You are wrong (“The Bible and the Brahmin: The 18th-century defence of Hindu bigamy in Portuguese Goa”). Monogamy is ideal but bigamy is practised to have child, or male issue. When only girls are born or there is no child because of the wife’s health problems, the husband can marry another woman and accommodate her in the same house or different house, as he considers fit. An alliance with a family where there are no sons and only daughters is not favourably considered by the shastras.
Even in such a family, the father of the girl can enter into agreement with the groom – the with concurrence of his elders – to offer one male issue out of that marriage in adoption to his father-in-law. This is called putrikaa (पुत्रिका) karanam. If the husband is impotent, he may permit his wife to have sexual relationship with another person of the husband’s gotra only to have a child. All this was done with the concurrence of elders.
Scriptures say that don’t be a stumbling block to reproduction and vamsavruddhi. (प्रजा तन्तुं मा व्यवच्छेत्सीः) Similarly, one could be engaged with a widow for the limited purpose of having a child is allowed. Remarriage due to the sudden death of bridegroom before the formal marriage is also permitted.
These things were open and transparent. But times have changed a lot and we think these practical solutions, with freedom, are now abominable in a Hindu society. – VS Sampathkumar
***
The bias of the author is evident throughout the article. Why has a Brahmin, who needed to argue his case and petition the atate, been equalled to a Muslim who can have four older wives?
How is a Hindu, whose belief stated he needed to have a son, wanting to marry for progeny, with the permission of government, the same as a Muslim who practices polygamy.
The Brahmin’s petition for permission meant that this was not openly allowed and that he had to justify why he had to take a second wife. What is patriarchal in that? The woman is also marrying the man, with consent. Why are you blaming the man? Keep bias away. – Aiyer VLV
***
In the author’s words, he argues that “mutual collaboration between the colonial state and the Hindu elite to preserve patriarchal customs (like bigamy)”. It well-documented in history that polygamy existed in almost all civilisations at some point of time, but with the rise modern nation states and awareness of civil rights, it has faded away in modern society – except one.
It is also documented that during the constituent assembly debates, the Hindu clergy or leadership failed to uphold polygamy the Muslim clergy and its leadership was largely successful in preserving patriarchal customs. The author forgot to see the irony in this. – Umesh CG
***
Bigamy is not practiced as a rule nor does it have religious sanction in Hinduism, unlike Islam. Without studying Hinduism, the author is trying to portray Hinduism badly. Marxists and leftists are always trying to support Islam without realising that only secular, sanatani Hindus can keep them safe.
Look at Afghanistan, and what happened to Communist governments? Rather than being blind, Indian leftists and Marxist ideologues should belittle Hinduism. – Settipalli Madhava
***
Thank you for this interesting piece of history on the how the Portuguese state in Goa managed its relationship with Hindu communities in the 1800s. This was a fresh perspective. – S Mahadevan
***
This is a cunning article. Proselytisation is an evil of Islam and Christianity. Excuses of compromise were cunningly used to perpetuate the evil objective of proselytisation. Stop such articles. – Anil Chopra
SC ruling on menstruation ‘sexist’
Menstruation is natural and only women menstruate, but no man designed this and neither is it an injustice. Contrary to what the small-minded humanities scholars have imposed on the whole country, menstruation establishes that men and women are not equal and that women, by nature, have this restriction.
As the world’s most ancient civilisation, we know perfectly well how to take care of our women, men and others. There is no atrocity or bias in everything, as some idle social activists like to claim. NGOs deliberately work on such superfluous issues.
Why is the court passing rulings on temples or the principles of faith? Four or five people cannot deliberate on the country’s ancient tenets.
If girls need support for menstruation to study, then boys should also be provided with free vehicles, train tickets and car and taxis for those who cannot go to school because they stay far away. Many students cannot join schools because their families want them to work.
If the government is not supposed to discriminate on the basis sex and caste, why are courts are passing sexist rules? It is the individual’s ability, calibre and availability which plays a role in education and jobs. Why should governments waste national funds on such ornamental things? The country is biased in favour of females and this is severe injustice.
This is all right if girls are allowed to study or work, although even that is not necessary. In fact, allowing women outside is a continuous risk, expense and loss of peace of mind. Why is India country following western-imposed ideas? Such bias is humiliating Indian men who lose jobs to women. Such rhetoric must be stopped. – Dr S Gupta
