LETTER FE^OJyE M. R. RY. T. RAMA ROW AVARGAL, DEWAN OF TRAVANCORE. (This letter is to be taken as expressing the"unofficial opinion of a private individual.) PEERMBDE, 30th April 1891. To, II. M. WINTERBOTHAM ESQUIRE, Collector of Malabar, on Special Duty. SIR, I have the pleasure to acknowledge your printed letter dated the 11th Instant regarding the Honorable Sankaran Nayar's Bill to provide a form of marriage for Marumakkathayam Hindus. 2. I have read the Bill, and some of tbe discussions in the papers on the subject. In reference to para 3 of your letter, I may observe that, considering that tho marriage customs among the Marumakkatbayees in Malabar and Travancore are very mucti alike, and that, especially in recent years, there are intermarriages between the people of both countries, the Bill, if passed into laAv in Malabar, cannot but have some beneficial influence on the Marumakkathayam people in Travancore. The strictly joint- family system which permits and virtually knows no partition of the Tarawad property, does not seem to prevail with the same rigour in this country as in Malabar. Here branches of the same Tarawad, somewhat remo\red from each other, Aroluntarily effect divisions; and the wife, Avho in Malabar seldom leaves her Tarawad, is here in several instances allowed to liAre and mess with the husband. The change contem­ plated in the Bill appears therefore to be likely to be felt to be far more striking and sudden in Malabar than in this country. Adverting to para 4, I have reason to believe that the educated portion of the Malayalees are not satisfied with the existing custom in respect of marriage, and would hail any measure which will have the effect of making the marital tie more real and binding than is unfortunately the case now. I understand that some six years ago, a few of the educated Malayalees of this place formed themselves into a Committee with a view to take the sense of their country-men as to the expediency of moving for a change in the law, or rather the custom, regulating their marriage. Beyond drafting a Bill and circulating the same among some of the prominent mem­ bers of their community, the Committee seems to have done nothing; but the fact seems to indicate the nature of the feelings of the educated classes in this matter. There is no doubt that the exceedingly lax system of marriage, which obtains among the Marumakkatayees is, in reference especially to the advancement which in common with their Makkathayee brethren, they have been making in recent years, a solecism; and some change which would considerably mitigate, if not completely 2 remedy the evil, without sapping the foundation of the Marumakkathayam system, appears to bo called for even on grounds of morality. This, I am glad to say, appears to be the opinion also of some of the prominent members of the Nayar community here. They seem to vieAV some parts of the Honourable Sankaran Nayar's Bill as too far in advance of the popular sentiment. They want simply to make the marital tie legal and permanent, and give the children a right to a moiety of the self-acquired property of the father, and to the wife a right to maintenance out of such property of her deceased husband. In all other matters they would simply follow the ordinary Hindu Law. Referring to para 5, I would name the following gentlemen as being com­ petent and probably also willing to give evidence before the Commission. Mr. T. Kunhi Raman Nayar, Puisne Judge High Court. „ A. Govinda Pilii B. A. B. L., Ag. Dewan Peishcar, Trevandrum. „ P. Thanu Pillay. M. A,, Huzur Dy Peishcar. „ N. Madha\Tan Thumby, Nagercoil Amma Vedu. „ M. Kunju Krishna Panikar B. A. B. L., 1st Class Magistrate, Cottayam. In regard to the last para, I regret I am not just now able to refer you to any work which treats of the marriage customs among the Marumakkathayees. I have the honour to be, Sir, Your most obedient servant, (Signed) T.RAMA ROW." ESSAY ON Marumakkathayam Marriage Question BY JEUB.T. A. GOVINDA PILL AY AVARGAL, MA., Dewan Peishcar, TREVANDRUM. (NOTE—This gentleman is a Travancore Nayar by birth.) • Marumakkathayam Marriage Law. 1. In discussing this subject it will be convenient to treat it under the follow­ ing heads. (1) Description of the existing custom of marriage, among Marumakkathayees. (2) Its legal consequences. , (3) What are the defects of the existing law, and whether there is a general feeling of dissatisfaction in regard to it. (4) On what lines a change would be desirable and on what grounds, and (5) Whether the changes proposed in Mr. Sankaran Nair's bill would be de­ sirable. I shall first consider the 1st question. Then the 2nd and 3rd together, and so also the 4th and 5th, and close with a summary of the changes that I would propose. 2. Meaning by " marriage" cohabitation between man and woman for life until formally dissolved, apart from any right of heirship attached to such union, in various degrees under various systems of law, such unions are formed with Malayalee women, not only by Malayalee Sudras, but also by men of all the higher castes. A proposal is first made by the husband, or his relations, to the intended wife or her re­ lations. The latter's horoscope is delivered to the former to see if the stars agree and if they do, for fixing an auspicious day (or Muhurtham) for the union. A muhurthacharthu is prepared in consultation with an astrologer, and delivered to the girl's relations. The date being thus fixed, the bridegroom with his friends and villagers meet at'the appointed heur at the bride's house, where the latters' villagers would be assembled. At the auspicious hour Dakshina (presents in money) would be giATen to Brahmins, and the bride, being led out by some female relation, is formally presented by the seated bridegroom, after due salutation with a few pieces of cloth. The feasting follows this ; and from the date of this ceremony, the parties become man and wife. 3. Some say that this ceremony is accompanied by Ashtamangalyam i. e., the procession of ornamented girls with lights and rice-pans. This is common in Tra­ vancore only for the Thali-tying, or Kettukalyanam ceremony, which has practic­ ally nothing to do with tbe marriage followed by cohabitation above described. Again some say that the presentation of cloth is made always in a particular room in the house. It may be so in particular places, but there is no general rule on the subject. It may be the southern room, or Thekkemuri in Malabar, but in Travancore it is generally the arappuray, or interior nalookettoo (quadrangle) of the house, or the Eastern Erayam or verandah. 4. The above is the marriage ceremony, or Sambandham, as it is called, I will next consider its consequences. From the above description it is evident that there is no religious element in the union. Some have likened it to marriage amon g Nambudiris; but the latter have Homam, which Malayalis or indeed any other Sudras, do not, and cannot, perform. There are, it is true, some traces of religion- rites in tke kettukalyanam ceremony, suck as, Bhuthakkalam (the serving out, of rice and curries to Bhuthams*), the pouring of water into a palmyra leaf, held by the bride *Xote—Bliutliam=a demon generally malignant: sometimes a guardian spirit. 2 and bridegroom, and Ashtamangalyam. But the kettukalyanam is practically noth­ ing more than a ceremony of introduction of a girl to womanhood, and has nothing to do Avith the conjugal union, unlike the marriage between man and woman under Hindu Law; therefore the Sambandham between a Malayali man and woman has no religious element in it. 5. Let us next consider the subsequent relation between the parties, follow­ ing upon a Sambandham as abbve described. In South Malabar and North Travan- core, the wife is rarely taken to the husband's Tarawad. In South and middle Tra­ vancore, the rule is the other way, the husband always taking the wife to his own Tarawad for cohabitation. Where the wdfe is left in her own Tarawad, she of course passes her time in the company of her Tarawad relations and her friends, the husband visiting her in the night, and at other times as he can find it convenient. In these cases it is evident that the wife and children do not move in the company of the husband, and the latter derives no help in the management of his household affairs from his better-half. 6. Either party can dissolve the union at any moment. It is said that such dissolutions are very rare. Respectable families do consider it a disgrace to dissolve such unions without sufficient cause. But there is no doubt that under the custom­ ary laAv, both the wife and husband have absolute power to divorce each other with­ out even assigning any cause. It is true a social stigma does attach to people who treat so lightly the marriage union. But such stigma attaches also to habitual liars and drunkards. Many people do avail themselves of the liberty, in the same man­ ner as many are habitual liars and drunkards. There is no more a legal sanction against the former than against the latter. 7. As a logical consequence of this liberty of dissolution, adultery is no criminal offence. The High Court of Madras held that in the case of parties governed by the Aliyasantanam law, adultery with the wife was no criminal offence, as the union could be dissolved at any time.