“THE SARADA ACT 1929“
Sastri deeply respected the śāstra-s and Hindu traditions but at the same time he also insisted that tradition must be intelligently interpreted in the light of contemporary science and modern needs. In taking this stand, the Mylaporean Brahmin-liberal-humanist clearly stood on the side of the “anti-Sanatanist Hindu Reformers” of his times … and yes, those perhaps of the present day, too, who are in the forefront as champions of Women’s Rights amongst several other ‘so-called “neo-liberal” causes.
D.V.Gundappa (DVG), Sastri’s biographer remembered Sastri’s philosophical approach to the Hindu Sastras, classed under the overarching civilisational umbrella called Sanatana Dharma, as being singular. In a talk at the Kannada Sahitya Parishat, Bangalore, Sastri had said, DVG wrote, that many scholars merely parroted old texts without adapting doctrines to the present context. The world was changing, Sastri averred, with new knowledge, and dharma must evolve accordingly:
“The traditional scholars must keep in mind the current circumstances and the needs of the time…the perspective of man has been changing and such changes are neither artificial nor do they go against sathya and dharma.”
Sastri explained Sanātana Dharma as being manifold ways people can approach the Divine and emphasized individual spiritual growth and the pursuit of truth:
“The essence of Indian religion is to aim at growing and living so that we can grow out of ignorance which veils self-knowledge from our life and become aware of the Divinity within us.“
Sastri also stood for a Hinduism that was inclusive and universal, rejecting sectarianism or narrow religious identity. He saw Hinduism as a living tradition interacting with other faiths and modern ideals, not rigid dogma:
“The Hindu civilization, rooted in Sanātana Dharma, has constantly been enriched by brahma and safeguarded by kṣāttra.“
***********
The way Sastri has defined Sanatana Dharma above is not just interesting … it is quite extraordinary indeed!
Sastri invoked two very significant Sanskrit terms : “brahma” and “kshaattra” which to the Hindu mind should immediately evoke the idea of “vita contemplativa” and “vita activa” which may be prima facie Aristotelian terms, but then refer actually to two of Vedic civilisational and cultural aspirations of India’s ancient history.
“Vita contemplativa” means the “contemplative way of life.” It is the life focused on contemplation, meditation, and intellectual or spiritual reflection. It aims at an inner, spiritual perfection and union with the divine or ultimate truth. This typically is the way of true “braahmanic living” — but shorn of all casteist connotations.
“Vita activa” means the “active way of life.” This path centers on active engagement in the world through moral virtues, social and economic duties, military work, and practical actions. It involves the exercise of honour, prudence, justice, fortitude, temperance and addresses the external, secular activities of life such as labor, work, and political/social action for public good. In other words, this is the true ideal of “kshaattra” or the “kshatriya way of life” — again with no casteist connotation attached to the word at all.
Sastri’s approach to Sanatana Dharma was thus both Spiritual and Secular at the same time. He viewed Hindu religion, tenets, traditions and institutions as being in essence both brahma and kshaatra representing the harmony of India’s spiritual and social needs.
It was precisely this enlightened approach to Hindu orthodox religious traditions that convinced Srinivasa Sastri that in matters where Reform was possible, reasonable and imperative — for the betterment of Hindu society at large — Change should not be anathema to him.
It was Sastri’s conviction about such Change which made him a defender of the Sarada Act, a legislation which he had no doubt would bring not only justice but also great dignity to the status of all Hindu women in India. In the defense of the Sarada Act, which went, some people said, against the grain of Hindu Sastra and law, and had angered if not outraged Hindu religious and traditional Brahmin pontiffs such as the Sankaracharya of Sri Sringeri Mutt, Srinivasa Sastri was willing and ready to take on the formidable orthodoxy. But he went about doing so — as is obvious from the narratives below — in his typically “inoffensive“, low-key, diplomatic, scholarly and most persuasive way.
***********
In the matter of Women’s Rights and social dignity for women, it is quite evident that Sastri’s convictions were deeply influenced by the Valmiki Ramayana’s portrayal of the agony and humiliations that Sita had to undergo — in the heart-rending episodes in the Yuddha Kandam and Uttara Kandam wherein Rama is seen making it his Dharmic duty to demand proof from her of innocence of chastity. Equally, it can be inferred that the same convictions also stemmed from his taste and appreciation of Western literature.
Sastri loved reading the fictional works of English writers like Thomas Hardy. One particular novel was his favourite because in it he found moral grounding for his own views and position on Women’s Rights. In an essay he wrote as appreciation of Hardy’s novel, one can perhaps sense from where the empathetic and emphatic support Sastri gave to Sarada Act might have found its springs.
QUOTE:
“Tess of the D’Urbervilles” gave a vision, as bright as it was clear, of a problem that had long been vexing me, and for the first time in my experience, set the position of women in correct perspective.
Hardy, I have no doubt, meant to startle a convention-ridden and heartless world to a consciousness of the essence of chastity by his sub-title “The Story of a Pure Woman.” It is audacious, but he makes it out to be just and proper.
The taint is inflicted on Tess while she is hardly aware of what is happening and, the sinister consequence following, she has to pay the severest penalty that is exacted of her sex. Society is no doubt heartless in such cases, but Hardy makes society almost fiendish in its persecution of poor Tess. The victim of a cruel wrong, her subsequent life of high purpose and good deeds does not avail her, and at the end disaster, black and utter disaster, overtakes her until it seems to the reader that Tragedy herself must be horrified.
Our (own) Ahalya, who is in a way suggested to our thoughts by the story of Tess, escapes lightly in comparison, though her sin was committed consciously for the rapture of it. If we reduced the Ramayana scale to human proportions, her penance cleansed her soon enough, and it needed only Rama’s touch to restore the unsullied charm, that Brahma had given her at birth.
Hindu society has treated her with divine indulgence. She is placed first among the five good women whose names have only to be remembered once a day to rid us of our grossest sins. Only one of these, Mandodari has a perfectly white record. Sita had a whisper against her, however unjust. Draupadi had more husbands than one. The last one Tara, if she is the wife of Brihaspati, was unfaithful; if she is the Ramayana heroine, (she) changed her husband three times. To say the least, this is a perplexing galaxy of good women.
Yet I am persuaded that it is indicative of a highly tolerant and understanding attitude towards woman, which dates back to a very early period in our story. How time and custom have hardened our hearts today! We have forgotten the natural standards of the early time and become the slaves of false ideas utterly inconsistent with our nature as human beings. The springs of character would be purified, conduct would be regulated justly, and life would be happy all round, if the relations between men and women could be based on mutual forbearance and understanding as in olden times and forgiveness and tolerance were regarded as excellences not only in wives but equally in husbands.
UNQUOTE
In Sastri’s own mind thus, the enactment of the Sarada Act was a way in which Hindu society could go back to its past when Indian womanhood was treated “with divine indulgence” … so that Indian women received the dignity that was their birthright, and all got once again “placed first among the five good women whose names have only to be remembered once a day to rid us of our grossest sins”. It was precisely with that spirit within him that he and the Pontiff of Sri Sringeri Muttam, Pujyasri Chandrasekhara Bharathi engaged in a scholarly debate over whether the Sarada Act was or was not a violation of Hindu Dharma Sastras.
D.V.Gundappa (DVG) in his biography of Sastri gave an enthralling eye-witness account of that vigorous but graceful debate between a presiding yogi and an erstwhile commissar.
***********
QUOTE:
Sri Chandrashekhara Bharati was the presiding Jagadguru during our visit to Sringeri back then. About a couple of weeks before Sastri’s visit to Sringeri, the Jagadguru had supposedly taken up a certain oath – he had stopped delivering lectures and giving lessons. All the resident students and scholars had been instructed to constantly chant the Gāyatrī-mantra on those days. The reason for this will be clear in the due course of my writing. Srinivasa Sastri who was visiting Sringeri with his family had the darśan (‘a meeting/ an audience with a deity/ Guru’) of the Svāmi during the pūjā, as it was premediated. The Svāmi enquired about his well-being and instructed Sastri in the following manner:
“I am glad that you have come here. It seems like Śāradā-devī (the presiding deity of Sringeri) herself has brought you here – to get her task executed. It is something important in the view of safeguarding our dharma. I have heard that there is a certain law pertaining to the Hindu marriages that is being discussed at the parliament in Delhi. Apparently, it is called the ‘Sharada Bill’. What kind of times are these? Should we name an idea that is totally contrary to Śāradā-devī’s view after her? We certainly need to do something about this strange set of circumstances. The Emperor has honoured you by including you in his Privy Council. I have heard that the members of the council can meet the Viceroy in person and can explain their views to him. You should meet the Viceroy and appropriately advise him such that this Apasmārāsura (a demon) is stopped immediately. We (royal ‘we’) have given up all teaching and lectures for the last fifteen days with the hope of countering the attempts being made by the Bill at the Centre. We have instructed all the students and scholars residing here to constantly chant the “Gāyatrī-mantra”. We have taken up an oath to go ahead with this lifestyle until our prayer is answered”.
Sastri, who heard this brief speech of the Jagadguru replied:
“It is time for the pūjā now. We will need time to think out the matter that you have just touched upon. If you could please permit me to do so, let us discuss this matter on another occasion”.
The following day, we spoke about the wedding rituals at the mutt. The conversation between the Jagadguru and Srinivasa Sastri was in Tamil –- Tamil mixed with Sanskrit – I am sure that the readers would have guessed this. Sastri put forth the matter in two dimensions – one personal and the other related to the śāstra. He said –
“The Bill says that the minimum age for the marriage of girls needs to be increased. I too have always had the same opinion. A few years back when I was a member of the Legislative Council of Madras, I had felt that this was a welcome change. I had even drafted my thoughts and brought it before the council for discussion. Back then, the council was full of government officials and it was also a pre-decided norm that the governing council would not interfere in the religious matters. Thus, my suggestion was not taken up for serious discussion. My opinion, however, has still remained the same. Somebody else has put forward the same idea at the Centre and is it right for me to oppose it? When somebody else is supporting the idea that I have always had, how can I oppose it? Moreover, in about three to four weddings that have taken place in my own family, the bride was much older than the recommended age. It is not merely my opinion but what I have been practising too. The two together can be helpful in bringing the required change in the system. Therefore, it does not seem right for me to oppose the Sharada Bill”
“Let me now move on to the second aspect connected with the issue.
From what I gather from the śāstras, it is only after a girl attains her puberty and her menstrual cycles start, she should be given in marriage. I have gone through quite an number of works on this subject and have carried out some research. We don’t find any evidence in the śruti and the smṛtis for the practise of getting a young girl married, as is in vogue today. Most people in our country today get a girl who is between eight and ten years old married. We will need to understand that this practise is not very ancient and has come into vogue due to some historical reasons. We can only guess that people gave up the ancient tradition and took to getting girls married in their childhood (bālya-vivāha) because of some historical developments.
We should examine the mantras that are used as a part of the vivāha (wedding) ceremony. There is a mantra that goes ‘ārohūraṃ …’. The meaning in this and other mantras is very clear. This is not something you would tell a girl who is eight or ten years old. The meaning of the mantra goes well only with a matured girl. Let us also contemplate upon the procedure of conducting a wedding. We know that the married couple will need to spend three nights sharing the bed. After this, as per the sūtra – ‘tṛtīyāyāmapararātrau’, the husband will need to perform the visarjana of viśvāvasu and gandharvas. This is to be followed by the Caturthi-karma. What does this mean? It only means that the girl is ready to take part in the marital life. We can infer this from a close examination of the gṛhya-sūtras (vedic dharmasastra pertaining to household rites)
Sringeri Svāmī: I have not gone through the gṛhya-sūtras…
Sastri: The gṛhya-sūtras are not relevant for the yati-āśrama, i.e., for sanyāsis. However, the matter under discussion is connected with the gṛhastha-dharma. I feel that we will need to take gṛhya-sūtras as our guidebook in these matters.
Sringeri Svāmī: Ahaa! That is right indeed… I shall examine the gṛhya-sūtras and then arrive at a conclusion on this matter.
UNQUOTE
***********
The forceful but un-polemical way in which Sastri put forward his “reformist” views to the Pontiff of the Sringeri Mutt on the issue of Hindu Child-Marriage custom was anything but argumentative. It was substantive and couched in polite words that the Jagadguru himself could easily appreciate from the standpoint of his high level as a great authority himself on many Hindu scriptural texts. Sastri was careful not to strike any posture of passionate zeal or self-righteous rhetoric that a lesser Hindu Reformer of his time might have adopted under the circumstances. Instead, Sastri’s low-key, measured representation to the Pontiff stuck simply to cool logic and to a dispassionate interpretation of the Hindu Dharmasastras.
Going by the account of the meeting as given by DVG, we may conclude that the Sringeri Jagadguru Sankaracharya did, of course, seem to have immediately understood and also graciously appreciated too Sastri’s averments. But then for the sake of our own understanding of all the scholarly allusions Sastri had made for his case i.e. references to the relevant “vivaaha” ritual mantras, it would be worth our while to acquaint ourselves, even if only very sketchily, about what the Hindu “gruhya sutras” state in the matter.
a. The “ārohūraṃ” mantra refers to the Asmarohanam (the Ritual of Ascending the Grinding Stone) during the Vedic marriage ceremony. This ritual symbolizes the bride’s strength, steadfastness, and her resolve for marital duties. “Ascend the stone. Like this stone, be firm, resolute, and strong in your household responsibilities and duties.”
As the bride places her foot on the grinding stone, she is blessed to emulate the unyielding and stable nature of the stone—signifying her strength of character, fortitude in family life, and ability to withstand challenges.
आरोहणं शिलायाः स्थिरा भव सखाय सधूत्वम अनुशा
“ārohāṇāṃ śilāyāḥ asmasā tvam sthirā bhava śilāyāḥ ārohaṇāṃ“…. chanted with the following Rig Veda mantra:
तिष्ठा शिलायाम् अन्वेति त्वं
स्थिरा भव गार्हपत्येषु
b. The sutra phrase ‘tṛtīyāyāmapararātrau’ refers to the third night of the marriage ceremony after the wedding day. In this context, the groom is said to perform visarjana (i.e. “sending off” or “dismissing”) of the viśvāvasus and the gandharvas and is then followed by the Caturthi-karma (i.e. the “fourth” ritual act).
- Viśvāvasu and Gandharvas are celestial beings often associated with divine attendants, guardians, or spirits connected to natural forces, marriage, and music in Vedic literature. In the marriage context, the bride is traditionally believed to be attended by these benevolent spirits or guardians during certain rites.
- Performing visarjana of these celestial spirits or beings signifies formally releasing them or dismissing their protective presence around the bride,. Such “dismissal” signifies the marking of her transition from girlhood to married womanhood, emphasizing that her guardianship by the celestial beings now comes to an end and henceforth it is the the groom and the new husband’s family that shall protect the bride.
- This ritual symbolizes the bride’s complete acceptance into the groom’s family and her severance from previous under protective supernatural guardians. It also marks the bride’s readiness to fully assume new familial and social responsibilities. It purifies and completes the linking of the couple according to cosmic and spiritual order in line with Vedic traditions.
- After the visarjana of these celestial attendants, the Caturthi-karma is performed.This fourth ritual action often relates to specific rites that stabilize the marriage bond, invoke blessings on the couple, and ensure household prosperity. The exact procedures of Caturthi-karma vary by Vedic tradition but generally include fire-offerings, recitations of sacred mantras, and ritual offerings that sanctify the union and household.
Overall, these rites reflect the deep spiritual and cosmic dimensions of the Vedic marriage, emphasizing transformation, protection, and sanctity of the marital relationship beyond the social contract.
Sastri’s sound reasoning therefore was that all the rituals described above — being reflective of deep, spiritual and the cosmic dimensions of the Vedic marriage sacrament, which was indeed more than a mere social contract, could not really have been formulated by the Dharmasastra or the “gruhya-sutras” by keeping in mind a mere, pre-pubic, innocent and uncomprehending little girl-bride in mind.
***********
In the above encounter with the Pujyashree Sringeri Mutt Sri Jagadguru Sankaracharya, Srinivasa Sastry’s credentials as both a “Sanatanist-Liberal” (no matter how oxymoronic the term may sound!) as well as an “Orthodox Performative Brahmin” get clearly established.
(to be continued)
Sudarshan Madabushi