Vol. 14, Part I · pages 411–415

DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL 393 not get votes. That question does not arise. We must be true to ourselves and to the constituency and people who have sent us. So, I oppose this measure with all the emphasis at my command, and support the motion of my friend ‘Pandit’ Naziruddin Ahmad that the Bill may be circulated for public opinion. *Shri H. Siddaveerappa (Mysore State) : I congratulate the Honourable the Law Minister for the very lucid expression of the speech he gave while moving this Motion. Sir, a lot has been said that this measure vitally affects the Hindu society. I come from a part of this country, namely Mysore, where some of the fundamental things, this measure wants to introduce, are already in force. We have, for instance, got the law of adoption as also the law regarding the daughter’s share, and several other things, though they are not on all fours with the present measure. But the principle is there. We have enacted a Bill as early as 1934, called the Hindu Women’s Rights Regulation and for the last fourteen years that Bill is law in Mysore, but we have not found there any general upheaval. There is not much litigation nor is there any disruption of the Hindu society as has been feared by some of the honourable Members here. As a matter of fact, by our experience we have come to understand that the measure which is now in force is not of the extent that is needed and another Committee has been formed with a view to see that there is further improvement in the existing measure. It was said that the measure before the House affects the caste system or some other fundamental beliefs or principles of the Hindu society. Well, Sir, my reading of some of the Hindu literature is that if we study the Vidic period, that is from 2000-1400 B.C., and study the Hindu society then in existence, we do not see any of these four castes in the Hindu society then in existence. Every man born, according to his gitna or karma had to go through all the vamas or ashramas in his life time. A boy, until he attained the age of twenty, had to perform the household duties and obey his guru and do all the other acts that were assigned to him, and he was called a shudra. After the age of twenty he was allowed to be married and he had to take the responsibility of maintaining the family, then, according to the duty that was imposed on him he was called a vaishya. After he enjoyed life for some time and after he reached the age of 40 or so, when there was need for every man to defend the State, he had to do the duty of a kshatriya. After he attained a particular age, say 60, when * C.A. (Leg.) D., Vol. II, Part II, 28th February 1949, pp. 953-56.

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES394 he had seen so much of life, and on account of his experience and learning, he undertakes the task of teaching the disciples and doing oilier duties of wisdom, and he was called a Brahmana, a man who has got the guna of Brahman. Therefore, this caste system in this country originated in a different way, and developed in a different way. But today we understand that there are nearly 13,000 castes and a much larger number of sub-castes which have got different traditions, different customs and what not. We find today that we are one so far as political unity is concerned. If we want to have any uniform standard of rules or any uniform standard of our laws, it is absolutely essential that there must be some Code which gives a certain standard. May be if necessary at the consideration stage we may consider which of the clauses are necessary and which are not necessary; but if we say there is no need at all for a Code, I do not think any of us, if we apply a little commonsense, can accept that position. We see in this country there are people who profess different beliefs— Dwaita and Adwaita. There are people who practise monogamy and polygamy and in some places there is polyandry also prevailing. Under these circumstances, is it not necessary for us to see that we have got a uniform code for purposes of inheritance, marriage and several other things? During the time of the Britishers we found that in the guise of religious neutrality or non-interference, they never cared to see that any evils in the Hindu society were wiped out; they never attempted any reform in that direction. As a matter of fact, when Warren Hastings was impeached by Burke, it is said that one of the charges levelled against him was that he used those caste codes for purposes of his personal aggrandizement. The Britisher saw that the caste system was ideally suited for his own advantage, therefore he never interfered to bring about any needed reforms in the society. But that is no reason that at a time when we are free, we should not aim at bringing about this much desired reform. Somebody said, we are proceeding further, why should we take up this measure so early as this and why should we not wait for some more time? My point is this : this reform was long overdue; it ought to have come much earlier but for the fact that we were a dependent nation and that we were not masters of our own destiny. My submission is that it has not come a day too soon. So many other objections were raised regarding the competency of this House etc. As a matter of fact, the honourable the learned

DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL 395 Mover has given a clear exposition as to how we are competent to bring about this desired result; So I do not wish to take the time of the House especially as there are many other speakers. With regard to the principle of divorce, it is in my opinion a very much debated point. It is a thing which really agitates a large number of people in the Hindu society. Whether it be sacramental marriage or any other form of marriage, I do not wish to see that there should be under any circumstances an indissoluble tie of marriage. Instead of giving unfettered discretion to people. I would request the honourable the Mover to consider this point, namely, that a time-limit may be imposed—say five years or three years, whichever is approved by this House—within which the married people may be able to round off their angularities, having time to study each other, and if inspite of it they are badly off, it may be necessary that the marriage tie will have to be snapped. Pandit Lakshmi Kanta Maitra : Marriage on probation, you mean ? Shri H. Siddaveerappa : Not marriage on probation, but before anybody can have the benefit or advantage or whatever you call it of divorce, a particular period should be prescribed within which no married couple may be allowed divorce. Shri L. Krishnaswami Bharathi : That is the English law. They have three years there. Shri H. Siddaveerappa : Let us consider the experience in the Western countries; for instance, let us take America. We have the experience of a famous divorce court judge, Lindsay. Whenever anyone went to him for a divorce, he used to tell: “You people will live together for one or two months and then come to me again. Even inspite of it, if you feel that you must get yourself divorced then you may apply.” He says that invariably his experience as a judge is that whenever people try to separate each other, it is because that they have not tried to understand each other. If there was occasion to judge each other, there may not be recourse to this extreme form of separation. Therefore, I suggest that some such period should be prescribed in regard to divorce. Regarding the theory of fragmentation of property, we find that agricultural land is not at all affected by this measure. It is a good thing in itself.

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES396 Ch. Ranbir Singh (East Punjab : General): It is affected, in Centrally Administered Areas. Shri H. Siddaveerappa : No, it is not. Only the Centrally Administered Area is affected, which is a very small area. So far as this agricultural land is concerned, I think the time has come when we should undertake agrarian reform in the interests of our own agriculture and our own existence so far as food is concerned. Not only that, with regard to inheritance the time has come when we shall have to have some such thing as the law of primogeniture. In view of the fact that 90 per cent, of the people of this country are living in the villages and their property is mostly agricultural, and in view of the fact that this property of the 90 per cent, of the people is taken away from the operation of this Act, I believe the theory of fragmentation does not stand to logic or reasoning. With regard to custom, some of my friends submitted that custom ever rides law, therefore any custom having the sanction of law should be accepted. I think many of us, who have experience as lawyers, can easily see how custom conveniently comes in handy to take away the effect of any benevolent law. I may give one instance. There is a provision in the Indian Penal Code under which if any girl is dedicated for an immoral purpose it is an offence. The marks of dedication are the tying of some heeds round the neck of the girl. Now the ingenuity of a lawyer was able to invent the custom of tying of beeds and apply that custom even in cases where the dedication was done for immoral purposes. Apart from this, we also know how on account of custom litigation sets in and how enormous amounts are spent in it, at least it was so in the previous regime. People used to spend enarmous amounts in getting a decision on any particular point and squander money over judges distinguishing between two different judgments. Today this Bill is so simple, so lucid, that without recourse to any lawyer, any man can for about four annas ascertain what his position is with regard to law. Pandit Lakshmi Kanta Maitra : He can manage everything with four annas, you mean ? Shri H. Siddaveerappa : It is quite possible. A day will come. We will have to try for that also. As a matter of fact, we have been seeing how these judicial decisions affect some of the property rights and other things. A judge comes to one decision and that will be law for some time. Tomorrow they may find out some other law,

DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL 397 some text or smriti or some such old document, and we will be told that this law is overruled, with the result that nothing is settled in Hindu law. As a matter of fact, we have been seeing under the British regime, for the last 150 years, there have been so many decisions after decisions, any number of them and still they say nothing is settled in Hindu law. I want to ask when we will have a settled form of law wherein the ordinary man can understand what exactly is his position. As a matter of fact, when a creditor wants to give some money, he has to satisfy who are his heirs, who have shares and all that, with the result that on an agricultural land on which he can give Rs. 1,000 loan, he gives only Rs. 500 or so. Therefore, taken from any angle of view, I believe this is a very healthy measure, so I give my wholehearted support to it. Mr. Chairman : The debate will continue tomorrow after Question Hour.