Vol. 14, Part I · pages 356–360

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES338 The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar (Minister of Law) : I have no desire to interrupt my friend, but I must say that I do not accept the interpretation that he puts upon that part of my speech. It refers to quite a different matter. Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava : I am very glad that I am wrong. It gives me satisfaction that Dr. Ambedkar did not want that the one crore of people should go out of the pale of the Hindu law. But all the same, the argument I was admitting was this. If this custom was good—and I claim it is good because according to the definition given in this very code, the custom is ancient, reasonable and not opposed to public policy or morality—I claim this custom should have been recognised by the Code. But this custom is not recognised. To a certain extent the kritrima form was adopted as a good form by the original Bill but the present Bill says that no adoption will be recognised except this kind of adoption which according to Dr. Ambedkar is governed by certain rules. What are the rules? A man must not be more than 15 years of age. He must be given by somebody in adoption. He must not have married. Even according to the present law of adoption these rules are not there. Supposing a Hindu’s daughter and son-in-law have died then the daughter’s son cannot be adopted; the sister’s son cannot be adopted, even the nephew cannot be adopted if the parents are not there. It is common knowledge that even today this rule that if a person is married he cannot be adopted, is not in practice and according to law in vogue, it is not necessary that a person should not have married before he is adopted. Similarly about age. So, all these measures have been changed in such a way that they cannot fit in with the present conditions, or they cannot be useful to us or cannot govern us. We passed in the Constituent Assembly that we want a Civil Code. Even if this were not the Hindu Code and if Dr. Ambedkar was charged with the duty of framing a Civil Code, (I think he will be so charged after the Constitution is passed.) he will certainly include this civil institution—the nomination of an heir—in the Civil Code also. A man may be able to help, in their old age, those who appoint him the heir. My submission is that this point alone is sufficient to see that as a matter of fact the re-draft is much worse than the original Code and full attention was not paid to the original Bill. If full attention had been paid, this thing would have been considered. Had it been considered clause by clause, you would not have arrived at this.

DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL 339 The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : This part of the Bill was, if I may say so, very much considered. Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava : I am very glad, Sir, that the original Bill was considered. Then the only technical point remains, that it was not considered clause by clause, there is intrinsic evidence that it was not so considered. What is the effect? Supposing there are provisions omitted. How were those provisions considered? When the entire attention was on the draft of the other Bill those clauses could not have been considered. This is not a technical matter... Mr. Deputy Speaker : The honourable Member is aware that the House is not bound by whatever the Select Committee has done. The Select Committee have sent a recommendation ; it is open to the honourable Member to accept or not to accept it; if he does not accept it, he can persuade the House not to accept it. We need not go into that again. After all, some Members were there. It is not right to go into what they considered or what they did not consider, the honourable Member would do better in addressing the House as to why we ought not to accept a provision or why we should accept it. Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava : I will accept your advice, Sir, I will not refer in future to what happened before the Select Committee. I will only say this point, with your permission. Even if the Select committee acquiesced in this fraud that the original Bill is not to be considered and the substitute Bill is to be considered, we are not bound. An accused, before a criminal court, acquiesces in a certain procedure which is illegal; then it does not bind him. May I quote some rulings? A Court is required to go into a question and find out for itself whether there is good evidence or record to bind an accused under section 107 Criminal Penal Code. The accused says, “I agree to be bound in that evidence”. The Court says, “You are bound”. But the appellate Court still rules that the right procedure was not observed and the acquiescence of the accused in a wrong procedure does not make the order legal. Mr. Deputy Speaker : Is not the honourable Member satisfied with tearing the report of the Select Committee in pieces ? Should he also say they are “accused” ? Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava : Those who are guilty of disregard of the fundamental rules of procedure which govern a Select Committee are today accused before the House. I am sorry I have to say something which may not be wholesome to some of my friends, but I do so

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES340 in all humility and with a view to safeguarding the rights and prestigious of the House. I now leave this point and come to the second point. In regard to marriage and divorce which are very important questions, what does the Code say and what are the facts at present ? In Punjab no specific ceremonies are required for marriages which are called Karewa and Chadar, Andazi marriages. The woman puts on the bangles supplied by the husband or the husband puts the Chadar on the wife and there the matter ends. ( Shri Mahavir Tyagi: “Charming marriage”) It is very easy for Mr. Tyagi to avail himself of such a procedure. It is not a sacramental or civil marriage. Again, in the original Code there was a loophole. Such persons could come to court and get themselves registered. The changed rules is that unless the marriage is sacramental, it cannot be registered. There are other points on which I shall have occasion to speak before you, but I wish to make certain general observations in regard to what is happening in regard to many persons and what has not been considered from the point of view of the common man. In the mofussil areas, the people are illiterate. They are poor. They do not know the intricacies of the law. On the question of divorce, when Dr. Ambedkar said that he was speaking for ninety per cent. of the population, I know that he was saying nothing but the truth. In regard to this ninety per cent. How does the divorce take place today ? They go to a petition writer and get a letter of release. Another way is they congregate together and put a white sheet on the woman. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : And supply a good deal of liquor to the fellows assembled ! Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava : That may be so, but it is not part of the ceremony. What is the present law, Sir ? What have our leaders done for you ? I am a representative of those poor people. I include myself in them. But when Dr. Ambedkar just by his finger indicates that he is one of those he will excuse me if I do not agree. Dr. Ambedkar lives here in a paradise. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : I have lived in Improvement Trust chawls for several years who charged me rupees three as rent. Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava : You can crush them under your feet: you can crush them under your thumb, but Sir, do you think that any poor villager getting about Re. 1 or Rs. 1/8/- a day could go to a district judge without the help of a lawyer ? Dr. Ambedkar

DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL 341 is a lawyer. He wants that this world may be peopled by lawyers alone like me and by nobody else. What would happen to these people ? Will they go to a district judge for dissolution of marriage or divorce ? ( An honourable Member, “Impossible”) And this is not sufficient. Even if he obtains a decree, it should be confirmed by a High Court, which so far as Punjab is concerned, to the High Court at Simla. Now, this procedure is unknown to people. It is a great tyranny upon those people. You are legislating for those who live in the Marine Drive in Bombay or in the palaces of Calcutta and Delhi and not for these poor people for whom you have such a soft corner in your heart. Shri L. Krishnaswami Bharati : He wants to make it difficult. Do you want to make it easy ? Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava : Another answer is that they want to make it difficult. I do not want to make divorce easy. Absolutely not. I am in favour of divorce on one condition only, that you enact laws in which it may be very difficult to bring about conditions in which divorce may take place. Chastity and continuity of family life are the very pivot of our culture. But if I agree to divorce, it is because I see so many deserted women. It is on account of that I agree. How can a poor man who is absolutely illiterate be able to engage a lawyer and go to a district or high court ? It is impossible to accept this. This old Act of 1869 was enacted, not for the poor people of the Punjab or any other part of India, it was enacted for Christians who were of the same caste as the then rulers. There is a world of difference between them and these people. If you go through the provisions from article 38 to 50 of the Bill, you will come to the conclusion that such a complicated and intricate procedure has been laid down that it is very difficult to follow it. If you think deeply, you will find that the whole Hindu society will rebel against you if you pass those provisions. According to your law, if a man marries his aunt’s (father’s sister) daughter, that marriage is good; if he marries the daughter of his maternal uncle— it is in vogue in certain parts of Bombay, I understand...........( An honourable Member: “And Madras.”). But so far as we are concerned it is regarded as highly incestuous. There is a very great difference. ( Shri Mahavir Tyagi: “ The man may be killed.”) Mr Tyagi is not very far being correct. It is a fact that in all the villages of East Punjab—and I speak with such feeling not because I want to speak with force but I regard it as true if you allow

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES342 this thing to be done, that man shall be killed and nobody will associate with him. ( Mr. Tajamal Husain: “Is there any compulsion ?”). If a man marries his sister or mother, is there any compulsion ? Is this an enabling measure ? This is going into the very vitals of the society. It is intolerable. It is impossible for us to be reconciled to this situation simply because in regard to some people there is such a custom. I do not say that those people should not be protected, but for them provision can be made. Shri L. Krishnaswami Bharati : Exactly that has been provided if you refer to clause 7(5)—the parties should not be sapindas of each other. Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava : May I humbly enquire if a daughter of the aunt can be married to a man ? I have seen the rules. I submit for your consideration that in these matters the law has been changed, and unless the law is brought to suit our conditions it is difficult for us to support this measure. That can be done. In the Select Committee amendments can be moved. I do not want that the Bill should be throttled or killed: The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : It can also be done by an amendment in this House. An Honourable Member : I hope you will accept. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : I shall be prepared to accept any reasonable amendment. Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava : I am very glad, and to that extent I am agreeable to support this Bill. Mr. Tajamul Husain : Does the honourable Member intend to finish today ? Mr. Deputy Speaker : The honourable Member seems to be interested in this than other person, who are affected by this Bill. I have been noticing it. I cannot ask the honourable Member when he proposes to finish. It is open to him to take a reasonable time without repetition. Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava : It is not my intention to take one more minute than is necessary. If I am repeating, I may be called to order. If a Bill is there which affects the lives of thirty crores of people, it is not too much to consider it for several days. Now I come to the provisions made by the Select Committee and to the most crucial questions in this matter. They are, whether in regard