Vol. 14, Part I · pages 326–330

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES308 Let us come to the question of Succession itself which is greatly opposed by large sections of the people. Mr. Tajamul Hussain : It is opposed by vested interests only. Shrimati Sucheta Kripalani : It is opposed by large sections. They had levelled two points—against the breakage of the joint family and the grant of absolute rights to women. I will take the second point first. We are seeking to have a society where men and women should be equal, where people of all castes will be equal. We are trying to bring about a perfect democracy of which we have dreamed all these years. We are pledged to give women equal status in society. We are pledged to do away with all sex discrimination and this peldge does not start from the time when we bring into effect the New Constitution. I would like to remind you that in the Karachi resolution these peldges are embodied. After that when we accepted office, then also we again reiterated that there shall be no discrimination on the basis of sex. If men and women are to work equally, if they are to function as equal citizens of the state, if they are to fulfil their obligations towards the state, how can we have such discriminatory rules in the matter of property rights of women ? Unless woman gets her full share of property you cannot expect her to fulfil her obligations to the state. Of course whenever we make any changes, established custom and established rules are disturbed. It causes a certain amount of dislocation and inconvenience, but we have to tolerate them and take them as inevitable. We must not try to enlarge the importance of the inconvenience that is caused to us. Dr. Ambedkar and others have told us that the Smritis recognize the right of property of women. What law gave us practice denied us. In practice the right was abrogated. What we are trying to do today is only this.—We are not going against the fundamentals of Hindu religion or Hindu custom or Hindu law; what was granted to us by Hindu law but which was arbitrarily denied to us, we are now trying to take back—or rather you are giving it to us, this which has been denied to us by society all these years. It is merely justice done—long deferred justice. If you come to modern times, by the Act of 1937 you have given property right to the wife, to the daughter-in-law, to the grandson’s wife and so on and so forth. The only person who is left out is the poor daughter. It is but in the fitness of things that now it should be included here. Therefore I do not see what is there to argue much about it. If we have given to other women tills right, if women can

DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL 309 inherit from the husband’s side let her inherit from the father’s side which is very natural and right. The Honourable Shri Jagjivan Ram : They want her to develop to the other stages. Shrimati Sucheta Kripalani : In regard to joint family there is a very great feeling about it. I do not know why there is such a feeling. Most of the people I come across are anxious to get out of the joint family. The sons do not like to stay with the father. I see most of the families distributed all over the country. So joint family is a very rapidly crumbling institution according to me. Even the legal position of the joint family is very faulty as Dr. Ambedkar has pointed out to us in the monring. Even under Mitakshara system a member of the joint family merely by expression of his will can bring about a partition. I would therefore like to ask you where is the joint family about which you are crying so loudly ? Much was said about the protection that is given to the unportected women in the joint family. I know in the past in the joint family unprotected women did get protection. Even now some of them do get protection but at the same time we know hundreds of women who, failing to get any shelter in the joint family, having no economic resources of their own, are hounded to a life of degradation and shame. Many of us women, who are doing social work, come across innumerable such cases. Therefore, not only is it right, not only is it just to give woman her portion but it is absolutely essential to give her the share if you want to safeguard the Hindu society about which you speak so loudly. The Honourable Shri Jagjivan Ram : And something more. Shrimati Sucheta Kripalani : So much the better. Give us a little more. You have denied us in the past, make it up now. As regards marriage, the Bill merely seeks to introduce uniformity of practice to avoid confusion and uncertainty. This may entail a little difficulty to those classes which are governed by the customary law but the proposed sacramental and civil marriages are such that it can be put into practice by the poorest and the most backward classes. So I do not think it will create any great difficulty. There is some objection to the registration of sacramental marriages. I think it is purely sentimental because registration is only permissive. If you do not want to avail of the registration you are free not to avail of it.

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES310 An Honourable Member : It is compulsory. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : No compulsion. Mr. Tajamul Hussain : No compulsion, either would do. Shrimati Sucheta Kripalani : If I am wrong, Dr. Ambedkar will correct me. It has been put there as a safeguard; that is all. We come to the question of inter-caste and sagothra marriages. I was hearing my friend who preceded me. I do not know how we can wax eloquent over the objection to sagothra and inter-caste marriages because I find a very large number of such marriages taking place in the society. If we did not have such marriages it was all right, but when a very large number of such marriages are taking place, either we compel them to have irregular marriage or we drive them out of the Hindu fold or we make them go somewhere or they have to go to the civil registration office and get it done. When it is there, why not accept the fact ? When it is a practice why not recognise it and give it legality ? Therefore, it is but right at this stage, when Indian society has changed so considerably to allow inter-caste and sagothra marriages within the Hindu fold. About monogamy, here also I feel that the society has on the whole accepted monogamy. Polygamy is looked down upon; polygamy finds no favour in our society, though cases do occur. Again, we recognise the current practice amongst an overwhelming majority of Hindus and we legalize it. Moreover as we are trying to bring about a society where men and women are equal, we cannot afford to have a double set of morality for men and women and I should think the men should be happy to have this introduced because by the provision of monogamy we are levelling up the standard of men’s morality to that of women. I should think that the men should be thankful to us. An Honourable Member : Very thankful. We can get easy divorces and marry again. Shrimati Sucheta Kripalani : As for divorce, though we do not deny the sentiments of the orthodox, men and women, analysing it, we find, that divorce did exist in our ancient scriptures. The grounds of divorce that we have allowed are extremely reasonable and just. We have not allowed any divorce on frivolous grounds as it has been in some parts of the Western world. Care has also been taken to formulate such a procedure that divorce would be resorted to only under very grave circumstances. If we see the records of Baroda, Travancore, Cochin and Malabar where divorce is allowed, very few

DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL 311 people have availed themselves of the law. Only under exceptional circumstances it comes to help the people to get of a very difficult situation. Hindu social tradition is such that we will not on flimsy grounds rush to the court and break up a marriage. The people who fear that the grant of the right of divorce may amount to disruption of the family life of the Hindus are absolutely injustified. Then I take Dr. Ambedkar’s argument of the morning that divorce prevails among 90 per cent. of the Hindus, so why not extend it to the other 10 per cent. It will be very right and just when we see that these 10 per cent. divorce cases are occurring. If there had been no divorce cases then I would have understood it, but we see that whenever our men and women want a divorce, they leave the Hindu fold and become Muslims or Christians and by doing so they insult those religions of which they make a mere utility. Therefore, we should recognise the existing circumstances and allow divorces. Sir, I have nothing more to say except that I want to tell my brothers here that we women even when we pressed for our rights have never forgotten the greater good, the larger good. We have been very conservative in this matter. You know even for our political rights we have never encouraged things which we have considered wrong. Even when the British were there, we have always stood for joint electorates. Even in the new Constitution we have never pressed for separate rights for overselves. We would have pressed for these if we did not think that they go against the benefit of the entire society. If Hindu women benefit, I am sure the Hindu society stands to benefit. This is for the larger good; that is why we are pressing this point. Here, I would also like to say that our men on the whole been very cooperative and helpful to us. They have not stood against our progress. It may be that this is due to the benevolent influence of Mahatma Gandhi. You all know that Gandhiji was one of the greatest supporters of women’s rights. The tradition that he has established has been followed by our men; because of Gandhiji’s influence, because of the sympathetic attitude of our leaders, we have never had to fight for the political rights as women of other countries had to fight. Therefore, I am more than sure that now we will follow the good traditions, we will keep up the spirit of co-operation that we have had all these years and all my brother Members will support this Bill and consider this Bill not as a measure of right for the women, not as a measure of justice that you are giving to the woman, but as justice

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES312 done to the society. This is a measure by which we are trying to make Hindu society healthy and wholesome. The Hindu society is full of defects. We are now independent. If in the world we have to take our status, we have to set our house right; unless we do it we cannot take our position in society. Therefore, let us get together and remedy the defects that are in the house. I only appeal to you and I am sure we will have the support of all of you for this good measure. The Assembly then adjourned till a Quarter to Eleven of the Clock on Friday the 25th February, 1949. * HINDU CODE— contd. Mr. Deputy Speaker : The House will now proceed with the further consideration of the following motion moved by the Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar on the 31st August 1948 : That the Bill to amend and codify certain branches of the Hindu Law, as reported by the Select Committee, be taken into consideration. Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava. Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad (West Bengal : Muslim): Sir, I have moved amendments and I think, it will be proper for me to advance arguments and for others to speak. Instead of that if I have to listen to them now and then speak, where would be the scope for them to reply ? Mr. Deputy Speaker : I think the honourable member who has moved an amendment to the motion will be in a better position if he speaks later because as he knows he won’t have an opportunity to reply. Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : I do not wish to reply. Mr. Deputy Speaker : In that view it will be right that the honourable Member should hear certain speeches for and against his motion so that he may be able to reply and he may speak once for all. I have called Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava ( Interruption). The duty of regulating the order of speakers is with the Chair. I feel it right to call upon Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava. * Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava (East Punjab : General): (English translation of the Hindi speeches) Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Hindu Code Bill that has throughout India . . . . *C.A. (Leg.) D., Vol. II, Part II, 25th February 1949. pp. 877-78. *C.A. (Leg.) D., Vol. II, Part II, 25th February 1949, pp. 895-936.