In my opinion, there are three issues involved there. One is marriages
at an early age, the second, demand of kanyASulkam (and all the other
avarices thereof), and the third, widow marriages. I see kanyASulkam
(the play) as being very strongly against kanyASulkam (the dowry -
is that the proper word? Is there another?), moderately against the
third issue, and really not directly against the first. This is of
course a matter of opinion. But aren't shades of opposition to these
three issues in the play?
There is a saying "ashTa varshA bhavEt kanyA", ani. Thinking along that
line prompted contemplation of marriage for a girl at that age. It should
be noted that while a marriage is performed at that age, the girl is
not sent to the in-laws at that age. She is sent only after she reached
a "yukta-vayassu". (All of this is bookish knowledge of course).
viSwanAtha in vEyi paDagalu at one times gets this issue discussed.
He says that at that age onwards, a girl starts getting an idea
of the sexes, starts to have feelings of romance (excuse me for
loose translation, not looking at the text), and that when the
parents "designate" a person by the process of marriage, then these
ideas are channeled towards that person.
As Bapa Rao said, what gurajADa actually did in the case of his two
daughters had to have a lot to do with how his family (not just the
wife) felt at that time.
In general, what is the "propriety" of criticising practices and traditions
of a certain age, keeping in mind the current practices? I am not
directing the question at anybody in particular. This question cropped
in my mind many times.
An admission: I scanned through Bapa Rao's post, as it caught my attention
just as I was about to leave. Perhaps I should have waited till tomorrow
to read and properly comment on it. BTW, Sreenivas was quoting the
comments from someone's work, wasn't he?
Ramakrishna