CHAPTER 24
The Immolation of Women.
Nothing short of the abrogation of the doctrines which pronounce such sacrifices exculpatory can be effectual in preventing them; but this would be to overturn the fundamental article of their creed, the notion of metempsychosis. Further research may disclose means more attainable, and the sacred Shastras are at once the surest and the safest. Whoever has examined these is aware of the conflict of authorities for and against cremation; but a proper application of them (and they are the highest who give it not their sanction) has, I believe, never been resorted to. Vyasa, the chronicler of the Yadus, a race whose manners were decidedly Scythic, is the great advocate for female sacrifice: he (in the Mahabharata) pronounces the expiation perfect. But Manu inculcates no such doctrine [635]; and although the state of widowhood he recommends might be deemed onerous by the fair sex of the west, it would be considered little hardship in the east. “Let her emaciate her body, by living voluntarily on pure flowers, roots, and fruit; but let her not, when her lord is deceased, even pronounce the name of another man.” Again he says, “A virtuous wife ascends to heaven, if, after the decease of her lord, she devote herself to pious austerity; but a widow, who slights her deceased husband by marrying again, brings disgrace on herself here below, and shall be excluded from the seat of her lord.”[[1]]
These and many other texts, enjoining purity of life and manners to the widow, are to be found in this first authority, but none demanding such a cruel pledge of affection. Abstinence from the common pursuits of life, and entire self-denial, are rewarded by “high renown in this world, and in the next the abode of her husband”; and procure for her the title of “sadhwi, or the virtuous.” These are deemed sufficient pledges of affection by the first of sages.[[2]] So much has been written on this subject that we shall not pursue it further in this place; but proceed to consider a still more inhuman practice, infanticide.
Although custom sanctions, and religion rewards, a Sati, the victim to marital selfishness, yet, to the honour of humanity, neither traditionary adage nor religious text can be quoted in support of a practice so revolting as infanticide. Man alone, of the whole animal creation, is equal to the task of destroying his offspring [636]: for instinct preserves what reason destroys. The wife is the sacrifice to his egotism, and the progeny of her own sex to his pride; and if the unconscious infant should escape the influence of the latter, she is only reserved to become the victim of the former at the period when life is most desirous of extension. If the female reasoned on her destiny, its hardships are sufficient to stifle all sense of joy, and produce indifference to life. When a female is born, no anxious inquiries await the mother—no greetings welcome the newcomer, who appears an intruder on the scene, which often closes in the hour of its birth. But the very silence with which a female birth is accompanied forcibly expresses sorrow; and we dare not say that many compunctious visitings do not obtrude themselves on those who, in accordance with custom and imagined necessity, are thus compelled to violate the sentiments of nature. Families may exult in the Satis which their cenotaphs portray,[[3]] but none ever heard a Rajput boast of the destruction of his infant progeny.
The Origin of Infanticide.
Infanticide.
As to the almost universality of this practice amongst the Jarejas, the leading cause, which will also operate to its continuance, has been entirely overlooked. The Jarejas were Rajputs, a subdivision of the Yadus; but by intermarriage with the Muhammadans, to whose faith they became proselytes, they lost their caste. Political causes have disunited them from the Muhammadans, and they desire again to be considered as pure Rajputs; but having been contaminated, no Rajput will intermarry with them. The owner of a hyde of land, whether Sesodia, Rathor, or Chauhan, would scorn the hand of a Jareja princess. Can the “sic volo” be applied to men who think in this fashion?
Johar.
The Jewish law with regard to female captives was perfectly analogous to that of Manu; both declare them “lawful prize,” and both Moses and Manu establish rules sanctioning the marriage of such captives with the captors. “When a girl is made captive by her lover, after a victory over her kinsman,” marriage “is permitted by law.”[[12]] That forcible marriage in the Hindu law termed Rakshasa, namely, “the seizure of a maiden by force from her house while she weeps and calls for assistance, after her kinsman and friends have been slain in battle,”[[13]] is the counterpart of the ordinance regarding the usage of a captive in the Pentateuch,[[14]] excepting the “shaving of the head,” which is the sign of complete slavery with the Hindu.[[15]] When Hector, anticipating his fall, predicts the fate which awaits Andromache, he draws a forcible picture of the misery of the Rajput; but the latter, instead of a lachrymose and enervating harangue as he prepared for the battle with the same chance of defeat, would have spared her the pain of plying the “Argive loom” by her death. To prevent such degradation, the brave [641] Rajput has recourse to the johar, or immolation of every female of the family: nor can we doubt that, educated as are the females of that country, they gladly embrace such a refuge from pollution. Who would not be a Rajput in such a case? The very term widow (rand) is used in common parlance as one of reproach.[[16]]