South Indian Hindu religious leaders editors). At any rate we are sure to see the benign face of the learned editor peeping through the window of His Majesty’s stone house. That is a thing which we very much long for.

Next we wish to point out to the ingenious editor that the wrath of god, of which he makes so much fuss, turned into liquid under the feet of Mahmud of Ghazni at Somnath, and has reached its freezing point under the much attacked alien Raj. For does not the editor see with his holy eyes that the wrath of His Majesty’s Government is greater than that of the god? If not, will a Max Muller dare to translate into a “Mlechcha” tongue the text of a book which if a “Sudra” happens to know, his heart should be broke in twain? If not, will a Tom, Dick and Harry dare to rule a land which was ruled by such immortal beings as Rama, Krishna and Yudhishtra? If the editor denied that, let him only try the Purushametha Yaga with the help of his invincible Holinesses.

Next the editor from Benares remarks that we carry only some tit-bits of Shastras like Malaviyaji when compared with the learning and insight of their Holinesses. As we pointed out in the last issue, people of the Hindu Samajam who gave a prize for the essay on post-puberty marriages and the Right Hon.V. S. Srinivasa Sastri, and a host of others who justified post-puberty marriages from the shastras themselves are at any rate more acquainted with the Shastras than the self-depreciating, humble editor from Benares. It was not the full-blown knowledge of the Shastras or his Pranayama practices that gave the life of Tirupathi Mahant but the surgical instrument of General Malcomson. The erudite editor of our contemporary and his admirers may be modest in telling the world that they carry only tit-bits of Shastras but their orthodox brains would tell them that they cannot hide the passages which sanction post-puberty marriages from the scriptures.

The Sastris and Acharis, whether they are lawyers or members of Legislative Councils since they are the sons of prohits, it is no wonder their belief in the Shastras is unshakable. Their narrow views and base ideas, we know, are due to the teachings of the Shastras. For they have read the notorious Code of Manu which says that “women are by nature prostitutes.” What more can be expected from the admirers of such a glorious Law Book? The advocates of child marriage insist upon pre-puberty marriages on the ground that the girls would turn immoral as soon as they attain puberty. In that case, examples are not wanting where the nuptials of their own daughters and daughters-in law have been postponed many a time, for various reasons such as, disputes about dowry, the end of an examination of the bridegroom, etc., etc. In those cases, which are more than ninety out of a hundred, we ask whether the Shastris, Iyers and Acharis of the type of the intelligent editor, excommunicated those girls for violating the teachings of the ancient Rishis. It is further a matter of no small wonder to us, how the Shastras which permit the well-known Niyoka system of marriage, can lay down any principle of morality.

Our contention is why these devils which cite scriptures against post-puberty marriages, fail to follow the dictates of the Shastras in their own case. The Code of Manu has said in emphatic terms that, “the Brahmin who performs Gayatri continuously for three years, can be sure to fly in the air or take whatever shape he likes” (Chap, 2; Slogam 812). We want to know how many of our Brahmin friends especially the Sastris who are performing Gayatri for years together have developed the art of flying. Lawyer Satyamurti quotes Parachara Smriti in favour of child marriage (6). But his spectacled eyes do not see the mandates of the same Smriti which objects to the Brahmins undertaking sea-voyages and learning a foreign tongue. When this apostle of Child Marriage and his comrade Ramachandra have themselves violated the rules of the Smriti, why do these legal brains refuse to allow the same latitude to women?

That Parachar, himself the author of the Smriti was born to a so-called low born woman, married after puberty, and he himself had his son Viyasar in the same way, is a story told by the same Rishis. Then, His Holiness the Sankarachari himself belongs to a community where post-puberty marriage remains the custom even to this day. How is it the Sastris and Iyers are blind to this fact?

Then there are the Iyengars and Acharis who object to post-puberty marriage. The fact that Kurath Alwar and Pattar (Tamil Vaishnavite religious figures – editors) were responsible for the commentaries of the Vedas for the Vaishnava Siddhantam, is undisputed. Pattar was born to Kurath Alwar who married his wife after puberty. As such why should the Vaishnavites object? If these orthodox elements want to be literal followers of the Rishis, we want to know how many Brahmacharis are there among Brahmins who keep to the standard enforced by the Rishis. University examinations, Dowry competitions, Tennis tournaments, tannery shops and hotel managements are not the duties enjoined by the Rishis to the Brahmacharis. The mantras which are told at the nuptials to-day are utterly different from those ordained by the Shastras. The present-day mantras of the Brahmin Brahmacharis are “silver vessels, wrist watches, further education and cash money.” Then why quote Scriptures for girls alone?

We have tried to prove in the little space at our disposal how the verdicts of the Smritis and Shastras do not in either way stand against post-puberty marriage. Other rational causes for the necessity of preventing Child marriage and the physiological reasons put forward by eminent doctors, backed up by statistical information, have been dwelt upon by many who have a closer acquaintance and a more through knowledge of the problem. The social and economic evils of child marriage and the consequent degeneration the Hindu society have been time and again sufficiently laughed at by the westerners.

The passing of the Bill above all, teaches us the severe lesson, which we have been urging so often, and for which we and our followers have been brandished as ‘traitors to the country’, that the co-operation and goodwill of the Government is highly essential for the achievements of reform in the priest-ridden and caste-ridden society of India. If we have at any time found fault with the Government it was more for their not taking the initiative in matters of social reform, than for the rest. In this case, the attitude of the Government in the last stages of the Bill is highly commendable and is sure to be applauded by the Governments of other nations.

We would be therefore failing in our duty if we omit to acknowledge the timely help offered by the Government in the passing of the Bill. We are more gratified to note that the amendment regarding the grant of exemption to certain communities and in certain cases was negatived by the House by a large majority. The incidents connected with the Marriage Bill, the forces of opposition and the reactionary elements of society might have given a clear idea to the Government of the possible dangers form interested quarters that are likely to confront them in their future attempts at social legislation. We are much thankful to the Government for having taken the cause of justice and equality as against the discordant forces of orthodoxy. Farewell, a very long farewell to orthodoxy!

Revolt, 25 August, 1 September 1929

The Disgraceful Deputation ( G. Sumati Bai, B.A., L.T.,)

It may interest the public to have the search-light thrown on the orthodox deputation to the Viceroy concerning the Child Marriage Bill. The deputation has in its protest against Sarda’s Bill loudly justified Child Marriage. But how far their assertions can stand the limelight of reason is indeed very doubtful. They state that the “marriageable age commences at eight and continues upto ten”. What is the authority for such a claim? There are not less than thirty-six Smritis, each with its own interpretation and oft at variance with one another. No two editions of the same Smriti even agree on all points and often the contradictory passages found in the same Smriti are palpable indications of either incongruities or interpolations and so their doubtful value. Which Smriti then shall have the force of law in society?

It is further stated by the Deputation that “the law of consummation permits sexual intercourse sixteen days after a girl attains puberty and it is added that if this intercourse is postponed intentionally, without its being performed after the first puberty, the party responsible for the postponement becomes tainted with the sin of bhroona-hatya and there is no prayaschitta for such a sin.” Gargeya and several other Rishis are of the opinion that “normally the indications of womanhood and youth show themselves in women in the sixteenth year”. In the Kala-Nitnaya-Pradipika, it is clearly stated that the occurrence of menstruation in girls below sixteen is abnormal and that it is traceable to one of the three causes – artificial pressure, use of drugs and medicines and indulgence in lascivious thoughts”. Sushruta, a great authority on Ayurveda has said “when a youth less than twenty-five years old has sexual intercourse with a girl less than sixteen years old, there will probably be no conception; if there be a conception, there will probably be an abortion; if there be no abortion, the child born will most probably die early; if it dies not, weak will it be in all its organs. Do not allow sexual intercourse then when the husband and wife are still tender in years”. In the face of such opinions which are shastraic too, is it advisable to talk of cohabitation for very young girls? And that within sixteen days after puberty?

To the repositories of Sastras, threatened abortions due to immature age of the married girl do not come under Bhruna-hatya (the killing of the foetus) whereas the wisely wanted prevention perhaps of a very probable conception is construed as murder of the foetus!! Does it besides stand to reason to talk of a foetus at all in the case of a virgin?

“Hindu Law relating to marriage was based on the Dharma Sastras which in turn conform to the Vedas and hence binding on all Hindus who follow the Sastraic laws and no authority spiritual or temporal can alter them” is yet another statement of the Deputation. It then means that the Vedas are the authority on the matter. If so, what is the marriageable age according to the Vedas? There is ample evidence to indicate that in the Vedic days women also were like men, expected to observe the period of Brahmacharya before marriage and to acquire knowledge thereby. The Vedic mantras of marriage themselves are clear proofs of the high cultural attainments and the mature age of women at the time of marriage. Surely they could not be girls of eight and ten that attained so much, in pradhana-homa, pravesa-homa and sesha-homa, the husband and wife both stated their sam-kalpa and chanted the Rihs.

Is it not meaningless then to perform pre-pubescent marriages chanting those same Vedic mantras which contemplate post- pubescent marriage? And is not pre-pubescent marriage inconsistent with the teachings of the Vedas, the bed-rock of Hindu Dharma and religion as the orthodox themselves call it?

“Premature decay and death ascribed to the child-marriage system ought really to be ascribed to the ruin of village life” is also another assertion of the Deputation. One fails to understand what is meant thereby when the bulk of the nation are still in the villages, many of them untouched by the influences of town-life. As medical practitioner I have the opportunity of knowing and moving with the villagers of many a district belonging to British India as well as the Indian States. This Premayatana Asram is in the very midst of such villages and to serve and study them is its first concern. My observation is that the ravages of child marriage are most rampant in the villages where the people are more ignorant than the town folk. Cradle marriages are very frequent in villages and child widows there are far more than in towns. Unhealthy children and ailing child-mothers are a matter of fact in villages as even efficient medical advice or the aid of trained midwifery cannot be had there. The havoc of child-marriage in towns has been constantly coming to light whereas in villages it never does so; for who should throw the search-light on those unfortunate dens of so-called Dharma? Ignorance buries deep its own ravages and the victims thereof! The glory of the villages one might sing from town and city platforms but would that tall talk had peeped but once into these forlorn holes!

The Deputation seems to be of the opinion that the abolition of child marriage would lead to “the repetition of evils amongst modern youth so graphically described by Judge Lindsay”. A query may be rightly asked if such evils are not already existing in our society and that amongst the orthodox too. Veneral diseases, self-abuse, sex-perversions and what not are not wanting in our midst and child marriage has not stemmed their tide. Only we have not here a Judge Lindsay to blow the ashes off the smouldering embers! Besides, may I ask if Judge Lindsay suggests child marriage as a remedy for the evils he has brought to light? Rational education and better traming, plain talk and destruction of prudery and make-believe in the young – this is what he advocates and aye that is what we need most too. Does it not then behove society to give its boys and girls sufficient time for the sound education so imperative for happy matrimony, instead of harnessing them in so-called marriage long before they even get an inkling of what the institution stands for?

“No genuine attempt has been made by the Committee to ascertain the opinion of Indian ladies, 90% of whom would shudder at the thought of post-puberty marriage” the Deputation has said. They are probably unaware of the fact that Women’s Associations all over India, All India Women’s Conference and not less than 22 constituent Conferences have with one voice denounced child marriage. Questionnaires besides were sent to almost all educated women interested in social work to ascertain their opinion and many of them have been personally consulted on the subject. What then does the Deputation mean by asserting that the Committee has not ascertained the opinion of Indian ladies?

Perhaps by Indian they mean only “orthodox women” who have not peeped beyond the four walls of their houses! Have such women either the education or the economic freedom or the necessary observations of affairs beyond their house to express their opinion on anything? Have they any idea of either modern science or ancient lore to weigh them both in the balance or reason? They have been treading the beaten track too long to move aside and have worn their fetters so long that they have ceased to gall them and what is worse is that they have grown to love them as the very ornaments of life. What opinion can be expected of them when they neither have nor are permitted to have any individuality of their own, or even any idea even not compatible with the mind of their self-appointed lord? They but nod assent to the dictates of the so-called husbands, the keepers of their conscience. They are fit tools of their orthodox slave drivers to use as they like. Ignorance is bliss and it is not mere folly to be wise but positively dangerous with them to be so!

The crowning point in the argument of the orthodoxy in upholding child marriage is that it is a spiritual union and therefore can take place at an early age. The question arises whether matters of spirit are so easy for even children and youngsters to venture. Or is it but proving the saying “Fools rush in where angels fear to tread”. If marriage is spiritual, is it not more the reason why the parties concerned should be more wiser with age and experience? Further, granting that child marriage is a spiritual concern, why should man marry again when his wife dies? Surely the wife’s spirit is not dead. Or is it that even the spirit of the wives of the orthodoxy perish with death. Or is it woman’s spirit perishes with the body while only that of man lasts to protect his widow? Further, the spirit impervious to fire must certainly be untaintable by impurity of any sort. Where then is room for any charge against impurity or any scope for jealousy and the mischief it works? Convenience may quote philosophy but the Science of Social Life cannot dare to ignore the facts that stare it in the face. Philosophy that ignores facts only veils the Truth and what religion is that which poses to protect which does not concern itself with the very facts of daily life? Let orthodoxy answer.                                                                               –

Revolt, 22 September 1929

Farewell Orthodoxy!

The brilliant victory of Mr. Sarda’s Marriage Bill in the Legislative Assembly has relieved us from a state of anxiety and expectation which we were passing through. The happy news of the successful passing of the Bill by an overwhelming majority has literally lifted the people from the coils of orthodoxy and obscurantism. The minimum age of marriage for girls and boys has been fixed at 14 and 18 respectively and the law will be applicable to the people of all classes, castes and creeds.

At every stage the Bill was opposed and attacked by the forces of reactionarism in the names of religion and custom. The army of orthodoxy headed by that apology for a lawyer, marched to the very fortress of their enemies and threatened them with ‘curses’ and ‘hunger strikes’. Their infantry in the rear, being backed up by arms and ammunitions from the fortress of Sri Sankaranchariar barked and roared from behind. The Captains of orthodoxy headed by the South Indian Commander (the reference is to S. Satyamurthi – editors) made pretensions of a thundering warfare within the four walls of the  Legislative Assembly. Manufactured news were published in the fortnightly organ of orthodoxy and learned leaderettes were written by enlightened editors. Hymns of praise were sung on the ‘religious neutrality’ of the Government and the proclamation of Queen Victoria was the burden of their song. A strenuous attempt was also made to flatter the Government on its attitude of ‘religious non interference’. Unhappily, these vile machinations of orthodoxy to hinder the progress of the Bill have not only proved fruitless, but has very much lowered the forces of orthodoxy and the individuals who have been responsible for it, in the estimation of the cultured world.

The passing of the Bill above all, teaches us the severe lesson, which we have been urging so often, and for which we and our followers have been brandished as ‘traitors to the country’, that the co-operation and goodwill of the Government is highly essential for the achievements of reform in the priest-ridden and caste-ridden society of India. If we have at any time found fault with the Government it was more for their not taking the initiative in matters of social reform, than for the rest. In this case, the attitude of the Government in the last stages of the Bill is highly commendable and is sure to be applauded by the Governments of other nations.

We would be therefore failing in our duty if we omit to acknowledge the timely help offered by the Government in the passing of the Bill. We are more gratified to note that the amendment regarding the grant of exemption to certain communities and in certain cases was negatived by the House by a large majority. The incidents connected with the Marriage Bill, the forces of opposition and the reactionary elements of society might have given a clear idea to the Government of the possible dangers form interested quarters that are likely to confront them in their future attempts at social legislation. We are much thankful to the Government for having taken the cause of justice and equality as against the discordant forces of orthodoxy. Farewell, a very long farewell to orthodoxy!.

Revolt, 29 September 1929

The Secret of It

One of our readers has asked us the question. “Why do the Brahmins as a class oppose the Sarda Act, when the Act is more for their own benefit than for others?” Our friend should understand in the first place that the Act is not opposed by all the Brahmins; it is generally the orthodox section which strongly protests against it. Then there is another important fact that the women-folk of the community do not also object to the Act. The Act has a more direct bearing upon women than upon men, as the objections are in all cases directed against the marriageable age for girls only. When therefore, we see that neither the women nor the progressive section of the Brahmins object to the Act, the answer to the question is very simple. The balance is the orthodox members of the community who earn their livelihood in the name of the Hindu religion. They know that even at the risk of some disadvantages to themselves, Hinduism should not be left to be tampered with. This time, if they permit the legislation for marriage, they know there will come a time when our children will enact laws for the removal of priesthood, untouchability and so on, which will seriously hamper the monopolistic position of the orthodox Brahmins. They would therefore rather wish young widows in their homes than lose their privilege of birth. That is the secret of it.

evolt, 10 November 1929

Shame to Madras

In the elected Indian members who voted in favour of the Sarda Bill, 1 was from Madras; 6 from Bombay; 7 form N.P.; 8 form Bihar; 4 from the Panjab; 1 from Ajmer, Merwada. Of the elected Indians who voted against the Bill 5 were from Madras; 2 from Bombay; 3 from Bengal; 1 from U.P.; 2 from Bihar and 1 from Assam.From Madras one member voted for the Bill and 5 voted against. And Madras is boasted by its people to possess the salt of the land. We would be glad beyond measure if the province of Madras brings forth a Miss Mayo in order to paint her fire eating law makers in their true colours. And the next election is to come off shortly, Madras Orthodoxy ki-Jai!!

Revolt, 17 November 1929

Child Marriage Question

Why has child marriage endured so long in a country which for more than a century has been ruled to a great extent by British officials inspired by British ideals? asks Prof. Rushbrook Williams and answers the question himself in an English Newspaper, Simply because, he says no alien government, differing in religion and outlook from the races which it rules, dared to take the risk of interfering with a custom which thousands of the most revered spiritual leaders have declared to be an integral part of the Hindu religion. Hence it is that while the evil of the child marriage system has long been perceived, Government action has been timid and halting. Significantly enough says Prof. Rushbrook Williams, the India which is ruled by Indians, the India of the States has been the first to take action. For some years progressive Indian rulers, like those of Baroda, Bikanir, Gondal, Kashmir, Kotah and other States, have been steadily discountenancing, child marriage exerting their great power and influence among the more conservative elements among their subjects.

This no excuse. An enlightened government which boasts itself on its material and cultural advancement, has got no business to excuse itself saying that they should not interfere in an “alien religion”. That evidently means the government are anxious to have a wholesale conversion so that they can “interfere” freely. It is not an “integral part of Hindu religion” that the Britishers should rule the Hindus. Will the Britishers vacate India? Certainly not. Then why not the government shakes off the white Brahminhood in them and be more fair and sincere towards the masses of India? Though we are certainly glad at their inestimable help in passing of the Sarda Act, we cannot but request them on behalf of the humanity not to be “timid and halting” in their duty towards the people.

Revolt, 17 November 1929

The “Bombay Chronicle” on the Muslim Protest

We publish the following note by the Bombay Chronicle on the Muslim deputation to the Viceroy, protesting against the Sarda Act:-

To what pathetic straits those who are wont, on the slightest or no provocation, to raise the spurious cry of “Religion in Danger” is best illustrated by the composition of the so-called Muslim delegation which waited on the Viceroy on Saturday with a request to him to exempt Muslims from the operation of the Sarda Act as well as by the manner and matter of their request. The deputation was led by Mr. Mahomed Ali (nationalist associated with the Khilafat agitations – editors). The latter has seldom missed an opportunity caviling at those who have entered the legislature. He has not only to explain to the public the inconsistency of his present action with his criticism of his fellow Congressmen but he has also to demonstrate what title he and those who accompanied him had to speak on behalf of the Muslim community of India. They were speaking only for themselves when they told the Viceroy: “We Mussalmans will never submit to such intolerant interference with our sacred law, and will not hesitate to disobey any law robbing us of religious freedom, and will not be deterred by the Sarda Act”.

All self-respecting Muslims will hang their head in shame at the mere thought of being some co-religionists of theirs like Mr. Mahomed Ali and his band of social reactionaries who give utterance to such sentiments as constitute an outrage on Islam and public decency. What is the “religious freedom” against the loss of which they are hurling their threats? It is that they should be free to consign innocent girls under fourteen to the indescribable inhumanities of child wedlock. Lord Irwin in his reply to the deputation pointed out that in a matter of this kind it was impossible for modern State to disinterest itself because it clearly bore upon social questions which must be of vital interest to it. In fact, though the Viceroy did not say so, men like Mr. Mahomed Ali must realise that all right thinking men and women in India have made up their mind to do away with social injustices and cruelties in spite of what “religion” according to its votaries, may say to the contrary. But in regard do Sarda Act, it is the Muslim opponents who are acting contrary to the spirit of Islam. For, according to Islam, marriage is a contract based on the free consent of both the parties to it and it is preposterous to suggest that a girl who has hardly reached the age of fourteen can enter into such a contract. The fact, that there is no provision in Islamic law fixing the lowest age for marriage is a proof, if a proof were needed, to show that it does not contemplate any marriage as valid except a marriage between two adults who have reached the age of majority. Those Muslims who are opposing the Sarda Act are not only violating the laws of humanity but also the letter and spirit of Islamic injunction and it is against such misguided champions, who are not much different form the ignorant and fanatical Mullahs who were the principal authors of the recent anarchy in Afghanistan, that the Muslim community in Indian needs protection.

Revolt, 24 November 1929

Notes

1. K. Acharya was an orthodox and conservative Congress legislator who earned the consistent ire of the self-respecters.
2. These were Madras Congressmen from an earlier generation, who were active in the first decades of the twentieth century.
3. S. Srinivasa Sastri was a member of the Servants of India Society founded by G. K. Gokhale. He held many important posts in the British Indian Government and later became a confidante and close friend of Gandhi. He backed the Post-Puberty Marriage Bill that was introduced in the Madras Council in 1914.
4. The present Sankara Mutt in Conjeevaram was originally located at Kumbakonam in Thanjavur district, until the late 1930s. Incidentally, this Mutt which draws its glory from the persona of Adi Shankara, was not one of the original mutts founded by him.
5. Bosotto was a confectioner from Corsica who arrived in Chennai in the late 1920s and took over one of Chennai’s best-known hotels from a fellow Corsican.
6. Satyamurti was a prominent Congressman and a legislator, whose love of power was legion. He was opposed to the reform party and like M. K. Acharya was refuted and criticized by the self-respecters. (See also p. 29, 193, for earlier critical and satiric references to S. Satyamurti.)