Vol. 14, Part I · pages 386–390

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES368 sections of the people do not want ? I go further and say when you once admit that sacramental marriages are sacramental, then let religion be the test for providing the conditions for such a marriage. If religion allows childmarriage and marriages of minors, let it be allowed. It is a contradiction in terms first” to say that a marriage should be according to religion and then to add that it shall be according to religion and also according to what is provided in this Bill. That is contradiction in terms. Either allow sacramental marriages or do not allow sacramental marriages, if you do not like that. In that case, say that all marriages will be civil. If you say sacramental marriage is to be allowed, then the marriage has to be performed according to the sacraments. This is my humble contention and in so far as the provisions of section 7 of the Bill are concerned, they are not according to sacraments. There are certain other things added to sacrament. That should be strictly according to the religion, if religion is to be allowed. This is the second thing which I bring to your notice and this can be very easily done. This would satisfy and may to a great extent remove the causes of dis-satisfaction which at present exist. Dealing with principles only, my simple suggestion is this, that in this very Act there should be provision which should allow society, and the joint family in co-parcenery form to continue. Nothing would be lost thereby. In this country there are Muslims, there are Christians, there are Parsis—Parsis are a very small community— and still if they are allowed to have their own law of succession etc. what would be lost if a certain larger section is allowed to have co-parcenery, if they so chose. If this principle is once accepted then changes can be made in the whole draft according to that principle. My further submission is that the Bill may be re-circulated for opinion. Here I do not touch on the ruling which has been already given by the Chair. The question that then arose was whether for purposes of the rules publication was sufficient and the ruling was that it was sufficient. That does not however preclude me from raising the point whether it is desirable that the Bill should be re-circulated. My submission is that it has been lost sight of that the Bill if passed would be automatically applicable to States whatever Dr. Ambedkar may say to the contrary. My humble opinion is that it would apply to all those territories of states which have merged in the provinces and all those areas which have agreed that the Centre would have the power to legislate for them.

DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL 369 Shri Sita Ram S. Jajoo (Madhya Bharat): What is the objection if it applies to Indian States as well ? Shri V. S. Sarwate : What I am saying is that it should apply. I am in favour of it. I do not understand, why honourable members without allowing me to speak, go on anticipating me and pass certain remarks. I was submitting that the Bill should apply to the Indian States. I was only submitting that if it is to so apply and that is very much my wish, then there arises a fundamental right, which you ought in justice grant to every large area which is to be governed by your bill, to express its opinion. This Bill was not published in these large areas and therefore the peoples there were not in a position to give to the Bill that serious consideration which they would otherwise have given. Now when they know that the Bill would apply to them, and the Bill is published they would be in a position to express their reaction. It is a fundamental right of every person to be given an opportunity to express his opinion regarding any legislation which is going to effect him. It is further the duty of every representative of theirs to ascertain their views before he gives his vote here. Therefore, both from the point of view of the representatives of the States and from the point of view of the people of the States, it is only just that some time should be allowed to them to give their opinion. Therefore, I suggest a via media, that if in any case this Bill is not going to be finished in this session, if that be the contingency, which I think it may be, the honourable the mover of the Bill may consider whether it would not be desirable to take this up in a special session later on ; the time that may intervene, namely two or three or four months would be quite sufficient to get the reactions of those people. I think this would be just and would also be in accordance with the spirit of the publication provisions. I appeal to the House to see whether justice does not require this. It should not be presumed that the last word has said been on the Code. It may be that the humblest of the humble may come forward with suggestions which may be useful to the learned Doctor. If opportunity is thus given, it would both satisfy the ends of justice and may be useful also. With this appeal, I have finished, Sir. Shri H. V. Kamath : Mr Chairman………………… Shri B. Das (Orissa: General): On a point of order, Sir, can a bachelor, who has not married and has not begotten a son too offer pind to his forefathers, make, a speech on this Bill and contribute to the discussion ?

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES370 Mr. Chairman : There is no point of order in this, as long as he is a Hindu, he can speak. * Shri H. V. Kamath : I shall also answer the point of order. Sir, rising, as I do, after two lawyer friends and a woman friend, I fear I am labouring under a handicap. I have neither the legal argument of my honourable friends Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava and Mr. Sarwate, nor the sweet reasonableness of my honourable friend Shrimati Renuka Ray. As far as the lawyers are concerned. I am sure that my honourable friend the Law Minister will take care of them and will reply to the arguments that they have raised in the course of their speeches today. As regards Shrimati Renuka Ray, I am broadly in agreement with her and so there is no need for me to take up any of her arguments with a view to counter them. My honourable friend Mr. B. Das raised a point of order when I stood up. That very point of order, I think, goes in my favour. I feel that my only claim to speak on this measure before the House is that because I have neither a wife nor children nor property worth the name, I can bring to bear a dispassionate mind to bear on this subject, unswayed by emotions of the heart. Most of the provisions of this Bill relate to marriage and property, adoption and succession, provisions regarding matters which could be summed up in two words of most of our philosophers, namely, kamini and kanchan. Not having been so far encumbered with either, I hope I will have your indulgence and the indulgence of the House in making a few remarks on this Bill in a more or less disinterested manner, not uninterested, but disinterested manner. This century, the 20th Century after Christ has, as we all know witnessed the emergence of women upon the stage of history, in Asia, as well as in Europe and America. India and our Hindu society have been no exception to this world movement. Fatefully interlocked with all the revolutionary upheavals which in our own time have been ripping open and transforming old societies inherited from the nineteenth century and its long past are the relations between men and women. Our age has been marked by the dynamism of women who, with men, have set the world on fire. ( An honourable Member: “But you are an exception.”) and have also helped to frame plans for the world’s reconstruction. Breathes there, I ask, a man with soul *C.A. (Leg.) D., Vol. II, Part II, 25th February .1949, pp. 934-36.

DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL 371 so dead, who does not recall with pride, and a certain elation of the heart, the remarkable and heroic achievements of women—aye, poor, ignorant illiterate women—on the field of non-violent battle called Satyagraha, and ever on that more sanguinary Held of battle, of blood and iron, of fire and steel. The hand that rocks the cradle has shown itself strong enough to wield the sword and gentle enough when necessary to raise itself in benediction against the aggressor. Leaving aside other lands and other climes, in our own India, we all know how women, along with men, though quite ignorant of modern warfare and though quite uninured to the lathi, the bullet and the prison, how they have flocked in thousands to the banner of Mahatma Gandhi and Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose. This story is too well known, for me to recount at any length. It is in this context of fast developing social and economic change that we have to view the measure that has been brought before the House. For, no law can function or can be made in a vacuum and no law can be divorced or viewed apart from the social milieu in which it has had its birth. In short, this age can be summed up in the facetious remark of a wag who said that today, women sit in Parliament and stand in buses. This in a nutshell, is the revolutionary change that has overtaken the present age, Sir, I feel that I am more or less a political Parivrajaka ifjozktd and I set forth a few obsrvation on this Bill. I am glad that my honourable friends in this House who are not immediately affected by this measure have taken such great interest in this Bill. My honourable friend, the redoubtable Pandit Naziruddin— I feel, Sir, that the title is not entirely unreserved. If, Sir, Mountbatten could be called a “Pandit” on the 15th August 1947, I feel that Mr. Naziruddin has a greater claim to be called a “Pandit” than Lord Mountbatten of Burma. Many such friends have been taking an interest in this measure and I welcome it as a happy sign of the times and a good augury for the future, for thus we are going in the right way of being one unified society, and ere long we will have one uniform civil code for the whole of our country. Those Members, within and without the House who are not wholly in favour of the Bill and who do not want to go the whole-hog in this regard, take their stand at least some of them—on the Smritis, the Shastras and our Dharma. Well, Sir, what is Dharma ? Unless we decide that question we cannot appreciate or reject the stand that some people in this country are taking with regard to this measure. Dharma ! Is it merely a code of ritual and externals and ceremonies,

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES372 or is it something deeper, that pertains to the soul, the heart, the mind and the spirit ? Dharma !The etymology of this word in Sanskrit is— Dharma is that by which the world is supported, yenedam dharyate jagat. That by which the world—”Jagat”—is supported is Dharma. Now are we not to ask whether the observance of a few ceremonies, rituals, and formal conventions constitute Dharma, or whether it is something deeper ? As regards the Smritis which are interlinked or interlocked with Dharma, my honourable friend Dr. Ambedkar said the other day that there are perhaps 137 Smritis. If I am wrong he will correct me. I believe he has counted them. Of the Upanishads it is stated there are 108 and so many other unknown and unearthed Upanishads. There may also be many more Smritis unknown and unearthed. Of the Smritis known to Dr. Ambedkar there are 137. And now we have got the 138th Smritis. He will pardon me if I refer to this, not in a light-hearted fashion, because this is also a measure, which although not revolutionary, has introduced changes in our Hindu social relations. So I can apply the same term as has been applied to the other Hindu social codes and social texts that have been already written for us. This we may call the 138th Smriti. I may call it the Bhim Smriti. I hope Dr. Ambedkar will pardon me if I refer to this as the Bhim Smriti. If I have got to include the name of the other protagonist of the movement, which has culminated in the drafting and the presentation of this Bill, I would refer to it as the Narasimha. It is the Rau Committee which has led to this Bill. Ultimately I will not refer to it as the Bhim Smriti but the Bhim Narasimha Smriti. Coming to the measure before us : though the Smritis are well-known, still they differ among themselves. The same Smritikara at times differs in different texts of the Smriti. It is very well known that even a poet is not consistent in his poetry. Shakespeare referred to women in one play as “Frailty, thy name is woman” : in other play he goes on to describe a woman who was strong enough to inflict wounds in her own thigh : I mean Portia of Brutus ! Coming to our own country, the great poet and philosopher, Tulsidas has said: dhor ganwar Shudra aru nari yah sab tadana ke adhikari. For the benefit of my friends who do not know Hindi, it means that a rustic, an illiterate man, an animal, a shudra and a woman—these all deserve a beating. Shri Raj Bahadur (United States of Matsya): I would inform the House that the interpretation put by Mr. Kamath upon this well known cuplet is absolutely incorrect.