Rukhmabai

#61/100 in #100extraordinarywomen

Google dedicated a doodle to Rukhmabai today. “Today’s Doodle by illustrator Shreya Gupta shows the courageous doctor among her patients, doing the dedicated work of a skilled physician,” said Google’s blog post on its doodles.

Rukhmabai, is often credited as the first Indian woman to practice medicine in colonial India. However, that is not true. 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. Rukhmabai joined her medical course in 1889 and returned to India in 1894. But Rukhmabai has another feather in her cap. She not only fought patriarchal mindset to become a physician but also fought for other social causes. If women in modern India can assert their rights of consent, it is due to Rukhmabai refusing to recognise her marriage and the case filed by her husband thereafter. 

Born in 1864 to Janardhan Pandurang and Jayantibai in the present-day Mumbai, she lost her father at the age of eight. Jayantibai transferred her property to Rukhmabai after her father’s death. Her parents were from a community of carpenters. Among the many social evils prevailing at that time was child marriage and Rukhmabai was also married at the age of 11 to Dadaji Bhikaji, then aged nineteen. Her mother later married a widower, Dr. Sakharam Arjun, an eminent physician and the founding member of Bombay Natural History Society. 

Rukhmabai continued to stay with her mother and step-father in the family home even after marriage and studied at home using books from a Free Church Mission library. Rukhmabai and her mother were regulars at the weekly meetings of the Prarthanä Samäj and the Arya Mahilä Samäj. Meanwhile, 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. Seven years later, Dadaji moved court seeking it to order his wife to live with him. 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. Rukhmabai refused to move in with her husband stating that a woman cannot be compelled to stay in a wedlock when she is not interested. 

The Dadaji vs. Rukhmabai case that went on for three years triggered a debate in both England and India. 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. 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 Müller 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.

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. 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, despite opposition from conservative Indians. 

Rukhmabai then set sail to study in England to study medicine. 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 passed away on September 25, 1955.

Apart from practicing medicine, she continued to work for social causes and was a founding member of Bombay Natural History Society along with her step-father, a 133-year-old pan-India wildlife research organization. As part of her continuous work for reform, she published a pamphlet “Purdah-the need for its abolition.” Even in the present day, women are fighting for the right to consent amid a shocking spike in the crimes against women. Rukhmabai’s fight serves as an inspiration to all the women struggling for their rights. 

Source: Wikipedia and Google search.