<h2>CHAPTER XXIX</h2>
<h3>"Very Common in those Parts"</h3>
<div class='center'>
"The dark enigma of permitted wrong."—F. R. H.<br/><br/></div>
<div class='cap'>THE mixture of secrecy and openness described by the
Temple woman is confirmed by Hindus well acquainted
with Temple affairs. "All the Temple women are married
to the gods. In former times the marriages were conducted
upon a grand scale, but now they are clandestinely performed
in the Temple, with the connivance of the priest, and with
freedom to deny it if questioned. Some ceremonies are performed
in the Temple, the rest at home. Sometimes the
marriage symbol is blessed by the priest, and taken home to
the child to be worn by her. In all these cases the priest
himself has to tie it round her neck. The previous arrangements
for the marriage are made by the priests with the
guardians of the child who is to be initiated into the order
of Temple women.</div>
<p>"The ceremony of tying on the marriage symbol is never
in our district performed in public. None but intimate friends
know about it. There is a secret understanding between the
priests and the Temple women concerned. When the time
arrives for the marriage symbol to be tied on, after the usual
ceremonies the priest hands over the symbol hidden in a
garland of flowers.</p>
<p>"Of course, there is music on the occasion. When outsiders<span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_264" id="Page_264">[264]</SPAN></span>
ask what all the noise is about, the people who know do not
say the real thing. They say it is a birthday or other festival
day. The symbol is tied on when the child is between five and
eleven, after which it is considered unholy to perform the
marriage ceremony. The symbol is at first hidden from the
gaze of the public. Later it is shown publicly, but not while
the girl is still young."</p>
<p>This tallies exactly with our own experience. More than
once an eager child in her simplicity has shown me the
marriage symbol, a small gold ornament tied round her neck,
or hanging on a fine gold chain; but the Temple woman in
whose charge she was has always reproved her sharply, and
made her cover it up under her other jewels, or under the
folds of her dress.</p>
<p>The reason for this secrecy, which, however, is not universal,
is, as is inferred in the evidence of the head priest, because it is
known to the Temple authorities that what they are doing is
illegal; though, as a matter of fact, as will be seen later,
prosecutions are rare, and convictions rarer still.</p>
<p>The Caste is recruited, as the Blue Book states, by "admissions
and even purchases from other classes." On this point
a Brahman says: "When the Temple woman has no child, she
adopts a girl or girls, and the children become servants of the
gods. Sometimes children are found who, on account of a vow
made by their parents, become devotees of the gods." Another
Brahman, an orthodox Hindu, writes: "In some districts people
vow that they will dedicate one of their children to the Temple
if they are blessed with a family. Temple women often adopt
orphans, to whom they bequeath their possessions. In most
cases the orphans are bought."</p>
<div class="sidenote">Convictions are Rare</div>
<p>The position of the Temple woman has been a perplexity to
many. The Census Report touches the question: "It is one
of the many inconsistencies of the Hindu religion, that though
their profession is repeatedly vehemently condemned in the<span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_265" id="Page_265">[265]</SPAN></span>
Shastras (sacred books), it has always received the countenance
of the Church." Their duties are all religious. A well-informed
Hindu correspondent thus enumerates them: "First
they are to be one of the twenty-one persons who are in
charge of the key of the outer door of the Temple; second, to
open the outer door daily; third, to burn camphor, and go
round the idol when worship is being performed; fourth, to
honour public meetings with their presence; fifth, to mount
the car and stand near the god during car-festivals." The
orthodox Hindu quoted before remarks on the "high honour,"
as the Temple child is taught to consider it, the marriage to the
god confers upon her.</p>
<p>We have purposely confined ourselves almost entirely to
official and Hindu evidence so far, but cannot forbear to add to
this last word the confirmatory experience of our own Temple
children worker: "When I try to persuade the Hindus to let us
have their little ones instead of giving them to the Temples
they say: 'But to give them to Temples is honour and glory
and merit to us for ever; to give them to you is dishonour
and shame and demerit. So why should we give them to
you?'"</p>
<p>We have said that convictions are rare. This is because of
the great difficulty in obtaining such evidence as is required by
the law as it stands at present. One case may be quoted as
typical. A few years ago, in one of our country towns, a
father gave his child in marriage to the idol "with some
pomp," as the report before us says. He was prosecuted, but
the prosecution failed, for the priest and the parents united in
denying the fact of the marriage; and the evidence for the
defence was so skilfully cooked that it was found impossible
to prove an offence against the Penal Code.</p>
<p>Once, deeply stirred over the case of a little girl of six who
was about to be married to a god as her elder sisters had been
a few months previously, we wrote to a magistrate of wide<span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_266" id="Page_266">[266]</SPAN></span>
experience and proved sympathy with the work. His letter
speaks for itself:—</p>
<p>"I have been waiting some little time before answering
your letter, because I wanted time to think over your problem.
As far as I can make out, there is no way in the world of preventing
a woman marrying her own daughter to the gods at
any age; but you can prosecute her if she does. If you could
get her into prison for marrying the elder girls, the younger
might be safe; but I don't think you can do anything directly
for her. She is not being 'unlawfully detained'; and even if
she were, all you could do would be to get her returned to her
parents and guardians, which would be worse than useless.</p>
<p>"The question is whether you can hope to get a conviction
in the other case.</p>
<p>"I don't see how you can. You can say in court that
you saw the little girls with their marriage symbol on, and
that they said they had been married to the god. The
little girls will deny it all, and say they never set eyes on
you before. Moreover, I don't think the ordinary Court
would be satisfied without some other evidence of the fact
of dedication; and considering how everyone would work
against you, I think you would find it extraordinarily hard.
The local police would be worse than useless."</p>
<p>To every man his work: it appears to us that expert
knowledge is required, and ample means and leisure, if the
expenditure involved is to result in anything worth while;
and a careful study of all available information regarding
prosecutions, convictions, and, I may add, sentences, has
convinced us, at least, of the futility of such attempts from
a missionary point of view: for even if convictions were
certain, <i>as long as the law hands the child back to its
guardians after their unfitness to guard it from the worst
that can befall it has been proved</i>, so long do we feel
unable to rejoice exceedingly over even the six months'<span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_267" id="Page_267">[267]</SPAN></span>
rigorous imprisonment, which in more than one case has
been the legal interpretation of the phrase "up to a term
of ten years," which is the penalty attached to this offence
in the Indian Penal Code.</p>
<p>In this connection it may be well to quote a paragraph
from the <i>Indian Social Reformer:</i>—</p>
<p>"The Public Prosecutor at Madras applied for admission
of a revision petition against the order of the Sessions
Judge, made in the following circumstances:—</p>
<div class="sidenote">Ten years—Six Months</div>
<p>"One, S., a priest, was convicted by the first-class subdivisional
magistrate of having performed the ceremony of
dedicating a young girl in the Temple of N., and thereby
committing an offence punishable under Section 372 of the
Penal Code. He accordingly sentenced him to six months'
rigorous imprisonment. On appeal, the Sessions Judge reduced
the sentence to two months, on the ground that the
rite complained against was a very common one in those
parts. The Public Prosecutor based his petition on the
ground that it had been held in a previous case 'that
such a dedication was an offence, and that it was highly
desirable that the interests of minors should be properly
protected.' This protection, it was submitted, could only be
vouchsafed by making offending people understand that they
would render themselves liable to heavy punishment. The
present sentence would not have a deterrent effect, and he
accordingly applied for an enhancement of the same. His
lordship admitted the petition, and directed notice to the
accused."</p>
<p>It is something to know the six months' sentence was
confirmed. But is not the fact that a Sessions Judge
should commute such a sentence, on the ground that the
offence was "very common," enough to suggest a doubt as
to the deterrent effect of even this punishment?</p>
<hr style="width: 65%;" /><p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_269" id="Page_269">[269]</SPAN></span></p>
<h3>NOTE</h3>
<div class='blockquot'>
<p><b>During the last few months the Secretary of State for India
has addressed official inquiries to the Government of India
regarding the dedication of children to Hindu gods, and the
measures necessary for the protection of such children.</b></p>
<p><b>If the anticipated change in the law is to result in more
than a Bill on paper—a blind, behind which things will go
on as before only more out of sight—it is, we believe, needful
to ensure:</b></p>
<div class="hang1"><b>1st. Protection for all children found to be in moral
danger, whether or not they are or may be dedicated
to gods.</b><br/><br/></div>
<div class="hang1"><b>2nd. That, irrespective of nationality or religion, whoever
has worked for and won the deliverance of the
child should be allowed to act as guardian to it.</b><br/><br/></div>
<div class="hang1"><b>3rd. That such a Bill shall be most thoroughly enforced.</b><br/><br/><br/></div>
<p><b><i>February, 1912.</i></b></p>
<div class='right'>
To face p. 268.<br/></div>
</div>
<hr style="width: 65%;" /><p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_271" id="Page_271">[271]</SPAN></span></p>
<div style="break-after:column;"></div><br />
1 of 2
2 of 2
Previous
Next
Update Required
To play the media you will need to either update your browser to a recent version or update your Flash plugin.