Why Rajasthan‘s ‘Prevention of Mrityu Bhoj Act‘ Is Outrageous And Needs To Go

The Congress party’s government in Rajasthan has recently decided to implement decades old law to regulate Mrityubhoj more strictly. Mrityubhoj - an act of feeding priests, family, villagers, relatives and the poor after death of a person - is an age-old Hindu tradition widely practiced throughout the country and is known by different names in different regions. Some cases of the state administration filing FIR against organisers of such feasts have come to light.

The latest crackdown is due to Covid-19 pandemic where all the governments are trying to prevent people from gathering in one place. One welcomes this and this piece is not a critique of the recent steps but the original act which regulates Mrityubhoj.

The law was passed in 1960 by the then Rajasthan government under the leadership of Chief Minister Mohan Lal Sukhadia. The act bars anyone from hosting a feast for more than 100 people and mandates punishment of up to one-year jail term or a fine of Rs 1,000 (or both) for anyone who violates the law or anyone who “abets or assists the commission of any such contravention.”

The act was legislated at the peak of Nehruvian era where Congress governments took it upon themselves to reform the Hindu society. In the 1950s, many reformist laws were introduced which changed the way Hindus conducted themselves in various civil matters - from marriage to succession to guardianship to adoption, etc.

The leaders at the time saw the State as a newly acquired weapon in their hands through which they deemed fit to administer the country with reformist zeal. The State was in the commanding heights not just of the economy but also of the society. While the control on the economy was loosened in 1991, the politicians continue to think it as their birthright to legislate away the issues in Hindu society which they see as problematic or make laws putting social obligations on Hindu society.

Of course, non-Hindus remain free from such overreach of the State. One can call it religious discrimination or the ‘soft bigotry of low expectations’ depending on how generous one wants to be to the leaders in power.

The Indian State and the politicians still don’t understand (or don’t want want to) the pitfalls of interfering in matters which should primarily be left to society especially in cases where there is no real harm.

That’s the reason why we see the State coming up with laws banning Mrityubhoj, benign superstitious acts, etc or the Judiciary’s attempts to ban Jallikattu, Dahi Handi festival, change practice at Sabarimala temple, etc.

The Indian State’s nanny nature makes it run roughshod over the basics of lawmaking which should ideally focus more on preventing one entity inflicting harm on others.

There are basically two arguments given in defence of ban on Mrityubhoj.

First that it’s a social evil which needs to be eradicated. This is more of a statement than an argument. To call Mrityubhoj a social evil and put it in the same bracket as actual social evils such as ‘child marriage’, ‘sati’, ‘triple talaq’, etc is a travesty. In the former, there is no evidence of physical harm to anyone. There is no crime. No one’s rights are being infringed upon.

But it has become a habit of some sections to brand anything and everything related to Hinduism as a social evil. This also includes deracinated Hindus whose secular education and Abrahamic lenses interfere with their common sense. Same people are often found launching broadside against Hindu festivals and traditions calling Holi/Diwali as environmental hazards, Raksha Bandhan as sexist, Karwa Chauth as patriarchal, pouring Milk over Shivling on Shivratri as superstition and so on. If it was upto such people, they would’ve outlawed Hinduism long back branding it a ’social evil’.

Attempts to brand Mrityubhoj as evil are malafide and deserve nothing but one’s contempt.

Second argument against Mrityubhoj is that it’s undesirable because it puts excessive financial burden on individuals, especially the poor, for they have to feed scores of people under social pressure. But if that’s the case, then how about outlawing marriage feasts which are even a bigger financial burden on the families.

Why stop there? If it has been decided that the State knows more than the masses and the latter are nincompoops who can’t run their own lives, then we will have to outlaw a lot of things. We can start with private schools. We know how parents compete with other parents to send their children to expensive schools even when they can’t afford to. Yes, this is an investment but there is no evidence that schools which charge high fees also produce great results.

Why can’t the State ban people from buying expensive laptops, mobile phones, furniture, gadgets, prevent them from building houses, etc beyond a particular budget? Since the nanny state and its advocates are know-all, they can regulate each and every aspect of our lives and dictate to us how much and where one is allowed to spend.

Of course that is exactly what communism is - authoritarian, affront to basic human dignity, suppressor of free speech, personal liberty, religious expression, and above all unworkable.

Those who advocate steps like banning practices like Mrityubhoj should understand the slippery slope they are putting the society on. It is one thing to say something is undesirable and then work within the society to make people aware about its drawbacks but totally another thing to use the State as a short-cut to thrust your social agenda on everyone.

The society is fairly capable of reforming itself. A simple google search will show that many khaps, caste groups, and social reformers in different states have succeeded in convincing people that they needn’t organise Mrityubhoj and many people have indeed given up the practice. This is the right way. Those who can afford to spend lavishly on such feasts should be allowed to do so.

Earlier, Hindus in North India used to follow the tradition of tehervi where the family of the deceased would observe a 13-day period of mourning at the end of which a havan would be conducted. This meant that all villagers, relatives and friends of the family could come to meet the bereaved family and pay their respects and offer condolences. But slowly, this is changing. Thanks to modern transportation, now a days, everyone can reach in a matter of hours and many families and communities have cut short the mourning period from 13-days to a week or even four days depending on their convenience. It didn’t need the State to pass a law.

The Indian State, thus, would be better off focusing its energies on preventing real harm to people rather than playing a social justice warrior. Leave that task to the activists.