# Isvar Chandra Vidyasagar, a story of his life and work/Chapter 16

CHAPTER XVI.
Re-marriage of Hindu widows.
We now come to that part of his life, where he had to bring all his talents, energies, perseverance, and activity into action to fight manfully and heroically with his own countrymen in a field of social reform, which caused so great an agitation throughout the length and breadth of the land, as not to be met with in the recent history of the country, and which made his name known to every native of the soil. The rules of the Hindu Society of modern times do not permit remarriage of the widows of their religious faith. The orthodox Hindu community follow the tenets of their Sastras as rigorously and faithfully, as they adhere closely to the customs of their country. In former days, Hindu widows, in general, followed their deceased husbands by concremating themselves in their funeral pyres, thus showing to the world the glory of Indian Satis (literally, 'Chaste women'), and those who lacked so much fortitude and courage, led, all the rest of their days, a rigidly ascetic life. But since the abolition of the practice of Sati by Lord William Bentinck in 1829, the Hindu widows have had no other alternative left, than to pass a purely ascetic life. Vidyasagar's naturally gentle and compassionate heart was moved at the sight of the tender-aged, young widows suffering rigorous hardships, and he was firmly resolved to devote his life ​to the cause of the remarriage of Hindu widows, as in days past, Raja Ram Mohan Ray had sacrificed his life in his endeavours to prevent the practice of concremation of Satis.
This resolution had sat deeprooted in his mind from his early years. It is said, that Vidyasagar had a girl-playmate at Birsingha. He was very fond of her. After he had been separated from her, and had come down to Calcutta for education, she was married at an early age, but, in a short time, her husband died, and she was a widow. When Vidyasagar next went home during one of his college-vacations, he was deeply sorry to hear that his dear playmate had been married and had lost her husband. He immediately called at her house to see her, and there learnt that she had not eaten anything that day, because it was the eleventh day of the moon (which is a day of fasting for Hindu widows). He felt so much commiseration for the little girl, that he, then and there, resolved that he would give his life to relieve the sufferings of widows. He was at that time only 13 or 14 years old.
It is also said, that when he was still a pupil in the Sanskrit College and was come home during another vacation, he came to learn that a young widow of a respectable family had formed an illicit connection with a young man, and as a fruit of that connection, she had been pregnant, that various means had been adopted to bring about ​abortion, but those proving unsuccessful, she had given birth to a very nice child, and that, in order to avoid exposure and shame, the cruel mistress of the house had throttled the baby to death in the nursery. This sad tale touched the very core of his sympathetic heart, and he was resolutely determined to do something for Hindu widows.
Although Vidyasagar's soft heart melted at what appeared to him to be the most miserable distress of the widows, he did not think fit, and that rightly, to broach the subject in public, until he could alight upon Sastric proofs. It is said that, at this period of his life, he devoted all his thoughts on this subject. He passed his days and nights in the rooms of the Sanskrit College, studying all the ancient Sastras of the Hindus. We have already said in a previous chapter that, at this time, he hardly slept in the night, supping generally at Syama Charan Babu's house, which stood in front of the Sanskrit College building, and always breakfasting at his friend, Raj Krishna Babu's. After infinite toil and pains, one night, he suddenly bounced up in ecstacy and cried out loudly:—'I have, at last, found it.' The cause of his so excessive delight was a passage of the "Parasar-Sanhita," which is given below for the edification of the readers:—
"নষ্টে মৃতে প্রব্রজিতে ক্লীবেচ পতিতে পতৌ। পঞ্চস্বাপৎসু নারীণাং পতিরন্যো বিধীয়তে॥
মৃতে ভর্ত্ররি যা নারী ব্রহ্মচর্য্যে ব্যবস্থিতা। সা মৃতা লভতে স্বর্গং যথাতে ব্রহ্মচারিণঃ॥ তিস্রঃ কোট্টোর্দ্ধকোটী চ যানি লোমানি মানবে। তাবৎ কালং বসেৎ স্বর্গং ভর্ত্তারং যানুগচ্ছতি॥"
পরাশরসংহিতা।
He gave the following interpretation to this passage:—
"On receiving no tidings of a husband, on his demise, on his turning an ascetic, on his being found impotent, or on his degradation,—under any one of these calamities, it is canonical for women, to take another husband. That woman who on the decease of her husband, observes the Brahmacharyya (leads the life of austerities and privations), attains heaven after death. She who burns herself with her deceased husband, resides in heaven for as many Kalas or thousands of years as there are hairs on the human body or thirty-five millions."
He then commented on the above as follows:—
"Thus it appears that Parasar prescribes three rules for a widow; marrige, the observance of the Brahmacharyya, and burning with the deceased husband. Among these, the custom of concremation has been abolished by order of the ruling authorities; only two ways, therefore, have now been left for the widows; they have the option of marrying or observing the Brahmacharyya. But in the Kali ​Yuga, it has become extremely difficult for widows to pass their lives in the observance of the Brahmacharyya; and it is for this reason, that the philanthropic Parasar has, in the first instance, prescribed marriage. Be that as it may, what I wish to be clearly understood is—that as Parasar plainly prescribe marriage as one of the duties of women in the Kali Yuga under any one of the five above enumerated calamities, the marriage of widows in the Kali Yuga is consonant to the Sastras."
We are quite ignorant of the Sastras, and we are, therefore, not in a position, to deal with the merits of the case in the true Sastric point of view. So we will confine ourselves to treat of it on general principles, and only give the reasonings and arguments as offered by both parties, without pretending to say which interpretation is right, or which is wrong.
When he thus alighted upon the Sloka, he took it to be the best, unrefutable argument in favour of the remarriage of Hindu widows, and he at once sat down to indite its interpretation. He passed the whole night in this composition, which he afterwards got into print and distributed amongst all classes of people. It is said, that before publishing the pamphlet, he had obtained his parents' permission. One day, he appeared before his father with the manuscript, and said 'Father, I have written this book in favour of remarriage of Hindu widows, and have quoted passages from the ​Sastras in support of my contention. Unless you hear it and approve of it, I cannot publish it.' The father answered,—'What will you do, if I do not approve of it?' Vidyasagar said,—'In that case, I won't publish it so long as you are in this world. After your demise, I will do with it, as seems to me best' The father replied,—'Very good, then, to-morrow I shall hear it through, and then let you know my opinion.' On the next day, Vidyasagar read out the whole composition to his father. Thakurdas, at last, said to his son,—'Do you believe that what you have written, is all in accordance with the Sastras?' The son replied,—'O yes, there is no doubt of that.' The father said,—'You may then try your best, I have no objection to it.' After this, Vidyasagar went to his mother, and said,—'Mother, surely you can have no knowledge of the Sastras. I have written this book on 'Widow Marriage', but I cannot get it into print, without your permission. According to the Sastras, widow-marriage is canonical.' The mother replied,—'I have no objection to it. The widows are, as it were, a pest of the country, passing all their days in misfortune and affliction. You are going to relieve them of their miseries, and make them happy. I acquiesce to it with all my heart. But mind, take care not to tell him' (meaning her husband, Vidyasagar's father), 'because he might raise objections.' The son said,—'Oh.' don't fear for that; father has already given his permission.' ​The mother was highly delighted, and said'—'Very good, then, you have my permission. Now, do as you think best.'
Having thus armed himself with the weapons of his parents' permission and blessing, Vidyasagar entered the arena. First of all, he published his paper on the validity of the remarriage of Hindu widows. The publication of this pamphlet excited a great sensation throughout the city. The orthodox Hindu community suddenly awoke from their slumber and rose into action. Protests were raised from all sides against this innovation. Vidyasagar now toiled hard and fast to carry his point. He was firm and sincere in his conviction. He had to pass whole nights in the interpretation of a single Sloka that he discovered in the Sastras to his mind. He then issued another pamphlet of 22 pages in Bengali with the title, 'Whether widows ought to be married or not.' In this pamphlet, he displayed great abilities at composition. In one week, the first edition was out of print. The language of the book and the neat, proper arrangement of his arguments elicited general applause.
After this, he went, one day, to the Sobhabazar Raj-bati to try if he could secure the cooperation of Raja Radha Kanta Dev in the furtherance of the cause he had advocated. In fact, the Raja had great influence with the Hindu Society. He was also in favour with the Govern​ment. He had some reputation in that quarter. Vidyasagar, therefore, sought for his help. He, at first, consulted his friend, Ananda Krishna Babu (who was a grandson of the Raja, as we have already said). But Ananda Krishna dared not broach such a weighty subject on social reform before his august grandfather. He advised his friend to send the pamphlet to the Raja with a covering letter. Vidyasagar did as he was desired. It is said, that the perusal of the pamphlet gave the Raja great pleasure. He sent for Vidyasagar, and said to him that the method pursued in the compilation of the pamphlet was good, but that he himself was a man of worldly affairs, and he had, therefore, neither the ability nor the right to enter into a discussion of this subject. He also said that if Vidyasagar so wished, he could fix a day, and convene a meeting of the learned pundits to discuss the matter over. Vidyasagar assented, and a day was fixed for the debate. On the appointed day, a great number of pundits (including Vidyasagar) assembled, and a hot discussion ensued, but no decision was arrived at. Vidyasagar's method of discussion gave great satisfaction to the Raja, who rewarded him with a pair of Shawl.
The news of this prize soon spread over the city, and the leaders of the orthodox Hindu community were afraid that Raja Radha Kanta Dev was in favour of remarriage of Hindu widows. ​They, therefore, went in a band to the Raja, and asked him, whether be wanted to introduce widow marriage into the Hindu society, as otherwise why should he go to reward Vidyasagar. The Raja replied, that he was not in favour of widow remarriage and that he was a man of the world and knew nothing of the Sastras, but that he had given Vidyasagar a prize for his unrivalled powers of reasoning. He also said that if they so desired, he would fix another day for the discussion of the matter.
On the second appointed day, a large number of vastly erudite and famous pundits assembled at the meeting. Among others, there was present Pandit Braja Nath Vidyaratna of Navadvip, the greatest scholar in Smriti (Hindu Law) of the time. As on the previous day, there was a very hot discussion, but no final decision. This day, the Raja gave a pair of Shawl as prize to Pandit Braja Nath Vidyaratna. Vidyasagar now plainly saw, that he had no hopes from that quarter, where had so much expected. But he was neither daunted, nor dejected. He was a man of resolute firmness and self-reliance. He never for a moment lost sight of his game. It was a conspicuous trait of his character, that the more he met with discouragements and obstacles in his way, the more they served to nerve him to action, to put forth all his energies and abilities to carry his point. He now applied himself more earnestly and assiduously to the ​achievement of his aim. It is said, however, that after the frustration of his hopes of being aided by Raja Radha Kanta Dev, he did not visit his house, as formerly, for which the Raja was sincerely sorry, for he had a very high opinion of Vidyasagar and loved him dearly.
Immediately after the publication of Vidyasagar's first paper on widow marriage, many contradictory pamphlets were issued from different associations of Pandits and other influential bodies of the orthodox class. Many individual persons also issued papers of protest against the innovation. Among these, the name of Gangadhar Kaviraj of Murshidabad, the best Naidya native physician of the time, stands foremost. Protests were also issued from such associations, as the "Jessore Hindu-Dharma-Rakshini-Sabha" and the "Calcutta Dharma Sabha." At the fourth anniversary of the Jessore Sabha, many vastly erudite pundits from different parts of the country congregated, and lectured on the uncanonicalness of widow-marriage. In the meantime, appeared two pamphlets, "Braja-Bilas" and "Ratna Pariksha," defending Vidyasagar's contention.
They did not bear the real names of their authors, who had assumed the pseudonyms of Bhaipo and Bhaipo-Sahachar (i. e. nephew and nephew-associate) respectively. But there was a general rumour that Vidyasagar himself was the author of both the papers. The first was an ​attack on Braja Nath Vidyaratna, and the second, on Madhu Sudan Smritiratna. The language of both the pamphlets is so vile and scurrilous, that considering Vidyasagar's character and the gravity of his ordinary style of composition, it can hardly be believed to have emanated from the pen of that able writer, and that he could ever have indulged in such vulgar witticism and ribaldry. To satisfy the curiosity of the reader, we quote below a paragraph from the "Ratna-Pariksha":—
"তিনি, নিতান্ত ম্লান বদনে কহিলেন, দেখুন, আমি, ব্রজবিলাস লিখিয়া বিদ্যারত্ন খুড়র মানবলীলাসংবরণের কারণ হইয়াছি। মদীয় বিষময়ী লেখনীর আঘাতেই, তদীয় জীবনযাত্রার সমাপন হইয়াছে, সে বিষয়ের অণুমাত্র সংশয় নাই। আমাদের সমাজে, গোহত্যা ও ব্রহ্মহত্যা অতি উৎকট পাপ বলিয়া পরিগণিত হইয়া থাকে। দুর্ভাগ্যক্রমে, ব্রজবিলাস লিখিয়া, কোন্ পাপে লিপ্ত হইয়াছি, বলিতে পারি না। এ অবস্থায়, আর আমার মধুবিলাস লিখিতে সাহস ও প্রবৃত্তি হইতেছে না; মধুবিলাস লিখিলে, হয়ত, আমার পুনরায় ঐরূপ পাপে লিপ্ত হইতে হইবেক। বিশেষতঃ, স্মৃতিরত্নখুড়ী বুড়ী নহেন; তাঁহাকে, ইদানীন্তন প্রচলিত প্রণালী অনুসারে, দীর্ঘ কাল, ব্রহ্মচর্য্যপালন করিতে হইবেক, সেটীও নিতান্ত সহজ ভাবনা নহে। যদি বল, আমরা উদ্যোগী হইয়া পুনঃসংস্কার সম্পন্ন করিব; সে প্রত্যাশাও সুদূরপরাহত। এই সমস্ত কারণবশতঃ, আর আমার, কোনও মতে, এ বিষয়ে হস্তক্ষেপ করিতে সাহস হইতেছে না।"
After the lecturing at the anniversary of the "Jessore Hindu-Dharma Rakshini-Sabha", appeared Vinaya-Patrika, a paper of protest against ​the lectures. It was also anonymous, but the rumour was that Vidyasagar was its author. It was also an attack against such Pandits as Braja Nath aud Bhuvan Mohan Vidyaratnas of Navadvip. Its language is as scurrilous as that of the two former pamphlets, and it is hardly possible that Vidyasagar could have been its author.
The Hindu Society was at this time, as at present, divided into three sections. The first section was the orthodox community, guided by the Sastric pundits, who were declared opponents of the remarriage of Hindu widows. The second was the English-educated old class, who, in their hearts, were in favour of the innovation, but had not the courage to advocate its cause openly. The third section was the English-educated young community, who were inspirited with European ideas, manners, and civilisation. The last named section were real advocates of widow-marriage, but their number was infinitesimal in comparison with the orthodox community, and they had not sufficient influence to be able to induce the other sections to their side. As a matter of consequence, Vidyasagar's movement found no favour with the general Hindus, though he succeeded in persuading the rulers of the soil to pass a Law on the subject, of which hereafter.
It must be said here, in passing, that Vidyasagar's exertion to introduce re-marriage of ​dows into Hindu Society was not the first move in the direction. It is said, that more than a century ago, Raja Raj Baliabh of Vikrampur, Dacca, then a powerful prince, tried to bring this innovation into Hindu Society. He had, in his house, a young widowed daughter, and he was determined to give her in marriage. He had secured favourable opinions of Pandits from different parts of the country, and, at last, asked for the opinions of the Pandits of Nuddea, who gave quite contrary opinions, Raja Raj Ballabh had, therefore, to give up his project. Some 19 or 20 years before Vidyasagar's agitation, a Mahratta Brahman of Nagpore in the Central Provinces of India, started a movement on the subject, but without success. About the same time, a Madrasee Brahman made attempts to get a Law passed on the subject, but failed. Some time after this, Babu Mati Lai Sil, one of the greatest millionaires of Calcutta, made strenuous exertions in this direction. It is said, that he even promised a present of ten thousand rupees to the first man who would lawfully marry a widow, and was prepared to spend his last pice in the furtherance of this cause, but met with no better success. Some two years before the publication of Vidyasagar's pamphlet, one Syama Charan Das, a wealthy man of the ironsmith caste, tried to give his widowed daughter in marriage. For this purpose, he had secured favourable opinions of a number of Pandits. But ​most of these Pandits subsequently altered their mind, and stood against widow-marriage. Syama Charan Das was completely baffled in his attempts. Some say that contemporaneously with Vidyasagar, the Chief of Kota in Rajputana tried to introduce widow-marriage into his State, but was equally unsuccessful. The well-known Bengali writer, Babu Bihari Lal Sarkar, in his biography of Vidyasagar, says,—'The Hindus of the orthodox class are staunch believers in fatalism. They firmly believe in regeneration. They also believe that the happiness or affliction of the human race is the fruit of their own piety or otherwise of their pre-birth. They, therefore, hold to the tenets of their Sastras and the customs of their country so tenaciously, that it is never an easy matter to induce them to take to an innovation.'
After the appearance of the numerous protest papers against the re-marriage of Hindu widows, Vidyasagar published in October, 1855, his second pamphlet titled "Whether widows ought to be married or not." In this paper, attempts were made to refute the arguments of the antiparty. Its language is serious, elegant, easy and plain. It testifies to his vast erudition and faculties of research. But most of the illustrious Pandits of the different parts of Bengal, and even of Benares, protested against it.
It is needless to enter into a detailed ​discussion of the merits of these protests. Suffice it to say, that they gave quite different interpretations to the very passages quoted by Vidyasagar himself, besides new quotations from different Dharma Sastras to refute his arguments. The very passage from the Parasara-Sanhita, which formed the basis of Vidyasagar's arguments, was interpreted very differently. Their interpretation was,—'When the future husband of a betrothed girl cannot be traced, or is dead, or retires from worldly affairs and turns an ascetic, or is found to be impotent, or is degraded,—under any of these five conditions—the betrothed girl may take a second husband.' Even recently, Pandit Panchanan Tarkaratna of Bhatpara, in his edition of the "Parasara-Sanhita" published from the Bangabasi office, has interpreted the passage in the above sense. Besides, he says, that, even assuming for argument's sake, that Vidyasagar's interpretation was correct, the remarriage of widows has been prohibited by other Dharma Sastras. To prove his contention, he quotes the following passage from "Aditya-Purana."
"দীর্ঘকালং ব্রহ্মচর্য্যং ———। দেবরেণ সূতোৎপত্তির্দত্তা কন্যা প্রদীয়তে॥ কন্যানামসবর্ণানাং বিবাহশ্চ দ্বিজাতিভিঃ। দত্তৌরসেতরেষান্তু পুত্রত্বেন পরিগ্রহঃ॥
শূদ্রেষু দাসগোপালকুল মিত্রার্দ্ধসীরিণাম্। ভোজ্যান্নতা গৃহস্থস্য ———। এতানি লোকগুপ্ত্যংর্থ কলেরাদৌ মহাত্মভিঃ। নিবর্ত্তিতানি কর্ম্মাণি ব্যবস্থাপূর্ব্বকং বুধৈঃ॥
He interprets the passage as follows:—'Wise pundits, after the commencement of the Kali Yuga, have carefully interdicted, for protection of Society, the under-mentioned acts,—viz., Brahmacharyya for a long period, the procreation of a son by husband's younger brother, re-marriage of a married woman, marriage of the Dvija (twice-born) with girls of different castes, acceptance of a child as one's son save one's own begotten son or a lawfully adopted son, eating of rice touched or prepared by a menial servant, Gopala, Kulamitra, or Arddhasiri, of the Sudra class.'
Besides these Sastric discussions, the public, ignorant of the Sastras, both educated and uneducated, joined in these controversies. Most of these people were against the innovation. The rich, the poor; the old, the young; all discussed the matter, The vernacular periodicals of the time filled their columns with controversies on the subject, only a few of them being in favour of, but most of them against, the innovation. The "Tattva-Bodhini," one of the best magazines of the day, published Vidyasagar's first paper in full. The poets and bards of the day composed and published various poems and songs. These songs ​were sung everywhere, and people beard them with great gusto.
Isvar Chandra Gupta, one of the most illustrious poets of the time, who was also one of the friends of Vidyasagar, wrote the following verses:
“বাধিয়াছে দলাদলি, লাগিয়াছে গোল। বিধবার বিয়ে হবে, বাজিয়াছে ঢোল॥ কত বাদী, প্রতিবাদী, করে কত রব। ছেলে বুড়ী আদি করি, মাতিয়াছে সব॥ কেহ উঠে শাখাপরে, কেহ থাকে মূলে। করিছে প্রমাণ জড়ো, পাঁজি পুঁথি খুলে॥ এক দলে যত বুড়ো, আর দলে ছোঁড়া। গোঁড়া হয়ে মাতে সব, দেখেনাকো গোড়া॥ লাফালাফি, দাপাদাপি, করিতেছে যত। দুই দলে খাপা-খাপি, ছাপাছাপি কত॥ বচন রচন করি, কত কথা বলে। ধর্ম্মের বিচার পথে, কেহ নাহি চলে॥ “পরাশর“ প্রমাণেতে বিধি বলে কেউ। কেহ বলে এযে দেখি, সাগরের ঢেউ॥ কোথা বা করিছে লোক, শুধু হেউ হেউ। কোথা বা বাঘের পিছে, লাগিয়াছে ফেউ॥ অনেকেই এই মত, লতেছে বিধান। অক্ষত যোনির বটে, বিবাহ-বিধান॥ কেহ বলে ক্ষতাক্ষত, কেবা আর বাছে? একেবারে তরে যাক, যত রাঁড়ী আছে॥
কেহ কহে এই বিধি, কেমনে হইবে? হিঁদুর ঘরের রাঁড়ী, সিঁদুর পরিবে। বুকে ছেলে, কাঁকে ছেলে, ছেলে ঝোলে কোলে। তার বিয়ে বিধি নয় উলু উলু বোলে॥ গিলে গিলে ভাত খায়, দাঁত নাই মুখে। হইয়াছে আঁত খালি, হাত চাপা বুকে॥ ঘাটে যারে নিয়ে যাব, চড়াইয়া খাটে। শাড়ী-পড়া, চুড়ি হাতে, তারে নাকি খাটে? শুনিয়া বিয়ের নাম, "কোনে" সেজে বুড়ী। কেমনে বলিবে মুখে, "থুড়ি থুড়ি থুড়ি"? পোড়া-মুখ পোড়াইয়া কেন পোড়ী-মুখী। 'দুখী' 'সুখী' মেয়ে ফেলে কেঁচে হবে খুকি? ব্যাটা আছে যার তরে, বেলগাছ এঁচে, তুড়ি মেরে থুড়ি বলে, সে বসিবে কেঁচে॥ গমনের আয়োজন, শমনের ঘরে। বিবাহের সাধ সেকি, মনে আর করে? যেখানে সেখানে শুনি, এই কলরব। বালার বিবাহ দিতে রাজি আছে সব॥ সকলেই এইরূপ বলাবলি করে। ছুঁড়ির কল্যাণে যেন, বুড়ি নাহি তরে॥ শরীর পড়েছে ঝুলি, চুলগুলি পাকা। কে ধরাবে মাছ তারে, কে পরাবে শাঁখা? জ্ঞানহারা হয়ে যাই, নাহি পাই ধ্যানে। কে পাড়িবে 'সৎবাপ', মায়ের কল্যাণে?"
​Dasarathi Ray, one of the greatest bards that Bengal ever produced, composed and sang many poesies and songs, out of which one of each denomination is given below:—
"বিধবার বিবাহ কথা, কলির প্রধান স্থান কলিকাতা, নগরে উঠেছে অতি রব। কাটাকাটি হচ্ছে বাণ, ক্রমে দেখ্‌ছি বলবান, হবার কথা হয়ে উঠেছে সব॥ ক্ষীরপাই নগরে ধাম, ধন্য গণ্য গুণধাম, ঈশ্বর বিদ্যাসাগর নামক। তিনি কর্ত্তা বাঙ্গালির, তাতে আবার কোম্পানির, হিন্দু কালেজের অধ্যাপক॥ বিবাহ দিতে ত্বরায়, হাকিমের হয়েছে রায়, আগে কেউ টের পায় নাই সেটা। তারা কল্লে অর্ডর, যেতে করে অর্ডর, চটীকে বুদ্ধি আটিকে রাখবে কেটা॥ হাকিমের এই বুদ্ধি, ধর্ম্ম বৃদ্ধি প্রজা বৃদ্ধি, এ বিবাহ সিদ্ধি হলে পরে। বিধবা করে গর্ভপাত, অমঙ্গল উৎপাত, তাতে রাজার রাজ্যে হতে পারে॥ হিন্দু ধর্ম্মে যারা রত, প্রমাণ দিয়ে নানা মত, হবে না বলে করিতেছেন উক্ত। ইহাদের যে উত্তর, টিকিবে নাকো উত্তর, উত্তীর্ণ হওয়া অতি শক্ত॥
গীত।
তোমরা ঈশ্বরের দোষ ঘটাবে কি রূপে। রাখিতে ঈশ্বরের মত, হইয়ে ঈশ্বর দূত, এসেছেন ঈশ্বর বিদ্যাসাগর রূপে॥ রাজ-আজ্ঞায় দূতে আসি কাটে মুণ্ড দিয়ে অসি, রসি বেন্ধে ফেলে অন্ধকূপে। তা বলে দূতে কখন দূষী হয় না সেই পাপে। কি আর ভাব সকলেতে, হবে যেতে জেতে হতে, জেতের অভিমান সাগরে দাও সঁপে। এক কর্ম্ম প্রায় জগত, ভারত আদিপুরাণ যত, ভারতে চলিবে না কোন রূপে। যখন করেছে এ ভারত অধিকার ইংরেজ ভূপে॥
Even cultivators, street-porters, cab-men, and other lower class people indulged in these songs. Some of these lays appeared on the borders of native cloths. The following song made its appearance in some of the Santipore cloths:—
সুখে থাকুক বিদ্যাসাগর চিরজীবী হ'য়ে। সদরে করেছে রিপোর্ট বিধবাদের হবে বিয়ে॥ কবে হবে শুভদিন, প্রকাশিবে এ আইন, দেশে দেশে জেলায় জেলায় বেরবে হুকুম— বিধবা রমণীর বিয়ের লেগে যাবে ধূম, মনের সুখে থাক্‌বো মোরা মনোমত পতি লয়ে। এমন দিন কবে হবে, বৈধব্য-যন্ত্রণা যাবে,
আভরণ পরিব সবে, লোকে দেখবে তাই— আলোচাল কাঁচকলার মুখে দিয়ে ছাই,— এয়ো হ'য়ে যাব সবে বরণডালা মাথায় লয়ে॥"
But Vidyasagar did not care for these taunts and ridicules. He was a man of extraordinary strength of mind and fixedness of purpose. He was resolutely determined to carry his point at all risks and hazards.
The Bangadarsan, one of the best conducted Bengali monthlies, edited by Rai Bankim Chandra Chatarji Bahadur, in its issue for June 1880, published a most reasonable article against re-marriage of widows. The purport of a paragraph of that article is given below:—
Some say that the widows of Bengal lead all their days a most miserable life, that they feel happiness in nothing, that all amusements are prohibited to them, and that consequently they are always most intolerably grieved at their heart. They also say that it is a great cruelty to keep them in this miserable state all their life, and that those only, who are devoid of kindness and tender affection, and whose hearts are not melted at other people's distress, can act so cruelly. But we do not think that the hardships of the widows are intolerable. Supposing they are really intolerable, but, at the same time, highly beneficial to society, what necessity is there for removing them? Those hearts that weep for an infinitesimal number of ​persons, ought to break down for the thousands of persons of the society. How can he, that cannot bear to see the piercing of a needle into the body of a single individual, suffer himself to see the sacrifice of hundreds of individuals. If it is a cruelty not to relieve the miseries of a handful of widows, then it must be a barbarous inhumanity to cause mischief to thousands of individuals of the society by inaugurating widow-marriage; it would be no piety to make a gift of a pair of shoes after killing a cow. If there are apprehensions of widows turning immoral, those apprehensions cannot be wholly eradicated by giving them away in marriage, for many married women are as well seen to lose their character. We are of gentle temperament, and have therefore learned to be kind only, we cannot bear to see the severe form of justice. As a matter of consequence, we cannot keep justice in view; we keep in view our emotions only, and express our opinions accordingly. This is exactly what Spencer calls "Emotional bias."
After the publication of his second paper, Vidyasagar no more entered into controversies with his opponents. He now published an English translation of the two papers with the title, "Marriage of Hindu Widows." In this work he was greatly assisted by his friends, Ananda Krishna and Srinath. Prasanna Kumar Sarvvadhikari corrected the proof-sheets. It is said that Vidyasagar gave a copy of this English pamphlet to the British Indian Association for forwarding ​it to the Government with its recommendation, for he was then intent on having a legislation passed on the subject. For this purpose, he consulted many of the higher officials of Government, who were his friends. There were many obstacles in its way, and the English pamphlet helped to remove those obstacles and clear the way, because it served to convince the European officials that the Hindu widows were really leading miserable lives and that a legislation was necessary to mitigate their sufferings. It was under the instruction of these officials, that Vidyasagar submitted, on the 4th October, 1855, to the Government of India, a petition praying for a law on the subject. The petition was subscribed by himself and one thousand persons besides. It ran as follows:— "To "THE HONOURABLE "THE LEGISLATIVE "COUNCIL OF INDIA. "The humble petition of the "undersigned Hindoo inhabitants "of the Province of Bengal, "RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH,
"1. That by long established custom the marriage of widows among Hindoos is prohibited.
"2. That in the opinion and firm belief of your petitioners, this custom cruel and unnatural in itself, is highly prejudicial to the interests of morality, and is otherwise fraught with the most mischievous consequences to society.
"3. That the evil of this custom is greatly aggravated ​by the practice among Hindoos of marrying their sons and daughters at an early age, and in many cases in their very infancy, so that female children not unfrequently become widows before they can speak or walk.
"4. That in the opinion and firm belief of your petitioners, this custom is not in accordance with the Shasters, or with a true interpretation of Hindoo Law.
"5. That your petitioners and many other Hindoos, have no objection of conscience to the marriage of widows, and are prepared to disregard all objections to such marriages, founded on social habit or on any scruple resulting from an erroneous interpretations of religion.
"6. That your petitioners are advised that by the Hindoo Law, as at present administered and interpreted in the Courts of Her Majesty and the East India Company, such marriages are illegal, and the issue thereof would be deemed illegitimate.
"7. That Hindoos, who entertain no objections of conscience to such marriages, and who are prepared to contract them notwithstanding social and religious prejudices are by the aforesaid interpretation of Hindoo Law prevented therefrom.
"8. That, In the humble opinion of your petitioners, it is the duty of the Legislature to remove all legal obstacles to the escape from a social evil of such magnitude which, though sanctioned by custom, is felt by many Hindoos to be a most injurious grievance, and to be contrary to a true interpretation of Hindoo Law.
"9. That the removal of the legal obstacles to the marriage of widows, would be in accordance with the wishes and feelings of a considerable section of pious and orthodox Hindoos, and would in no wise affect the interests, though it might shock the prejudices, of those who conscientiously believe that the prohibition of the marriage of ​widows is sanctioned by the Shasters, or who uphold it on fancied grounds of social advantage.
"10. That such marriages are neither contrary to nature nor prohibited by law or custom in any other country or by any other people in the world.
"11. That your petitioners, therefore, humbly pray that your Honourable Council will take into early consideration the propriety of passing a law (as annexed) to remove all legal obstacles to the marriage of Hindoo widows, and to declare the issue of all such marriages to be legitimate.
"And your petitioners, as in duty bound, shall ever pray.
"AN ACT "To declare the lawfulness of the marriage of Hindoo Widows.
"Whereas the marriage of Hindoo widows is by long-established custom and received opinion prohibited, and whereas this prohibition is not only a grievous hardship upon those whom it immediately affects, but also tends generally to depravation of morals, and the injury of society; and whereas it is believed by many Hindoos that this prohibition is not in accordance with a true interpretation of the Shasters; and whereas it is expedient to declare the lawfulness of such marriages, and to make provision for the consequence of the second marriage of a Hindoo widow as regards her rights in her first husband's estate. It is hereby declared and enacted as follows:—
"I. No marriage contracted between Hindoos, shall be deemed invalid, or the issue thereof illegitimate, by reason of the woman having been previously married or bethrothed to another person since deceased, any custom or interpretation of Hindoo Law to the contrary notwithstanding.
"II. All rights and interests which any widow may by law have in her deceased husband's estate, either by way of maintenance or by inheritance shall, upon her second ​marriage, cease and determine as if she had then died, and the next heirs of such deceased husband then living, shall thereupon succeed to such estate. Provided that nothing in this Section shall affect the rights and interests of any widow in any estate or other property to which she may have succeeded, or become entitled under the will of her late husband or in any estate or other property which she may have inherited from her own relations, or in any Stridkar or other property acquired by her, either during the lifetime of her late husband, or after his death."
On the 17th November, 1855, a draft Bill of "An Act to remove all legal obstacles to the marriage of Hindu Widows" was introduced into the Legislative Council to the Government of India by J. P. Grant, one of the members of the Council. In introducing the Bill, the Mover (Grant), among other things, said:—"It is said that this custom (restriction of Hindu widow marriage), cruel and unnatural in itself, is highly injurious to the morals, and is otherwise most mischievous to society. From these premises, it argues that a law having such effects ought not to be forced upon any one who disapproves of it; and it prays that, as the petitioners are of opinion that the custom is not in accordance with a true interpretation of the Hindu Sastras, they and those who agree with them may be relieved from the legal restriction of which they complain.' He went on to say,—'The custom of the country is universally against the marriage of Hindu widows amongst the higher castes, and all modern English text-books affirm ​that the law is as the petitioners allege. Indeed, text-writers speak on this point with less qualification perhaps than they might have done, if they had given more attention to it. But the custom prohibiting remarriage is followed so universally in practice, that the point does not appear to have been very deeply studied by any of the English writers on Hindu Law.'
In another part of his speech, Grant said,—'I will read to the Council a paper which was partly supplied to me by a Hindu gentleman of great knowledge, and partly taken down from that gentleman's mouth, which describes the mode of life which a Hindu widow of respectability is now actually required to adopt, until the latest day of her life.
"A widow is required to live a life of austerity, the only alternative being to ascend the funeral pile of her husband. Her manner of life is minutely prescribed. Not only must she see no man, she must also avoid every approach to ease, luxury, or pleasure: she must wear no ornaments: her hair must be shaved, or at least must be worn dishevelled: she must not see her face in a mirror, nor use perfumes or flowers: she must not freely anoint her body; and her dress must be plain, coarse and dirty. The use of any kind of conveyance is prohibited, and she must not rest on a bed. Her food is limited as to quantity as well as to quality. She must not take more than a single ​coarse meal a day, and the betel-leaf, which terminates every repast in India, and is often substituted for a meal, is denied her. Besides other fasts, perhaps a dozen in the year, the 'Hindu widow is required to abstain absolutely from food and drink twice a month one day and night, during every bright and dark period of the moon, on the 25th and 26th day of her age, from which not even severe sickness can give her a dispensation.'"
Farther on, he said—'I now come to the immorality which the petition states the prohibition engenders. I do not wish to dwell on this point longer than is absolutely necessary"; for it is one which can be agreeable to nobody, and must be peculiarly distasteful to those for whose benefit this Bill is intended. But it is impossible to shirk the point altogether; for, in truth, it is the strongest argument in favour of the Bill. The Hindu practice of Brahmacharyya is an attempt to struggle against Nature, and like all other attempts to struggle against Nature, is entirely unsuccessful. Every candid Hindu will admit that, in the majority of cases, young Hindu widows fall into vice; that in comparatively few cases are these severe rules for a life of mortification virtuously observed; that in many cases, a licentious and profligate life is entered upon in secret; and that in many other cases the wretched widows are impelled to desert their homes and to live a life that brings open disgrace upon their families. I will read to the Council a ​very short passage on this subject from Ward's description of the manners and customs of the Hindus:—
"Early marriages also give rise to another dreadful evil, almost all these girls, after marriage, remain at home one, two, or three years; and during this time, numbers are left widows without having enjoyed the company of their husbands a single day. These young widows being forbidden to marry, almost without exception, become prostitutes."'
In support of this contention, he again cited a passage from a paper published by Major Wilkinson, some time resident of Nagpore. The passage runs as follows:—
"To revert to our author (a Brahman of Nagpore), he maintains that the present prohibition against the second marriages of widows, especially these infant widows, is highly impolitic and unwise, because, in the first place, it disappoints the palpable purpose of the Creator in having sent them into the world; secondly, because it inevitably leads to great moral depravity and vice on the part of these widows; thirdly, because it inevitably causes a frightful amount of infanticides and abortions; fourthly, because the maintenance of these widows in an honourable and virtuous course of life causes a ceaseless, though fruitless anxiety to their parents, and parents-in-law, &c.; fifthly, because these widows, inevitably rendered corrupt and ​vicious themselves by the hard and unnatural laws operating on them cannot be prevented from corrupting and destroying the honour and virtue of all other females with whom they associate." '
Grant again said,—'That these cases are proved instances of frightful murders, incests, and, in short, of every abomination which it is possible to conceive, caused by the prohibition of the remarriage of widows.' A little farther on, he said,—'Between three and four hundred years ago, Raghunandana, a very learned and celebrated Pandit, who had written a digest of the Hindu Law, which formed in Bengal a text-book to this day, made a resolute attempt of this kind. He had, at one time, firmly resolved that his own widowed daughter should remarry; but the attempt failed.'
A little farther on, he read a paragraph from a letter issued by himself, some time before, when he was Secretary to the Law Commission, dated the 4th July, 1837, which the Commissioners had caused to be written, on a proposition (to which they objected), that for the prevention of infanticide, the concealment of pregnancy should be made a specific offence:—
"The Law Commissioners observe with deep regret that the Western Sadar Court believe child murder to be a prevalent crime in the provinces under their jurisdiction. The Law Commissioners think that much of this crime may be owing to the cruel law which prevents Hindu, widows from ​contracting a second legal marriage. The Law Commissioners are sensible that a mere alteration in the law will immediately and directly effect little towards remedying the evil. But they are not without expectation that an alteration of the law would induce an alteration of feeling in this matter, and, if that could be effected, more would be done towards repressing child murder than could be done by the most severe laws. They are now collecting information on this point, the result of which will duly be laid before the Government of India."
Grant also said,—'At the same time, the Commissioners addressed a Circular calling for information on the subject, and for the opinions of the Sadar Courts at all the four Presidencies. The returns to that Circular were entirely unfavourable to the views of the Law Commission. * * the objections of the Sadar Courts resolved themselves into these:—First, that an Act to remove legal obstacles to the marriage of Hindu widows would be an interference with Hindus in the matter of their own law and religion; secondly, that it would entirely dislocate the frame of the Hindu Law of Inheritance; and thirdly, (an objection which came from the Sadar Court at Madras) that it would be entirely a dead letter.'
In the concluding portion of his introductory speech, Grant said,—'The Law prohibiting Sati was a compulsory law. From the day it was ​passed, every Hindu, whatever his own feelings on the subject might be, was compelled to obey it. All the glory, therefore, of that law belonged to Lord William Bentinck and his Council who passed it. But the present law would afford Hindu gentlemen of station and influence a rare opportunity of illustrating their own names. The present is not a compulsory law, and can not be made a compulsory law. It is merely a permissive law, which can have effect only when those for whose benefit it is intended, will choose to avail themselves of it. Under this law, Hindu gentlemen who, from their rank and their education, may stand forward as the leaders of their nation, have it in their power to register their names in History as the names of those who shall have effected the greatest social reform ever effected in their country. The Legislative Council will have done all it can do when it shall have struck the shackles from their limbs: it will be for them, when they shall gain their freedom, to make use of it like men.'
Most of the passages, given expression to by Grant in his introductory speech, were highly objectionable to a true Hindu, whether he belonged to the orthodox community or to the so-called progressive class, in as much as they were repugnant to every feeling heart, as Grant himself admitted it. Considering Vidyasagar's character, it must be thought strange that he and those who thought with him should have allowed themselves to put ​up with such foul abuses. But Vidyasagar was then eagerly intent on the legislation, and he was not in a mood to venture to displease the members of the Legislative Council. In any other case, he was sure to have repudiated and protested the abuses in a strong language. He, however, did no such thing. On the contrary, he bore with them patiently, and tried his best to hurry on the enactment.
Sir John Colvile, another member of the Council, in rising to second Grant's motion, among other things, said,—' Of the custom which is now under consideration, crime and immorality are not the necessary, but merely the probable consequences.' Very true. What society is wholly free and pure from crime and immorality of the female sex? Is the European society, where remarriage of widows is not prohibited, but rather resorted to, to a large extent, wholly free from female vice? Are not abortions too frequent there? Are not illegitimate infants daily abandoned in the streets to be picked up by the Police to be taken away to the pauper-houses? Why then abuse a whole nation for a few sprinkled and rare instances of depravity among their women? Law cannot serve to make a nation or race pure. It is their own sense of right or wrong that can do so. We cannot conclude our remarks on this point better than by quoting Sir Barnes Peacock's views on the subject, given expression to on the occasion of the third reading of this Bill. Peacock said:—"The Council had lately ​a petition presented to it, asking for a law to shut up all taverns on Sundays with a view to check the open desecration of the Lord's day and the increasing vice of drunkenness, as if it were a greater crime to get drunk on the Sabbath than on any other day in the week! The legislature prohibited the open desecration of every day, by acts injurious to Society. If a man, in a state of drunkenness, commits on any day an offence which is an injury to Society, the Law will punish him for his offence. But the Legislature does not follow every man into his private home to restrain him from drunkenness or other immoral conduct not affecting Society. It leaves that to his own conscience and his own sense of moral duty. A man's conscience is beyond the powers of Law, and it has been truly said that conscience is God's province." Such were the views of a right-minded Englishman. But he too was led on by the ideas of his own society to ultimately vote for the Bill.
Colvile went on to say;—"It may prevent the monstrous fact of a virgin widow condemned against her will to a life of mortification, by way of showing duty and respect to a deceased husband whose face she might never have seen,' except at the hour of betrothal. It may prevent a vast deal of immorality, which, admitting the passages cited from Ward and others by my Honourable friend (Grant) to be highly coloured, every reason​reasonable man must see, is the natural consequence of enforced celibacy, and of violence done to nature; and those domestic scandals which, I fear, are not unfrequently concealed by darker and graver crimes,"
So we see that the tone of every member of the Council was the same. Practically with very little knowledge of the internal affairs of pure Hindu families, but affecting a great knowledge of them, these high officials of the British Government, who proclaimed neutrality in our religious matters and social customs, denounced in severe terms the customs of an ancient civilised nation, and abused them in filthy language.
Later on, Colvile remarked,—'The second section of the Bill removes the only plausible objection that could be made against the measure.'
​Mr. P. W. LeGeyt, among other things, said:—"I have collected enough from what the Honourable Mover of the Bill (i. e. Grant) said, to feel assured that a large majority of the higher classes of Hindus will receive with gratitude the relief which this Bill will afford them of releasing the females of their families from a cruel and miserable thraldom which has produced the same lamentable results in Western India that the Honourable Mover of the Bill stated it has done in Bengal. I have seen in Hindu families of no mean rank in Bombay the pitiable condition of women suffering under the effects of this social tyranny."
The Italics are ours, What did LeGeyt mean by his "higher classes of Hindus?" Did he mean by it 'Vidyasagar and those who thought with him?' We have then nothing to say. But if he meant by it general Hindus of the upper section then we must emphatically say that he was quite mistaken; for there were a number of petitions subscribed by over 60,000 Hindus of the higher class against the Bill, as the reader will see presently.
The Bill was read for the second time on the 19th January 1856. In moving the second reading, Grant said:—"I have allowed the Bill to be over for some time, because I have thought it right that a measure of this nature should not have the appearance of being hurried through the Council.
​The Bill, however, has now been for two months before the public, and Hindus have had ample time to consider the measure even in the most remote provinces of the Empire."
So, in Grant's opinion, two months might be considered "ample time" for the discussion of such a weighty matter even in the remotest corners of the vast Peninsula! Comment is superfluous.
The Bill was then read for a second time, and referred to a Select Committee consisting of Sir James Colvile, Mr. Eliott, Mr. LeGeyt, and Mr. Grant.
The Select Committee submitted their report on the 31st May, 1856. As was expected, their report was in favour of the enactment.
On the 12th July of the same year, the Council resolved itself into a Committee upon the Bill. In moving the motion, Grant said:—"Since the second reading of the bill, several petitions have been received from Hindus, some in favour of and some against the measure. I have taken a note of the places from which the petitions in favour of the measure have proceeded; for I think it of great importance that the Council should observe that this is not the movement of one party in some one place, but that in many different parts of the country there is a considerable sprinkling of enlightened Hindus who are most earnest for the passing of this Law. I believe that there are upwards of 40 petitions against the Bill signed ​by from 50,000 to 60,000 persons: in favour of the Bill, there are upwards of 25 petitions, signed by more than, 5,000 persons."
He then went on to refute the objections of the opposing petitions summarily, and concluded his speech by saying:—"If I know certainly that but one little girl would be saved from the horrors of Brahmacharyya by the passing of this Act, I will pass it, for her sake. If I believe as firmly, as I believe the contrary, that the Act would be wholly a dead letter, I will pass it for the sake of the English name."
So it is seen that Grant was determined on the passing of the Bill, even if it were a dead letter. It was, therefore, that he did not think fit to notice the places and the persons from whom so many opposing petitions came! Was it very fair for a right-minded neutral Englishman?
On the 19th July, 1856, the Bill was read for the third time, and passed into "Act XV of 1856, being an Act to remove all legal obstacles to the Marriage of Hindu Widows," which received the assent of the Governor-General on the 26th July, 1856, and became a Law of the country. The act, which was thus passed, runs as follows:—
ACT NO. XV. OF 1856.
Preamble.
Whereas it is known that, by the law as administered in the Civil Court established in the territories in the possession and under the government of the East India Company, Hindu Widows, with certain exceptions, are held to be, by reason of their having been once married, incapable of contracting a second valid marriage, and the offspring of such widows by any second marriage are held to be illegitimate and incapable of inheriting property, and whereas many Hindus believe that this imputed legal incapacity, although it is in accordance with established custom, is not in accordance with a true interpretation of the precepts of their religion, and desire that the Civil law administered by the Courts of Justice shall no longer prevent those Hindus who may be so minded from adopting a different custom, in accordance with the dictates of their own consciences, and whereas it is just to relieve all such Hindus from this legal incapacity of which they complain; and the removal of all legal obstacles to the marriage of Hindu widows will tend to the promotion of good morals and to the public welfare: It is enacted as follows:—
Marriage of Hindu Widows legalized.
1. No marriage contracted between Hindus shall be invalid, and the issue of no such marriage shall be illegitimate, by reason of the woman having been previously married or betrothed to another person who was dead at the time of such marriage, any custom and any interpretation of Hindu law to the contrary notwithstanding.
Rights of widow in deceased husband's property to cease on her remarriage.
2. All rights and interests which any widow may have in her deceased husband's property by way of maintenance, or by inheritance to her husband or to his lineal successors, ​or by virtue of any will or testamentary disposition conferring upon her, without express permission to remarry, only limited interest in such property, with no power of alienating the same, shall, upon her re-marriage, cease and determine as if she had then died; and the next heirs of her deceased husband, or other persons entitled to the property on her death, shall thereupon succeed to the same.
Guardianship of children of deceased husband on the re-marriage of his widow.
3. On the re-marriage of a Hindu Widow, if neither the widow nor any other person has been expressly constituted by the will or testamentary disposition of the deceased husband, the guardian of his children, the father or paternal grand-father, or the mother or paternal grand-mother, of the deceased husband or any male relative of the deceased husband may petition the highest Court having original jurisdiction in civil cases in the place where the deceased husband was domiciled at the time of his death, for the appointment of some proper person to be guardian of the said children, and thereupon it shall be lawful for the said Court, if it shall think fit, to appoint such guardian, who, when appointed, shall be entitled to have the care and custody of the said children, or of any of them, during their minority, in the place of their mother; and in making such appointment the Court shall be guided, so far as may be, by the laws and rules in force touching the guardianship of children who have neither father nor mother.
Nothing in this Act to render any childless widow capable of inheriting.
4. Nothing in this Act contained shall be construed to render any widow, who, at the time of the death of any person leaving any property, is a childless widow, capable of inheriting the whole or any share of such property if, before the passing of this Act, she would have been incapable of inheriting the same by reason of her being a childless widow.
Saving of rights of widow marrying except as provided in the three preceding sections (2, 3 and 4.)
5. Except as in the three preceding Sections is provided, a widow shall not, by reason of her re-marriage, forfeit any property, or any right to which she would otherwise be entitled; and every widow who has remarried shall have the same rights of inheritance as she would have, had such marriage been her first marriage.
Whatever ceremonies now constitute valid marriage shall have the same effect on the marriage of a widow.
6. Whatever words spoken, ceremonies performed, or engagements made, on the marriage of a Hindu female who has not been previously married, are sufficient to constitute a valid marriage, have the same effect, if spoken, performed, or made on the marriage of a Hindu Widow; and no marriage shall be declared invalid on the ground that such words, ceremonies, or engagements are inapplicable to the case of a widow.
Consent of re-marriage of a widow who is a minor.
7. If the widow remarrying is a minor whose marriage has not been consummated, she shall not remarry without the consent of her father, or, if she has no father, of her paternal grand-father, or, if she has no such grand-father, ​of her mother, or failing all these, of her elder brother, or, failing also brothers, of her next male relative.
Punishment for abetting marriage made contrary to this section.
All persons knowingly abetting a marriage made contrary to the provisions of this section shall be liable to imprisonment for any term not exceeding one year or, to fine, or, to both.
Effect of such marriage.
And all marriages made contrary to the provisions of this Section may be declared void by a Court of law.
Proviso.
Provided that, in any question regarding the validity of a marriage made contrary to the provisions of this section, such consent as is aforesaid shall be presumed until the contrary is proved, and that no such marriage shall be declared void after it has been consummated.
Consent to re-marriage of major Widow.
In the case of a widow who is of full age, or whose marriage has been consummated, her own consent shall be sufficient consent to constitute her re-marriage lawful and valid.
So, notwithstanding the pledges and assurances of Government of its now interference with the laws of marriage and inheritance of its Indian subjects, and in spite of more than 40 petitions from upwards of 60,000 Hindus of the higher class against the innovation, the Act was passed at the instance of an infinitesimal minority. We have not space to quote all these petitions. We will, therefore, content ourselves by giving space to one or two, that were most important. ​
(A.)
* "To
* "THE HONORABLE
* "THE LEGISLATIVE
* "COUNCIL OF INDIA.
* "The humble Petition of the
* "Undersigned Inhabitants of
* "Calcutta and the Lower
* "Provinces of Bengal.
Most respectfully Sheweth,
"That your Petitioners have read with much concern the Draft of a Bill entitled, "A Bill to remove all legal obstacles to the marriage of Hindu Widows," which was read by your Honorable Council for the first time on the 17th November last, and for the second time, on the 19th January. Your Petitioners are aware, from the printed papers of your Honorable Council, that the said Bill has been brought in, on the Petition of certain Hindus who desire that Widow Marriage should be legalized. Your Petitioners are also sensible that the principle of the said Bill is consonant with the social system of their English fellow-subjects, and therefore Is likely to be acceptable to your Honorable Council; yet your Petitioners cannot but feel it as a duty, as well to themselves as Hindus as to their countrymen in general, to submit their objections to the proposed law.
"2. The preamble to the Bill states that, whereas it is known that by the law as administered in the Civil Courts established in the territories in the possession and under the government of the East India Company, Hindu Widows with some exceptions are held to be, by reason of their having been once married, incapable of contracting a second valid marriage, and the offspring of such widows by ​ any second marriage are held to be illegitimate and incapable of inheriting property; and whereas many Hindus believe that this imputed legal incapacity, although it is in accordance with established custom, is not in accordance with a true interpretation of the precepts of their religion, and desire that the Civil law administered by the Courts of Justice, shall no longer prevent those Hindus who may be so minded from adopting a different custom in accordance with the dictates of their own consciences," &c.
"3. Your Petitioners beg leave to observe that the re-marriage of Hindu females is not only not in accordance with the established usages of Hindus, but is likewise repugnant to the precepts of their religion and the ordinations of Hindu law, from which all their social institutions have originated. Though there are different tribes of Hindus, who speak different tongues, follow different codes of laws, wear different dresses, and have different customs and usages, yet they are all unanimous in reprehending the marriage of their widows, in consequence of its being against the positive injunctions of their law, and the interpretations of that law by different commentators of ancient and modern times. The Yajur Veda in the Taittiriya Shakha declares that "as round a single Yupa (sacrificial post) two tethers can be tied, so one person can marry two wives. As one tether cannot be tied round two Yupas, so one female can not marry two husbands." The most ancient and revered of our lawgivers, Manu, says in Chapter V. verse 161, that "a widow who, from a wish to bear children, slights her deceased husband by marrying again, brings disgrace on herself here below, and shall be excluded from the seat of her lord." And also at the following verse, "issue begotten on a woman by any other than her husband, is here declared to be no progeny of hers; no more than a child, begotten on the wife of another man, belongs to the begetter; nor is a second husband allowed ​in any part of this code to a virtuous woman." The same authority further directs in Chapter IX verses 64 and 65, that "by men of twice-born classes no widow or childless wife must be authorised, to conceive by any other than her lord; for they who authorize her to conceive by any other, violate the primeval law. Such a commission to a brother, or other near kinsman, is nowhere mentioned in the nuptial texts of the Veda; nor is the marriage of a widow even named in the laws concerning marriage." The Mahabharat, too, lays down that "a woman is to have only one husband, upon whom she must depend through her whole life." These ordinations in the highest sacred works of the Hindus, added to the long established custom and usage of the country, against the marriage of widows, will, your Petitioners trust, weigh more in the estimation of your Honorable Council than the forced construction of any solitary text apparently in its favour, but quite unsupported by a single instance of such marriage having ever been legally contracted in any period of the annals of the Hindus. Your Honorable Council will thus perceive that the marriage of Hindu widows is not in accordance with the dictates of Hindu law, as it is stated in the preamble to the Bill for the removal of legal obstacles to such marriages.
"4. Your Petitioners further beg leave to submit that the proposed law is also at variance with the several Statutes of the British Parliament and the Regulations of the East India Company, by which the natives of this country have from time to time been assured that their rights of marriage and inheritance shall not be disturbed or violated. Section 23 of Regulation I. of 1772, which was re-enacted in Section 15 of Regulation IV. of 1793, ordains that, in all suits regarding succession, inheritance, marriage, and caste, and all religious usages and institutions, the Mahomedan law shall prevail in respect of Mahomedans and the Hindu law in regard to Hindus. This is also laid down in ​the 21 George III. Chap. 70 Sections 17, 18 and 19. The 3 and 4 William IV. Chap. 85 Section 53 expressly provides that, in making any law for the natives of this country, a due regard should be had to their religion, customs, laws, and usages. The more subsequent Regulation V of 1831 declares that cases relating to the marriage, succession, and inheritance of Mahomedans shall be decided according to Mahomedan law, and those concerning the Hindus shall be adjudicated according to Hindu law. These repeated declarations of the British Parliament and the local Government have induced a firm belief that the natives of this country would be continued in the enjoyment of their laws relating to marriage, succession, and inheritance. Even in the General Order recently issued by the Governor-General in Council in reference to the late disturbance at Bolarum and the conduct of Brigadier Mackenzie on the occasion, the public officers were enjoined in the strongest manner "never to interfere with the religious observances of the natives of India." When the late Law Commission in 1837 applied to the Sadar Courts at the several Presidencies for their opinions on the subject of Hindu Widow Marriage, the Judges of those Courts unanimously observed that the legalization of such marriage "would be an interference with the Hindus in the matter of their own law and religion and at once dislocate the whole frame-work of Hindu jurisprudence." The Hindu Society has undergone no material change whatever since that year, which would warrant the Legislature to interfere with the Hindu law on the ground of expediency. Its integrity, it is true, has been most seriously affected by the enactment of Act XXI of 1850, but your Petitioners submit that one encroachment does not justify another; and what is of more importance, the said law has not increased the number of native converts to Christianity. The experience of the last six years shows that, practically, it has been of no more use than affording an example of an ​arbitrary and uncalled-for interference with the Hindu law of inheritance. Legislative intervention has never yet been able to effect a change in public opinion, while the more such interference is exercised, the more it assumes an objectionable character.
"5. Your Petitioners have been told that the Bill for the removal of legal obstacles to the marriage of Hindu widows, is merely a Permissive law. In reply they beg leave to observe that, so far as it allows a widow to contract a second marriage, at her option, it is undoubtedly of a permissive character, but in its immediate and ultimate consequences, when it interferes with the rights of others, your Petitioners humbly submit, that it is a compulsory measure. As for example, if a Hindu dies leaving two daughters, both of whom are widows, but the one has a son, and the other no children; by the Hindu law of inheritance as it is now administered, that son will be the sole heir of his maternal grandfather. But if the childless widow contracts a second marriage and has issue by her second husband, by the proposed law they would be entitled to equal shares of the property of their mother's father with the son, of the widow who has not re married. Again, if a married woman dies leaving two sons, who have acquired property. Their father marries a widow and dies leaving a son by her. One of the brothers has children while the other has not; but both of them subsequently die. By the Hindu law the said children will succeed to the whole of that property; but by the proposed law, the son of the widow will not only share equally with the two brothers at first, but will also succeed to the share of the deceased among them to the exclusion of the said children. Again, a person dies leaving a widow, but no issue, and directs her by his will to adopt a son and heir. If before the adoption takes place, she contracts a second marriage, she cannot carry out the directions of her deceased husband according to Hindu law; and the consequence will ​be that his line will be extinct; that he and his ancestors will have none to perform the usual funeral ceremonies prescribed by the Hindu religion; and that, whatever property he may have left, will go to his next of kin, who by the proposed law, will find it to their interest to induce the widow to marry, and thus defeat the intentions of her first husband; for their own benefit.
"6. Your Petitioners can, to an unlimited extent, multiply instances in which the proposed law for marriage of Hindu Widows will operate against the civil rights of others who may prefer to follow the laws and usages of their country—a consequence which had, no doubt, been anticipated by the Judges of the several Sadar Courts, when they gave it as their opinion that the legalization of such marriages would amount to an interference with the customs and laws of the Hindus, and would at once upset their present system of jurisprudence. If the Petitioners in favour of widow Marriage be disposed to adopt "a different custom in accordance with the dictates of their own consciences," as it is stated in the preamble to the Bill, your Petitioners have no objection whatever to their doing so; but when the law which they have asked for interferes with the rights of others, who entertain different opinions and are not inclined to follow their example, their demand is manifestly unjust and unreasonable. The Petitioners at whose instance the proposed law has been brought in, form a very small and insignificant portion of the vast masses of the people whom your Petitioners represent. It would, therefore, be scarcely just and reasonable, or even expedient, to enact a law for the minority which shall interfere with the rights of the majority. As far as your Petitioners have been able to communicate with the people of the interior, during the short space of two months, which has elapsed between the first and second reading of the Bill, they have found but one opinion exist among all classes of men, and that opi​nion is, your Petitioners need hardly say, against the proposed law; and if the face of that law being under the consideration of your Honorable Council be made known still more extensively, your Petitioners are sure the general voice of the entire Hindu population will be raised against its enactment. The great majority of the people of this country have yet had no intimation of the proceedings which have been held in respect of the Bill for the legalization of the marriage of Hindu Widows. They have no knowledge of the English language, and do not read the English newspapers in which the reports of your Honorable Council appear. The Bill made its appearance in the Bengali Government Gazette only on the 12th February; but still that would not be sufficient, as the Bengali language is only read and understood in only one of the provinces out of the immense extent of territories subject to British rule in India, and that, too, by a comparatively small portion of its inhabitants. Its enactment will, therefore, be without the knowledge of the people whose interests are to be affected by it. If they know of it, your Petitioners are certain they would object to it, and it would be unwise to pass it into law on the application of a few against the wishes of the hundred thousands of the Hindus who own allegiance to the British Crown in India.
"7. Your Petitioners also beg leave to submit that the proposed law for the legalization of Hindu Widow Marriage is vague and insufficient; since it does not declare what shall constitute a valid widow marriage. The rite of matrimony is held sacred in all countries and by all nations. It is one of the ten Sanskars or sacramental rites of the Hindus. Its details are no-where left to the option of individuals; yet such would be the case if the Bill for the removal of all legal obstacles to the marriage of Hindu Widows be passed into law as it now stands. The ceremony which at present prevails among Hindus, cannot be per​formed in the case of a widow taking another husband, "The holy nuptial texts," says Manu in Chap. 8, Verse 226, "are applied solely to virgins, and no-where on earth to girls who have lost their virginity." Again in Chapter 9. Verse 47. "Once is the partition of an inheritance made, once is a damsel given in marriage, and once does a man say 'I give.' These three are by good men done once for all and irrecoverably." It will, therefore, be necessary to prescribe a new ritual in opposition to the dictates of Hindu Law and Religion to prevent its being a source of much litigation, which it otherwise necessarily lead to. Such a result cannot surely be the object of the Bill which is now before your Honorable Council. Your Petitioners also beg leave to submit that many Hindu widows, if re-married, at an early age, under the proposed law, might regard their second union as a degradation and wrong, when at a mature age they come to know the religion and laws of their country.
"8. Under these circumstances your petitioners beg leave to submit that the Bill "to remove all legal obstacles to the marriage of Hindu widows" should not be passed into law, and that your Petitioners, and the rest of their countrymen, who prefer to follow the established laws and usages of their country, will be permitted to continue in the enjoyment of their civil rights as they have heretofore done.
"And your petitioners as in duty bound shall ever pray.
"RAJA RADHAKANT BAHADUR,
"And Thirty-six Thousand Seven Hundred and Sixty-three other signatures."
"Calcutta, 17th March 1856.
(B)
"TO "THE HONORABLE
THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL OF
INDIA.
"The Petition of the undersigned Professors of the Hindu law, Inhabitants of Nuddea, Trebeni, Bhatparah, Bansbariah, Calcutta, and other places.
"That your Petitioners being apprised that one Ishwar-chandar Vidyasagar, Modern Pandit, has lately, in conjunction with a few young men of the rising class, petitioned your Honorable Council to legislate on the subject of the Marriage of Hindu Widows, and that a bill relating to it has been brought in—think it necessary most respectfully to draw your attention to their prayers on the subject.
"1st. That the Marriage of Hindu Widows is prohibited in the Veda, the Smriti, the Puranas, and other Shastras.
"That the advocates of widow marriage, who maintain that it is authorized by the Hindu Law, and who have therefore petitioned your Honorable Council to legislate in its behalf, are, in their opinions and constructions, utterly at variance with the whole range of the Hindu legal compilers and commentators. For the texts pointed out by the former as sanctioning widow marriage, have invariably been explained and asserted by the latter to refer to betrothed girls, and to widows in the past yogas (ages). And in truth all the digests of the Hindu Law which have regulated Hindu manners, customs, and religious practices, from time immemorial, not only no where authorize widow marriage, but on the contrary expressly discountenance it. The following ​extracts from the digests in question, are quoted for your information.
Ratnakar.
"Moreover the verses of Devala, who sanctions the re-marriage of women, declaring that a married woman whose husband has left her, shall wait for eight years, and after that take another husband; and that she may do the same under the circumstances specified therein, refer to former yogas, as also does the appointment of a widow to a brother or some other near kinsman for the purpose of raising issue."
"But a widow, who from a wish to bear children, slights her deceased husband by marrying again, brings disgrace on herself here below, and shall be excluded from the seat of her lord."
"Issue begotten on a woman by any other than her husband, is here declared to be no progeny of hers: no more than a child begotten on the wife of another man, belongs to the begetter, nor is a second husband allowed in any part of this code to a virtuous woman."
"Such a commission to a brother or other near kinsman is no where mentioned in the nuptial texts of the Veda; nor is the marriage of a widow even named in the laws concerning marriage."
Mahabharat, 1st Book.
"From this day I enact that a woman have only one husband as long as she lives, and whether he be alive or dead, if she go to another man, she shall doubtless be degraded."
Aditya Purana.
"The marriage of a widow, a larger allotment to the eldest brother, the sacrifice of a bull, the appointment of a man to beget a son on the widow of his brother, and the carrying of a water pot as the token of an ascetic, these five are prohibited in the Kali Yoga, or the fourth age." ​The veda says:—"As round one sacrificial post two cords are fastened, so one man may marry two wives; but, as one cord is not fastened round two sacrificial posts, so one woman cannot have two husbands."
The code of Manu says:—"Him to whom her father has given her or her brother with the paternal assent, let her obsequiously honor, while he lives; and when he dies, let her never neglect him."
"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.'
"Let her continue till death forgiving all injuries, performing harsh duties, avoiding every sensual pleasure, and cheerfully practising the incomparable rules of virtue, which have been followed by such women as were devoted to one only husband."
"And like those abstemious men, a virtuous wife ascends to heaven, though she have no child, if, after the decease of her lord, she devote herself to pious austerity."
Nirnaya Sindhu.
"A woman, even if she has been married, may be given away to another with clothes and ornaments. This and similar customs are prohibited in the Kali Yug, because the Adi Purana says, that 'procreation of a son by a brother, the giving away of a married woman, and the like, are not to take place in the Kali Yug."
Himadri.
"Prohibitions in the Kali Yug:—The marriage of a widow the gift of a larger portion to the eldest brother, the sacrifice of a bull, the appointment of a man to beget a son on the widow of his brother, and the carrying of a water-pot as the token of an ascetic, these five are prohibited in the Kali Yug."
Madan Parijat.
"The marriage of a widow, the gift of a larger portion to ​the eldest brother, the sacrifice of a bull, the appointment of a man to beget a son on the widow of his brother, and the carrying of a water-pot as the token of an ascetic, these five are prohibited in the Kali Yug.".
"2ndly. That the marriage of a Hindu widow of respectability is contrary to the customs and usages of the country. Among the Hindus of India, there are various customs and usages on various occasions, and the people of the several provinces observe them according to various Shastras; but the marriage of a widow is not in accordance with the customs and usages of any province, and none of the codes of law in force sanctions it. The practice of austerity by all Hindu widows has been customary from time immemorial; so that, not to mention the marriage of a widow, even her intercourse with a stranger renders her liable to expulsion from society. Now, if your Honorable Council, with a view of introducing widow marriage, legislate on the subject, the Vedas, Smritis, Puranas, and other religious institutes, and the customs and usages of time immemorial, will fall to the ground. To subvert the religion and usages of the subjects is not the province of the Legislature. Monu says—"A king who knows the revealed law, must inquire into the particular laws of classes, the laws or usages of districts, the customs of traders, and the rules of certain families, and establish their peculiar laws if they be not repugnant to the law of God.'
"3rdly. That, if your Honorable Council legislate on the subject of widow marriage, the rules of inheritance now prevalent among the Hindus will undergo great alterations. Though the offspring of such a marriage cannot, according to the received law and reputable manners of the country, be regarded otherwise than as illegitimate, or children of harlots, yet in case you legislate on the subject, the truly lawful heirs will be compelled to share the inheritance equally with them. The Code of Hindu law on ​inheritance, which is now of equal weight with the Government and its subjects, must be materially altered or supplanted by an entirely new one to prevent endless disputes arising from the collision of opposing interests, when persons who are not at present of kin to the legal heirs recognized by the Shastras, or by the customs of the country, will be placed on a footing of equality with them. The passing of the proposed Bill into law will not only, without any cause whatever, endanger the property of many an innocent individual, but in several cases altogether deprive him to it. A few cases of very probable occurrence illustrative of the above position, are most respectfully submitted for your consideration.
"If one's father, brother, brother's son, grandfather, or father's brother, or the like, in spite of the Shastras and the established customs, marry a widow and beget a son on her, and die, that son, armed with the law, will usurp the place of a brother, or brother's son and so forth, and thus divide the property of the deceased with rightful heirs, if such deceased have left no widow and children who are legal according to the Shastras. And sometimes, by his claim of priority, he will nullify the rights of lawful heirs. Similarly, if a widow take a second husband, though it be in opposition to her father's wishes, she may even then, on her father's dying without male issue or other heirs, be entitled to inherit his estate. Again, if she marry in opposition to the wishes of her brother, her son, in the event her brother's dying without male issue, will stand in point of relationship as his nephew or the grandson of his father and thus be entitled to inherit his property. In like manner, if the widow be a mother, or mother's or father's sister, or paternal of maternal aunt, or grandmother or brother's wife, and in marry in opposition to the wishes of her son or other relatives, the male children she may give birth to, will usurp the place of brothers and so forth, and contend ​for inheritance. Now it is most respectfully submitted to your consideration, whether or not the proposed Act will deprive many rightful heirs of their inheritance, and wholly upset the Hindu law on that subject.
"4thly. That there is the greatest probability of extinguishing the name of many a family by the passing of an Act authorizing the marriage of Hindu widows, and thereby concurring civil rights on the issue of such marriages. For in addition to the sanction of the Shastras, almost every childless man in this country enjoins his wife, in his dying moments, to adopt a son for the perpetuation of the family name. But if the Bill be passed, the desire of worldly enjoyment will induce the widow to take a second husband, and thus slighting the injunctions of her former lord about adoption, she will consign his family name to oblivion.
"5thly. In the event of the Bill being passed many a widow, otherwise disposed to observe the injunctions of her own religion, will, in all probability, by the intrigues of her avaricious kinsmen, sacrifice her honor; for the women of this country being mostly ignorant, and not being accustomed to read, write, and mix in society, it is difficult for them to detect the insidiousness of the cunning and evil disposed. It is therefore that our Shastras have not given them independence in any stage of their lives.
​"6thly. That, though the Bill has been brought in for the benefit of the people, the perusal of the foregoing paragraphs will not fail to convince your Honourable Council, that, instead of producing the good intended, it will injure their temporal and spiritual interests. Besides, those who have petitioned your Honorable Council for such an enactment, cannot by any possibility derive any advantage from it. For at present widow marriage does not obtain in this country, nor can persons be found who are the offspring of such marriages.
In conclusion, your Petitioners most humbly but earnestly protest against a Bill which is opposed to the whole of their Shastras; which is contrary to the customs and usages of the most respectable portion of your Hindu subjects throughout the country; which, when passed into law, will create endless confusion in their order of successions prevalent from time immemorial, give rise to numberless disputes, and necessitate the framing of a new code on Inheritance for deciding those disputes; by which the property of many a Hindu subject will not only be endangered but even destroyed: from which no party can reasonably expect any present advantage; which will consign the names of many families to oblivion; which will tempt not a few wicked people to betray innocent widows into viscious courses, that they may deprive them of their husband's estates: and they pray that the discerning Legislature of the British Government, which is so careful of the interests of its subjects, will not pass such a Bill into law.
"Your petitioners are most loyal subjects of your Government. It is not less, the duty of that Government to maintain their religion and customs than to protect their lives and property. Your Petitioners do not pretend to direct your Council, nor have they the power to oppose your designs. As children ask indulgence from their parents, so ​do they supplicate your Honorable Council. Besides, the boon they are now solicitous to obtain from your Honors, is neither exceptionable nor unjust; for every nation is naturally eager to preserve its religion uncorrupt. It is only the apprehension of interference on your part with their religion which has induced your Petitioners to approach you, in the hope that their prayers will prevail and prevent you from legislating on the subject of widow marriage.
"And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, shall ever pray.
The Act was passed. But the people did not come forward to marry their widowed daughters or sisters. From the eagerness with which the advocates of widow marriage had looked out for the legislation, many thought naturally that they had been only waiting for the Law to marry the widowed girls under their care. But, in fact, such was not the case. Most of the subscribers to the petitions in favour of the innovation had put down their names out of curiosity for novelty, and some had done so under pressure of influential bodies. No sooner was the novelty gone, than they, one by one, began to forsake the party, for they had not espoused the cause from the impulse of their own hearts. For four complete months, even after the passing of the Act, no body ventured to take the initiative. On this point, it would be better to quote what the writer of "The Hindu Child Widow" has said:—
"In spite of warnings and clamours, he (i. e. ​Lord Canning) legalised the remarriage of Hindu widows. * * *
"It has proved a dead letter. Not only does it fail to secure to a widow her civil rights to property inherited from her husband, but it has not in the least degree mitigated the religious abhorrence with which orthodox Hindus regard such remarriages. After careful enquiry from the leaders of the Hindu remarriage movement, who run no danger of minimising its results, I can only hear of sixty remarriages under the Act of 1856." So that, since the enactment of the Law, there have not been more than seventy marriages at the most up to date.
The first marriage contracted under this Act, took place on the 7th December, 1856, certainly a memorable day in the history of the remarriage of Hindu widows. The bridegroom was Sris Chandra Vidyaratna, son of the illustrious Pandit Ramdhan Tarkavagis of Khantura. The bride was Kalimati Devi, widowed daughter of Lakshmimani Devi, also a widow, the father of the bride having died sometime before this marriage. It is needless to say that the marriage was consummated through the strenuous exertions of Vidyasagar, who had to spend a good sum of money on it. The marriage was celebrated in the house of Raj Krishna Banarji at Sukea's Street. On the night of the eventful day, there was so great a rush of people in the streets leading to Raj Krishna Babu's ​house, that the bridegroom's palanquin could proceed through them only with utmost difficulty. It is said, that Vidyasagar himself and some of his most influential followers escorted the palanquin on both sides of it, for he had apprehended a riot. He had, therefore already applied for Police help, and constables had been posted one yard apart, in all the streets through which the bridegroom was to pass, to prevent the contingent riot. Some say, that Vidyasagar's friend, Madan Mohan Tarkalankar, was, in fact, the match-maker of this union. He knew both the parties, and encouraged them to form this alliance. Sris Chandra was Judge-Pandit of Murshidabad in place of Madan Mohan Tarkalankar, since the latter had been made a Deputy Magistrate. So it is probable, that he might have induced Sris Chandra to enter into this union, but it is not known whether he contributed any amount to Vidyasagar's widow marriage fund.
Different versions of the celebration of this marriage appeared in the different vernacular periodicals. The Samachar Chandrika, the Sangbad Prabhakar, and the Bhaskar were the leading Bengali newspapers of the day, besides some other fortnightly and monthly magazines. Gaurisankar Bhattacharyya, otherwise known as Gurgure Bhattacharyya, was the editor of the Bhaskar, and the poet Isvar Chandra Gupta was the editor of the Sangbad Prabhakar. These two papers sided ​with the two parties, the one was for, and the other, against, the innovation, and they gave quite conflicting accounts of the first Hindu widow marriage. The Tattvabodhini, the best conducted magazine of the day of the so-called progressive class, filled its columns with a detailed account of this marriage.
From this account, which is the more creditable, it is seen that Vidyasagar gave the bride her nuptial dress and ornaments, and also defrayed other expenses out of his own pocket.
By slow degrees, several such marriages were celebrated during the life-time of Vidyasagar, each of which cost him a good sum of money. Besides, he had to provide for the maintenance of many poor families, who were boycotted from Society and persecuted in different ways for contracting widow-marriage or for associating with those who had ventured to enter into such alliance, which was looked upon with abhorrence by the majority of the Hindus. Vidyasagar's limited income from his books, for he had afterwards no other means, was not at all sufficient to cope with these various heavy outlays, and he had to contract debts to the fearful amount of nearly half a lakh of rupees.
The Hon'ble C. E. Buckland, in his 'Bengal under the Lieutenant Governors', says,—"Vidyasagar was a Hindu of the orthodox type, but he felt the position of inferiority assigned to the women in India, and on their behalf he started ​the widow-marriage movement * * * when the Indian Legislature passed an Act in 1856 legalising the marriage of Hindu widows, the first widow marriage under the Act took place in Calcutta in December 1856. It was followed by others, both in the Presidency town and in the district of Hooghly and Midnapore. * * * The several pamphlets issued in justification of his views show unrivalled powers of reasoning as well as deep knowledge of the Hindu scriptures and legal books. To help the movement he ran heavily into debt, which he lived long enough to clear." Of course, some of his friends helped him, now and then, with money, but that was too small to meet the demands. Besides, most of those, who had promised him large contributions, forsook him one by one like birds of passage. In a few years, his embarrassments grew upon him so heavily, that he had to seek re-entrance into public service, though without success, of which in its proper place. But he was not dispirited or dejected in the slightest degree. He was as resolutely firm as a rock. He had made the remarriage of Hindu widows the chiefest aim of his life. He was a victim to much persecution at the hands of his opponents. Some even went so far as to attempt at his life. But he was never daunted in the least. Nothing could move him a hair from his life-long aim. When his father, Thakurdas, heard that the life of his dear son was at risk, he sent a club​man, by name Srimanta, to act as body-guard to Vidyasagar. This Srimanta was as strong in muscles as he was dexterous in fencing with his club. It was with the help of this man, that Vidyasagar saved himself one night, when a number of his opponents attempted to fall upon him with an evil intent.
It is said that, at this period, whenever he went out into the streets, people surrounded him on all sides. Some threw at him vile taunts, while others abused him in filthy language; some threatened him with assaults, while others went so far as to threaten him with murder. But he cared very little for these insults and threats. One day, he was told that a certain wealthy man had engaged men to waylay and beat him, and the men were looking out for an opportunity to carry out their vicious master's orders. Vidyasagar at once presented himself before the rich man at his residence, where he was engaged in deep consultation with his flatterers and dependents, anticipating the sweet pleasure of chastising the wicked Pandit. At his sight, every one of the company hung down his head in shame, and could not give utterance to a word. At last, one of their number ventured to break silence, and ask the visitor the cause of his sudden appearance. Vidyasagar replied,—'I hear, you have engaged men to beat me, and they are always on the look out for me. To save them from their trouble, I have thought it better to present ​myself before you. You may now carry out your wishes.' The audience bowed down their head in shame, and apologised for their ill conduct.
Several amusing stories are told in connection with the abusive language thrown at him by his opponents. On one occasion, when he was returning to Calcutta from Burdwan, a Pandit got up into Vidyasagar's compartment from the Pandua Station. This Pandit happened not to know Vidyasagar personally, but had merely heard his name. In course of conversation, the Pandit began to talk of widow marriage, and abused Vidyasagar (not knowing that the man, he was talking to, was Vidyasagar in person) in the filthiest language possible. Subsequently when he alighted at the Hugli Station, he was told that the man, he had talked to, was Vidyasagar himself. The news gave him such a shock, that he fell down senseless on the platform. Vidyasagar nursed him with good care, and gave him some money, besides, for his treatment.
About the time that the country was in great commotion on account of Vidyasagar's movement, Mr. Pratt, an Inspector of Schools, asked him one day, whose was the best protest of all that had appeared against his paper. By way of joke, Vidyasagar named one, who had abused him the most. Pratt could not grasp the joke. He took down the name of the man, and in a short time, made him a Deputy Inspector of Schools. When ​the man came to know the true source of his good fortune, he, one day, waited upon Vidyasagar, and requested him to see that he did not lose his appointment. Vidyasagar smiled and comforted him, assuring him that he had no fear on that account.
Some say that Premchand Tarkavagis, his former teacher in the Sanskrit College, whom he looked upon and revered as if he was his own father, once tried to dissuade him from his attempts at the innovation which was not consonant with the feelings of the Hindu Society in general, and which they would neither adopt nor approve of. But Vidyasagar was immovable. He said that it was his life-long aim, and that he was prepared to sacrifice his all, even his life, for the furtherance of the cause. And he practically kept his word.
* ↑ নষ্টে মৃতে প্রব্রজিতে ক্লীবেচ পতিতে পতৌ। পঞ্চ স্বাপৎসু নারীণাং পতিরন্যোবিধীয়তে॥
* ↑ The 2nd Section ran as follows:—"All rights and interests which any widow may have by Law in her deceased husband's estate, either by way of maintenance or by inheritance, shall, upon her second marriage, cease and determine, as if she had then died; and the next heirs of such deceased husband then leaving shall thereupon succeed to such estate. "Provided that nothing in this section shall affect the fights of any widow in any estate or other property to which they may have succeeded otherwise than through her deceased husband or to which she may have become entitled under the will of her deceased husband; or in any estate or other property which she may possess as Stri-dhan, or which she may have herself acquired either during the lifetime of her deceased husband or after his death."