Makers of Modern India

by Ramachandra Guha

  But our religion, said to be made by god and millions and millions of years old, says that a majority of the people should not read its scriptures; and if one violates it, there are punishments such as cutting off the tongue that studies, pouring molten lead into ears that hear, and gouging out of the heart that learns. As a result, only with the advent of the white government 5 per cent are now literate. Of them, 90 per cent are Brahmins. But some say, ‘We never forbade anyone from studying; we only forbade the studying of the vedas.’ The education of vedic times is not like the histories of England, Europe or Arabia. Nor is it the books written by Shakespeare or Macaulay. The education of those days was that of morals. These moral maxims became the vedas. And we are not supposed to read the vedas … If the white government had not come, would religion have permitted the education of even one out of a thousand among us? Well, if we cannot read the vedas can we not at least learn Sanskrit? No, they say. If we ask why, they say it will not come to our tongue. If I say, let me try they say that the morals of the vedas occur intermittently in them and therefore that too is not permitted. Thus are untold travails and insults heaped upon us in the name of religion. But the expenses incurred in this regard are beyond calculation. No other religion expends so much money. In other religions one or two persons may endow a thousand or four thousand pounds. That will be used to propagate their religion. That means the spreading of education among people, ameliorating disease and discovering the new. But in our religion everyone is forced to pay a tax for religion. In our province alone, according to government statistics, temples and monasteries have an annual revenue of 2 crores of rupees. If you add independent monasteries and temples the figure would be many times over. The Tirupathi temple alone has an annual income of 20 lakhs. In the district of Tirunelveli alone three or four temples have an annual revenue of 2–3 lakhs.

  If you include renowned temples such as those in Chidambaram, Rameswaram and Srirangam this figure will be much higher. Apart from these there are other unaccounted sums. Suppose if one goes from here to Tirupathi to offer two thousand rupees, what are the other expenses involved? He has to take his relatives with him. He has to wear the ritual yellow cloth. He has to go in a procession with drums. He has to collect alms on the streets crying out ‘Govinda, Govinda’. Why does he do all this to make his offering of two thousand rupees? It’s a votive offering. What was the vow? Earlier, when he was sick or distressed, god saved him from disease in answer to his prayers. Therefore he has to now empty the promised sum without a shortfall of a single paisa. And there are other expenses as well. Just think how much money is spent on such things. Imagine how many people from the Himalayas to Kanyakumari make such pilgrimages. Many go not only for votive offerings but for festivals as well. How much is spent on that? I am not saying anything about the faith. I am giving these figures only to ask what is the outcome. What is the use of the money thus spent? Just think who gains from all this. All this money goes into raw rice, green gram, ghee, badam and sugar. Who eats them? …

  Let’s now turn to rituals. How much do we spend on rituals? Our people think that men are made for rituals … Even before we are conceived the rituals begin. A priest is required to conduct the rituals. He has to come and burn the firewood and create smoke and soot. Only if he says that a healthy child will be born do we believe that such a child will be born. We believe that only if we instruct the child in the womb will it become intelligent. If the child trips and falls we have to perform a ritual. To cast the horoscope, to put it in a cradle, to feed it, to tie a nappy, to tonsure, to pierce the ears, to send it to school—rituals have to be performed for each one of these. Even if the child develops a fever a ritual is needed. For every ritual the Brahmin has to be called in. Money has to be coughed up. Even if one falls ill, he says ‘Saturn is turning towards Venus and has to be propitiated.’ Shelling out money is the propitiation. For the ritual of marriage matching [of horoscopes] has to be done. If another man desires the woman, he winks at the priest offering to pay five hundred or a thousand rupees, and the priest says that the match is not right even if it is. He fixes the time and day according to his own whims. He murmurs death mantras or some such thing at the marriage ritual and takes money. In some cases the bride is widowed after ten days of marriage. The horrors inflicted by the mother-in-law are unutterable. There’s no limit to the troubles and misfortune caused by the husband. And if you ask the priest why did this happen even after matching all aspects [of their horoscopes] he says, ‘That’s her karma, what can anybody do about that?’ And if you ask ‘Why then did you compare so many horoscopic attributes, perform rituals and take away money?’ he replies, ‘You are stupid.’ If the couple are childless, he says, ‘You must have a child. Go to Kashi, go to Rameswaram, perform charities, make propitiations or else you will go to hell.’ Partaking food at a childless home is a big sin, he asserts.

  You should have a child even if you have to make your wife cohabit with your brother. What is the secret behind this? Only if a family has at least one heir can the Brahmin perform rituals and fill his stomach. Otherwise his line will perish without anyone to give to him. Finally, does he leave us alone even at the time of death? Like the carts are permitted to pass at tollgates only after the toll is paid, even the dead man has to pay a toll to the Brahmin.

  Let’s now consider religious preceptors and gurus. People gain nothing from these. In the name of the Hindu religion, there are many Sankaracharyas, and Saiva and Vaishnava pontiffs. They go about with their retinue in processions on elephants and camels, camp at a place, advertise through their men about ritual washing of their feet and giving alms, charge a rupee or a pound for their feet to be washed and to let people drink that dirty water, and move out to a different camp after people there are milked dry, doing expiatory rituals and taking a ritual dip with our money for having set eyes on a shudra, another ritual and dip for the shudra’s shadow falling on them, one more ritual and dip for having spoken in [demotic or colloquial] Tamil. Some of them are called ‘loka guru’ [people’s preceptor]. And then there’s the kula guru [family preceptor]. He sends his man to let people know of his coming. The disciples rush to him with family and children and are ordered to fall at his feet.

  Kula guru: How many children do you have?

  Disciple: Three. Two of whom are married.

  Kula guru: Two sons are two units. You are one unit. That makes it three units. Three units make three. Three quarters makes three-quarters. So of three and three-quarters you have remitted only one and a quarter!

  Disciple: Lord, forgive me. But I’ve submitted one and a quarter as a fine in my ignorance because my two sons are not employed.

  Kula guru: But was it not your father who willed that it’s one and a quarter for each unit? Look at this writ.

  And after the money is taken, his man says ‘Swamigal’s [the guru’s] home needs a bit of repair. Come and get it done soon for Swamigal is inconvenienced.’

  On the Rights of Widows

  Ramaswami was an early and consistent advocate of widow remarriage. The excerpt that follows is from an article published in August 1926.4

  Intelligent people will agree that the creator has not endowed men and women with different faculties. Is it possible to find any difference between men and women, setting aside the physical features, in sharpness of intellect or in qualities of courage and heroism? It is not possible at all. There are, in both men and women, intellectuals, courageous people as well as stupid and cowardly people. While this is the case, it is unfair and wicked on the part of the haughty male population to continue to denigrate and enslave the female population.

  Among the atrocities perpetrated by the Hindu male population against women, here we have to consider the treatment meted out to widows alone.

  Even a very old man who is already satiated with worldly pleasures tries to marry again, as soon as his wife is dead. He also selects a very beautiful and graceful maid to be his bride. But, if a girl loses her husband, even be
fore knowing anything of worldly pleasures, she is compelled to close her eyes to everything in the world and die broken-hearted. What a great injustice!

  It is extremely cruel on the part of the Hindu brethren to witness the gradual destruction suffered by one half of their society, without taking any action.

  In the past, it was customary for a woman who lost her husband, to jump into his funeral pyre. When efforts were being taken to stop this practice of self-immolation, called Sati, the orthodox people indulged in a great agitation saying that Hindu religion was in danger and the orthodoxy was getting destroyed. But in course of time, the agitation died out and the practice of Sati also stopped altogether.

  Now, the practice of preventing widows from marrying again is a partial and cruel one. Allowing an old man who has lost his wife to marry again and preventing even a young childless widow from getting married again—this attitude is far from impartial and just.

  It is reasonable to say that the remarriage of a widow interferes with her chastity. Widows lose their chastity and get destroyed only because we don’t get them remarried. Some young widows who seek to satisfy their physical passion become pregnant and seek to destroy the child in the womb. To whom will this sin of infanticide go? It will go only to the parents who compel young widows to continue to be widows and not get remarried. Leaving alone the young women who do not wish to marry again, it is always good to get the other young widows remarried.

  When some friends read such ardent advocacy of widow remarriage, they may wonder if my support of this proposition is only verbal or if I have taken active participation in any widow-remarriage. Just to clear this doubt at least, I wish to record what I have done in practice.

  I belong to the Karnataka Balijavar Community. The women of my community are [not] permitted to marry again, in case they become widows. The family in which I was born was extremely orthodox and rigorously devoted to Vaishnava religious principles. In spite of this family background, from my seventh year onwards I was ridiculing the artificial distinctions between the high and the low in society and also the practice of not eating any item of food touched by others. Not satisfied with this, I broke these bans deliberately and touched anybody and ate food from any house.

  For these reasons, I was prevented from entering our kitchen and excepting my father, nobody used any vessel touched by me, without washing it. Those who were envious of the rigid orthodox practices in our family, derived some comfort from my rebellious attitude. They used to remark, ‘Naicker has been blessed with a son for his orthodoxy and he is a gem of boy!’ From my sixteenth year I attributed to male arrogance the special training given to girl children and the restrictions imposed on them.

  In these circumstances, my sister died, leaving a male child and a girl child. When the girl, whom we called Ammayi, was ten years old, we celebrated her marriage on a grand scale. Sixty days after the marriage, the husband of the young girl died of cholera. He was only 13 years old then. When Ammayi heard about his death, she ran up to me crying bitterly, ‘Uncle, did I ask you to get me married? You have thrown a boulder on my head!’ and fell violently at my feet injuring her head. 600 to 700 men and women who had come there for condolence looked at me and the girl alternately and shed tears profusely. I too cried uncontrollably. And when I lifted the prostrate girl from the ground, I resolved to get her married again.

  A year after the girl came of age, my brother-in-law and I took steps to arrange for her marriage. As soon as this news reached my parents and others, they were upset, thinking that their community was in great danger, and made the parties whom we had contacted withdraw from the talk of marriage alliance. Finally, we selected the brother of my brother-in-law’s second wife. The young man and the girl were secretly taken to Chidambaram, and their marriage was conducted in the temple. I did not go to Chidambaram, simply to keep our relatives off the scent, regarding our plans. I was afraid that if those people got the least suspicion, they would force the bridegroom to withdraw from the alliance. As a result of this remarriage for the girl, there was division among our relatives, communal discipline was enforced for some time and later our relationships became normal.

  The boy and the girl lived together and begot a male child. But, unfortunately, after some time, my niece lost her second husband also. Now, the mother and the son are living together fairly comfortably. Still, in my community there are some widowed girls below 13 years. It is a touching sight to see the parents of those widowed children treating them like untouchables.

  Whenever I think of the lot of widows and when I witness their sufferings, I come to the conclusion that it is the law of nature for the strong to dominate over the weak and ill-treat them. We are tempted to think that when Hindu society came under the domination of some people, there was neither religion nor any kind of discipline in that society, that some kind of discipline arose among them and that the strong shaped that discipline to suit their self-interest. But, whatever may be the reason for the present state of the Hindu society, my firm belief is that the low position given permanently to widows may prove to be the reason for the utter ruin of the Hindu religion and the Hindu society.

  I crave your forgiveness for my frank statement that most of the people who claim to be involved in politics, social welfare, social reformation and the improvement of women’s lot are working only for the improvement of their lives and for building their own reputation, and not for the causes to which they claim to be devoted.

  Further, even if in these spheres there is some improvement, most of those who appear to be working there are actuated not by convictions but only by a love of popularity. Those who speak about the improvement of the status of women keep the women in their own families under ‘purdah’; those who speak about the remarriage of widows, keep the widows in their own families well-guarded and protect their widowhood carefully. There is no connection between what they preach and what they practice. If we try to find the reason for such conduct, we will have to conclude that they instinctively feel that women are slaves, subservient to men and that they must be kept under control. That is why these people treat women like animals. They seem to feel that giving freedom to women is equivalent to committing a very serious crime. The result of this attitude is that there is no independence or freedom to one half of the human race. This wicked enslavement of half of the human race is due to the fact that men are physically a little stronger than women. This principle applies to all spheres of life and the weaker are enslaved by the stronger.

  If slavery has to be abolished in society, the male arrogance and wickedness which lead to the enslavement of women must be abolished first. Only when this is achieved, the tender sprouts of freedom and equality will register growth.

  The Case for Contraception

  Ramaswami supported contraception as a means of enhancing the rights and freedoms of women. This set him apart from other Indian reformers, such as Gandhi, who advocated celibacy as a means of birth control. The excerpts that follow are from an article published in 1930.5

  What I wrote two years ago on contraception shocked many people. But, now it has become an ordinary matter to be talked about everywhere But, there are basic differences between the reasons given by us for contraception and the reasons given by others for this. We say that contraception is necessary for women to gain freedom. Others advocate contraception taking into consideration many problems like the health of women, the health and energy of the children, the poverty of the country and the maintenance of the family property. Many Westerners also support contraception for the same reasons. Our view is not based on these considerations. We recommend that women should stop delivering children altogether because conception stands in the way of women enjoying personal freedom. Further, begetting a number of children prevents men also from being free and independent. This truth will be clear if we listen to talk of men and women when their freedom is hampered.

  When a man is in difficulties, he generally says, ‘If I were a single man with
out encumbrances, I would face any difficulty boldly. But, because I am now the father of four or five children, out of anxiety of looking after them, I have to bow to the words of others.’ So too, when a woman is subjected to suffering by the husband or by some adverse circumstances, she generally says, ‘If I were free, I would get away from this place or drown myself in a river or a tank. My temperament will not allow me to face this kind of suffering even for a minute. But how can I go away, leaving these children to fend for themselves?’ Therefore, it is these children that stand in the way of the freedom of both men and women.

  When people in the world have to work hard and also subordinate themselves, sacrificing personal freedom, just in order to earn a living, if they are burdened with the responsibility of looking after children also, how can they be free and independent? Therefore, conception and delivery of children obstruct the freedom of both men and women. Conception proves to be the wicked enemy of women’s freedom. That is why we say that women must definitely put a stop to delivering children. Conception is the root cause of women becoming sickly, developing signs of old age too soon and meeting with death early. Further, it is this conception that stands in the way of women becoming ascetics, religious leaders and heads of religious institutions and mutts, while men are free to become any of these. That is why we advocate contraception.