Vol. 14, Part I · pages 36–40

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES18 The Assembly re-assembled at Half Past Five of the Clock with Mr. Speaker (The Honourable Mr. G. V. Mavalankar) in the Chair. Dr. B. Pattabhi Sitaramayya : Mr. Speaker, I was dealing with the question of a share for the daughter from the patrimony. I am in the habit of twitting my lady friends by asking them “Why do you want a share ? You are going to become the queens of another home. My wife has become the queen of my home and she is the unquestioned head of the family. She is getting the keys of her own safe and so will you get the keys of the safe of another home.” But that is not enough. It is not enough to be at the mercy of a husband, however dear that husband may be. A woman must have her own right and when she has her own right she is better respected by the husband and although the doctrine of self-effacement on the part of the woman has been carried on in our country and society for ages long, yet the fact remains that in the modern day the conception of self-respect has completely altered the position. One must be able to say that she has a little money to deal with in her own right. Hitherto I have had a little doubt as to whether we are not depriving all the sons of the share to which they are legitimately entitled if the daughter also comes in for her share. Now the Bill before us gives a share in the stridhana to the sons to the same extent to which the daughter is given a share in the father’s property. That largely equalises things and warns all parents that they should have an equal number of sons and daughters. That is the only condition that is imposed upon us and that will be able to balance our economy. We must also balance our progeny. But there is another difficulty. After all as things stand, it looks as though we cannot say hereafter in marriage invitations that my daughter is being given in marriage to so and so, there will be a new language adopted. My daughter and so and so will marry each other. That is the new language adopted. Still the fact remains that except in Malabar, where the husbands go to their wives’ houses, here our daughters generally go to their husbands’ houses. Of course the position in Malabar is entirely the reverse of our conditions and it will take hours to deal with the question. I am not going to stray into that very interesting topic. Yet the fact remains when the daughter goes away from her father’s home, the wonder is whether she is able to enjoy the property that is given to her by her parents. I have asked my Muslim sisters and brothers as to whether the age-long custom

DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL 19 of giving a half share to a daughter, half of the son’s, is really practically, enjoyed. They said that except in towns it is not enjoyed. Somehow or other the brother does the sister in the eye and knocks off her property and gives her some compensation. That may or may not be so but the fact remains that there is that supreme danger and the greatest danger in this matter is that when you recognise the fact that 80 per cent of pattadara are able to pay only Rs. 10 as tax on 2½ acres of wet land or four or five acres of dry land, where on earth is there a chance for them to give a share to the daughter, which she can carry with her or which she can enjoy. I doubt very much from the practical side but on the theoretical side at any rate the thing is unquestionably quite correct. When thus you have raised the status of women in society and when you have conferred upon her the right to absolute property then you must also give her certain rights which self-respect engenders in her naturally. The conditions of marriage are not conditions of slavery. It is all very well to say that marriages are made in heaven and that once a husband always a husband or once a wife always a wife. It is a very good rule but at the same time there are conditions like drunkenness, persistent cruelly, immoral character on the part of the husband, diseases like leprosy, impotency and various other conditions which are enumerated by the Law Minister which justify a separation of the husband from the wife. If a man feels free and has the right to stray abroad and to whatever he wants to do, if he can marry a second time when the first wife is alive, then of course it must be equally open for the wife also to marry a second husband while the first one is alive. Imagine that condition. I sometimes ask friends when I see a young man dressed in hat, boot and suit and by the side goes a nicely clad Hindu lady dressed in all the beautiful folds of the Hindu saree “Will you kindly reverse your dresses? Will the husband wear a dhothi and the wife a hat and skirt of a European woman, how will it look?” It will look absurd, as absurd as when you sign your name in your mother tongue over an English document. Once an officer asked me not to sign in Telugu over an English document. Then I said that the reverse situation of an English signature over a Telugu document is equally incongruous. Therefore, we must give full freedom to our sisters, mothers and daughters and enable

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES20 them to have judicial separation, if necessary and divorce. But I trust and hope that the distinguished ladies who are here and who have been labouring for years in the cause of rights for women will preach and propagate the fact and the doctrine that divorce is a reserve fund not to be drawn upon for current expenses, that divorce should be the ultimate resort for causes which are otherwise irremediable. Public opinion, personal influence, family persuasion, all these are there. You must remember that the quarrels between a husband and wife during the day are generally closed up in the night and therefore, there is not much chance of perpetuating these quarrels. We should not make much of them. In America there is a State called Indianopolis, where the porter cries “Indianopolis Station, Twenty minutes for divorce.” The divorce court is in the railway station itself. Any husband and wife having a quarrel in the train, could apply for divorce and get it before the train departs. That should not be our position. Our divorce must be a kind of reserve fund like the jewellery on a woman’s person, always to be drawn upon under conditions of the greatest necessity and never to be lightly utilised. The question of adoption is a very difficult question, the Honourable Law Minister has assimilated the Mitakashara practice to that of the Dayabhaga. I suppose Dayabhaga obtains in Bengal and Mitakashara in South India and in Bombay there is a law called Mayuka, according to which amongst the non-Brahmins it is not necessary for the husband to give permission and the widow can adopt a child. I had read a judgment of the Privy Council some ten or twelve years ago. I want that law to be copied in other parts, where such adoption is not permissible according to Mitakshara. After all why does a family adopt a boy ? To perpetuate the family. Is it not the right of the widow to perpetuate the family as much as of the deceased husband? Is it only the exclusive right of the man who is deceased to perpetuate the family. If a boy could inherit the property, why should it not be open to the mother to adopt the boy in her own right apart from the written or the registered permission of her husband either by a document or by a will. In English law oral wills are permissible; whereas written wills require two signatures, oral wills require no such thing. After all, by oral wills properties worth lakhs and crores are alienated. “All to wife” on a newspaper bit is held to be a valid

DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL 21 will. Then why should it not be permissible in law for a husband to give permission orally to his wife in order that she can adopt. These are points which the Select Committee will have to give its consideration to. ( An Honourable Member: “Why permission at all?”) That is my contention. If permission is necessary why not oral permission? Relax the law regulating adoption as much as possible. Then there is the question of monogamy. I am very sorry to note that young girls in their blooming youth do not understand all the conditions that must be observed in regard to the proper selection of match for marriage. We have an ancient saying which when rendered into English says : You must consider the prosperity, good looks, tradition, pedigree, culture—all these things you must consider before you select a husband. But now it has become rather common—and a very distinguished authority has confirmed the statement—that educated girls have the habit of picking readymade husbands who have already got a wife and five or six children. Why does this happen? It is due to the want of education during their college days about these matters. Somehow these things are considered taboo and everybody shrinks from talking about them although a lot of private talk is inevitably done in regard to these matters. The forbidden fruit has never remained untasted. Therefore, it is necessary that we provide teaching in regard to these matters. I once spoke to a certain friend of mine—he has given freedom to his daughter with regard to the selection of his son-in-law—and in the course of his conversation he told me a story which I later related to his daughter and son-in-law much to their amusement. She was asked by him, “Do you wish to marry so and so, a boy who is handsome, goodlooking, is well educated, passed B.L., or is in the profession, is the son of a rich man and has an upstair house” and she said “No, father, has he got no motor car and elctric lights? If he has got a motor car and electric lights, no matter to whom you give me in marriage I am willing to marry him”. Such are the temperaments, tendencies and trends of untutored youth and therefore, it is very necessary that we should teach them about all these matters. It is not enough to make laws: but it is necessary to propagate these laws and propagandize these laws in order to educate our young girls in the direction of monogamy. That is very necessary.

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES22 I welcome every aspect of this Bill. If there are defects which are obvious here and there I daresay they will be remedied by all the distinguished personalities whose names have been mentioned in connection with the formation of the Select Committee. I have taken a little more time than necessary. Perhaps, I can hold forth for hours together. I have got the experience of 68 years covering a careful study of all kinds of conditions and I would have liked very much to continue except for the fact that today’s time is limited and we must apply the guillotine at 7 O’clock and some of our sisters and brothers are very anxious to speak and I am also anxious to hear them. * Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad (West Bengal : Muslim): Sir, I am in the most unfortunate position of having been charged with the communication of certain views which have been entrusted to me by some of my friends. They are some criticisms of the Bill. I must however assure the House that personally I would fully support the Bill. Its provisions are largely in accord with the laws which prevail in my own community and the Bill tries to do absolute justice to all regardless of practical results. It is however, with some amount of nervousness that I have risen to speak. When I find that sturdy members of the House who would have spoken against the Bill have quailed before a powerful array of five distinguished members of the fair sex, ready to stand to their guns, little courage can I muster in giving out the views which I am charged to communicate. Sir, the Honourable the Law Minister has not told us anything about the opinions that have been collected and printed in the pamphlets which have been circulated to us. They were made available to us at a very late stage. If it was desired that Honourable Members should read them, analyse them and tell the House the result of their analysis I think the time is too short. There is a pamphlet the Report of the Hindu Law Committee which contains a large number of opinions. I am sorry this was not circulated amongst the members. ( An Honourable Member : “It was circulated”). It was not. This book was not circulated. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : It was kept in the Library for a very long time. *C.A. (Leg.) D., Vol. IV, 9th April 1948, pp. 3639-42.