Vol. 14, Part I · pages 396–400

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES378 quote the old sloke—I do not remember exactly where it occurs— but the Panchatantra quotes it: “Nasasabha Yatra na Santi Vriddhah, vriddhnateye na vadanti dharmam.” ‘That is not a Sabha or Assembly where there are no vridhahs.’ An Honourable Member : But we have so many of them here ! Shri H. V. Kamath : That man is not a vriddhah who does not talk of Dharma. I, Sir, am sorry that our friends of this Anti-Hindu Code Committee have not exactly understood the meaning of “vriddhah”—who is a vridhah and who is not. In the Mahabharata there is a story : Saraswata Muni, a young boy of twelve, when there was famine in the country and all the old rishis who were fasting and doing penance on the shores of the Saraswati river tied for fear of their lives—they wanted to save their lives— this young boy at that time stuck to his post and his mother Saraswati, that is why Saraswati fed him on fish in the morning, fish at noon and fish at night—that is why Saraswat Brahmins even today eat fish. This Brahmin boy, inspite of the famine, stuck to his post. The story goes on to say that the famine raged for many years in the land—twelve years— but our young boy, Saraswat Muni—the progenitor of all Saraswats in the world—continued to stay. After the famine was over, the rishis who had fled for their lives started coming back in driblets, one after another, to the shores of the Saraswati river to resume their tapasya interrupted by the famine and they tried to boss over this young boy of 24. He was 12 when the famine started, and he was 24 when the famine ended. They started bossing over him. They said, “You sit at out feet; take instruction from us; learn from us; become our disciple.” He said, “Fie on you. Shame on you pretend to be munis, rishis, tapasvis, and you fly for your lives ; fly for fear of death. You have got to sit at my feet and learn from me.” Thus said the young man of 24 to those old men of 70 and 80. The Mahabharata goes on to say: “Na tena vridho bhavati yenasya palitam shirah yo vai yuvapyadhyanastam devah sthaviram viduh.” (A man is not a vridha merely by virtue of his grey hair. Even a youth who has studied well is called a wise man by the gods.) That man is vriddhah who has attained vriddhi Actually the word “vriddhah ” is wrongly translated as old. It means that man who has

DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL 379 attained vriddhi, you call it, wisdom, growth, development—that is vridhi…….. Here our friends say: “Na sa sabha yatra na santi vriddhah— Vriddha na te ye na vadanti dharmam “ I think that even in that sense of “ vriddhi” or wisdom, there are a number of my friends here who will live up to that standard. But my friends have stopped short of quoting the whole shloka. They start by saying : “Na sa sabha yatra na santi vridhah Vriddha na te ye na vadanti dharmam.” But what is Dharam ? The sloka goes on to say later on what is Dharma. These fellows conveniently omit that portion of the sloka. The sloka goes on to say: “ Dharmah sa na yatra na satyamasti “ That is not Dharma where there is no satya. Therefore, my quarrel with those who take their stand on dharma is that they have not understood what is Hindu Dharma. I will again crave your indulgence to tell the House what our great savant and philosopher, Dr. Sarvapalli Radhakrishnan has to say on the subject, especially Hindu Dharma. He tells us: “There has been no such thing as a uniform stationary, unalterable Hinduism whether in point of belief or practice. Hinduism is a movement; not a position ; a process, not a result; a growing tradition, not a fixed revelation. Its past history encourages us to believe that it will be found equal to any emergency that the future may throw up. whether on the field of thought or of history…………………..” We are happy that today the prediction is coming true. It was Swami Vivekananda who said fifty years ago that Vedanta will become the religion of humanity—the vedanta which has been given to the world by our seers, rishis and munis Radhakrishnan goes on to say: “We are beginning to look upon our ancient faith with fresh eyes. We feel that our society is in a condition of unstable equilibrium. There is much wood that is dead and diseased that has to be cleared away. I hope, Sir, that most of our friends here are in their own way leaders of Hindu thought and practice, I am sure of that — “Leaders of Hindu thought and practice are convinced that the times require, not a surrender of the basic principles of Hinduism, but a restatement of them with special reference to the needs of a more complex and morbil social order. “Such an attempt”, he says, “will only be the repetition of a process which has occurred a number of times in the history of Hinduism. The work of readjustment is in process. Growth is slow when roots

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES380 are deep. But those who light a little candle in the darkness will help to make the whole sky aflame.” I would commend this statement of the Hindu Dharma to those of my friends who oppose the Bill, even the consideration of the Bill on grounds of Dharma. Who does not know and who does not recollect that this cry of ‘Dharma in danger’ or ‘Society in danger’ was raised by those that wanted to block every reform of Society attempted in the past ? Is it not a fact that twenty-five years ago, when the movement against asprisliyata untouchability was started, some of our men, even high-class orthodox Hindus said that Hinduism was in danger, social order was in danger and that disruption of society was coming ? Yet, did we not persist in that muchneeded reform ? Did we not help to accelerate the evolution of Hindu society on an egalitarian basis ? As a culmination of these attempts, have not we adopted an Article in the draft Constitution prohibiting untouchability and banning it in any shape or form ? If we could do that in spite of what the orthodox pandits claim for Hindu Dharma surely I do not see any reason why we should not proceed to legislate or provide for the regulation of social relations and personal law. Again, Sir, honourable Members will recollect the opposition that was started against the Sarda Act, which tabooed child-marriage, on the ground that Hindu Dharma was in danger and that Hindu religion and Hindu society were in danger. In the last century when the custom of sati, cremation of the widow with her husband, was sought to be abolished, these same reactionaries who block the road to progress denounced the attempt stating that the Hindu-Dharma sanctioned sati and that it granted the highest salvation to women and therefore it should be continued. In spite of their agitation and obstruction, much-needed reforms like that were put through. Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava said the other day that this Bill had not reached the rural population and that the rustics, the people in rural areas have not seen or read or considered it. He expressed anxiety to know their reactions to the Bill, before it was proceeded with in this House. When he said so, he forgot the fact that some of the Bills he himself had introduced had not been seen by the peasants of his own Hissar. I wonder if on his advice we are going to circulate copies of our Bills to every village and hamlet and homestead in the country. Shri Mahavir Tyagi (U. P.: General): Peasants do not count these days.

DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL 381 Shri H. V. Kamath : I am astonished to hear from Mr. Tyagi that peasants do not count in these days. If they do not count, who does ? Honourable Members : You. Shri H. V. Kamath : I am indeed grateful for the compliment. I hope, Sir, in the near future, not merely I, but all my friends in the House will count equally with me. Sir, while I have every sympathy with certain observations made by Pandit Thakurdas Bhargava, I do not think that his opposition to the Hindu Code Bill on the ground that there has been no circulation or proper publication among the people affected, can stand scrutiny. That argument is absolutely untenable. In that way, every Bill sought to be passed here, which affects the lives of millions, would have to be sent to them, in order that they may register their approval or disapproval of the same. Now, Sir, this vexed question of equality, I hope, I have disposed of in a satisfactory manner. Sir, men and women are equal on a spiritual basis. The Gita, the Smritis and Shri Krishna himself have preached this doctrine of equality. Coming, Sir to the question of property, property has been, according to most philosophers, political, social or otherwise, the root of almost all evil in the world. In this regard I subscribe to the proposition made by Seth Govind Das—he is not in the House now—that it would be best if private property were abolished. Even litigation will decrease a good deal if this is done. One of our greatest law-givers and statesmen of ancient times— not Manu or Yagnyavalkya—but a warrior statesman, Bheeshma Pitamaha has expounded his doctrine in two parvus of Maha-Bharata, viz., Shanti Parva and Anusasanika Parva. There he tells Yudhisthira about property: akinchanasya shuddhasya na tulyamihia lakshyaye akinchanyamcha rajyamcha tulaya samatolayam atyarichyaia daridryam rajyadapi guradhikam nityodvignohi dhanavan mrityorasyagato yatha. He tells Yudhisthira that his kingdom and voluntary poverty he has weighed in the balance. He says that this akinchanya voluntry poverty has proved more than the other. Because, he said, nityo nilyodvignohi dhanavan mrityorasyagato yatha. The nearest equivalent to this in English is “Uneasy lies the head that wears the crown”. If a man has property he is afraid of death. I am in agreement with Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava when he says that a wife and husband should become one not merely in love, but in property as well. Sometimes it happens that love is their only

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES382 property. Husband and wife may have no property at all. Their only property may be their mutual love. But, Sir, we should face the stark reality of life today. It was, however, refreshing to hear Pandit Bhargava’s personal experience in this respect. This world would be a happier place to live in, if men and women, husbands and wives are in the same happy position as Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava and his wife are. There are, however, hundreds of cases today where the relations between the wife and husband are not as happy as they should be, or as we wish them to be. (Interruption) I am speaking, Sir, from facts narrated to me by friends like my honourable friend. Mr. B. Das and I have come in possession of these facts, as told to me by my honourable friends, who have got experience in this direction. Our Hindu Code Bill provides in this respect that a woman should be entitled to an absolute right in her property. In the Vedic ages and in the ancient ages, upon which our opponents of Dharma and the Hindu Code Bill take their stand, it was only in medieval times, when Hinduism was on the decline that women’s rights to property came to be restricted—in the Vedic period the social position of women was generally high. Mr. Chairman : There are a number of speakers, who want to speak. I appeal to the honourable Member kindly to be as short as possible. Shri H. V. Kamath : I will try to be short, but I am afraid, the subject is so vast that it is difficult to be short. The Honourable B. R. Ambedkar (Minister of Law): There will be plenty of occasion for Mr. Kamath to speak. There are at least 130 sections. Shri H. V. Kamath : But I do not want to let some things remain unsaid today. Now in the Vedic period, I was saying that the social position of the women was high. An unmarried daughter was offered a share in her father’s property, and the married daughter was given no interest therein, but she got ample dowry at the time of her marriage. So the argument advanced by my honourable friend, Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava, in this respect, I think, may be considered by the House and by the Honourable Minister sympathetically ; because fundamentally being opposed to property myself, I do not think that any purpose would be gained by making the property position worse than it is today. Dr. Ambedkar referred to an instance of the property of a Hindu family consisting of 12 sons and one daughter. That is very well for