Pro-Hindu enthusiasts may glorify the Hindu social system, and wish to deny the social inferiority of the female s.e.x; average Anglo-Indians may be suspected of being unsympathetic in their statements; but the Census figures stand, and demand an explanation. Where are these 37 girls and women out of every 1000--over five million altogether? Common humanity demands an answer of India, for we seem to hear a bitter cry of India"s womanhood. As infants, less cared for; as girls, less educated; married too early; ignorantly tended in their hour; as married ladies, shut out of the world; always more victimised by ignorance and superst.i.tion--in life"s race, India"s women carry a heavy handicap, and 37 out of every 1000 actually succ.u.mb.
In the matter of the social elevation of their s.e.x, it appears to the writer that Anglo-Indian ladies fall far short of what they might do. A fair number do interest themselves in their Indian sisters through the lady missionaries and lady doctors, but first-hand knowledge of the lives of Indian women is very rare indeed. Our late revered Queen"s interest in India and in the womanhood of India is well known, but her feeling about the duty of Anglo-Indian ladies I have never seen recorded. Speaking at Balmoral to an Indian Christian lady, a member of one of the royal families of India--the only lady perhaps who ever conversed in Hindustani with Queen Victoria--she expressed her regret that more Anglo-Indian ladies did not get up the native language, sufficiently at least to let them visit their Indian sisters. Than Christian sisterly sympathy thus expressed, what better link also could there be between two communities which many things seem to be forcing apart?
[Sidenote: Suttee and female infanticide.]
It would be unjust to depreciate the influence of mother and wife among Hindus, and we freely acknowledge that, after custom, the mainstay of the zenana system is concern for the purity of the female members of the household. Saying that, we must now also note that modern ideas of the just rights of the female s.e.x have made little progress in India. Some progress there has been, judging by the standard already applied; for although in 1901 there were only 963 females to every 1000 males, in the year 1891 there were only 958, and in the year 1881 still fewer, namely, 954. But it seems as if in India we had justification of the law of social progress that woman"s rights will not be recognised until man"s have been. The brotherhood of man must be established before men recognise that sister women too have rights. Translating into Indian terms, and without professing to have given positive proof--caste feeling must still further decay before the position of women becomes much improved. At all events, judging by the past, it almost seems to have been necessary for the Legislature to intervene to secure any progress for the s.e.x and give a foothold to the new ideas, glaringly unfair to the s.e.x as the old ideas were. Thus in 1870 female infanticide, earlier prohibited in single provinces, was put down by law throughout India; although there are localities still in which the small proportion of female children justifies the belief that female infanticide is not extinct.[23] Nevertheless, let the progress of the new ideas regarding women be noted; we compare the hesitating _inference_ of the practice of female infanticide in the _Indian Census Report_ of 1901 with the voluminous evidence in the two volumes of Parliamentary Papers on Infanticide in India published in 1824 and 1828.
Kathiawar and Cutch, Baroda and Rajputana, round Benares and parts of Oude and Madras were the localities particularly infected with the barbarous custom in the first quarter of the century. But to return to the recognition of the rights of women in legislative enactments. In 1829 an Act of the Supreme Government in Bengal made Suttee or the burning of a widow upon the dead husband"s pyre an offence for all concerned. In 1830 similar Acts were pa.s.sed by the Governments of Madras and Bombay, and the abolition of Suttee is now universally approved.[24]
Such is the educative influence of a good law. Perhaps a would-be patriot may yet occasionally be heard so belauding the devotion of the widows who burned themselves that his praise is tantamount to a lament over the abolition of Suttee. But the general sentiment has been completely changed since the first quarter of the nineteenth century, when the Missionaries and some outstanding Indians like the Bengali reformer Rammohan Roy agitated for the abolition of Suttee, and the Government, convinced, still hesitated to put down a custom so generally approved. In these changed times it will hardly be believed that Rammohan Roy only ventured to argue against any form of compulsion being put upon the widow, and that the orthodox champions of the practice appealed against the abolition not only to the Governor-General, but also to the King in Council,--the pet.i.tion having been heard in the House of Lords in 1832. But once more to return to the emanc.i.p.ation of women by Acts of the Legislature. By another Act, in 1856, the Indian Government abolished the legal restrictions to widow marriage. Still another Act, in 1891, forbade cohabitation before the age of twelve; and although fiercely opposed in the native press and in ma.s.s meetings, the Act, which expressed the views of many educated Hindus, is now apparently acquiesced in by all, and must be educating the community into a new idea of marriage.
In five aspects the social inferiority of the female s.e.x is still apparent--namely, in the illiteracy of females, in marriage before womanhood, in polygamy, in the seclusion of women, and in the prohibition of the marriage of widows. Excepting the last, no one of these customs is imposed by caste, nor is the last even in every caste.
[Sidenote: Their lack of education.]
The inferior position still a.s.signed to women in Indian society can best be shown in figures. The indifference to their education is manifest when for all India, rich and poor, European and native, in 1901, there were fourteen times as many men as women who could read and write. Only one female in 144 was educated to that extent, and the movement for female education has practically been at a stand-still for some years, in spite of the increase of native Christians, Brahmas, and [=A]ryas, who all advocate the education of girls, and in spite of fostering by Governments and missionaries. Taking _British_ India by itself, there was a higher proportion of educated females, as we should of course expect, although that only makes the proportion less elsewhere. In British India, about 1 in 100 [9 per 1000] could read and write; but even there, less than 1 per cent. The quickening of ideas in cities is apparent. In the cities there are proportionally more than twice as many educated females as in the whole country.
[Sidenote: Premature marriage.]
The injustice done to the s.e.x by marriage before womanhood is apparent from another paragraph of the same Report, showing that out of every 1000 girls of the age of 10 or under, 58 are already married, as against 22 boys. Taking Hindus alone, the number of married girls of 10 years of age or under is 70 per 1000 as against 28 married boys. Even allowing for those provinces where cohabitation is delayed, these figures mean in other provinces a cruel wrong to the children of the weaker s.e.x, a doubly cruel wrong when to premature marriage may be added girl widowhood. The _Census Report_ declares that in the lower strata of Hindu society there has been a rapid extension of child marriage and prohibition of the marriage of widows within the last two or three generations, although at the low age of 10, fewer girls are reported married than in 1881.[25] That is to say, the bad example of the higher castes is lowering the marriage age in the humble castes, while modern influences are diminishing the number of marriages of mere children,--we can see both forces in operation. Here again Indian Christians, Br[=a]hmas, and [=A]ryas are at one in setting a better example and advocating reform. The educative Act of 1891 for British India has also been noted above. Native States too are following up. In Rajputana, through the influence of the Agent of the Governor-General, Colonel Walter, an a.s.sociation was formed in 1888 which fixed the marriage age for two of the chief castes at eighteen for the bridegroom and fourteen for the bride. In the Native State of Baroda, in the extreme West of India, a new Marriage Act has just been pa.s.sed by the enlightened ruler [1904]. In Baroda, except in special cases, the minimum marriage age of girls is henceforward to be twelve, and of the bridegrooms sixteen.
Exceptional cases had to be provided for, because of the custom in certain communities within the state of Baroda to celebrate marriages only once every twelve years, female infants and girls of ten and twelve being then "happily despatched" together. With that custom and with the new Act together, it would necessarily happen that girls of eleven at the general marrying time would have to wait twelve years more, or until their twenty-third year. Since in some parts of India there is a saying about women "Old at twenty," that delay would not do. All educated young men may be said to hold the new ideas in these marriage matters.
Students now regard it with regret and some sense of a grievance when their guardians have married them in their school or college years. The only alleviation to their minds is when the dowry which they bring into the family at their marriage helps to endow a sister who has reached the marriage age, or to educate a brother or pay off the family debts. Among educated people too, the idea that the other world is closed to bachelors and childless men has died, although a daughter unmarried after the age of p.u.b.erty is still a stigma on the family. Do British readers realise that in an Indian novel of the middle and upper cla.s.ses there can hardly be a bride older than twelve; there can be no love story of the long wooing and waiting of the lovers?
[Sidenote: Polygamy.]
As regards polygamy, the Census shows 1011 married women for every 1000 married men, so that apparently not more than 11 married men in every 1000 are polygamists. But polygamy is still an Indian inst.i.tution, in the sense that it is at the option of any man to have more than one wife; in the matter of marriage, the rights of man alone are regarded.
All over India, however, among the educated cla.s.ses, Mahomedans excepted, public opinion is now requiring a justification for a second marriage, as, for example, the barrenness, insanity, infirmity, or misconduct of the first spouse. The temptation of a second dowry is still, however, operative with men of certain high castes in which bridegrooms require to be paid for. The writer well remembers the pitiful comic tale of a struggling brahman student of Bengal, whose home had been made unhappy by the advent of two stepmothers in succession alongside of his own mother. The young man did not blame his father, for his father disapproved of polygamy, and was a polygamist only because he could not help himself. It had come about in an evil hour when he was desperate for a dowry for his eldest daughter, now come of marriageable age. He had listened to the village money-lender"s advice that he might take a second wife himself and transfer to the daughter the dowry that the second wife would bring. Then in like manner the lapse of time had brought a second daughter to the marriage age, the necessity for another dowry, and a third mother into the student"s home. The poor fellow himself was married too, and one could not resist the conjecture that _his_ marriage was another sacrifice for the family, and that his marriage had saved his father from bringing home yet another stepmother.
The redeeming feature of the story--the strength of Indian family ties--let us not be blind to.
Polygamy in India is certainly now hiding itself. A couple of generations ago it was practised wholesale by the kulin brahmans of Bengal. Several middle-aged kulins are known to have had more than 100 wives, and to have spent their lives in a round of visits to their numerous fathers-in-law. For each wife they had received a handsome bridegroom-price. So declares the last _Census Report_. Except among Indian Mahomedans, who have the sanction of the Koran and the example of the Prophet himself, there are now few upholders of polygamy in India.
In a meeting of educated gentlemen in Calcutta a Mahomedan lately protested against some pa.s.sing condemnatory reference to polygamy, on the ground that in a general meeting he expected that his religion would be free from attack. A learned Mahomedan judge, on the other hand, writes that among Indian Mahomedans "the feeling against polygamy is becoming a strong social if not a moral conviction." "Ninety-five out of every 100 are either by conviction or necessity monogamists." "It has become customary," he tells us, "to insert in the marriage deed a clause by which the intending husband formally renounces his supposed right to contract a second union."[26]
[Sidenote: Seclusion of women.]
With regard to the seclusion of women, at some points the custom seems to be slowly yielding to Western ideas, although it is still practically true that Indian ladies are never seen in society and in the streets of Indian cities.[27] A different evolution, however, is still more manifest at this present time. It almost seems as if at first modern life were to bend to the custom of the seclusion of women rather than bend the custom to itself. The Lady Dufferin a.s.sociation for Medical Aid to Indian Women is bringing trained medical women _into_ the zenanas and harems, and every year is also seeing a larger number of Indian Christian and Br[=a]hma ladies set up as independent pract.i.tioners, able to treat patients _within_ the women"s quarters. In the year 1905 a lady lawyer, Miss Cornelia Sorabjee, a Pa.r.s.ee Christian lady, was appointed by the Government of Bengal to be a legal adviser to the Bengal Court of _Wards_, or landowning minors. Zenana or harem ladies, e.g. the widowed mothers of the minors, would thus be able to consult a trained lawyer at first hand _within_ the zenana or harem. Missionaries are discussing the propriety of authorising certain Christian women to baptize women converts _within_ the zenanas.[28] Long ago missions organised zenana schools, and now native a.s.sociations have begun to follow in their steps. In all Indian Christian churches, women of course are present at public worship, but they always sit _apart_ from the men, a segregation even more strictly followed by the Br[=a]hma Sam[=a]j or Indian Theistic a.s.sociation. For the sake of zenana women, the Indian Museum in Calcutta is closed one day each week to the male s.e.x, and in some native theatres there is a ladies gallery in which ladies may see and not be seen behind a curtain of thin lawn. Movement even towards a compromise, it is good to observe.
[Sidenote: Prohibition of the marriage of widows.]
The prohibition of the marriage of widows has already been referred to as bound up with caste ideas of marriage and with social standing, and as the most deeply rooted part of the social inferiority of women. By some at least the injustice has been acknowledged since many years. At Calcutta, between 1840 and 1850, Babu Mati Lal Seal promised Rs10,000 to any Hindu, poor or rich, who would marry a widow of his own faith, but no one came forward.[29] The late Pandit Iswar Chander Vidyasagar of Calcutta has also already been mentioned as a champion of the widow"s rights. But though legalised in 1856, the cases of re-marriage among the higher castes of Hindus in any year can still be counted on the fingers of one hand. The _Report of the Census of India_, 1901, takes a gloomy view regarding the province of Bengal, the most forward in many respects, but the most backward in respect of child-marriage and prohibition of the marriage of widows. The latter custom, we are told, "shows signs of extending itself far beyond its present limits, and finally of suppressing widow marriage throughout the entire Hindu community of Bengal."[30] The actual number of widows in all India in 1901 was 25,891,936, or about 2 out of every 11 of the female population, more than twice the proportion [1 in 13] in Great Britain.
As in the matters of the repudiation of caste and the raising of the marriage age, the three new religious bodies, namely, the Indian Christians, the Brahmas, and the [=A]ryas, stand side by side for the right of the widow.
CHAPTER VI
THE TERMS WE EMPLOY
"Precise ideas and precisely defined words are the wealth and the currency of the mind."
--Introduction to _The Pilgrim"s Progress,_ Macmillan"s Edition.
[Sidenote: No _Indian_ race or religion.]
Experience teaches the necessity of explaining to Western readers certain terms which even long residence in India often fails to make clear to Anglo-Indians. Let it be remembered then that the terms _India, Indian_, have only a geographical reference: they do not signify any particular race or religion. India is the great triangular continent bounded on the south-west and south-east by the sea, and shut in on the north by the Himalayan Mountains. Self-contained though it be, and easily thought of as a geographical unit, we must not think of India as a racial, linguistic, or religious unit. We may much more correctly speak of _the_ European race, language, or religion, than of _the_ Indian.
[Sidenote: A Hindu religion.]
The term _Hindu_ refers to one of the Indian religions, the religion of the great majority no doubt. It is not now a national or geographical term. Practically every Hindu is an Indian, and almost necessarily must be so, but every Indian is not a Hindu. There are Indian Mahomedans, sixty-two million of them; Indian Buddhists, a few--the great majority of the Buddhists in the "Indian Empire" being in Burmah, not in India proper; there are Indian Christians, about three million in number; and there are Indian Pa.r.s.ees. A Hindu is the man who professes Hinduism.[31]
[Sidenote: Where is Hindustan?]
_Hindustan_, or the land of the Hindus, is a term that never had any geographical definiteness. In the mouths of Indians it meant the central portion of the plain of North India; in English writers of half a century ago it was often used when all India was meant. In exact writing of the present time, the term is practically obsolete.
[Sidenote: Who speak Hindustani?]
Unfortunately for clearness, the term _Hindustani_ not only survives, but survives in a variety of significations. The word is an adjective, _pertaining to Hindustan_, and in English it has become the name either of the people of Hindustan or of their language. It is in the latter sense that the name is particularly confusing. The way out of the difficulty lies in first a.s.sociating _Hindustani_ clearly with the central region of Hindustan, the country to the north-east of Agra and Delhi. These were the old imperial capitals, be it remembered. Then from that centre, the Hindustani language spread--a central, imperial, Persianised language not necessarily superseding the other vernaculars--wherever the authority of the empire went. Thus throughout India, Hindustani became a _lingua franca_, the imperial language. In the Moghul Empire of Northern India it was exactly what "King"s English"
was in the Anglo-Norman kingdom in England in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. French was the language of the Anglo-Norman court of London, as Persian of the court of Delhi or Agra; the Frenchified King"s English was the court form of the vernacular in England, as the Persianised Hindustani in North India. It was this _lingua franca_ that Europeans in India set themselves to acquire.
[Sidenote: Urdu literature]
Continuing the English parallel--the Hindustani of Delhi, the capital, Persianised as the English of London was Frenchified, became the recognised literary medium for North India. The special name _Urdu_, however, has now superseded the term _Hindustani_, when we think of the language as a literary medium. _Urdu_ is the name for literary Hindustani; in the Calcutta University Calendar, for example, the name _Hindustani_ never occurs.
[Sidenote: Hindi language and literature]
About the beginning of the nineteenth century another dialect of Hindustani, called _Hindi_, also gained a literary standing. It contains much less of Persian than Urdu does, leaning rather to Sanscrit; it is written in the deva-nagari or Sanscrit character; is a.s.sociated with Hindus and with the eastern half of Hindustan; whereas Urdu is written in the Persian character, and is a.s.sociated with Mahomedans and the western half of Hindustan.[32]
[Sidenote: The Brahmans]
Another series of terms are likewise a puzzle to the uninitiated. To Westerns, the _brahmans_[33] are best known as the priests of the Hindus; more correctly, however, the name _brahman_ signifies not the performer of priestly duties, but the caste that possesses a monopoly of the performance. The brahman caste is the Hindu _Tribe of Levi_. Every accepted Hindu priest is a brahman, although it is far from being the case that every brahman is a priest. As a matter of fact, at the Census of 1901 it was found that the great majority of brahmans have turned aside from their traditional calling. In Bengal proper, only about 16 per cent. of the brahmans were following priestly pursuits; in the Madras Presidency, 11.4 per cent.; and in the Bombay Presidency, 22 per cent.
[Sidenote: Brahmanism.]
_Brahmanism_ is being employed by a number of recent writers in place of the older _Hinduism_. Sir Alfred Lyall uses _Brahmanism_ in that sense; likewise Professor Menzies in his recent book, _Brahmanism and Buddhism_. Sir Alfred Lyall"s employment of the term _Brahmanism_ rather than _Hinduism_, is in keeping with his description of Hinduism, which he defines as the congeries of diverse local beliefs and practices that are held together by the employment of brahmans as priests. The description is a true one; the term Brahmanism represents what is common to the Hindu castes and sects; it is their greatest common measure, as it were. But yet the fact remains that _Hindus_ speak of themselves as such, not as _Brahmanists_, and it is hopeless to try to supersede a current name. Sir M. Monier Williams employs the term _Brahmanism_ in a more limited and more legitimate sense. Dividing the history of the Hindu religion into three periods, he calls them the stages of Vedism, Brahmanism, and Hinduism respectively. The first is the period of the Vedas, or earliest sacred books; the second, of the Brahman philosophy, fundamentally pantheistic; the third is the period of "a confused tangle of divine personalities and incarnations." Sir M. Monier Williams"
standard work on the religion of the Hindus is "_Brahmanism and Hinduism."_ "Hinduism," he tells us, "is Brahmanism modified by the creeds and superst.i.tions of Buddhists and non-Aryans of all kinds."
[Sidenote: Brahm[=a], Brahma.]
[Sidenote: Br[=a]hmas]
We are not done with this confusing set of terms. _Brahm[=a]_ is the first person of the Hindu divine triad--the Creator--who along with the other two persons of the triad, has proceeded from a divine essence, _Brahma_ or _Brahm_. Brahma is G.o.dhead or Deity: Brahm[=a], is _a_ Deity, a divine _person_ who has emanated from the G.o.dhead, Brahma.
_Br[=a]hmas_ or theists, believers in Brahma, are a religious body that originated in Bengal in the nineteenth century. Repudiating caste, idolatry, and transmigration, they are necessarily cut off from Hinduism. The body is called the Br[=a]hma Sam[=a]j, that is, the Theistic a.s.sociation. Enough for the present; in their respective places these distinctions can be more fully gone into.
CHAPTER VII
NEW POLITICAL IDEAS