Divorce law introduced in India - was the ancient status of manu revoked in doing so?

[Damodara Dasa]

Hare Krishna.

Dear Vidvaj-janas,

Divorce was nonexistent in Hindu culture until 1955 when Jawaharlal
Nehru, Prime Minister of India, legalized it, thus shaking countless
centuries of marital stability. Did he revoke the ancient statutes of
Manu in doing so?

Thankyou,
Damodara Das
09737475085
--
www.bvks.com

[Dipak Bhattacharya]

नीचत्वं परदेशं वा प्रस्थितो राजकिल्बिषी । प्राणाभिहन्ता पतितस्त्याज्यः क्लीबोपि वा पतिः।। कौटिल्य, अर्थशास्त्र  3.2 Ch 59, vs. 131 p.196, Ed. N.S.Venkatanathacharya Univ Mysore 1986

--
www.bvks.com

--
निराशीर्निर्ममो भूत्वा युध्यस्व विगतज्वरः।। (भ.गी.)
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bvparishat.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[shankara]

Namaste,

A similar verse is found in smritis of Parasara and Manu.

नष्टे मृते प्रव्रजिते क्लीबे च पतिते पतौ।
पञ्चस्वापत्सु नारीणां पतिरन्यो विधीयते॥

 

regards
shankara

---

From: Dipak Bhattacharya <dipak...@gmail.com>
To: "bvpar...@googlegroups.com" <bvpar...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, 13 May 2015 7:38 PM
Subject: Re: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} Divorce law introduced in India - was the ancient status of manu revoked in doing so?

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Though provisions for divorce in Shastras is so well known, the impression that there were no such provisions is also widely prevalent in the literature of modern period on the history of Indian divorce law. Impression is created in such literature that the 1954/1955 was a revolutionary move introducing divorce for the first time. Probably as it usually happens in the folklore about such issues, the name of Jawaharlal Nehru is brought into the story.

 

The interesting information I have is from some Telugu literary works of 1920-1930 where women authors with a mix of reformative and traditional tendencies, while strongly supporting the law against child marriage, argued vociferously against introducing a law permitting divorce in Hindu families. I have been trying to figure out which legislative news or developments of 1920s were they reacting to. But this is a documentation of the fact that traditional sections of the educated Indians of those times were opposing the proposal on the basis of the fear that this could lead to intensification and hastening of breaking up of families and reduction of perseverance in the partners of a marital relationship. This is probably the period when the stories of divorce being against shastras began to get floated.  

Prof.Nagaraj Paturi

Hyderabad-500044

[Dipak Bhattacharya]

< This is probably the period when the stories of divorce being against shastras began to get floated.>. Very likely. The word दिधिषु/षू  is of Vedic antiquity and known to Manu. Second marriage is common among some castes. The restriction, too, existed among some castes.

Best

DB

[Dipak Bhattacharya]

But the law was almost forgotten among caste Hindus

DB

[Nabanarayan Bandyopadhyay]

The quoted Shloka नष्टे मृते प्रव्रजिते etc. occurs in the Paraashara Sm.rti 4.30, not in the Manusamhitaa,

Nabanarayan Bandyopadhyay

[Damodara Dasa]

Hare Krishna.
Agreed about this verse.

But the divorce law introduced in 1955 doesn't mention the divorce
only based on the allowances given in the Parasara Smrti correct?
Today it is a fact that if the husband and wife do not like to live
together at any point in time, then they can take divorce (although
court may try to convince them not to do so) - Hindu Marriage Act 1955
(1976) 13-B. The conditions mentioned in Parasara Smrti need not be
fulfilled.

In the society governed by Manu Smrti, or Parasara Smrti, generally
divorce was not known as it is now - i.e. the divorce based on mutual
dislike or conflict. As it was compulsory for husband and wife to live
together lifelong, there naturally was a need for some allowances in
case the above mentioned (in parasara smrti) cases occur (which in
inevitable in any society). In such cases, rsis (or authorities) were
consulted and they decided case to case. Example of Draupadi can be
given where in general a woman is not allowed to have more than one
husband but in her case she was allowed to have five husbands (after
consultation from Vyasadeva).

So my point is that divorce law was introduced in India (that is a
fact - correct me if I am mistaken), so that means something that
previously didn't exist (before its introduction) was to be
established by introduction of this law. So what was that and what
reasons were given (including sastric ones) in support of this, as
society in general didn't support this whatever may be the reason.

Thankyou,
Damodara Das

On 5/14/15, 'Nabanarayan Bandyopadhyay' via भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्

<bvpar...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
> The quoted Shloka नष्टे मृते प्रव्रजिते etc. occurs in the Paraashara Sm.rti

> 4.30, not in the Manusamhitaa,Nabanarayan Bandyopadhyay

>
>
> On Thursday, 14 May 2015 12:35 PM, 'Dipak Bhattacharya' via
> भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत् <bvpar...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
>
> But the law was almost forgotten among caste HindusDB
>
>
> On Wednesday, 13 May 2015 9:06 PM, 'shankara' via भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्
> <bvpar...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
>
> Namaste,
> A similar verse is found in smritis of Parasara and Manu.
> नष्टे मृते प्रव्रजिते क्लीबे च पतिते पतौ।
> पञ्चस्वापत्सु नारीणां पतिरन्यो विधीयते॥ regards
> shankara

www.bvks.com
www.speakingstrongly.com

[Rakesh Das]

The point raised by Sri Damodar Das is not clear. There may be some mistake of understanding. Actually, no Divorce law was introduced to India in 1955 or so on. The law which was introduced is called THE HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955. Section 13 of this particular act deals with Divorce. There the causes mentioned for seeking divorce are almost same as mentioned by Kautilya or Parasara etc. The section 13-b mentions a separate concept of mutual divorce. There also both the husband and wife will have to submit a petition that they have been staying separately for at least a year and they are not ready to stay with each other. Here also it is kamachara. I don't know if this concept is there in our Smritis. But this kind of occurrence may be found in the Puranas where the couple separate from each other by their own will and for that the order of the court was not necessary.

So, the point is what new is introduced in the law of 1955?

इत्थं सश्रद्धं निवेदयति
राकेश दाशः

Rakesh Das
Asst. Professor
Dept. of Sanskrit Studies
Ramakrishna Mission Vivekananda University
Belur Math Howrah.

वंशीविभूषितकरान्नवनीरदाभात्
पीताम्बरादरुणबिम्बफलाधरोष्ठात्।
पूर्णेन्दुसुन्दरमुखादरविन्दनेत्रात्
कृष्णात्परं किमपि तत्त्वमहं न जाने।।
भारत माता की जय

[shankara]

Sir,

You are right. This verse is not there in Manusmriti. It occurs in Parasara Smriti and Garuda Purana.

 

regards
shankara

---

From: 'Nabanarayan Bandyopadhyay' via भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत् <bvpar...@googlegroups.com>
To: "bvpar...@googlegroups.com" <bvpar...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, 14 May 2015 1:44 PM

[Damodara Dasa]

>> So, the point is what new is introduced in the law of 1955?

The section 13-B seems to be a new introduction. This very strongly
affects the marriage stability especially when in today's youth
college culture changing partners is considered something very normal.

Also regarding general social ethos in traditional Indian culture, we
need to consult learned people from different well-known traditions
like mAdhvas, Sri Vaisnavas, Smartas, Saivas, etc. who themselves
learned from their tradition. Just reading law codes may not suffice
as law may mention many things that were not propagated among people
in general but were there in code books so as to guide the kings and
brahmanas to judge the cases. we may consider that right to
information act was not there before and thus all the codes of law
were not known by people in general.
Many of these scholars opine that general disposition was that there
was no option of getting separated once married and even the thought
of it was considered sinful. Now the smrtis are mainly studied by
brahmanas and ksatriyas not by people in general. So there are
provisions for getting separated on certain conditions, but these
conditions were not made known to people in general but they were
guided to do so, in case such a condition arises, by the law
maintainers (brahmanas and ksatriyas).

Dr. Subrahmanyam Korada may be able to throw some light on this as he
has some touch with that culture. Also other such members of the
group, whom I may not know, may throw some light.

My question was that in support to the divorce section (no.13)
introduced in Hindu Marriage Act 1955, did Nehru revoke the then ethos
of its being against scriptures? Because such oppositions might have
been raised, especially in the hindu society of those times (I think
one thing we all can agree is that in Indian society, even 100 years
back, divorce was an unheard affair and even if heard was considered
something very sinful).

Sorry for being complicated in framing my question.

Thankyou,
Damodara Das

> *राकेश दाशः*
> *Rakesh Das*

> Asst. Professor
> Dept. of Sanskrit Studies
> Ramakrishna Mission Vivekananda University
> Belur Math Howrah.
>
> वंशीविभूषितकरान्नवनीरदाभात्
> पीताम्बरादरुणबिम्बफलाधरोष्ठात्।
> पूर्णेन्दुसुन्दरमुखादरविन्दनेत्रात्
> कृष्णात्परं किमपि तत्त्वमहं न जाने।।
> भारत माता की जय
>

[pranav]

Respected All,

In so far as I have studied this, Hindu Code Bill Sameeksha (Telugu translation of it is available here: https://archive.org/details/hinducodebillsam020125mbp) of Swami Karpatri (Swami Hariharananda Saraswathi) is probably the most comprehensive one. Akhil Bharatiya Dharma Sangh in Varanasi may have copies of the Hindi version.

How far can the modern notion of 'divorce' be equated with the Kautilya's "त्याज्य" is a question to be addressed. If one goes a step further, it is equally the case to distinguish the
sense of what is 'law' in modern times as opposed to the sense of 'Dharma'.

Sincerely,
Pranav

(Student of Dharmasastra-s and Constitution of India)

[Hnbhat B.R.]

The point insisted by Hare days was the Marriage Act as it is implemented by Javahar Nehru was not according to Parasara smriti and against the Smriti codes of law and was intended to enforce Roman western law codes by the imperial rule.

This seems to be the focus of the thread than the inventory of Hindu law of diverge according to the smrit  codes of social and religious co

[Dipak Bhattacharya]

I do not think that anybody, here or elsewhere, disputes that living separately by husband and wife is a tragic outcome in life. The ancient law saw reasons that had no cure without divorce. But even the ancient background of divorce whether on demand from the wife or from the husband was not without an element of tragedy. The modern law does not necessarily compel finding the reason that may be even psychological and temperamental.  But nobody hails this as a welcome turn of events. I myself regard this as one of the most tragic outcomes like untimely death.

I think this is the kernel of the matter – a bitter, sometimes devastating sometimes better than the worst, outcome of life. Whether the traditional outlook has been maintained or not is not the question for society. Even in the West, the introduction of divorce, first among Protestants, lately even among Roman Catholics and now in many other societies has not been smooth. Till date there are strong opponents of the practice.  

DB

[sunil bhattacharjya]

The Sage Parahsara composed the Parashara Smriti specifically for the Kali yuga and that too at the request of his son Vedavyasa. Vedavyasa said that the other Smritis do not meet the requirement of the changing times (for the Kali yuga). Pt. Ishwar Chandra Vidyasagar is said to have fought the Sati pratha (widow-burning) on the strength of the Parashara Smriti.  Kaultilya's Arthashastra, being a Kali yuga text had  necessarily to toe the line of Parashara smriti.

As regards Draupadi's marriage, though Arjuna won her hand he could not have married her alone, mainly because an younger brother should not marry before the marriage of the elder brother. At this time I do not recall the provisions of the Shastra and I hope some scholars of the forum may have ready information on that.

Regards,

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Vidwan Rakesh Das was on dot covering the focus of Vidwan Damodar Das only.

 

He  very clearly stated that

 

"Section 13 of this particular act deals with Divorce. There the causes mentioned for seeking divorce are almost same as mentioned by Kautilya or Parasara etc.

 

The section 13-b mentions a separate concept of mutual divorce. There also both the husband and wife will have to submit a petition that they have been staying separately for at least a year and they are not ready to stay with each other. Here also it is kamachara. I don't know if this concept is there in our Smritis. But this kind of occurrence may be found in the Puranas where the couple separate from each other by their own will and for that the order of the court was not necessary."

What he did not do is to show in detail, which sub-clause of section 13 is in accordance with which provision in the shastras. That is a detailed big study to be taken up as a separate project. 

There are two aspects of  the post by Vidwan Damodar Das : 1. Concern about the increasing tendencies for divorce. As Prof. Dipak Bhattacharya has already made it clear, this is really a matter of great concern not only in India but all over the world. 'Saving family' is one of the regular election promises by presidential candidates in US elections.

                                                                                                              2. Role of a 'loose' divorce law in this deplorable development. Vidwan Damodar Das has a feeling that the present law is 'loose' and that is because the shastras are not followed in framing the law. But let us all note that thedivorce law section of Hindu Marriage Act is not as loose as it is being felt. I am sharing here a law commission report on the irretrievable breakdown as a basis of divorce to exemplify the amount of intense work and thought that goes into making these laws. 

                                                                                                                The increasing divorces are not because of law but in spite of it.

  As a  point of general observation, let us note that laws have little control over matters of culture. 

                                                                             At the same time, let us also note that the false-belief that Shastras do not provide for dovorce, it is not traditional to divorce has lead to a huge stress and fatal developments in traditional families.

   

 

 

 

On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 4:12 PM, Hnbhat B.R. <hnbh...@gmail.com> wrote:

--

Prof.Nagaraj Paturi

Hyderabad-500044

[Dr. P. Ramanujan]

Actually, since as per shastras, Vedic marriage is a samskara and is based on agni-sakshika homas, saptapadi etc., its annulment is not possible 'just like that' or by law.

 

There is a procedure called 'ghata-shraddha' as a formal shastraic equivalent of the recent concept of divorce, which some vaidikas have done, when things in marriage went  irreconcilably beyond saving. This will then stall Asouca later for those related by that marriage.

 

Even for a householder (AhitAgni) to take sanyasa, many ishtis are to be performed, to give up samskrta-agni.

agni-udvasana is condemned as like vIra-hatyA (Taittiriya Samhita 1.5.9).

 

So, dharmic or shastraic way of life is for varna-ashrama dharama adherents, for whom law may not be of help.

 

Ramanujan

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[ C-DAC is on Social-Media too. Kindly follow us at:
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/CDACINDIA & Twitter: @cdacindia ]

This e-mail is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may
contain confidential and privileged information. If you are not the
intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy
all copies and the original message. Any unauthorized review, use,
disclosure, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of this email
is strictly prohibited and appropriate legal action will be taken.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Hnbhat B.R.]

After reading the posts repeatedly two or three points become apparent or vaguely suggested.

1. The Hindu marriage Act was enforced by Jawaharlal Nehru in following the western law codes than Indian Law codes स्मृति texts.

2. The above allegation presupposes it was Nehru who enforced western culture of divorce into Hindu Law and Law need not take into consideration of the current society or the future needs of the society.

3. For the above reasons, a revision/restoration/revival of our Hindu Act of Marriage is felt as the need of the current social condition.

4, This necessitates the restoration of the ancient rules for the present Claude's of the divorce which motivated the question. I mean all the other circumstances/or deviations to be deleted from the conditions which are envisaged by the law makers as the are against the Hindu codes of law धर्मशास्त्र.:

धर्मे च अर्थे च कामे च नातिचरामि नातिचरामि नातिचरामि !

[Ashok Aklujkar]

As far as I recall, Dharma-śāstra and law experts like P.V. Kane were involved or consulted in the drafting of the Hindu Code bill.

a.a.

[Nagaraj Paturi]

P V Kane was the Chairman of the Joint Select Committee on the Hindu Code Bill as per a news item dated 27 November, 1954 reported under 'This Day That Age' of the Hindu, dated 27, November, 2004 found at

http://www.thehindu.com/2004/11/27/stories/2004112700720900.htm

 

On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 11:44 PM, Ashok Aklujkar <ashok.a...@gmail.com> wrote:

As far as I recall, Dharma-śāstra and law experts like P.V. Kane were involved or consulted in the drafting of the Hindu Code bill.

a.a.

--
निराशीर्निर्ममो भूत्वा युध्यस्व विगतज्वरः।। (भ.गी.)
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bvparishat.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

Prof.Nagaraj Paturi

Hyderabad-500044

[Damodara Dasa]

Hare Krishna.

From Ashok Aklujkar:

>> As far as I recall, Dharma-śāstra and law experts like P.V. Kane were involved or consulted in the drafting of the Hindu Code bill.

From: Nagaraja Paturi:
>> P V Kane was the Chairman of the Joint Select Committee on the Hindu Code Bill as per a news item dated 27 November, 1954 reported under 'This Day That Age' of the Hindu, dated 27, November, 2004 found at
http:// www.thehindu.com/2004/11/27/stories/2004112700720900.htm

Yes, I am looking for answer in similar lines - i.e. how was the
passed marriage act (1955) supported for its stance in opposotion to
the then well-known belief that divorce is against dharma or Manu
smrti (it is another discussion that this belief is correct or not).
So in answer here it is pointed out that PV Kane was involved in to
it. Something more detailed in this line will be very helpful - means
some details of the discussions and arguments presented both in
support and against this bill.

For information of all the members, although I have asked this and a
few more questions recently, I have to go to some remote place for
some urgent work due to which I won't be able to access internet for
next 5 days but these discussions can go on and I'll join after 5
days. I thank all the members of this group for helping by sharing
their knowledge.

Thankyou,
Damodara Das
09737475085

www.bvks.com
www.speakingstrongly.com

[Dipak Bhattacharya]

It is impossible that PV Kane was not aware of the common belief and the differences in the Shastric positions.

[pranav]

In so far as the 'Hindu Code Bill' is concerned, the jurisdiction of the Parliament in changing (please note: it is not about interpreting) what dharma-śāstra-s state is the first point  under question. . The politics of Uniform Civil Code - thought to be the ground to make a 'nation' -- where Indians of every kind can declare themselves to be one because they are under the rule of a same law across the board in all walks and aspects of life - resulted in violating the dharma-śāstra-s in both letter and spirit. The first move towards Uniform Civil Code was Hindu Code Bill. The act of getting Christians and Muslims on board is what is happening currently by way of the recent Supreme Court judgements. See the works of Prof Tahir Mahmood and Prof Faizan Mustafa on the same (A recent link: http://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/for-all-the-shah-banos/)

Further, the definition of who a Hindu is -- is left unaddressed. The ativyāpti it leads to is a point unaddressed. As per Hindu Marriage Act -- Hindu applies also to Buddhist, Jaina or Sikh by religion. In recent times, Sikhs have appealed and insisted on having a separate Civil Code.

To point to one specific question relating to Hindu Marriage Act as an example: how come 'sagotra vivaha'  becomes legally permissible under the Act which dharma-śāstra-s reject? [See the response to this from Kane below]

The nature of change in inheritance laws has wrecked sufficient havoc on the life of Joint Hindu Family.  Would the current inheritance laws stand the scrutiny of a Mimāmsaka?
The combination of Dāyabhāga and Mitākṣarā  in ways that does not recognize the nature of the society envisaged by dharma-śāstra-s -- is a point that can be conveniently overlooked under current dispensation and mindset.

JDM Derrett (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J_Duncan_M_Derrett) points in one of his writings: "The law of the Joint Hindu Family has been very largely modified, with a view to eventual extinction, by the Hindu Succession Act, Act XXX of 1956. The Mitākṣarā will continue to be an authority in India until the legal joint family expires, and thereafter in those parts of the world where Hindu law is in force without modification by statute. " 

As Prof. Aklujkar points out -- it may as well be true that dharma-śāstra experts are consulted -- but the question is: Whether they had the authority basing on the Dharmasastra-s to overrule the Government of the day or the 'secular' Constitution in so far as matters fundamental to the followers of Vedic injunctions and Smriti-s(keeping in mind: श्रुतॆरिवार्थं स्मृतिरन्वगच्छत्). While this is one side of the story, there is a second side.

When Pt. Lakshman Shastri Joshi (under whom several dharma-śāstric texts were edited and printed as 'Dharma Kośa' from Wai )-- who in his 'A Critique of Hinduism' (1941) concludes:
 "Social institutions, higher than religion are being brought into being today. And society is now endeavouring to create means and institutions which would perform far more skillfully and on a much higher level, the role religon once performed in human history. A social order, unknown to all religions, is now a necessity; an order that will provide to all opportunities for full development of themselves.

These new ideals are simply a development of the old ones. Vyasa regarded human life or the social order as of primary significance and subordinated everything else to it, including the so called permanent moral values. Buddha gave again man the central position. Philosophers from the Vedic period to Shankara kept the search for Truth going. We have all this great heritage. Assimilating it well, let us discharge our responsibility of creating a social existence which never existed before. Those who continually look to the past, while acting in the present, can have no future. It is only the new ideals and the new means of attaining them belonging to the new times, that can brighten up prosperity. You cannot climb up to the glory of the future unless the past is made just a step on the way."

It is this spirit that drove Hindu Code Bill. There is a very important role that Wai played even in the way History of Dharmashastra-s got written. Shri Kane pays his homage to
Svāmi Kevalānanda Sarasvati, the founder of Prajna Pathsala of Wai. Pt. Laksman Shastri Joshi was a student of Svāmi Kevalānanda Sarasvati. Shri Kane writes in pg. 1705 of
History of Dharmasastra-s Vol 5, Pt. II (Sec X,Ch. XXXVII) [I skipped the footnotes -- the first one indicates that Lakshman Shastri Joshi was also member of the
said Mandala, and the second one about the 'Hindu Karanavidhi' - a ritual to re-convert], 

"In 1934 some persons under the guidance of Swāmi Kevalānanda Sarasvati of Wai (Satara district) started a society which later came to be named 'Dharmanirnayamandala'** (society for arriving at definite conclusions on matters of Dharma). The Swāmi was a very learned man and a Sannyāsin, did not know English, but he held very modern views. There were fourteen original founder members of whom the present author is one. From 1934 to 1959 eleven sessions attended by hundreds of people were held at Thana, Poona (twice), Lonavla (thrice), Ahmednagar, Badalapur (Dist. Thana), Vardhā (in Berar), Akolā (in Berar), Wai and Bombay.At the different sessions resolutions were passed (in all 82) on several social and religious matters and a committee was appointed to prepare model prayogas (procedures) for Sandhyā, congregational (Sāmudāyika) prayer, upanayana, marriage, antyesti (funeral rites),  śrāddha, remarriage (of widows), re-conversion of Hinduism & c. That Committee prepared under the guidance of Swāmi Kevalānanda Sarasvati such prayogas shorn of unnecessary details and with translations in Marathi, which can be had from Mr. Kokaje of Lonavla. Among the resolutions the following deserve special mention - usages have been changed from time to time by former learned men (sistas) and the learned men of the present day have the authority to introduce changes in usages as the present circumstances may require; that the untouchability of the people of certain castes be abolished (Art. 17 of the Constitution of India subsequently did this), that those sub-castes that have similar usages, samskāras and rule about food should merge and such merger is not against Dharmaśāstra; there is no objection to any Hindu sitting in the same row with other persons of different Varnas provided vegetarian are served vegetarian eatables; that Hindus including untouchables are entitled to study the Veda and have upanayana performed with Vedic mantras and priests conversant with the upanayana procedure should be ready to do so, if invited; if any one takes to another religion owing to force or fraud or of his free will and wants to revert to the Hindu fold he should be allowed to come in after the proper expiation and after undergoing a simple vidhi***; marriages of spouses of the same gotra and pravara should be allowed provided there is no bar on the ground of sapinda relationship (vide Hindu Marriage Act, 25 of 1955, sec. 5 items 4 and 5); that divorce be allowed amongst the castes in which it is not allowed at present on the ground of conversion to another religion of one of the spouses &c. (almost the same grounds in sec. 13 of Hindu Marriage Act of 1955); a Hindu widow succeeding as heir to her husband takes an absolute estate except when any of the following relatives of the husband are alive, viz. , daughter, daughter's son, mother, father, brother, brother's son, paternal grand-parents, paternal first cousin (vide Hindu Succession Act, 30 of 1956, sec. 14 which goes further by omitting the near relatives specified above). Most of the decisions mentioned above were proclaimed from ten to twenty years before our Constitution came into  operation.

Among the standing complaints against brāhmanas one has been that they debarred millions of people called 'śudra-s' from Vedic studies. Therefore, the Mandala announced that all Hindus (including the so-called untouchables) should observe the worship of the sun,repetition of Gāyatri Mantra .... In order to cultivate a sense of unity among all Hindus (including the so-called untouchables), the Mandala prepared a congregational prayer (to be recited by all Hindus in a congregation once in a month).....
The above lines would only briefly illustrate how we would have to proceed if we want an emotional integration of all our countrymen, particularly on the social and religious plane. But we must not forget what the foundation of our culture and civilization has been throughout the past ages....."

I have, in my previous mail, pointed to Svāmi Hariharānanda Sarasvati (Svāmi Karpātri)'s work on 'Hindu Code Bill Sameeksha'. The point of one school of thought from Wai has dominated the entire country through its getting legal sanction. The work of Wai school requires to be studied critically in the light of the past sixty years of Hindu Code Bill experience -- what has happened to the nature and structure of the Indic society is a question to be seen from the standpoint of what dharma-śāstras indicate. I am aware of modern scholars on colonialism state with emphasis that: In 200 years of their rule British could not colonize the mind of Indian woman. But in a matter of 30 years after India's independence, under Indian rule, even Indian woman's mind is colonized.

[Subrahmanyam Korada]

नमो विद्वद्भ्यः

Divorce was nonexistent in Hindu culture until 1955 when Jawaharlal
Nehru, Prime Minister of India, legalized it, thus shaking countless
centuries of marital stability. Did he revoke the ancient statutes of
Manu in doing so?

                                                             --Vidvan Damodara Dasa

The concept of divorce is not there  in  Vedas , Vedangas , Darsanas etc.

विवाह is a संस्कार (out of 16 / 40 ) -- विशेषेण वाहः - वाहनम् = प्रापणम्

सम्यक् करणम् संस्कारः ।

’आत्मशरीरान्यतरनिष्ठः अतिशयविशेषः संस्कारः ’ -- वीरमित्रोदयम्

what is this ? earlier the girl had had  स्त्रीत्वम् (womanhood ) , now by this संस्कार she gets  भार्यात्वम् ( wifehood) also . भार्यात्वं प्रापयति इत्यर्थः ।

'पाणिग्रहणात् सहत्वं कर्मसु तथा पुण्यफलेषु च ’ - so after marriage ( rough translation of विवाह) the bride becomes सहधर्मचारिणी  - 

’ सुप्यजातौ णिनिः ताच्छील्ये ’ पा - so , after विवाह she will become धर्माचरणस्वभाविनी  along with husband - as per गृह्यसूत्रम् ।

न गृहं गृहमित्याहुः गृहिणी गृहमुच्यते -- शान्तिपर्व , महाभारतम् , 144-6

शबरस्वामी ( 6-1-14) says - एवं दानकाले संवादः क्रियते - धर्मे चार्थे च कामे च नातिचरितव्येति (6-1-17 -- एवं हि स्मरन्ति । धर्न्मे ...व्येति)

अन्योन्यस्याव्यभीचारः भवेदामरणान्तिकः।

एष धर्मः समासेन ज्ञेयः स्त्रीपुंसयोः परः ॥

तथा नित्यं यतेयातां स्त्रीपुंसौ तु कृतक्रियौ ।

यथा नाभिचरेतां तौ वियुक्तावितरेतरम् । ( मनुस्मृतिः , 9-101, 102)

The relation runs till the death . Even if they differ from each other  in terms of धर्म , अर्थ and काम  they should not cross each other - should always  try for  unity .

One should not compare the ancient society with today's - 

The 13th संस्कार , viz  गोदानम् ( = complete shaving of hair-  गावः केशाः दीयन्ते खण्ड्यन्ते अस्मिन् इति गोदानम् - दो = अवखण्डने ; also called  केशान्त ) is performed at the age of sixteen (आपस्तम्बगृह्यसू 16-12) - immediately there will be समावर्तनम् / स्नानम् / स्नातकम् followed by विवाह ।

So by the time of विवाह the girl's age will be  eight or ten or so , i e may or may not  be out of puberty ( रजस्वला) .

Those were  Hindu Undivided Families (see Income Tax  Act / कर्ता) .

Panini says the family was under the control of an elderly person -

(अपत्यं पौत्रप्रभृति गोत्रम् 4-1-162) , जीवति तु वंश्ये युवा , भ्रातरि च ज्यायसि , वान्यस्मिन् सपिण्डे स्थविरतरे जीवति ( 4-1-163, 164,165)

So even if there were some misunderstandings or differences of opinion between / among  inmates , everyone has to follow the elder's word - this was आर्यसंप्रदाय ।

I remember as late as forty / fifty years ago many ladies liked the concept of पतिव्रता ,  presently also we come across such ladies.

ददर्श हनुमान् सीतां ...संस्कारेण यथा हीनां वाचमर्थान्तरं गताम् - सुन्दरकाण्डः, रामायणम् ।

Even today, in families such as ours , the wife should not ask the husband -   "give me money " - दम्पत्योः सहाधिकारात् (पूर्वमीमांसा - अध्या 6) .

Since that is the case there is no discussion on matters such as ' pocket money ' , an imported म्लेच्छसंप्रदाय ,  that divides the  दम्पती ।

98% of the differences  between wife and husband are related to finance.

 

Moreover , right from morning to evening  people were involved in धार्मिककार्यक्रमs and धर्म was held high , i e beyond राग , द्वेष etc.  - check with any श्रौतसूत्रम् / गृह्यसूत्रम् / धर्मसूत्रम् ।

So , the संस्कार , called विवाह , is based on धर्म and many people were bounden by that  so much so that the question of divorce does not arise at all .

कौटल्य (कौटिल्य is not correct) , in his अर्थशास्त्रम् (3-3) clearly says --

if either (of दम्पती)  has hatred then they cannot  have मोक्ष . If the hatred is from both sides  or if either has apprehension of violence from the other then then they may मोक्ष - if the husband fears then he has to pay back the gifts etc. to wife but if the wife fears then the husband need not return the same -- in any case there is no separation in a धर्मविवाह  --

अमोक्ष्या भर्तुः अकामस्य  द्विषती भार्या । भार्यायाश्च भर्ता । परस्परं द्वेषात् मोक्षः। स्त्रीविप्रकाराद्वा पुरुषश्चेन्मोक्षमिच्छेत् यथागृहीतमस्यै दद्यात् । पुरुषविप्रकाराद्वा स्त्री चेन्मोक्षमिच्छेत् नास्यै यथागृहीतं दद्यात् । अमोक्षो धर्मविवाहानामिति ।

Instances such as --

स्नेहं दयां च सौख्यं च यदि वा जनकीमपि । आराधनाय लोकस्य मुञ्चतो नास्ति मे व्यथा ॥

                                                                               --उत्तररामचरितम्

and

तदेषा भवतः कान्ता त्यज वैनां गृहाण वा । उपपन्ना हि दारेषु प्रभुता सर्वतोमुखी॥

                                                       --अभिज्ञानशाकुन्तलम्

and the उपाख्यानम् in ताण्ड्यमहाब्राह्मणम् , wherein it is said that the couple got parted and got united again 

-- all these are अर्थवादs , i e used to praise the right one .

Even the Roman Catholic Church  initially resisted divorce , but latter (1937) gave in .

In Indian context , what we have to understand is that the Vedic culture was lost during the course of time . So also the values.

An altogether new society got shaped and for the protection of women something should be done - so the leaders , forced by the social plight of women and other circumstances ,  appointed a committee and the result was the Act of Diverce.

So it may not be धर्म to say that Nehru revoked the laws of मनु ।

कालः पचति भूतानि कलः संहरति प्रजाः -- भारतम् ।

धन्यो’स्मि

Dr.Korada Subrahmanyam
Professor of Sanskrit, CALTS,
University of Hyderabad,
Ph:09866110741(M),91-40-23010741(R),040-23133660(O)

Skype Id: Subrahmanyam Korada

Blog: Koradeeyam.blogspot.in 

[Ajit Gargeshwari]

What do our dharmsahstras say on Divorce or mutual separation Vedas vedangas or Darshanas may not deal with divorce

Regards
Ajit Gargeshwari
न जायते म्रियते वा कदाचिन्नायं भूत्वा भविता वा न भूयः।
अजो नित्यः शाश्वतोऽयं पुराणो न हन्यते हन्यमाने शरीरे।।2.20।।

[Dr.D.G.Vedia]

Effect of the Roman law also should be examined.D.G Vedia

On Sun, May 17, 2015 at 8:28 PM, Subrahmanyam Korada <kora...@gmail.com> wrote:

--

Thanks & Regards,

Dr.D.G.Vedia

[sunil bhattacharjya]

Namaste,

How does "putrarthe kridate bharya" fits in? Putra probably indicates putri also. Does "putrarthe kridate bharya" indicate possibilty of some sort of separation, if not divorce, if there is no offspring from a marriage.

Regards,

Sunil KB

[Bharati Trust]

It is not fully correct to say that Nehru made divorce legal. Arthasastra of Koutilya allows divorce in  certain types of marriages. the term for Divorce is Moksha.Even i was under the impression that in ancient India all marriages were inviolable.

I was pleasantly surprised to get this info. in Arthasastra.kautilya was perhaps the most practical administrator and lawgiver.

 

Dr. S.R. Leela ,prof. of Sanskrit
Ex.MLC, Govt Of karnataka,

Managing Trustee, Abhinaya Bharati
Res: # 30, Dharini,1st Main,
     3rd cross, K.E.B.Lay-out,
     Bengaluru.560 085.
Ph.: 080-26692904, 9448092904

On Wednesday, 13 May 2015 6:41 PM, Damodara Dasa <damoda...@gmail.com> wrote:

Hare Krishna.

Dear Vidvaj-janas,

Divorce was nonexistent in Hindu culture until 1955 when Jawaharlal
Nehru, Prime Minister of India, legalized it, thus shaking countless
centuries of marital stability. Did he revoke the ancient statutes of
Manu in doing so?

Thankyou,
Damodara Das
09737475085
--
www.bvks.com

--
निराशीर्निर्ममो भूत्वा युध्यस्व विगतज्वरः।। (भ.गी.)
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

[Dipak Bhattacharya]

19 5 15

Some relevant information on the practice followed in orthodox circles is given here.

In the orthodox Pandit circles of Benaras नष्टे मृते प्रव्रजिते क्लीबे च पतिते पतौ is interpreted as पतिते ऽपतौwith अपति meaning पतिसदृशे that is after वाग्दान but before marriage. Some modern pandits like Pramathanātha Tarkabhūṣaṇa apart from Aryasamaji interpreters of Śāstra did not accept this interpretation. Such Pandits were not considered as belonging to their circle by orthodox pandits. The verse cited occurring in Kauṭilya’s Arthaśāstra is ignored by such orthodox pandits I met.

Even then divorce as such is an avoided term. The stance is that such marriages are असिद्ध।

I will like to know if any such development took place in Tirupati. In Calcutta, orthodox pandits were on the backfoot because of the vigour of the Brahmo movement and Vidyasagar’s influence. An extensive literature has grown on these Calcutta developments. About Benaras I know from personal experience. But I shall like to be enlightened about the position of the Prarthana Samaj of Sir R.G.Bhandarkar. Among his twentieth century followers there are eminent personalities who promoted widow marriage.

Best

DB

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.

[Nagaraj Paturi]

1. A and B are married according to Vedic sacraments. A and B consider their marriage is an irreversible process. They do not consider divorce at all. Does Indian constitution or the Hindu Marriage Act force them to take divorce ?

 

2. A and B are married according to Vedic sacraments. A and B find reasons for why their marriage can not continue. They do not approach the law for a solution. Does Indian constitution or the Hindu Marriage Act force them to take divorce ?

 

3. A and B are married according to Vedic sacraments. A and B find reasons for why their marriage can not continue. They approach S'aastra custodians for a solution. The custodians say, the marriage is irreversible. A and B try to adjust with each other and live with each other. They do not approach the law for a solution. Does Indian constitution or the Hindu Marriage Act force them to take divorce ?

 

4. A and B are married according to Vedic sacraments. A and B find reasons for why their marriage can not continue. They approach S'aastra custodians for a solution. The custodians say, the marriage is irreversible. They approach the law for a solution. Courts after due discussion, decide that divorce can not be granted. A and B try to adjust with each other and live with each other. S'aastra custodians too do not object to the development.

 

5. A and B are married according to Vedic sacraments. A and B find reasons for why their marriage can not continue. They approach S'aastra custodians for a solution. The custodians say, the marriage is irreversible. They approach the law for a solution. Courts after due discussion, grant divorce. Do s'aastra custodians approach the court and argue for rescinding the divorce orders? or, do they or can they force A and B to continue their marriage?

 

6. A and B are married according to Vedic sacraments. A or B alone finds reasons for why their marriage can not continue. A or B approaches S'aastra custodians for a solution. The custodians say, the marriage is irreversible . A or B approaches the law for a solution. The one who did not apply for a divorce does not attend the court proceedings. An ex-parte order is issued granting divorce. Does or can the one who did not apply for a divorce, force the other person to live with him or her as married?

 

7. Trouble comes only when issues such as maintenance or property inheritance are involved. If the person who is ordered to pay maintenance to his /her 'ex-spouse' (as per law ) refuses to comply with the court order, then the court can take action against such person for contempt of court. The person can not take shelter under irreversibility of marriage quoting s'aastras or the words of the custodians of s'aastras.

 

Thus, as long as the decisions of continuance or discontinuance of marriage are taken by the parties involved without any violation of legal rights of a person or general universal human rights, law does not interfere with the actions of the parties involved.

 

        

--

Prof.Nagaraj Paturi

Hyderabad-500044