Book Review: Enslaved Daughters by Sudhir Chandra
The scriptures forbid the sacrifice of female animals, but in the case of human beings sacrificing females gives the greatest satisfaction. - Rabindranath Tagore, Chaturanga
 |
| By Mahima Kumari |
WHY THE BOOK: Embarking on an exploration of Sudhir Chandra's "Enslaved Daughters," my choice to unearth historical nuances is propelled by a poignant juxtaposition with contemporary judgments on age of consent and the contentious terrain of marital rape. In a world where progress seems palpable, the underlying intricacies of age-based consent merit scrutiny. Consider the journey from 10 to 18 - a span apparently granted to women by the benevolence of societal norms. Yet, in this stride toward modernity, statistical realities paint a compelling portrait. The World Health Organization reveals that globally, girls as young as 11 commence menstruation, and by the age of 13, they can bear a child. How then, they argue, does the arbitrary age of 18 emerge as the threshold of maturity? The shift in perspective leads us to the realm of marital rape, a term that evokes societal upheaval. Skepticism surrounds this modern construct as concerns about misuse against innocent husbands arise. Amidst these debates, it's pertinent to note that, according to national crime data, cases of marital rape are often underreported due to the private nature of such incidents. Hence, as we confront the shadows of history, we are compelled to ask: do our contemporary convictions truly signify progress, or are they veiled by unexplored complexities and paradoxes?
INTRODUCTION: Diving into its pages, we encounter a riveting tale from colonial India, a narrative centered around a remarkable event. At the heart of this story stands Rukhmabai, a courageous twenty-two-year-old who, in an act of inspired defiance, refused to acquiesce to a marriage imposed upon her at the tender age of eleven. This act challenged the prevailing notion that the sacred institution of marriage, deemed sacrosanct and indissoluble, required no consent from the spouses—especially not from the bride, often considered a subject of a gift rather than an active participant in the marital contract. Rukhmabai's resistance posed a threat to the established order of male domination, as she boldly rejected the deeply ingrained belief in women's inferiority. As we navigate through the pages, we encounter a complex tapestry of reformist discourse in colonial India. Amidst this discourse, the work unveils the intricate interplay between rebels like Ramabai and Rukhmabai and the alternative reformist narrative. It becomes evident that neither the rebels nor the reformist discourse was entirely free from the influence of authoritative discourses, notably the imperialist discourse, which, despite its compromises, was often seen—and continues to be—as a force of emancipation. The story takes an intriguing turn as we witness Ramabai's impassioned critique of justice, an indictment that, despite its rhetorical nature, remains tethered to a faith in the providentiality of British rule, revealing the complex layers of belief and dissent in the colonial landscape.
NARRATIVE OVERVIEW: Eleven years after her ‘great liking for study’ was abruptly interrupted in her nuptial year, she wrote, ”Without the least fault of mine I am doomed to seclusion;”
Rukhmabai, the daughter of Jayantibai, faced the extraordinary circumstances of an arranged marriage when she was only eleven years old. A complex narrative unfolds as Rukhmabai, empowered by her property rights and a desire for education, navigates the challenges of married life. Her aversion to her husband, Dadaji, intensified as he embraced a reckless lifestyle. A pivotal moment arose when Rukhmabai, possibly decided to end the marriage.
Rukhmabai's Battle for Autonomy
Rukhmabai's story unfolds in colonial India, where she defies societal norms by refusing a marriage imposed at eleven. Her property independence and determination clash with expectations. Averse to her husband's reckless lifestyle, she resolves to end the union. Legal battles ensue when Dadaji seeks her return, revealing the complexities of societal norms and personal autonomy. Amid anonymous letters and legal manoeuvres, Rukhmabai staunchly defends her decision, challenging conventions and advocating for her right to choose. The narrative sheds light not only on a legal struggle but also on Rukhmabai's unwavering journey for self-determination against oppressive norms.
Defying Societal Norms: Rukhmabai's Stand and Legal Turmoil
Rukhmabai's rebellion against societal norms reached a pivotal moment as she decided to sever ties with her husband, Dadaji. In private letters and a public response, she expressed a longstanding disdain for married life since childhood. This marked a crucial juncture, as her defiance escalated during the legal battle, culminating in a moment of martyrdom where she chose maximum penalty over complying with the judge's verdict. Dr. Sakharam, Rukhmabai’s stepfather, facing internal and external pressures, grappled with suspicions about his intentions towards Rukhmabai's property. The suit, a coercive tactic by Dadaji, risked societal disgrace for Sakharam. Meanwhile, influential figures like Behramji Malabari and Henry Curwen supported Rukhmabai, even as she faced criticism.
The legal proceedings, initiated by Dadaji, diverged from the norm. This case, beyond a typical suit, gained moral significance. Justice Pinhey's verdict questioned the cruelty of compelling a young lady to cohabit against her will, elevating the case beyond a private dispute. Notably, Rukhmabai, writing under the pseudonym 'A Hindu Lady,' contributed letters to the Times of India. These letters, condemned by Hindu orthodoxy, added a compelling voice to the public discourse on women's rights, making Rukhmabai's story emblematic of a broader movement for autonomy and justice.
Media Uproar and Gendered Strife: Rukhmabai’s Legal Battle
Dadaji Bhikaji v. Rukhmabai suit ignited a fiery debate, symbolising not just a legal dispute but a clash of gendered socio-cultural positions. The extensively covered case by The Times of India and similar Anglo-Indian papers became a battlefield where the wife and husband, once anonymous litigants, now represented opposing gendered roles accentuated by their private dispute.
Justice Pinhey’s verdict, lauding Rukhmabai’s resilience, resonated within Anglo-Indian circles as a triumph of English principles over traditional sensibilities. The persistent belief in a common Indian/Hindu reaction of hostility to the verdict reflected gendered assumptions. The Bombay Chronicle foresaw a battle with tremendous consequences for Hindu social institutions, indicating the gendered stakes involved.
Notable Critics like the Native Opinion, denounced Pinhey’s judgement as revolutionary and subversive of longstanding societal principles, emphasising its impact on Hindu women. The publication argued that the decision threatened the right to maintenance for wives and widows, disproportionately affecting women in traditional gender roles. Representing Hindu orthodoxy, the Native Opinion warned against invalidating marriages contracted in non-age, dismissing reformers as irresponsible. The gendered undertone was clear, as the critique aimed at marginalising those advocating for change and maintaining the status quo of patriarchal norms.
Disconcerted critics, upon discovering Rukhmabai’s identity as ‘A Hindu Lady,’ feared extra public sympathy for the victim. The case, now a cultural battleground, not only highlighted a clash of traditional values and evolving perspectives but also revealed the intricate gender dynamics underlying the broader societal discourse.
Gender Battles in Rukhmabai’s Case
In the middle of Rukhmabai’s legal tangle, her opponents wanted to use the law against her. Behramji Malabari hoped that no Englishman would lead her into a situation worse than a slaughterhouse, stressing the potential harm in the legal proceedings.
Dewan Bahadur Raghunath Rao, a traditional Hindu, challenged the usual idea of Hindu marriage. Even before Rukhmabai’s case got big, he argued that both spouses’ agreement and consummation was necessary for a valid Hindu marriage, shaking up traditional views. Malabari, always up for arguments supporting change, used this in Rukhmabai’s defence. Rao’s stance meant more coming from an orthodox Hindu, making it tougher to ignore.
Raghunath Rao said that agreement and consummation were crucial in Hindu marriage contracts, countering the idea that Pinhey had overlooked . Rao’s view gave a more detailed understanding, challenging old ideas about conjugal rights and bringing in a fairer interpretation.
In the middle of all the heated arguments and passionate debates about the case, an appeal against Pinhey’s decision happened in the Bombay High Court. Rukhmabai’s journey wasn’t just a legal fight but a gendered struggle against deep-rooted norms and changing ideas about Hindu marriage.
Legal Rollercoaster: The Rukhmabai Saga Continues
In the twists of Rukhmabai’s legal journey, the appeal against Pinhey’s judgement unfolded in March 1886. Dadaji brought in Macpherson, a lawyer who challenged Pinhey’s view, claiming it rested on fallacies, especially emphasising that consummation wasn’t vital in Hindu marriages. On the other side, Rukhmabai stuck with Latham, her legal representative.
This legal clash revealed the imperial dilemma: enforcing native laws while considering recent English reforms. The judges grappled with maintaining a delicate balance. Rukhmabai feared the reinforcement of harsh practices against wives, sensing that British Courts wouldn’t oppose Hindu law. As the legal tussle continued, Rukhmabai’s position as a woman under Hindu norms came into light . Dadaji’s argument that the wife is part of the husband’s body emphasised the erasure of the woman’s individuality. The reversal of Pinhey’s decree raised concerns about the British courts adhering too closely to native traditions.
In the final leg of the legal battle in the Bombay High Court, Rukhmabai faced a tougher stance. The Appellate Court’s judgement boosted Dadaji’s side, and, under Justice Farran, Rukhmabai had to confront an order to return to Dadaji’s house. Her counsel, now led by maintained a moral high ground, refusing to delve into technicalities.
Rukhmabai, making a bold stand, declared her unwillingness to live with Dadaji. Macpherson, representing Dadaji’s side, sought to confirm the impression that ‘Mr Justice Pinhey said he did not like the idea of compelling this young lady to go to her husband as the marriage had not been consummated.’ The court, acknowledging the suit’s nature, ordered Rukhmabai to decide on her return within a month. Despite her defiance, she had to bear the costs, underlining the complexities of her fight against deeply ingrained societal norms.
Navigating Contrasting Tides: Rukhmabai’s Complex Battle in Public Opinion
The opposition to Rukhmabai was diverse, conveying different messages to various groups simultaneously. This flexibility frustrated some of her supporters. Telang, initially part of the Rukhmabai Defence Committee, later disagreed with its inclination to challenge child marriage’s validity. He submitted a memorandum, urging the Committee not to contest court jurisdiction in Hindu cases, emphasising restraint in its objectives to avoid fuelling opposition. In the English press, The Times mirrored a civilizational contrast, highlighting English judges’ humanitarianism against perceived Hindu law perversity. British sentiments were divided, with The Times of India shifting from supporting Pinhey’s verdict to labelling it as unsound law, dismissing the critique as “somewhat too feminine.”
THE ANTI-CLIMAX: RUKHMABAI’S DEFIANT STAND AND AN UNEXPECTED COMPROMISE: Rukhmabai’s resistance against colonial law and societal norms took centre stage in Justice Farran’s court, elevating her challenge to new heights. Her open revolt against both colonial legal authority and indigenous social norms affirmed her autonomy and moral convictions. This defiance left the colonial establishment and organised orthodoxy struggling to respond effectively.
As her principled stand seemed destined for further litigation, a surprising turn of events transformed her apparent defeat into an unexpected triumph. Rukhmabai’s bold submission in Farran’s court, indicating her willingness to face the consequences rather than comply with an unfavourable decree, forced her detractors to reconsider their stance. This gesture not only counselled caution among her opponents but also spurred the bureaucracy into urgent activity.
The British decision to import English legal practices, including imprisonment to enforce conjugal rights, proved an error in the context of Indian society. Proposed legislation recommended applying English law, including divorce provisions, in its entirety in India. The ensuing opposition from Hindu orthodoxy, particularly concerning imprisonment, hinted at the need for a compromise.
In July 1888, an unexpected and somewhat anticlimactic resolution concluded the historic Rukhmabai case. Dadaji accepted a sum of two thousand rupees from Rukhmabai, considering it a settlement of all costs, and agreed not to execute the decree against her. While this conclusion mirrored the case’s beginnings as a private marital dispute, the behind-the-scenes negotiations and influential mediators involved demonstrated its broader societal implications.
Despite lingering self-doubt, Rukhmabai deemed the compromise justifiable, provided its terms were honourable. Offering two thousand rupees to settle the costs of a costly suit was not viewed as surrender but rather as a strategic move to secure her freedom. This resolution, although not an ideal victory, allowed Rukhmabai to pursue her medical studies in England, while Dadaji moved on with a new wife.
The compromise’s terms were carefully orchestrated, with both parties attempting to save face by creating the impression that it had been initiated by the other. This delicate dance extended beyond the courtroom, involving attempts by both reformers and orthodox groups to control the narrative surrounding the case.
The compromise not only eased the urgency for legislative action but also altered the perception of the issues at stake. With the spectre of Rukhmabai’s imprisonment removed, the need for legislation seemed less pressing. The Home Department, now viewing the matter differently, proposed the abolition of imprisonment as a means of enforcing conjugal rights, emphasizing that the government was not obligated to enforce Hindu marriage laws contrary to modern ideas.
However, subsequent attempts to enact this change faced opposition, underscoring the deeply ingrained perspectives on women’s roles in society. Even as the Rukhmabai case concluded, the broader conversation about legal and societal expectations continued, revealing the complexity of navigating traditional norms and evolving ideas in colonial India.
AFTERMATH OF RUKHMABAI: The defeat of Mehta’s motion had profound implications, sparking a multifaceted response. While those fearing Rukhmabai’s cause as a threat to Indian domesticity felt relieved, the reaction wasn’t a triumphant declaration against reform. Instead, it often took a conservative stance, advocating patience for societal readiness.
Mehta’s motion, aimed at legislative changes, faced nuanced support. Some sympathetic to it opposed the motion, citing concerns that religious fanaticism might obstruct progress. The defeat marked the end of a decade of hope for women’s rights advocates, signalling a resurgence of conservative orthodoxy.
The Indian Spectator criticised the government’s inconsistent behaviour, pointing out the incongruity of championing non-interference while ignoring women’s rights. The defeat fuelled frustration among reformers, prompting a renewed struggle for empowering women. Trust in colonial officials diminished, emphasising the need for agitation.
The connection with English opinion remained pivotal in influencing change. The Age of Consent Act’s passage highlighted the role of English opinion, suggesting that pressure from England would be crucial in compelling legislative amendments. Reformist leaders recognized the influence of external scrutiny on colonial policies.
However, the aftermath prompted some to rethink the presumed progressive role of colonial intervention. The Indian Spectator questioned whether the rigid pressure of British rule had hindered the spontaneous growth within Hindu society.
In essence, Mehta’s motion, defeated yet symbolising a pivotal struggle, exemplified the intricate interplay between colonial ideologies, traditional values, and the evolving consciousness of Indian society.
Note: Mehta's motion refers to a legislative proposal presented by Dinshaw Wacha Mehta, a member of the Bombay Legislative Council, in 1895. The motion aimed to amend Section 260 of the Indian Penal Code, specifically addressing issues related to the restitution of conjugal rights. Section 260 allowed for the imprisonment of spouses who refused to comply with court orders to cohabit.
Mehta's motion sought to modify this provision, likely advocating for more lenient measures or a reconsideration of the legal approach to enforcing conjugal rights. However, the motion faced defeat, impacting the trajectory of legal reforms and discussions on women's rights in colonial India. The defeat of Mehta's motion marked a significant moment in the complex landscape of social reform, colonial attitudes, and gender dynamics during that period.
CONCLUSION: The book offers a profound analysis of the Rukhmabai case, unravelling complex themes of societal transformation, gender dynamics, and the interplay between colonial and indigenous forces. It underscores the enduring significance of individual agency, as demonstrated by Rukhmabai's resistance. The study delves into the intricate web of social, legal, and political factors, providing valuable insights into the challenges and opportunities that emerged during this pivotal period. Ultimately, it prompts readers to contemplate the broader implications of the case for the evolving dynamics of law, tradition, and societal progress. Noteworthy are the orthodox Hindus who, in a surprising twist, radicalized orthodoxy, alongside those who, intending to embrace reform, inadvertently perpetuated anti-reformist ideologies.
Comments
Post a Comment