The Introduction of Hindu law in Modern India

That was the beginning of the British empire in India. The East India Company was slowly but steadily consolidating their colonial possessions in India at the beginning of the 18^th century. So when Warren Hastings took over as Governor of Bengal in 1772, the British Parliament passed the Regulating Act under which Warren Hastings was appointed the Governor General of the provinces of Bengal, Bombay and Madras  as well in 1774. In the same year,  the Supreme Court of British India was set up in Calcutta with Mr.  Impey as the Chief Justice. By that time, Warren Hastings had learnt Persian and Bengali. In the same year, in 1775 Nand Kumar was tried of an offence of forgery and was given capital punishment as per the English law. The trial moved the Chief Justice Impey so much that he became curious to know the traditional Hindu law The ten well known Pundits of Calcutta were asked to prepare a legal compendium to facilitate justice.

   These pundits who were under the influence of very much conservative  social system followed the traditional Smritis or the ancient Hindu Code of laws. This included besides the Manu Smriti, Yaagya Balkya Smriti and in some cases Manu Smriti and they culled quotations from ancient law books. They in this process totally ignored the progressive portions of the same and Smritis like Paraashar as regards institutions of marriage or remarriage are concerned. This compendium was titled, Vivaadaarnava Setu i.e crossing over the legal disputes. In the meantime another difficulty cropped up. The renowned lexicographer of Anglo-Sanskrit group of language Sir William Jones was only learning Sanskrit. So the book could not be translated into English directly. So this book was first translated into Persian and then into English by William Wilkins, who had also translated Shrimad Bhagwadgeetaa. This retranslated version was known as Hindu law. Actually, Yaagyabalkya Smriti had two commentaries, one is Mitaakshara and the other is Daaybhaag. In fact, Mitaakshara supports joint families and male children whereas Daaybhaag supports small family and all children. Since then, several amendments have been made without disturbing the old system. It was in this context that the great social reformer Keshav Chandra Sen’s Brahma Samaaj and others had to struggle hard for widow remarriage etc. Even the then Hindu society had ignored these vital points. In fact, the Paraashar Smriti is very clear on marriage problems, which generally arise after marriage. So, it has laid down an injunction : Naste, Mrite, Prabrajite, Klibe cha Patite Patau. Panchswaapatsu naarinam, pati anyo vidhiyate. This means that after marriage if the groom disappears. dies. becomes an ascetic or he is declared impotent  then in one of these cases the bride is permitted to go for a second marriage. It is high time that we Hindus should have a Personal Law Board like that of the Muslims which can guide the governments on such matters. May be the conservative sections in the Hindu society which is still powerful enough may not accept this kind of progressive ideas and so a national debate be initiated. This may augur well for our Hindu society and the country as a whole.

                                                                                                                  Shree S.P.Pandeya, M.A., B.T Kaavya Tirtha