HINDOO FAMILY LIFE.

New Zealand Graphic, Volume IX, Issue 9, 27 February 1892, Page 209

HINDOO FAMILY LIFE.

' O one unacquainted with the inner life of a . Hindoo family, it would no doubt appear curious and strange that so many could live 1 together amicably in one family ; and they f jump to the conclusion that the widows in it must be neglected, and that the females generally are ill-treated or, practically, imprisoned, and that Hindoos must pass a very uncomfortable domestic life, when, instead of only one husband and his wife, so many per-

sons of different degrees of relationship constitute a home. These are, however, mistaken assumptions. Anglicised Hindoos, outcast men or women, hunters after fashion, and others who want to show how civilised they are by denouncing everything Indian, may, perhaps, find fault with my views ; but, as no one can please everyone in this world, it will not grieve me much if I displease such persons by telling the truth, remarks a Brahmin official in the Asiatic Quarterly. In living together, he says, it is necessary that some rules should be observed ; it matters not whether the husband and wife alone constitute the family, or whether there are other relations forming part of it ; the larger the number, and the more different the degrees of relationship, the greater is the necessity for observing the rules of family government. In the case of the Hindoo family, these rules are so deeply impressed in the minds of its members—both male and female—that they are scrupulously observed by almost all the respectable classes of Hindoos in every part of India. The first and foremost of the rules is hospitality to kindred. Hindoos are well known as a hospitable race; they are initiated into it from early childhood. It is well known that when one member of a family acquires a living, not only his nearest relatives, such as father, mother, brothers and sisters, have a right of support from his earnings, but more distant relatives, especially if poor, have also a similar right. The brothers and sisters of parents, for instance, cannot be left unsupported, and an indigent aunt, especially when a widow, must be considered a member of the family. Thus the small income of most Hindoos becomes hardly sufficient to make both ends meet, and it certainly does not allow him to enjoy luxuries ; but he does not complain of this—not because he is ‘ uncivilised,’ but because he knows it to be his duty to support his relations ; his religion enjoins it, his customs support it, and his ancestors gave effect to it by unbroken practice. The internal management of the family chiefly depends on the females ; everything almost rests in their hands; the paterfamilias only supervises outdoor work, and watches that nothing extraordinary takes place in the family without his knowledge and consent. Within this limitation his wife is the recognised head of the whole family ; the wives of her sons, her own daughters—if they live in'the family—and all other female relations must be guided by her. Having learned during the term of her own pupilage, she knows how to behave to others who are subordinate to her ; once a pupil, she is now a teacher ; her principal duty consists in directing the management of the entire indoor work ; she alone is responsible if a guest or relative is not well received, so far as concerns her duty, or if a beggar goes away from the door disappointed. This latter duty cannot be sufficiently observed in wealthy families, because the gatekeepers never allow beggars to cross the threshold ; in such houses it is generally the rule to distribute alms on a particular day of the week set apart for the purpose. In a family so large, it will be interesting to learn how their kitchen and feeding arrangements are carried on. The Hindoo kitchen is very different from a European kitchen, not only in the shape of hearths and utensils used for cooking purposes, but also in cleanliness and the use of culinary instruments; those who have seen both English and Hindoo kitchens know very well where the difference exists. The Hindoos consider a kitchen as a sacred place, and no one is allowed to go there with shoes on. Even the members of the household are not always admitted, particularly not with unclean clothes, or allowed in that condition to touch the utensils which they employ for cooking purposes, .’especially when a widow uses them. The Hindoo idea is that food, if prepared by their own women, is more pleasant, tasteful, and healthy than when this is done by mercenary cooks. Besides, this view is also consonant with the religious doctrine of the Hindoos, that food prepared by persons of other castes should not be taken. For the preservation of bodily health and mental purity, experience has taught us that it is better to get food prepared by members of one’s family, and not by utter strangers ; indeed, according to a branch in the religious philosophy of the Hindoos, the magnetism existing in a person should be carefully preserved

and jealously guarded against all influence of similar forces that exist in others, because this force is peculiar to each individual, according to his own thoughts, physical health, ways of living, and the food that he takes ; and therefore it is apprehended that an impure or unhealthy force of this nature, if silently communicated to one who possesses a pure and healthy one, would mostassuredly contaminate and injure both his physical and moral health : and that this force is, or can be communicated either directly by touch or indirectly through prepared eatables, is generally believed. For this reason, as for others, the custom of shaking hands does not prevail among the Hindoos ; and to this also may be partially attributed the Hindoo fastidiousness, for instance, in selecting a bride. The bride has to undergo a severe scrutiny as regards particular marks in the face, as forehead, eyes, teeth, etc., and on the hands and feet; such signs are considered as prosperous or ominous, according to their peculiar characteristics. It is supposed that a woman with peculiar marks is naturally bad at heart; and that she, therefore, must exercise disagreeable, unhealthy, and impure influence, which, when communicated to others in the family, either directly or indirectly, would assuredly effect and contaminate them. Nothing is so dear to Hindoo women as religion ; they will not take their food unless they have been able to perform their daily religious ceremonies, it matters not how long other household duties may take. Women in every country are more religious than men ; but in India they may be said to be uncivilised and benighted because they spend their whole time in household and religious duties, instead of reading the last novel, going out shopping, attending theatres, balls, and a thousand other recreations, which the ladies of so - called civilised countries are accustomed to do. A Hindoo wife is taught by her religion to consider her husband as her lord; to him she is true both during his life and after his death ; and she serves him with the unfailing devotion of a loving wife, and thus she achieves her own salvation. She is not to leave a husband becauseheis poor and unableto keep her in opulence, or meet the demands of her caprice and extravagance ; nor can she claim separation if the husband unfortunately suffers from any bodily infirmity, for the marriage tie, in the good castes, is spiritual, and its sublime tenderness is quite unintelligible to ordinary European comprehension. She must share both wealth and poverty with her husband, and must not neglect her duty if he is in distress. Divorce is not known to Hindoo law, nor is there any such practice among Hindoos. Marriage once solemnised cannot be dissolved. It is a great mistake to suppose that there is no happiness among the female members of our family. I should say that, in their- humble homes, they are as happy, if not more so, than any good English lady in her palatial house. Some think that we are not kind to our women ; but whence outsiders infer this is probably from the fact that we do not allow our women to walk about the streets and attend public places, etc., as ladies do in London. This prohibition Englishwomen consider is a great misfortune to our women, who are therefore supposed to be very miserable, trodden-down, having no liberty, and consequently no true enjoyment of life. But here I may point out that liberty of the body does not necessarily mean liberty of the soul; nor are the pleasures of life the same for women of the East and the West. Each has a different ideal of happiness ;it would be unwise to measure the so-called happiness or misery of the former by the totally different standard of the latter. A men saheb (European lady in Indian) in her gown and bodice, a ‘ Mussummat ’ in her paijama or dhoti —each has her own ideal that suits her better, and each will be uncomfortable and unhappy if transplanted from one dress into another, from one diet to another, or from an indigenous to a foreign mode of life, thought, and action.— Home News.