"Very Common in those Parts"
"The dark enigma of permitted wrong."--F. R. H.
THE mixture of secrecy and openness described by the Temple woman is
confirmed by Hindus well acquainted with Temple affairs. "All the Temple
women are married to the gods. In former times the marriages were
conducted upon a grand scale, but now they are clandestinely performed
in the Temple, with the connivance of the priest, and with freedom to
deny it if questioned. Some ceremonies are performed in the Temple, the
rest at home. Sometimes the marriage symbol is blessed by the priest,
and taken home to the child to be worn by her. In all these cases the
priest himself has to tie it round her neck. The previous arrangements
for the marriage are made by the priests with the guardians of the child
who is to be initiated into the order of Temple women.
"The ceremony of tying on the marriage symbol is never in our district
performed in public. None but intimate friends know about it. There is a
secret understanding between the priests and the Temple women concerned.
When the time arrives for the marriage symbol to be tied on, after the
usual ceremonies the priest hands over the symbol hidden in a garland of
flowers.
"Of course, there is music on the occasion. When outsiders ask what all
the noise is about, the people who know do not say the real thing. They
say it is a birthday or other festival day. The symbol is tied on when
the child is between five and eleven, after which it is considered
unholy to perform the marriage ceremony. The symbol is at first hidden
from the gaze of the public. Later it is shown publicly, but not while
the girl is still young."
This tallies exactly with our own experience. More than once an eager
child in her simplicity has shown me the marriage symbol, a small gold
ornament tied round her neck, or hanging on a fine gold chain; but the
Temple woman in whose charge she was has always reproved her sharply,
and made her cover it up under her other jewels, or under the folds of
her dress.
The reason for this secrecy, which, however, is not universal, is, as is
inferred in the evidence of the head priest, because it is known to the
Temple authorities that what they are doing is illegal; though, as a
matter of fact, as will be seen later, prosecutions are rare, and
convictions rarer still.
The Caste is recruited, as the Blue Book states, by "admissions and even
purchases from other classes." On this point a Brahman says: "When the
Temple woman has no child, she adopts a girl or girls, and the children
become servants of the gods. Sometimes children are found who, on
account of a vow made by their parents, become devotees of the gods."
Another Brahman, an orthodox Hindu, writes: "In some districts people
vow that they will dedicate one of their children to the Temple if they
are blessed with a family. Temple women often adopt orphans, to whom
they bequeath their possessions. In most cases the orphans are bought."
The position of the Temple woman has been a perplexity to many. The
Census Report touches the question: "It is one of the many
inconsistencies of the Hindu religion, that though their profession is
repeatedly vehemently condemned in the Shastras (sacred books), it has
always received the countenance of the Church." Their duties are all
religious. A well-informed Hindu correspondent thus enumerates them:
"First they are to be one of the twenty-one persons who are in charge of
the key of the outer door of the Temple; second, to open the outer door
daily; third, to burn camphor, and go round the idol when worship is
being performed; fourth, to honour public meetings with their presence;
fifth, to mount the car and stand near the god during car-festivals."
The orthodox Hindu quoted before remarks on the "high honour," as the
Temple child is taught to consider it, the marriage to the god confers
upon her.
We have purposely confined ourselves almost entirely to official and
Hindu evidence so far, but cannot forbear to add to this last word the
confirmatory experience of our own Temple children worker: "When I try
to persuade the Hindus to let us have their little ones instead of
giving them to the Temples they say: 'But to give them to Temples is
honour and glory and merit to us for ever; to give them to you is
dishonour and shame and demerit. So why should we give them to you?'"
We have said that convictions are rare. This is because of the great
difficulty in obtaining such evidence as is required by the law as it
stands at present. One case may be quoted as typical. A few years ago,
in one of our country towns, a father gave his child in marriage to the
idol "with some pomp," as the report before us says. He was prosecuted,
but the prosecution failed, for the priest and the parents united in
denying the fact of the marriage; and the evidence for the defence was
so skilfully cooked that it was found impossible to prove an offence
against the Penal Code.
Once, deeply stirred over the case of a little girl of six who was about
to be married to a god as her elder sisters had been a few months
previously, we wrote to a magistrate of wide experience and proved
sympathy with the work. His letter speaks for itself:--
"I have been waiting some little time before answering your letter,
because I wanted time to think over your problem. As far as I can make
out, there is no way in the world of preventing a woman marrying her own
daughter to the gods at any age; but you can prosecute her if she does.
If you could get her into prison for marrying the elder girls, the
younger might be safe; but I don't think you can do anything directly
for her. She is not being 'unlawfully detained'; and even if she were,
all you could do would be to get her returned to her parents and
guardians, which would be worse than useless.
"The question is whether you can hope to get a conviction in the other
case.
"I don't see how you can. You can say in court that you saw the little
girls with their marriage symbol on, and that they said they had been
married to the god. The little girls will deny it all, and say they
never set eyes on you before. Moreover, I don't think the ordinary Court
would be satisfied without some other evidence of the fact of
dedication; and considering how everyone would work against you, I think
you would find it extraordinarily hard. The local police would be worse
than useless."
To every man his work: it appears to us that expert knowledge is
required, and ample means and leisure, if the expenditure involved is to
result in anything worth while; and a careful study of all available
information regarding prosecutions, convictions, and, I may add,
sentences, has convinced us, at least, of the futility of such attempts
from a missionary point of view: for even if convictions were certain,
_as long as the law hands the child back to its guardians after their
unfitness to guard it from the worst that can befall it has been
proved_, so long do we feel unable to rejoice exceedingly over even the
six months' rigorous imprisonment, which in more than one case has been
the legal interpretation of the phrase "up to a term of ten years,"
which is the penalty attached to this offence in the Indian Penal Code.
In this connection it may be well to quote a paragraph from the _Indian
Social Reformer_:--
"The Public Prosecutor at Madras applied for admission of a revision
petition against the order of the Sessions Judge, made in the following
circumstances:--
"One, S., a priest, was convicted by the first-class subdivisional
magistrate of having performed the ceremony of dedicating a young girl
in the Temple of N., and thereby committing an offence punishable under