If one calling onself a Hindu, questions the propriety of remarriage during the life-time of the spouse, it needs to be understood that such questioning comes not from religion but from rationality or experiential wisdom or any other very important consideration. If we realise then, that the one who challenges remarriage does so, considering himself not a Hindu but a rationalist or through experience, we are only happy about it and we would have no difficulty in the matter of justifying our position to him.
Generally speaking remarriage is not objected to by anyone when (1) the first wife dies, (2) gone after another man (3) becomes subject to any incurable and horrible disease (4) or turns insane losing self- possession. Rationalists and those of experientially wise will not object to remarriage not only under the first but also the second, third and fourth circumstances. Let us examine the fifth, sixth and other possible circumstances, (5) either through ignorance or natural disposition the wife continues to belittle the husband or behaves habitually at cross purposes, (6) the husband not being agreeable to the wife or for any other reason, she is averse or antagonistic to him, (7) with all these above-mentioned qualities she runs away to her parental home every now and then, (8) holding on to principles diametrically opposed to those of her husband and behaves in such a rigid way as to subject him to a permanent tension, or (9) out of pride of wealth does not respect or care for the husband. It is the duty of those who claim to argue against remarriage from experience to pay attention here, as to the fate of a man trapped with a woman of such and such other characteristics.
Apart from this, if a marriage had been conducted by the parents or others when the boy was of twelve years and the girl ten, would such a marriage be valid according to the righteousness appropriate to the contracting parties or even according to the righteousness and responsibility of those who s0 conducted the marriage? These are matters for serious attention of the rationalists.
Beyond all such considerations and whatever be the circumstances, what is the duty of a groom if he lands with a bride who could in all fairness be considered absolutely incompatible in terms of life-satisfaction, natural pleasure and mental liking? On this, the religionists, experimentalist as well as the mass of ordinary general public, all together will have to think. Lastly, all these being on one side, if one mindlessly still insists that whatever be the reasons or circumstances, one ought to put up with it, be patient and never have recourse to another marriage in the lifetime of the spouse, it definitely needs to be explained, on what philosophy, or of what necessity or on what justification, for what benefit or according to which rationality one so asserts or expects. Only then the argument would be worthy of serious consideration. Because speaking generally, even the illiterate masses of today talking on any subject, demand to know whether the opinion held agrees with these three: tradition, strategy and experience. The arrangement of these three terms itself is revealing: if the first term is to be understood as the accumulated experience of those who lived before us and if the opinion proffered is in perfect agreement with it, then it ought to be examined whether the opinion is in agreement with the second, that is, strategy or rationality. However, if the opinion, even if agreeable to the second, that is rationality, is still further needs to be checked whether it is capable of being implemented in day-to-day life. And it is for this purpose, it will be clear, that of the three, experience is kept at the end.
The opinion, therefore that a man ought not to remarry while his wife is alive, we demand to know, is opposed to which of the above three tests? IN marriage, we consider the bridge as the life-partner to the groom, but if she happens to possess all the above-mentioned nine unwholesome qualities, then it must certainly be examined as to, whether she is a life-partner or indeed a life-harasser? Any one can standing external to the situation, casually, without releasing the actual position, with illiterate masses, in blindness could accusingly complain, whether it is proper to remarry while one’s spouse is alive. (to be continued)
