Again I say that thanks to the combined efforts of most progressive elements in Congress and the revolutionary forces of communist party, Hindus had got a more advanced Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Do not tell me about smrithis, vedas and scripttures and aged old customs, which are no more relevant to determine the matrimonial relationships and rights between the spouses. Earlier to 1955, how the rights and relationships were determined between the Hindu spouses? Have you at any time pondered over about this? Earlier to 1955 (not long back, only 55 years back), these smrithis, these vedas and these holy books laid down the personal laws in Hindus. Once, 1955 Act came, the matrimonial relationships are determined only on the basis of the
Act, 1955 and not any more on the basis of smrithis etc. Earlier to 1855 in Hindu males, monogamy was not there, bigamy and polygamy was the most prevalent feature. They could go for as many marriages as they like. Even the restriction of four marriages prevailing in Muslims was not there. If you turn the pages of history, you can see all the affordable and affluent hindu males had more than one marriage. If the hindu males could afford, they managed more than one wife. But under no circumstances, a woman was not allowed to go for bigamy. Even in the case of widows, they were not allowed to marry. Child marriage system was there. Young girls became widows and they were pushed to Brindavan etc. religious places to feed themselves. There was a great social reform movement for widow's marriages between 1920s and 1950s parallel to Indian Independence movement. Then also Hindu Orthodox people tried to stamp out such social reform movements depriving the young widows to remarry in the name of vedas and smrithis. Once 1955 HMA came into effect, by virtue of interpretation of Section 5 of the Act, a hindu widow has got a right to remarry. In a nutshell, prior to 1955, hindu women faced innumerable problems like polygamy in their husbands, humiliation if she was not in a position to give birth to children or cannot give birth to son, even though the problem might be lying in the husband, no right in the property, no right to remarry if the husband died, no right to economically empower herself and pursue jobs etc. The women lived a hell of life earlier to 1955. The right wing outfits, RSS, the then Jan Sangh, some retorgreessive elements in congress, Swatantra Party etc., the so called religious outfits from Haridwar and Rishikesh came in large numbers to seize the parliament to stall the passing of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. They were beaten blue and the Act was passed. Now, hindu women enjoy equal rights in matrimonial relationships.
Now, in several posts, Roshni rightly attacks men for their extra-marital relationships and argues that a woman has got a right to get a divorce from such husbands who have got extra marital relationships. She further argues also that the victimised woman shall have the right to invoke adultery provision in Indian Penal Code against the woman who developed the relationship with the husband. But prior to 1955, your smrithis, your vedas and your other holy books allowed a man to have legalized extra marital relationships. Now you want to uphold the woman's rights on one hand and on the other hand want to uphold the old hindu traditions and scripttures, which completely deprived the woman of basic rights. What a contradiction?
In respect of women's property rights, the story is further miserable. Earlier to 1936, women did not have property rights. She was to be under the custody of father till marriage, under the custody of husband after the marriage, under the custody of son after husband's death. She was not provided any right in property. After 1936, limited rights were given in ancestral property. Her rights on immovable property were further extended in Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Finally, only in 2005 full equal rights were given to women in ancestral property. But, as we are living in male dominated society, even though the husband is entitled to give his self acquired property to any one he likes, he generally prefers to give it to the sons instead of the wife and daughters. But that is upto him and no one can interfere into any thing.
Now coming to the incest relationships, so much hue and cry is made out. My simple question is this. You are criticising christians and muslims for allowing such relationships in their personal laws. so far, so good. For health reasons and for healthy future generations, I also do not support such relationships. But what about Hindus? In Andhra Pradesh and some parts of Tamil Nadu. Hindus are allowed sapinda relationships. A boy can marry the daughter of his sister, daughter of maternal uncle (not maternal aunt), daughter of paternal aunt (not paternal uncle). Seventy five percent of marriages in Andhra Pradesh happen in such a way. They are as much Hindus as you are. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 gave exemption to such marriages on the basis that the customs allowed it and as per the Act, even though they are sapinda relationships but are legally valid marriages.
while discussing the legal matters, objectivity and rationality shall dominate. One shall not succumb to subjective thoughts, just like that as I am Hindu, I do not like any one criticise Hindus etc. If we start to beat our own drums that my culture is the best, my scripttures are the best and my language is the best, then we are called fanatics. Then there will be no difference between muslim talibans and hindu talibans.
