Page:The Indian Antiquary, Vol. 4-1875.djvu/186

Jose, 1876-] OBSERVATIONS ON THE KHD 17o which the young CO we have now learnt, from the a of the k d d n ml, how such dangers are to be averted. Cut off the convni's ku-lami, and a rarely occurring temptation ceases: cut offhisears, and one of the most common temptations of his daily life is at an end ! I am surprised that the opponents of the k u d n m i have not yet commenced to put down the use of the tali . This is the Hindu s marriage, answering to the ring of European Christendom ; aud, on the principle on vh i opposition to t be k u d u m i is based, it do • appear to me to be consistent with common fair- ness to allow the tali to escape, seeing amongst heathens it has always the image of Ganosa or some other idolatrous emblem im- pressed upon it, and that it is i the Hindu bride's neck with idolatrous monies. I hare known a clergyman refuse to perform a marriage with a t a 1 i , and insist upon a ring being used instead. At first sigh would seem to he the right course to take, to preserve the principle which is at stake inviolate, but a little further consideration will show that the scrupulous conscience can find no rest for itself even in the ring : for if the ring is more Christian than the tali, it is only because its use amongst Christians ; mcient'. Every one knows that the ring had a heathen origin, and that for this reason it is rejected by the Quakers* who for the same reason, in perfect consistency with their principles. he use of our very decidedly heathenish names of the days of the week and of the months. I do not wish to ba understood as defending the retention of the k n d u m i, or advocating its use, considered as a question of taste. Regarding the ku d a m i merely as a mode of wearing the hair, I do not admire it, aud if it were only admit- ted that the qnesi ion at issue is no! :i question of theology or of Christian morality, but a question fortho hair-dresser, I should probably turn round and argue on the other side. It would doubtless have been admired by our jjrand fathers, who wore ttfcndtimi themselves. queue or pigtail, which succeeded the wig, and who certainly could not hu to Christianity to cut off what they them- selves wore. The mode of hair-cutting in vogue amongst ns at present was introduced by the French i and was dislike for a time by old-fashioned people as a sign of Jacobin tendencies. It oul that suspicion, and came to be universally re- garded as a great improvement upon the tail, and still more upon the wig. I am not sure, -r, thai it is destined to resist for ever the changeaof&shion; and, judging from the low negro-like look it gives to the natives who have been induced to adopt it, 1 should fancy that it is somehow out of harmony with nature, and that a more becoming fashion may yet be covered. A native with a good head never so well, in my judgment, ns when he shares his head entirely, after the simply severe style of the ancient Greek pln'losoph. should suppose that in this warm cliinai other style can feel so cool and Comfortable. On the other hand, I never regard a native with more pity, from a dressing-room point of . than when I see him imitating', or rather earica- tnring, our present English fashion,— letting his Jit black hair grow to twice the length of ours, though innocent of the use of brush and . and plastering it over with oil till it- shines in the dark and smells in the sun ! I am not disposed, however, to dogmatize in matters of fashion, knowing that tastes differ. It is a matter of indifference to me how people wear their hair, provided they take care to keep it clean. All I argue for is that it should be re- garded as a matter of taste, not a matter of reli- gion, and that if we dislike the kadumi and wish natives to cut it off and to shave their heads, we should appeal not to their consciences, but to their wish to improve their looks. None of the arguments I have nsed in defence of the lawfulness of native Christians retaining u d um i, if they like, can fairly be made use of in defence of c as t e . . . Caste ia anti-social in its own nature, irrespective of its origin and history, and is therefore anti-Christian ; whereas the k u d u m i, being admitted to be in itself a s hair and no more, if it is not heathenish in its origi istory, the assertion that it is >iisl) is has, less, and the wearing of it is no more opposed to Christianity or social duty than the wearing of the moustache. Gburiii .•■rd!, 7th fopfc 1867.