Vol. 14, Part I · pages 366–370

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES348 Bill in the first class, the daughter’s son preceded mother and father. Now the daughter’s son is sent on to the bottom. Then if you proceed further, Sir, in class IV, the brother and the sister come. And in class V, brother’s son, sister’s son, brother’s daughter all come in. I can only state that a brother’s son is made equivalent to a sister’s son and a sister’s daughter. Now, this is equality run mad, I should say. In our families, we know what is a brother and a brother’s son. This is the result of the system or the institution of a family as we have been observing for the last 1000 years. We cannot get away from this violent conflict. You are introducing provisions in this Bill which will make every person rebel against you, because these innovations in practices cannot be made by order. According to the provisions of this Bill, every Hindu, male and female has got an absolute right of making a will and every male and female in future will be absolute masters of this inheritance. You have given in my hand a power to the detriment of the ladies and I do not want that it should be used to the detriment of the ladies. After all, a father when dying will be within the power of the sons and the sons will see that the father disinherits the daughters by will. While I am saying this, I may tell you, I have a daughter and I have provided for her when I provided for my sons. In the house in which I have been living with my sons and in the house in which my sons’ wives have been living, I do not want that the daughter and her husband, her father-in-law and mother-in-law, her elder-brother-in-law should all come and occupy some rooms. That would be an impossible proposition. Mr. Deputy Speaker: Under the Bill there is not much chance of the father-in-law and mother-in-law being protected. Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava : They can come with the son-in-law. I will show there is a very good chance of a thing like this taking place. The father who does not want to touch even water at the house of the daughter, will get the property of the daughter, and her husband. I am coming to that subsequently. I am only submitting that the ladies will be under a greater jeopardy of losing their rights in this way. The father will disinherit the daughter. She is not a heir according to class I; she does not succeed to the property of the father-in-law as wife of the son; but she succeeds only as a widow. Where is she then ? I do not understand. She will be put to a great loss. I want, Sir, that the women should get their full rights. The theory which I have propounded.—I have not given

DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL 349 very great thought to it—I have only submitted it for the consideration of the entire House and for the consideration of Dr. Ambedkar—I do not know how it will affect other interests—there may be flaws and I do not vouch for it—but I consider, at the same time, that it will be a better arrangement than the present arrangement. The theory is that an unmarried daughter succeeds simultaneously equally with the son. The woman on marriage becomes joint owner in husband’s property as husband would be joint owner in her property, then both succeed in husband’s family. Then, again, Sir, what would happen to the brother’s son ? and the sister’s son ? They are both on the same level. The brother’s son lives in the same house probably or next door and does service everyday ; the sister’s son lives at Allahabad or Madras or some other place. How will they be equal. In regard to other provisions also.—I want to be brief.—If the House wishes me to go into the other provisions also, I am perfectly prepared and I have got full notes about the changes and how they affect us—but I would be taking up the time or the House in such a manner as to deprive the other members of their opportunity. Honourable Members : You may go on. Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava : There are many other considerations which go to show that this provision in clause (2) is not well founded either from the point of view of consanguinity or religious efficacy and even from the point of view of natural affection and love. Next, I come to the succession of the female. After the Hindu Code Bill comes into vogue, the lady succeeds to the property of the father as well as to the property of the husband. Suppose the lady dies leaving husband and children, it is clear that the husband has been given the right and the children also succeed. So far so good. Then, when the husband and the children are not there, who succeeds ? The father and mother of the lady. These people—there are lakhs like them—who do not even want to touch water from the house of the daughter, will get the property. (Shri L. Krishnaswami Bharati: “Why” You cannot understand this ; it is my difficulty. You cannot realise this. May I submit, Sir, that as soon as the father gives away the daughter to the son-in-law, the father never goes to the house of the daughter, never takes his food in her house and never even drinks water in her house, so that the purity is maintained that no daughter may be

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES350 given in marriage for mere consideration or any other material gain. That is the basis. There are many people who would not even go to the village where the daughter is married. We must recognise facts as they are; it is no use saying that they do not know. It is quite possible that they do not know. It will happen that the father-in-law would get property bequeathed by the lady. That will be an intolerable position. Supposing a lady does not leave a husband and children and neither a father nor a mother, what happens ? This is a crucial point. The property has been inherited by the lady from the father. The property, in the absence of husband, children, father or mother will not go to the son of her father. Let me put position clearly. The property belongs to A’s family, The property will not go to A’s family, the brother of the woman, the real brother made of the same flesh and blood, but the property will go to hundreds of people of the husband’s family of the list that you have given here. Since the woman is dead, leaving no husband and children, father and mother, in that case, the property is not inherited by her brother or brother’s son or others, but it goes to the family of the husband. Why is it so. Because your Select Committee have not been able to shake themselves from the considerations which have been influencing the entire community for a very long time. ( Shri L. Krishnaswami Bharati: “What is the present position ?”) We are not concerned with that. You know the present position very well. It is stridhana ; it is not inherited by the daughter ; the position is different. I was submitting, the property of one family is not inherited by the brother of the lady, but it goes to other people. This is a position which I cannot understand. But, you must realise that this is the position. You may remedy it; I beg of you to remedy it. This is a question on which you will be well advised to review. This is one of the points which I submit for your consideration. I will leave this question of succession at this ; there are many other considerations which could be placed before you. Then, I come to the power of disposal. I quite understand the very great hardships when there were restricted rights in regard to women’s property. So far as the joint family is concerned, it is sought to be crushed under this Bill. The joint family is mouldering away ; it is crumbling. From a very long time, certain circumstances have so arranged the fate of the joint Hindu family that it cannot survive. Sir, I do not want to shed tears over its going away. The Income-tax Act is the greatest monster in killing this joint Hindu family. I know that

DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL 351 the joint Hindu family cannot stay for long. But, so far as this Bill is concerned, if it says that in future they will be tenants in common. I have no quarrel. This was given in the other Bill and this is also given in this Bill. I am too much of a realist to cry that my sacred ancient joint Hindu family goes away. There were days when there was great use for the joint family. Now we are turning back to co operative forming, co-operative holding of properties, etc. At the same time, we are providing social insurance, etc. We are doing all these things in such a manner that we are reverting back to the principles on which the old joint Hindu family was doing. That is beside the mark ; so far as the law goes, so far as the general circumstances of the country go, so far as this joint family is concerned., I do not think that it must be said The Honourable Shri Jagjivan Ram (Minister of Labour): It is a lost cause. Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava : Whatever you may say, Sir, there is no question of cause here. I do not like the idea that legislation should kill the joint Hindu family. In regard to marriage, Sir, I have to submit a few considerations more. It is a very difficult matter. An Honourable Member : That has been dealt with before. Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava : I have placed some considerations before. An Honourable Member : This is second marriage. Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava : I find myself in very good company when I make ……………… The Honourable Shri Jagjivan Ram : You are with the Law Minister himself. Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava : Shrimati Ammu Swamindhan, Mr. Shiva Rao and Shrimati Renuka Ray wrote as follows : “Regarding claus 6 of Part II of the Code on ‘Forms of Hindu Marriage we would point out that there are, in certain parts of the country, longstanding customs or usages which recognise as valid marriages which would not come under the category if either sacramental or civil marriages in accordance with the provisions of this Part. We would therefore suggest a proviso at the end of clause 6 to confer validity on such marriages.” What is this ? I understand that the trouble is the same in that part of India from which Mr. Bharati comes. Shri L. Krishnaswami Bharati : Luckily I do not come from that part. I come from Tamilnad and they come from Malabar.

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES352 Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava : So far as the question of adoption is concerned I find a similar thing in this dissenting note. So it is not the Punjab alone. It is also in other parts in which the rules of marriage and divorce and adoption are different from the orthodox rules and all of them should be protected, and I am very glad that these dissenting members represented their constituencies too well in making the observation. I was speaking of sacramental marriages. So far as the non-sacramental marriage is concerned I have not said a word about it. I want that to be protected. In regard to sacramental marriages, the havoc played by the Committee is inexplicable. I do not understand for once how the civil marriage should be included in this chapter. If it is a civil marriage, it is a subject for the civil code. We have the Act of 1872. It is a very defective Act and I have submitted a Bill to put it right, and the Bill which I moved a few days back in this House for validating the marriage of all others, that would protect us much more than the inclusion of this civil code here. I am in favour of a civil code for the whole of India and I want the rules to be the same for all. It is our duty to do so but why should we include the civil marriage here ? If it is to take away the evil effects of that law, then the other course is open. What happens in this civil code and the new kind of marriage which is neither sacramental nor civil but a registered sacramental marriage in which though the marriage takes place by virtue of sacrament, yet if it is originally incestuous, then you go to a registering officer and you get it validated ? Shrimati G. Durgabai : It is only optional ! Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava : I have replied, it may be optional but does it conclude the matter ? The Hindu Code says that there are five conditions when the marriage takes place otherwise the marriage will not be permitted. The words are “conditions relating to sactramental marriage”. That means in fundamental matters, as soon as one of the provisions is contravened, you allow the law to secure you to get away from the effects of that flaw. As regards the prohibition of the sapinda relationship, I beg to submit the difficulty is that the uniformity of law which we aim at is very difficult to secure in a country like India. It has been said that bringing about such a uniformity will be miraculous. I congratulate Dr. Ambedkar in working out that miracle and I am for this miracle being worked out. But when there are legal difficulties in local matters in which the conflict from the