Rukhmabai Raut

 Rukhmabai Raut (1864 – 1955) was a feminist and one of the first practising female doctors in colonial India. She is most well known however for her involvement in the landmark case regarding her child marriage, which ultimately contributed to the Age of Consent Act being passed in 1891.  

Rukhmabai was born to a Marathi family. Her father passed away when she was aged two and her mother was only seventeen. Owing to their caste, her mother was able to remarry so six years after her husband's death, Jayantibai married the widower Dr Sakharam Arjun – an eminent physician and social activisit from Bombay.  

Two and a half years later, 11-year-old Rukhmabai was married to the 19 year old Dadaji Bhikaji, her step-father’s cousin. Controversially, it was Dadaji would stay with Rukhmabai's family and be fully provided for by them – a role which carries stigma in Indian society even today. Her family expected him to acquire an education and learn how to “become a good man”. Upon reaching puberty only six months after her wedding, the traditional event of Garbhadhan was held signalling the time for ritual consummation of marriage. However, her stepfather had reformist tendencies and did not allow the consummation to go ahead.

His refusal angered Bhikaji, now aged 20, who also resented the attempts of Rukhmabai's family to make him "a good man” and was antipathetic about his education which he saw as humiliating for a man who was old enough to attend university. After the death of his mother, Bhikaji left his wife’s home and moved in with his maternal uncle Narayan Dhurmaji, falling further into a life of idleness and vice. He racked up debts that he hoped to settle using Rukhmabai’s money. However, she refused to move in with him and was supported by her step-father in her refusal.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Unlike her husband, Rukmabai treasured her education and studied ardently at home using books from the from a Free Church Mission library. Because of her father's association with religious and social reformers, she also came into contact with prominent names like Vishnu Shastri Pandit, a strong proponent of women's causes in Western India at the time, along with European men and women exposing her to liberal reformism. She also attended reformist Hindu meetings with her mother.

In March 1884, Bhikaji sent a legal request to Arjun to desist preventing Rukhmabai from joining him. Eventually Sakharam Arjun sought legal help and provided grounds for Rukhmabai's refusal to join Bhikaji. The case thus went to court. In 1885, the case of Bhikaji seeking "restitution of conjugal rights" titled "Bhikaji vs. Rukhmabai, 1885" came up for hearing and the judgement was passed by Justice Robert Hill Pinhey. Pinhey stated that English precedents on restitution did not apply to the case as the English law applied to consenting adults. He also found fault with the English law cases and found no precedent in Hindu law. He declared that Rukhmabai had been wed in her "helpless infancy" and that he could not compel a young lady.  That both legal systems were consulted, and that both agreed, is quite interesting as this is rarely the case in the history of colonial India.

In 1886, the case was brought up for retrial. The case drew criticisms from various sections of society, in some cases claims that the law did not respect the sanctity of Hindu customs. Specifically, criticism of Justice Pinhey's decision came from the Native Opinion, an Anglo-Marathi weekly run by Vishwanath Narayan Mandlik (1833–89) who supported Bhikaji. Another critic wrote that Justice Pinhey did not understand the spirit of Hindu laws and that he sought reforms by "violent means".

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“This wicked practice of child marriage has destroyed the happiness of my life. It comes between me and the things which I prize above all others – study and mental cultivation. Without the least fault of mine I am doomed to seclusion; every aspiration of mine to rise above my ignorant sisters is looked down upon with suspicion and is interpreted in the most uncharitable manner.”

At the same time, a series of articles appearing before and during the trial, in the Times of India penned under the pseudonym a Hindu Lady also caused a stir. It was later revealed that the “Hindu Lady” was in fact Rukhmabai herself. These letters concerned child marriage, enforced widowhood and status of women in society. The above quote was written on June 26 1885.

The public debate her case arose revolved around multiple points of contention - Hindu versus English Law, reform from the inside versus outside and whether ancient customs deserved respect or not. The first appeal against the case was made on 18 March 1886 and was upheld by Chief Justice Sir Charles Sargent and Justice L.H. Bayley.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On 4 March 1887, Justice Farran, using interpretations of Hindu laws, ordered Rukhmabai to "go live with her husband or face six months of imprisonment". Rukhmabai responded that she would rather face imprisonment than obey the verdict. This resulted in further upheaval and social debate. Balgangadhar Tilak that Rukhmabai's defiance was the result of an English education and declared that Hinduism was in danger. Classic. On the other hand, Max Müller responded writing that the legal route was not the solution to the problem of Rukhmabai's case and that it was Rukhmabai's education that had made her the best judge of her own choices. As has so often been the case, nothing scares middle aged men more than an educated woman.

After the series of court cases which resulted in the affirmation of the marriage, she appealed to Queen Victoria:

“Everywhere it is considered one of the greatest blessings of God that we are under the protection of our beloved Queen Victoria's Government, which has its world wide fame for best administration. If such a Government cannot help unyoke us Hindu woman, what Government on earth has the power to relieve the daughters of Ind from their present miseries? This 50th year of our Queen's accession to the most renowned throne is the jubilee year in which every town and every village in her dominions is to show their loyalty in the best way it can, and wish the mother Queen a long happy life, to rule over us for many years with peace and prosperity. At such an unusual occasion will the mother listen to an earnest appeal from her millions of Indian daughters and grant them a few simple words of change into the book on Hindu law- that 'marriages performed before the respective ages of 20 in boys and 15 in girls shall not be considered legal in the eyes of the law if brought before the Court.' This mere sentence will be sufficient for the present to have enough check on child marriages, without creating a great vexation among the ignorant masses. This jubilee year must leave some expression on us Hindu women, and nothing will be more gratefully received than the introduction of this mere sentence into our law books. It is the work of a day if God wished it, but without His aid every effort seems to be in vain. So far, dear lady, I have dwelt on your patience, for which an apology is necessary. With best compliments -I remain yours very sincerely, Rukhmabai.”

It has been suggested that Queen Victoria overrued the court and dissolved the marriage, however there is no evidence for this. More likely this was spread by later historians in an attempt to support the “civilising empire/defender of the poor helpless native woman” rhetoric. The case generated a great deal of debate both within India and England. It drew written commentaries from reformers like Behramji Malabari (1853-1912), Balgangadhar Tilak, journalistic opinion pieces from prominent names like Rudyard Kipling and broader feminist discussions in British women's magazines. Ultimately, the publicity and debate generated by this case helped influence the enactment of the "Age of Consent Act" in 1891, which changed the age of consent from 10 to 12 years across British India (still fucking horrific, way to go, Rule Britannia!)

In July 1888, a settlement was reached with Bhikaji and he relinquished his claim on Rukhmabai for a payment of two thousand rupees. Thus, Rukhmabai was saved from imprisonment. She had also refused all offers of financial assistance and had paid her own legal costs. Bhikaji remarried in 1889, but Rukhmabai instead dedicated her life to medicine and women’s rights.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rukhmabai received financial  support from the likes of Dr. Edith Pechey (then working at the Cama Hospital) who not only encouraged her but helped raise funds for her further education. Other supporters included Shivajirao Holkar who donated 500 Rupees for "demonstrating courage to intervene against traditions", suffrage activists like Eva McLaren and Walter McLaren, the Countess of Dufferin's Fund for Supplying Medical Aid to the Women of India, Adelaide Manning and others who helped establish "The Rukhmabai Defence Committee" to help gather fund towards supporting her cause of continuing education. In 1889, Rukhmabai set sail to study medicine in England.

In 1894, she received her Doctor of Medicine from the London School of Medicine for Women having also studied at the Royal Free Hospital. She became the second Indian woman with a medical degree to practice medicine.

In 1895, she returned to India and worked as the Chief Medical Officer at the Women's Hospital in Surat. In 1918, she turned down the offer of a role in the Woman's Medical Service, opting instead to work at the Zenana (Woman's) State Hospital in Rajkot until her retirement in 1929. She established the Red Cross Society at Rajkot.

In 1904 after the death of Bhikaji, Rukhmabai chose to start dressing in a white sari as per Hindu traditions of widowhood. This was more likely done to highlight the plight of widows in India, rather than in mourning for her frankly awful husband. In 1929 after her retirement to Bombay, she publishing a pamphlet titled "Purdah - the need for its abolition" arguing that young widows were being denied the chance to actively contribute to Indian society.

Rukhmabai passed away from lung cancer on 25 September 1955, aged 91.

After finishing her education, Rukhmabai had returned to her country despite the fact that she remained largely ostracised, which alone demonstrates the bravery and defiance she showed throughout her life. Rukhmabai was one of the most important figures fighting for the cause of women’s rights in colonial India. Her defiance of social conventions and customs that discriminated against women disrupted all aspects of society and succeeded in changing the law to protect others from the same fate. That we should remember her name, let alone read her words, is remarkable and she is my absolute hero. Her inspiring ability to suffer constant humiliation and fight for her rights and those even worse off than her was truly a feat in the conservative context in which she lived. Her courage and perseverance paved the way for future Indian doctors, Indian girls, and little white girls like me who have dedicated their lives to studying gender in colonial India. A true shero of her age, and ours.