which women are decried are no more numerous and not so severe as what we read in Greek, Latin, and British literature. They say: "Three persons are always well received, a brave soldier, a learned scholar, and a pretty woman."

Even Sir Monier Williams, a scholar of books, who looked on modern Indian practice as a disgrace to ancient Indian ideals, said"It is most surprising that unhappy marriages. are rare in India." He had the fact there, and his want of experience of the people supplied the surprise. He also got at the truth when he mentioned that Hindu husbands do not beat their wives, and that women's influence over men is as great as their influence in Europe."

I have seen it suggested in graphic and interesting tales purporting to be a picture of Indian life that for Brahmin widows to remarry is no extraordinary occurrence.

That earnest, but temporate reformer, Mr. Dutt, one of the most English of Bengalis, though in the “ Lake of Palms," he describes by the mouth of one of his characters the marriage of a Hindu widow from the Hindu standpoint "as a sin, public scandal, a madness beyond thought, an act against which the Hindu world would turn, as an outrage worse than a crime," yet represents a pious family as sanctioning such a marriage by the advice of a holy man, who pointed out that the "scriptures," if the Vedas correspond with the scriptures, "sanction remarriage." How far reforming zeal impairs the power of perspective will be obvious, when we learn in one page that "social boycotting has lost its horrors in India," and in another that "women of good birth and family dared not ask the married widow to their feasts and ceremonies."

The characters portrayed in this valuable and interesting book could never look without disgust upon such advertisements as occasionally appear in the Indian press: "Wanted, a young virgin widow, to be married to a bachelor of 24, with high prospects; fair, and good looking; object being reformation; full particulars and personal interview after approval of photo; proper party only need apply." This hardly satisfies Hindu standards of modesty, though hard by in Burma "Ma Thet hereby informs the public that Maung Po Min' is no longer my husband, has no claim to my property, and I will not be responsible for debts contracted by the said Maung Po Min'."

reforming Indian press has fastened upon Sister Nivedita's (Miss Noble) statement that "the Protestant missionaries have misunderstood the matter, and that the widow is not regarded with aversion and contempt;. that her position is the result of intensity of moral development, and not of its lack." This is, I think, a strong presentment of the case, but violent and unreasonable condemnation is the rule.

Sir Richard Temple wrote of Upper India— "Enforced widowhood is not nearly so general as is made out by those who would deduce a moral from Indian manners for the glorification of the habit of the Christians."

66

Take the figures for Hindustan proper, the North-West or United Provinces. Of the Hindu population 24 per cent. prohibit, and 76 per cent. permit and encourage remarriage of widows, and in all but the very highest castes every young widow finds a mate. Nearly a century ago, the Abbé Dubois, in ante-reform days, said: Young widows bear their fate much better than might be expected. They are, perforce, resigned, and however despised a widow may be, one who remarries is a hundred times more so; shunned by every honest and respectable person, there are few widows who would not look on a proposal of remarriage as a downright insult. Nor is the resulting immorality as great as might be expected, owing to the chaste and circumspect demeanour of Hindu women." Mr. Beauchamp, the learned editor of Dubois, on this remarks, in 1897, "Those few who brave caste and remarry are invariably outcasted." Sir Madhava Rao pointed out how much less important this question is than is often represented, and showed that a very small proportion of prohibited widows, who are themselves a very small proportion, would, if permitted, remarry.

There are, however, steps the people can take to improve their marriage customs, and girls under ten are already less frequently married; but the late Sir Madhava Rao, an advanced thinker and one of the reform party, thought there was as much to deprecate as to imitate in our own system. He considered the life of a Hindu girl as happy as that of a bird or a bee, and by no means wanting in the knowledge needed for her life, and he thought as well of Hindu women, as others do who know them.

I cannot do better than end by quoting again my old friend, who was one of the most

and a minister in two great native States. He said:" Many writers on Hindu social reform have not clearly understood the existing system, which is the product of long development, nor accurately compared it with other systems, before underrating the advantages and exaggerating the disadvantages of the Indian system. The great majority of the people who retain their religious beliefs and social usages, would prefer non-representation to misrepresentation, by those who have given up those beliefs and usages."

DISCUSSION.

The CHAIRMAN, in opening the discussion, said it was only possible for him to mention the general effect on his mind of the study of India from the purely official point of view, and in that respect the domestic life of the people to a certain extent came before one's eyes in official papers. The subject dealt with by the author was extremely intricate and delicate. When he was in Bombay he thought he was justified in saying that perhaps there had not been before at that time a collection of three men of greater mental capacity, greater distinction in their own lines, and certainly not more prominent in such reform as they considered possible in India, than Mr. Justice Telang, Mr. Justice Ranade, and Professor Bhandarkar. Mr. Justice Telang had been a leader of reform in Hindoo circles, but towards the end of his days he allowed child marriage in his own family, and the gravest disapprobation was expressed towards him in the Bombay University Convocation. Mr. Justice Ranade likewise had to pay penance. Professor Bhandarkar, who was one of the most courageous Hindoos he had ever met, was the only one of the three who could stand up against something which had a tremendous influence on those great minds. It had always seemed to him that the two gentlemen he had mentioned had been influenced by domestic influences; it was the home life which caused them to recede from the very strong line they had taken up as regards reform. He could not believe that a woman's influence was very different in other races to what it was in the English race, and knowing the influence a woman had in domestic life, one could understand its enormous power in the life of a reflective and religious people like the Hindoos. Occasionally, both in India and in England, he had played cricket. At the Bombay Gymkhana there was a Hindoo professional bowler, who one day came to the secretary and told him that he was obliged to leave. The secretary expressed his regret, and asked the bowler if he could do anything to make him change his mind; was he receiving enough pay? The Hindoo replied that he was getting very good pay, but he was going because his caste would not

allow him to play with Englishmen who ate beefand he went. Although that might, to some people, appear ridiculous and tyrannical, he did not view it in the same light. It was a very good thing in the life of a people that there should be something strong, resolute, and binding, which attracted their attention to a subject akin to religion, and he did not think there was very much distinction to be drawn between caste and religion. From his cursory experience of domestic life in India, it seemed to him that the people of the country possessed four very admirable characteristics. In the first place, they were a very cleanly people. He was not at all sure that a great deal of the cleanliness of English people did not come from India. The daily bath, he believed, was hardly known in England until the Anglo-Indian came back in larger numbers than before. In the second place, he presumed it was simply common-place for him to say that the natives of India were a highly religious people. He thought the difficulties they overcame, and the inconveniences they subjected themselves to in visiting sacred shrines was very admirable, and, as he had already said, it seemed to him that caste and religion were very much akin. In the third place, although, of course, there were ' easily observable exceptions, the natives were a most sober people, although there was plenty of opportunity for drinking those fermented liquors, which could so easily be obtained in some parts of the Bombay Presidency. The author had mentioned that it was easy to make ridicule out of a number of things the Hindu would worship, for instance, the tools he used. There was a very great difference between religion and devotion. Many Europeans were devoted to the particular tool they used, and had a superstition that, unless they used that particular tool, they would not be successful; and surely, if McAndrew's hymn meant anything, it meant that McAndrew was a worshipper of his engine. Lastly, were not the natives a most charitable people? It had struck him most forcibly while he was in India, that there was no Poor-law; it had not been necessary to make a law to provide for the poor, because, he presumed, it was customary among the natives to be charitable. It was no doubt a fact that caste had become exaggerated. Every system, if closely observed by those who were under the domination of the class responsible for the closer observance of the customs of the system, was liable to become exaggerated. That was seen in all the systems of the world. But it had always seemed to him that, although there was that liability to exaggeration, there was, on the other hand, a remarkable power in India of adapting what was useful to India. As each invasion had swept over the country she had bowed her head to the invasion, and patiently and by degrees had absorbed all that was adaptable to the climate, country, customs, aud people. Presently the wave of invasion had gone back, and the stalks had sprung up again all the better for what had gone over them. During the five very busy years he spent in India he came to

the conclusion, from what he could learn from the papers, and from what Lady Harris told him she saw herself, that the domestic life in India was in not one particular less happy than the domestic life in England, that in many respects it was equally admirable, and that in many ways it was as strong a factor in producing those characteristics and tributes which went to make the whole social life of a people bearable.

Sir WILLIAM LEE-WARNER, K.C.S.I., observed that Mr. Rees had travelled rather far a-field in his paper, from the hearth to the State, and over administration and legislation, thus offering points for disagreement as well as agreement. The speaker concurred with him that reform must be by evolution, and proceed from within. He also concurred heartily in the amiable qualities of the Hindu, and would have dwelt more upon their patience, not the submissive quality of the animal creation, but their manly patience under the divine hand and nature's angry visitations. More might have been said of their ready gratitude for any kindness. What Mr. Rees had said about India being many nations was true. Madras Hindu society, as described, was not the Hindu Fociety of the north, nor of Bombay, nor even of Mysore. Madras suffered from want of competition and contact with the outside world. That was why the Mohammedan rule so little affected i's Hindu ideas and practices. The rest of India was forced to com. promise and change its institutions from time to time by the pressure of contact with other people and other ideas, which was less felt in the peaceful isolated south. However, even when all allowances were made for this, the speaker felt bound to express his dissent from the tone of helplessness which pervaded the paper. Mr. Rees dwelt, with evident satisfaction, on the alleged inability of British law to alter or affect caste. He threatened administrators with all sorts of pains and penalties if their actions affected caste, and he denounced Hindu and European writers for writing novels and books that offended caste. This was going too far! The law was not powerless. The Penal and Procedure Codes were felt in every household in India, and as every caste man was also a citizen of the Empire, his conduct in caste matters was more or less modified by his legal duties as a citizen. Even special laws regarding suttee, marriage, religious converts and toleration, abolition of slavery, had effected the object designed without any cause for complaint. As to the conduct of public servants there was nothing in the noble proclamation of Queen Victoria which could be twisted into an obligation to put -caste regulations before public law or legal rights. Then, as to the denunciation of writers and reformers, Mr. Rees should study the Telang school, and Mr. Ranade's essays, published by Mr. Kolaskar. Mr. Rees had said warmly: We know nothing about Veda times," but he could not deal with Hindu life or caste without a survey of the history of the Hindu religions. Mr. Ranade preached that reform was

only the "work of liberation," of retracing steps to the glorious liberty of the past, and of adding what was best adapted to Hindu life in the conditions in which we live. The best prophet of the future was the past. Hindu caste had changed in the past, and if it was to live in times to come with their altered circumstances, it must change wisely and slowly. Its own leaders must show the castes the road to change, and we ought to say and do nothing to make their task of judicious reform more difficult than it was. The revival, of which so much had been said, showed that the leaven was at work.

Mr. A. SARATH KUMAR GHOSH said the standpoint he had adopted in viewing the question was that merely of the fiction writer, which would not be acceptable to those people who had studied the matter from the standpoint of the careful and critical observer. After expressing his thanks to the author for the catholic manner in which he had stated the subject, he said he thought the author might have dilated upon the doctrine of re-incarnation, because it seemed to him that the whole basis of Hindu life was wrapped up in the belief in re incarnation. People did not talk about it, because it was such a mystic subject that they confessed no human being could know much about it except to accept it as a matter of faith. Looking at the pathetic side of Indian life, whenever there was a great tragedy the resignation and the patience with which it was borne, as mentioned by the author, could be traced to the belief in re-incarnation, the belief, either conscious or unconscious, that in a future state all would be improved, not necessarily by the degree of fate but by one's own acts. If they recognised that fact they would be able to understand some of the inner workings of the Hindu mind, and find a motive for conduct, when otherwise it was considered to be the mysterious side of Indian life. People sometimes said in the papers and in novels that it was never known how a Hindu would act under given circumstances; but if they took into account the main springs of human action a solution would be obtained, as in the doctrine of reincarnation. He did not agree with the author in thinking that marriages were made in India entirely by the parents, and that the young people had no option whatever. That was true universally, but in the villages the young people often had an option. Whenever there were three or four suitors proposed, the prospective bride might be more favourably disposed to one of them; she might then be able to influence her mother, who, in turn, would be able to influence the father.

Mr. N. B. WAGLE said that it gave him the greatest pleasure to congratulate Mr. Rees on his admirable paper, which showed the author's close acquaintance with the Hindoo shastras as well as the customs of the present day. But Mr. Rees, in the

course of his remarks, stated that he did not see any use in introducing the study of Hindoo philosophical works into Indian colleges. Having received his training at one of these colleges, he (the speaker) could say from experience that the little insight a student can get while at college in Hindoo philosophy is highly beneficial to him. The aim of the paper, so far as he could see, was to point out that Hindoo society was a good society, and that it required no change or interference of any sort. While Mr. Reès tried to maintain this, he hinted an attack on the cause of reform. He had no objection to accept every word the author had said, as to the ancient Hindu home being a good home, the influence a good influence, and the society as a good as any other civilised society; but it must be remembered that the times had changed; they had come in touch with Western institutions and thought, which is entirely of a different character, and the conflict was so great that either they must discover a compromise for the very existence of that society or be prepared to take the risk of a catastrophe. There could be no doubt that the Indians and the British had to live together, and it should be their endeavour to strengthen the political ties which existed between them as the subjects of the same Empire by social, intellectual and moral ties. If such fusion of communities was to be brought about it must be done in every side of Indian society, including even the domestic. Some people had refused to be influenced by Western thought, which was gradually moulding the Indian mind; they stood where they were and refused to move with the times. There might be others who considered that the old institutions were wholly injurious. Amidst those two classes the problem for the reformer was not as Sir William Lee-Warner had put forward, to reject superstitions and introduce everything that was based on the right notions of old Hindoo society, but to bring about a compromise between the two civilisations, to adopt what was best in the Western influence and retain only what was best and what could practically and profitably be retained from the ancient Indian institutions. The Chairman had mentioned that the late Mr. Justice Telang and the late Mr. Justice Ranade had comImitted acts which it was thought that the leaders of reform ought not to have done; but these two great men were crushed between the weight of these two conflicting civilisations; that was the great dilemma in which the reformers were often placed. Mr. Ranade and Mr. Telang had both gone, and their place had been taken by Mr. Justice Chandavarkar, who, a few months ago, showed his fearless and decisive attitude towards the social reform movement in India in his most able address in that hall. Under his guidance, they could be pretty certain that reform would be worked out effectively and in the right direction, and the Hindoo society would surely deserve all the commendation contained in the most learned paper they had had the pleasure of hearing hat evening.

Miss CORNELIA SORABJI said that when she listened to the author's extraordinarily clever and able paper and his interjected remarks, she was reminded of the old story of the advice of a husband to his wife about writing letters: "Whenever you write a letter, if you want to attract attention, begin with a retort." The paper, with the exception of the descriptive parts, which were charming, gave one the impression of one long retort. Why, she did not know. She could not tell who the individuals were to whom the author took exception, who had given English people such an extraordinarily wrong impression about India; in fact, if one carried one's mind back for the last 15 years, it would be remembered that everybody had been trying to think the best of India, had been trying to put forward old influences in their delightfully attractive light, old experiences in their beautiful picturesqueness, old ceremonies with their beautiful meanings. The restrictions of family life had been glorified; indeed in that room only last year she heard a charming address from a lady on Hindu life, partly on the Vedic times, and partly on the present age, which was not only full of admiration, but almost of adulation. Further, if one objected to the ways of the reformers, was it not better to let their suggested reform die? Why waste energy in opposition? Friction, it seemed to her, never helped anything in any department of life. If the thing was not worth doing it would not get done. There were excellent people at the helm. With Lord Curzon for Viceroy, with the different Governors, who gave all their time and attention, with their special Legislative Councils, to any question of reform which touched the country, it was hardly necessary for people who, though at one time they were experts, afterwards necessarily were ex officio laymen in this country, to thrust at anything that might be projected for India. Reformers, at best, had a hard time not only with their own people but also with the ontsider who did not know and did not understand; and she thought it might be more helpful in the long run to leave them alone. The author had done her the honour of mentioning a scheme which she had the privilege of putting before the Government, and which The Times of last September most kindly supported. The present was not the place in which to discuss it in detail, but she desired to correct one or two mistakes. The scheme was not a scheme which touched any national custom with a view to uprooting it ruthlessly; in fact, it was a conforming to a great national custom. The author had said that the custom of the purdah did not exist. in India. She had for the last eight years travelled up and down the country collecting facts and statistics on the point. The women who were described as going to the well to draw water were not purdahnishins. The purdah system was confined largely to that part of the country under Mohammedan influence, and how great the Mohammedan influence was in North India, North-Western India, and in the Moslem States of Southern India, any historian

knew. Nowadays anybody who acquired a better position in life shut his women away in the purdah, as an Englishman might acquire a country house or a motor-car; it was respectable, and the women liked it. She did not say it was a bad custom on the whole, but it sometimes did work injustice to the purdahnishins themselves. When they could not get at lawyers to help them, as when they were owners of property, reflection alone would suggest some of its inconveniences. If one had to talk to a person through a closed door and make a will with the beneficiary present, it might lead to a little rupture and unpleasantness. Not only was reform wanted in the interest of the purdahnishin, but in the interest of the outside world. Anybody who had studied the law reports would know how often a contract was avoided in the name of the purdahnishin. The law, as now administered, protected the purdahnishin. In the old days there was no protection for her. Why? Because she did not exist. She was invented after the Moslem invasion of India, and, therefore, it had been necessary since the occupation of the British to protect her. They had done all they could but there was just that shut door. Why was it that so few purdahnishin cases came into Court, although it was time, and again proved incidentally that they had been wronged? It was, as Judges of the High Court would say, because of the insuperable barrier between them and justice. When they did come into Court, it was often because somebody was taking advantage of the purdahnishin to avoid a contract. It was in the interest of the out-side world as well as of the purdanishin that reform was wanted. In regard to the need for the work, the letter which The Times published quoted the opinions, backed by cases, not only of eminent exadministrators of those parts of India, where the purdahnishin system prevailed, but of Jugdes of the High Court now in India, so she thought it was hardly necessary to quote people who had not written on the subject.

Mr. REES, in reply to Sir William Lee-Warner, said the village he selected was half-way between Madras and Calcutta. He gave his reasons for selecting a Madras village; but like Sir William Lee-Warner the knew other parts of India besides Madras. He had quoted authorities as regards the North-Western Provinces, Bengal, and Bombay, and the authority he had oftenest quoted, Abbé Dubois, one of the best that ever wrote upon India, was an authority who wrote upon Mysore, about which Sir William LeeWarner had spoken, and in which both he and Sir William had served, and from which the Chairman took his title. He had supplemented his own knowledge of other parts of India by the authorities of other people who might be considered to know individual parts much better. As the point had been raised, he would state that he himself was a Government translator for a great many years in Persian and Hindustani, had travelled and served in many

places outside Madras, and could not allow in any way that his paper was a Madras paper. Sir William Lee-Warner had said that he (the author) had despaired of Government doing anything for the distressed classes. He had quoted two great authorities who despaired, but he himself on other occasions when the matter was a direct issue had indicated directions in which he thought Government might do something to raise the conditions of such classes. In regard to the Acts of the Indian Legislature, he had referred to the Age of Consent Act, but was thinking more of the abortive Gains of Learning Act, and the Malabar Marriage Act. When Sir William spoke of the Penal Code, he could not help thinking of a definition of that code given by a famous writer on India, namely, that it was regarded as a useful summary of things which it would be better to avoid doing. From that point of view as well as from others he agreed with Sir William Lee-Warner in thinking that it was a great educational code, and had not a word to say against it. He did not object to what was said in Mr. Dutt's novels, or in those of other writers, who had been successful in describing Indian life and who had done so great a service by bringing it before the public in England. He admired these writings as much as anybody did, and did not object to what they wrote. He had quoted from these novels, what characters in them had said, as bearing out the views he put forward in regard to caste. It was one of the difficulties inherent in dealing with such a subject that the author was supposed to agree to the letter with everything he quoted. He did not mean to do so. Sir William, in speaking of the Vedic times, said that if something was not known about such times we ought to learn about them. He had read up books about the Vedic times in the Indian and English languages; but if one attempted to go back to the Vedic times, as far as the Hindu was concerned, it would be precisely the same, as if the people in England to-day were to attempt to go back to the scheme of life and conversation put forward in the Sermon on the Mount. In neither case could existing society adopt the earlier, simpler and nobler scheme, although no doubt, at the time it was put forward, it was the best possible life for the world. After thanking Mr. Wagle for his extremely kind remarks, with most of which he agreed, Mr. Rees continued that he had hesitated to go into the question of Hindu philosophy, mentioned by Mr. Ghosh, for reasons which would be understood. His subject was already fathomless. When he remembered the reformer mentioned by the Chairman who married his daughter as an infant, he could not help thinking of the great reformer and founder of a new religion in India-the cardinal point of which was the rejection of caste,-who did the same. Most of the reformers in their private life followed caste scrupulously. He took it as a great compliment that a lady of such enterprise and great talents, with such extraordinary facility in public speaking