Vol. 14, Part I · pages 251–255

DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL 233 feel convinced that we mean business and we want to evolve a classless society. I know what I am saying may not be liked. I was taken to task for expressing such an opinion in the papers an opinion which I read today to the House but in this vital matter, we are not to fear anybody. Mahatma Gandhi has told us we must have a class-less society. This is the right way to have a class-less society. All differences between those people who are opposed to each other from the point of view of social rights, economic rights and political rights, will disappear and we will have one class-less society, if we adopt a measure like this. I would beseech the House to kindly pass this measure in this session after referring it to the Select Committee today. Mr. Deputy Speaker : Motion moved: “That the Bill to provide that marriages between Hindus, Sikhs, Jains and their different castes and sub-castes are valid, be referred to a Select Committee consisting of Giani Gurmukh Singh Musafir, Sardar Hukum Singh, Shri M. Anathasayanam Ayyangar, Shri Deshbandhu Gupta, Shrimati G. Durgabai, Shrimati Renuka Ray, Shri Ramnath Goenka, Dr. Bakshi Tek Chand, Lala Achint Ram, Ch. Ranbir Singh, Shri Mahavir Tyagi and the Mover and that the number of members whose presence shall be necessary to constitute a meeting of the Committee shall be five.” The usual practice is to fix a date by which the report may be submitted to the House. With instructions to report by what date ? Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava : By the end of this month, say the 28th of February. Mr. Deputy Speaker : With instructions to report by the 28th of February, 1949. Shri K. Hanumanthaiya (Mysore State): Sir, I have great pleasure in welcoming this Bill, Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava has advanced very good reasons in support of it. They hardly need any support or addition. Before August 1947, our watch-word was ‘freedom’ and Mahatma Gandhi gave us the phrase ‘quit India’ and after the attainment of freedom, Sardar Patel has given us the word consolidation. He is doing it on the political front and that is the greatest achievement that this country can boast of. ( Interruption). And we have to do it also—may I say humbly with all sincerity and not with any levity—on the social front also. The great danger to India is ‘disruptive tendencies’, which are called communal tendencies and the marriage instruction is the bastion which keeps these various differences intact and in perpetuity. This measure in a very humble fashion makes a beginning to abolish those distinctions in times to come and consolidate the Hindu society to begin with. I heartily welcome

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES234 this measure and I suggest to the mover of this motion that he can take another Member into the Select Committee and I suggest Shrimati Annie Mascarene, M.A.B.L. being taken into the Select Committee. Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava : I have no objection to add the name. Shri K. M. Munshi (Bombay : General): I beg to support this motion. My honourable friend, Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava was pleased to describe this measure as a small measure. I beg to differ from him. It is a very big measure and a very important one. It should have been passed not now, but forty years ago. When the question was first raised before the courts and when the courts held in different provinces that marriage between the Hindus of different castes were invalid for one reason or the other. But in those days the Government benches were not prepared to allow the Hindu community to be dynamic and wanted to perpetuate the old customs which were enshrined in text books composed 700 or 800 years ago. I remember a case, Sir, I think it was some 40 years ago, when the validity of the marriage of a widow, whose husband had died several years ago was raised before the Bombay High Court and the High Court held that after long years of married life and leading case where I tried for four years to establish that the marriage bet-after having grand children, her marriage was invalid because she happened to belong to a higher caste than her husband. I was concerned in another leading case where I tried for four years to establish that the marriage between a Hindu of higher caste with a wife of a lower caste was invalid. But for the fact that Sir Lallubhai Shaw was a judge of catholicity, perhaps I would have won the case, but even then the validity of anuloma marriage as we call them,—between the husband of a superior Hindu caste and the wife of an inferior Hindu caste—is not accepted as valid in some of the provinces. The question has also risen with regard to Hindus and Jains in part of the country. Hindus and Jains marry freely, but the point has always come before the lawyers for opinion whether a marriage between a Hindu and a Jain was valid. Now these are questions which ought to have been solved, as I said, years and years ago. But we have reached a stage when this must be solved immediately. My honourable friend, Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava referred to the special case of the Punjab. It is not a special case of any particular province; it affects the whole of the country. On account of education,

DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL 235 on account of freedom marriages between members of different castes take place. But they find themselves in great difficulty on account of this doctrine of Hindu Law. I know, not one or two, but dozens of cases where the parties merely profess to marry under the Civil Marriage Act, though they do not want to do it; they hated doing it; they do not want to disturb the joint family; they do not want that the succession Act should apply to them; they do not want to separate themselves from their parents; but because of the unfortunate state of the law, they have to marry under the Civil Marriage Act. Therefore, I submit, Sir, this a crying grievance which requires to be remedied as early as possible. I am glad that the mover has accepted your suggestion about the 28th of February and this Bill should be passed as early as possible. There is one little point which I should like to mention and I am sure this deflect will be duly rectified in the Select Committee. The words as they stand are: Notwithstanding any text, rule, interpretation of Hindu Law, or any custom or usage to the contrary, no marriage among Hindus is or will he deemed to be invalid by reason of the fact that the parties thereto belong to different religions, castes or sub-castes. This might lead possibly to a construction that this provision only applies to marriages between parties who are alive. I think it should be made perfectly clear that even marriages of this character which have taken place in the past and in respect of which the question of succession arises should be deemed valid hereafter. I am sure proper rectification will be made in the Select Committee. I therefore, Sir, heartily support this motion. Shri Deshbandhu Gupta (Delhi): I rise to support the motion which is before the House just as my honourable friend, Shri Munshi has pointed out, I also feel that it is a really very important measure. For many years one tiling which has been standing in the way of Hindu solidarity and also in the way of our national solidarity is this division of the Hindu society in castes. I feel the time has come when we should pass a measure like this which seeks to abolish these artificial barriers without any further delay. I know of instances where some of my close friends who did not believe in civil marriages had to resort to civil marriages, simply because they happened to choose a mate which belonged to a different caste. You are aware, Sir, that the Arya Samaj has always been a believer in caste system by ‘ Guna and Karma'. In spite of the fact that the founder of the Arya Samaj

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES236 preached that cult and from the very beginning they advocated that there was no caste by birth, Arya Samajists also had to suffer from the same disability from which other people are suffering today. It was after many years of struggle that the Arya Marriage Validation Act was passed. But, I find public opinion amongst Hindu has also advanced sufficiently and not only Arya Samajists but today many more Hindus do not recognise the artificial barriers placed by the caste system based on birth. Therefore, there is no reason why they should be forced to have recourse to the Arya Marriage Validation Act or to the Civil Marriage Act. Today, when public opinion has advanced, and when the caste barriers that have stood in the way of the solidarity of the Hindus and in the way of creating a national feeling, have gone, I feel the passage of a measure like this should not be delayed. There may of course be some point in saying that the Hindu Code is coming and therefore we should not have any piecemeal legislation. But along with many of my friends I too believe that a measure of this nature, which is in no way opposed to the reformist ideas contained in the Hindu Code, should not be delayed. Although, my honourable friend Dr. Ambedkar would like the Hindu Code to be passed into law this very session, many of us do not share that view. It may take time. After all, that is a very important measure and has got many controversial clauses. Therefore, I would urge that this measure should be welcomed by us and its passage should not be delayed. I wholeheartedly support the motion moved by my honourable friend Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava and I hope Dr. Ambedkar will also accept it and that the house will pass this small measure which is of great importance to Hindu Society, in this very session. Dr. Bakhshi Tek Chand (East Punjab : General): I wholeheartedly support the motion which Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava has made for referring this Bill to the Select Committee. The Bill has so far received support from various quarters of the House and I do hope that not a single discordant note will be raised against it. The Bill, if I may say so, is no new measure. A Bill almost on identical terms was introduced in the old Imperial Legislative Council as it was then called, in 1919 by the late Mr. Vitthalbhai Patel. That Bill was circulated for opinion. Of course, different opinions were expressed, the orthodox element opposing it, officials opposing it and a number of persons and societies supporting it. But, before the Bill could come up for consideration before the Council, the Montagu

DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL 237 Chelmsford Reforms came into operation the council was dissolved and the Bill lapsed. After that, Dr. Gour attempted in 1923 to modify the old Bill of 1872 but then also, there was opposition and the Bill had to be modified in several particulars. It was only in the form of a civil marriage that persons of different castes or different sub-castes of Hindus could marry, sacramental marriages are not permitted. With regard to sacramental marriages under the Hindu Law, the position is different in the differnt provinces. Some provinces, as has been pointed out, permit what are called Anuloma Marriages ; other provinces do not allow that. In the latter provinces, the courts have held that though in some of the Smiritis, Anuloma marriages were permitted, they have become obsolete and they are not now recognised. In almost all Provinces, it is held that Pratiloma marriages are invalid. In the punjab and in some other provinces, where custom is the rule of decision, marriages between certain castes are allowed, but between certain other castes are not allowed. I think the time has now come when a bold step should be taken and this measure should be placed on the Statute book. No doubt, under the Hindu Code which is now before us, provisions to this effect have been made. The Hindu Code Bill is however a very comprehensive measure dealing with different subjects and covers a very much wider field. There is much opposition to some portions of it. We do not know how long it will take for the Bill to pass, in what form it will be passed, or whether it will be passed at all. ( Shri L Krishnaswami Bharathi : “It will be passed.”) It will certainly take time. There is no reason therefore, so far as this matter is concerned, to delay the passage of this simple measure, with which I think most people are aggreed. I therefore support the motion. Shri Mahavir Tyagi (U.P.: General): I do also want to have the honour of recording my support to this Bill of great reform as my honourable friend Mr. Munshi has said . It is long since india has suffered on account of communal differences. Marriages are the root cause and elections the ‘fruit-cause’ for all these differences; because, it is primarily at the time of the marriage that one enquires into the caste of the other. Every time when marriages are held, castes are enquired into. The next occasion, when the caste of a person is enquired into, is when one stands for election. Now that we have decided to have, joint electorates, we have to a great extent done away with the ‘fruit-cause’ of the communal