Vol. 14, Part I · pages 316–320

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES298 not be any harm if instead of making any change in the Hindu Law at present, we do this even three years hence. This is a subject over which the whole country has got to think; all of us have to think, all of those who are sitting here have to think and those who are likely to occupy these seats in this House in the future shall have to think. Therefore, I feel that there is a good deal of force in the arguments advanced by the second group that it is neither the proper time nor the place to bring forth such a measure, and for this reason, I would urge that we should consider this aspect. Just as I have stated, even the supporters of this Bill can be divided into two groups, one which does not at all like to see any of our old traditions, and does not want to recognise the fact that this country is one of the ancient countries having a brilliant past, glorious history, high culture and great traditions. Such type of reformers do not at all care as to what our past heritage is and how are we to reconstruct our country today ? These reformers have been considerably influenced by the Western education, and have scant regard for the ancient history, culture and even the old traditions in the sphere of social reforms. I would like to say that if such sort of reforms are introduced in this ancient country, this Bharatvarsha (India) will not longer remain as Bharatvarsha —but it would become something else. The other group of reformers is that which believe in the necessity of reforms being introduced but after having due regard to our ancient history, culture and traditions. I do not belong to the first group but to the second. I admit that it has become absolutely necessary to introduce reforms, but in spite of all this, we should carry out the reforms after keeping in view our old traditions, ancient culture and civilisation. At this time when we are framing our Constitution, when we have already passed the clauses relating to the fundamental and justiciable rights and when it is hoped that our Constitution will be finally adopted sometime during the period intervening between the 16th of May and 15th of August next, it would have been quite in order had this measure been brought forth in consonance with the provisions of the new Constitution. Today when we call our country a ‘ Secular State ’, when we admit that all the persons in this country—whatever religion they believe in, to whatever community they may belong, may be Hindu, Muslim, Sikh, Parsi—whoever he may be—he should be given equal rights of citizenship. Therefore, I would say that the Honourable

DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL 299 Dr. Ambedkar should have presented to this House such a Bill which would have concerned not the Hindu’s alone, but would have been made applicable to all the citizens of this country. While admitting this country as a ‘Secular State’, the idea of introducing a Hindu Code Bill seems to me quite inappropriate. Then again if we now see this Bill, we shall have to admit this that it .................. Shri R. K. Sidhva : The Honourable Dr. Ambedkar referred to the ancient Shastras. You may also point out which of the Shastras go against the provisions of Hindu Code ? Seth Govind Das : Now if we see this Bill, we find that it contains many such Clauses to the acceptance of which there should not be any objection. And if at all this Bill is not postponed but is passed into Law, I am sure we shall accept these Clauses without indulging into any sort of controversy. But along with this, we also feel that it contains many such Clauses the acceptance of which is succeptible of being considerably harmful. The Honourable Dr. Ambedkar has himself admitted today that many of the Clauses arc of controversial nature and he has also thrown sufficient light on these controversial issues. The first controversial issue is ‘ marriage ’ and ‘ divorce ’, If we take up the ‘ marriage ’ and ‘divorce’, I would be prepared to accept one thing at least that we should make some such change in our legislation which would do away with the Caste System. And if any Brahmana wants to marry a Sudra or a Sudra a Brahmana; or setting aside the case of Brahmana and a Sudra, if any Hindu wants to marry a Muslim or any Muslim a Hindu, or if the members of any community wants to have inter-communal marriages, there should not be any bar to such marriages being solemnized. This Caste System has ruined our country. It has resulted in the remification of our country and society into small parts—may even the smallest sections. All of us are very well aware of the disabilities that exist in the marginal sphere today and which are the outcome of this dismemberment. The old people also know this and even today—they look upon the solemnization of such marriages with abhorence. They say that they have to marry their sons as well as daughters against their wishes. But I fully support such a freedom being given. I am even a supporter of ‘divorce’. I would submit that notwithstanding the fact that no ‘Marriage Code’ has so far been invented in the world which may be regarded as the panacea for the removal of all ills, still we have got to see that if the husband and wife cannot live a harmonious life, they should be given the right of divorce. The Honourable Dr. Ambedkar

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES300 has stated that the system of divorce already prevails among 90 per cent of the people in this country. These 90 per cent. are called Sudras. I, on my part, do not find any difference between the Brahmana and Sudra, and feel that it would be the greatest crime to call them Sudras even . . . . The Honourable Shri Jagjivan Ram (Minister of Labour): Does it not cut at the root of Hindu religon ? Seth Govind Das : Divorce exists amongst the 90 per cent, of the Sudras. In this case too, it so looks to me that if we pass this legislation in utter disregard of their customs and usages, then 90 per cent, of the people .... Shri Raj Bahadur (United State of Matsya): Sir, may I request the honourable member to use any Hindi equivalent for the word “ Talaq” (divorce) ? Seth Govind Das : I feel that the honourable member does not understand the implications of the Hindi language. All those words which have been included in Hindi belong to Hindi alone—may it be ‘ talaq’ or anything else. If he still wants to know the Hindi equivalent of ‘ talaq’, I would tell him that this can be substituted by the word “Vivah Vichhed” (fookg&foPNsn) (dissolution of the conjugal rights). I was just telling you that if this legislation is passed after brushing aside the customs and usages prevalent amongst those 90 per cent. of the people, then it would mean that they would not be able to divorce in their traditional manner and they would thus be confronted with many difficulties. Therefore, it is bound to give rise to a very great difficulty inasmuch as it runs counter to the wishes expressed by the honourable Dr. Ambedkar that everybody should be given the full liberty to marry and divorce. I am in favour of such sort of liberty being completely given to all the men and women. The Honourable Dr. Ambedkar also pointed out that 10 per cent. of the people amongst us who are called Caste Hindus Viz., Brahmana, Kshatriyas, or Vaishyas want to thrust some thing upon those who form the 90 per cent. It so looks to me that those of us—who are ten per cent, in number—who form the intelligentsia want to load a few things on those comprising of 90 per cent. It is not the Brahmana, Kshatriyas and Vaishyas who put the burden, but this is done by those people who have managed to come to this Assembly in some way or the other. I would also tell my sisters that I am not prepared to accept this view that my sister members, Shrimatis G. Durgabaiand

DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL 301 Renuka Ray and other lady members who are sitting in this House represent the women; or those sisters who sit in the visitor’s galleries represent them. I admit that those who are not present here, those who do not come in the visitor’s galleries can represent this country better than those who are sitting here. We shall have to admit that the allegation which is being made today that some high-caste people want to thrust their opinion upon the low-castes is not correct. But in reality the position is that the ten per cent, educated people want to thrust their opinion upon the remaining 90 per cent. Without knowing anything as to what is the will of the people in this country, they should not thrust their opinion upon them. I do not want that any legislation should be passed in this House which is against the wishes of the people. Shrimati Renuka Ray : Do 90 per cent, of the people know that you are drawing up a constitution ? Seth Govind Dast : We know that the people are with us. To talk as if this is your own concern is not correct. We have come with a mandate from the people in that respect. The other thing which has been mentioned here is in regard to ‘Succession’. It has been stated that we are required to carry out drastic reforms in the law relating to Succession. I agree that there is a great scope of reforms being made in the Succession System. And I also admit that it would amount to the greatest possible injustice being done to the females if they are not conferred upon the right of succession and thus precluded from inheriting the property. The women should be given the right of succession. Now the question arises as to what extent should such right of succession be vested in the females. The Honourable Dr. Ambedkar has in support of this quoted from the Smritis of Manu and Yagnavalkya and pointed out that these Smritis also confer upon the females the right to inherit property to the extent of one fourth. I would like to say that in my opinion some improvement should necessarily be made in the domain of succession even if these are the views held by Manu and Yagnavalkya. There was a time when the matriarchal system existed in this country or even in the world. But in the present day society, the matriarchal system has been replaced by the partriarchal. So long as the matriarchal system existed in this country as well as in the world and the husband used to come and stay at the bride’s house after marriage, it was quite appropriate that the daughter should have

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES302 a share in her father’s property. But according to my viewpoint now when the patriarchal system is in vogue and the girl leaves her father’s house for that of her father-in-law; it would not be proper to give her any share out of the father’s property. In my opinion the daughter-in-law should be given the right to share her father-in-law’s property. As soon as the marriage is consummated, the daughter-in-law should be given the share equal to that of the son. Today the son enjoys the full right, and if any woman becomes widow, she is entitled to the right of maintenance only viz., rood and clothing. I am totally against it. Therefore, I would urge that the women should undoubtedly be given the right to share in the property, but that should be restricted to her father-in-law’s property only and not that belonging to her father. Shri Mohan Lal Gautam (U. P. : General): If there is no fatherin-law ? Seth Govind Das : Then in the husband’s house. Shri Mohan Lal Gautam : If there is no husband. Seth Govind Das : Then in the son’s house. Shri Mohan Lal Gautam : And if there is no son ? Mr. Tajamul Husain : And if she is not married then what would she do ? Seth Govind Das : That is a separate thing. They do get from some source or the other. In the example which has been cited here that when there are twelve sons and thirteenth a daughter, and the twelve sons have got the right to distribute their father’s property, then why should not the thirteenth daughter be given the same right ? I would say that all the twelve sons live in their father’s house. The distribution which the twelve sons make is made at the same place. Shri Krishna Chandra Sharma (U. P.: General): If the daughter also wants to live in the father’s house ? Seth Govind Das : Since the daughter has got to adopt another house, this cannot be made applicable in her case. Another thing that has been added in respect of succession to property is that the right of succession will not be governed in accordance with the contents of the will. In cases, where the wills are not executed, disputes will arise. Not only this, disputes will arise even otherwise. The Honourable Dr. Ambedkar who is a renowned lawyer is aware of the fact as to what percentage of the will executed hithertofore were brought up before the Courts and on how many wills were the suits instituted ?