- Home
- Opinion
Children of midnight Rukhmabai: First woman doctor of India in the Colonial era!
MAJOR KULBIR SINGH. Dated: 12/13/2017 11:00:44 AM
‘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.’
By: Major Kulbir Singh
Rukhmabai Raut (born November 22, 1864 - September 25, 1955), was an Indian woman who became one of the first practicing women doctors in colonial India.[citation needed] She was the second qualified female physician of India and worked for many years in Rajkot and Surat. Rukhmabai joined her medical course in 1889 and returned to India in 1894. The first practicing lady doctor in India was Dr. Kadambini Ganguly and first non practicing lady physician of India was Dr. Anandi Gopal Joshi, who got their degree in 1886. She was also at the center of a historical legal case, which resulted in a law called ‘Age of Consent Act, 1891’. It is said that Dr. Rukhmabai practised in India for more than 50 years although there is lack of definite documentation to denote the same.
Rukhmabai was born in Maharashtrian (Marathi) family to Janardhan Pandurang and Jayantibai who came from a community of carpenters(Sutars). When Janardhan Pandurang died, Jayantibai transferred her property to Rukhmabai who was only eight and when she turned eleven, she married her daughter off to Dadaji Bhikaji, then aged nineteen. Jayantibai married a widower, Dr Sakharam Arjun but Rukhmabai stayed in the family home and studied at home using books from a Free Church Mission library. Rukhmabai and her mother were regulars at the weekly meetings of the Prarthana Samaj and the Arya Mahilä Samaj. Dadaji lost his mother and took to living with his maternal uncle Narayan Dhurmaji. The environment of Dhurmaji’s home pushed Dadaji into a life of indolence and waywardness. Dhurmaji had a mistress at home and his wife attempted suicide. Rukhmabai at the age of twelve refused to move to the household of Dhurmaji to live with Dadaji and Sakharam Arjun supported her decision. In March 1884, Dadaji sent a letter, through his lawyers Chalk and Walker, to Sakharam Arjun asking him to stop preventing Rukhmabai from joining him. Sakharam Arjun responded through civil letters that he was not preventing her but soon he too was forced to obtain legal . Through lawyers Payne, Gilbert, and Sayani, Rukhmabai provided grounds for refusing to join Dadaji. Dadaji claimed that Rukhmabai was being kept away because she could assert the rights to the property of her father’s.
Dadaji Bhikaji vs. Rukhmabai, 1885 with Bhikaji seeking “restitution of conjugal rights” came up for hearing and the judgement was passed by Justice Robert Hill Pinhey. Pinhey stated that English precedents on restitution did not apply here as the English law was meant to be applied to consenting mature adults. He 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. Pinhey retired after this last case and in 1886 the case came up for retrial. Rukhmabai’s counsels included J.D. Inverarity Jr. and Telang. There were outcries from various sections of society while it was praised by others. Some Hindus claimed that the law did not respect the sanctity of Hindu customs when in fact Pinhey did. Strong criticism of Pinhey’s decision came from the Native Opinion, an Anglo-Marathi weekly run by Vishwanath Narayan Mandlik (1833–89) who supported Dadaji. A Pune weekly run by Balgangadhar Tilak, the Mahratta, wrote that Justice Pinhey did not understand the spirit of Hindu laws and that he sought reform by “violent means”. In the meantime, a series of articles in the Times of India written under the pen-name of a Hindu Lady had through the course of the case (and before it) caused public reactions and it was revealed that the author was none other than Rukhmabai. One of the witnesses in the case, K.R. Kirtikar (1847-1919), formerly a student of Sakharam Arjun (and a fellow founding Indian member of the Bombay Natural History Society), claimed that the identity did not matter in the case. Kirtikar however was in support of Dadaji. The public debate revolved around multiple points of contention - Hindu versus English Law, reform from the inside versus outside, whether ancient customs deserved respect or not and so on. An appeal against the first case was made on 18 March 1886 and it was upheld by Chief Justice Sir Charles Sargent and Justice. The case was handled by Justice Farran on 4 March 1887 made using interpretations of Hindu laws went in the other direction and Rukhmabai was ordered to go to live with her husband or face six months of imprisonment. Rukhmabai bravely wrote that she would rather have the maximum penalty than obey the verdict. This caused further upheaval and debate.[4] Balgangadhar Tilak wrote in the Kesari that Rukhmabai’s defiance was the result of an English education and declared that Hinduism was in danger. Max Muller wrote that the legal route was not the solution to the problem shown by Rukhmabai’s case and stated that it was Rukhmabai’s education that had made her the best judge of her own choices. 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.
Rukhmabai’s Testimony to the Government of India. Daily Telegraph, 15 July 1887. page 2.
After the series of court cases which resulted in the affirmation of the marriage, she wrote to Queen Victoria who overruled the court and dissolved the marriage. In July 1888, a settlement was reached with Dadaji and he relinquished his claim on Rukhmabai for a payment of two thousand rupees. Rukhmabai then set sail to study in England. The case greatly influenced reformers like Behramji Malabari (1853-1912) who wrote extensively on the topic. It was also followed with great interest in Britain which included broader feminist discussions in women’s magazines there. The publicity of this case helped influence the passage of the Age of Consent Act, 1891 which outlawed child marriages across the British Empire.
Dr. Edith Pechey at the Cama Hospital encouraged Rukhmabai, helping to raise funds for her education. Rukhmabai went to England in 1889 to study at the London School of Medicine for Women. Rukhmabai was supported by suffrage activist Eva McLaren and Walter McLaren, and the Countess of Dufferin’s Fund for Supplying Medical Aid to the Women of India. Adelaide Manning and several others helped establish a fund, the Rukhmabai Defence Committee. Contributors included Shivajirao Holkar who donated 500 Rupees, “demonstrating courage to intervene against traditions”. Rukhmabai then wore white sari of widows in the Hindu tradition. In 1918 Rukhmabai rejected an offer to join the Women’s Medical Service and joined a state hospital for women in Rajkot. She served as the chief medical officer for a total of thirty-five years before retiring to Bombay in 1929 or 1930. She continued her work for reform, publishing a pamphlet “Purdah-the need for its abolition.”