Vol. 14, Part I · pages 421–425

DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL 403 joint family is there common to both. The right by birth and the principle of survivorship is a distinctive feature of Mitakshara. The Dayabhaga system has in actual experience proved very satisfactory and the Bill therefore, seeks to replace the Mitakshara system of inheritance by Dayabhaga It is said the greater prosperity of the people in Bengal and their increasing commercial enterprise is due to a large extent to the Dayabhaga system. I am told that the commercial enterprise of Nattukottai Cheitiyars in Madras is largely due to their ideas of legal relations of the members of their families which approximate more to those of partnership than is the case in Brahmin joint families. Much has been said on this subject, therefore, I do not want to labour this point. I feel that the opposition is more due to their love for this ancient institution, but those who oppose it I think oppose it because they forget the fact that Hindu Law and Dharma on these matters remain static and no changes have been made. Various judicial decisions have made changes from time to time into this system and the institution has been simply shorn of its characteristics. This point has been very ably answered by a very great lawyer like S. Srinivasa Ayyangar, who said that under the Hindu Law, as authoritatively interpreted by the Privy council, the unity is broken by any member at any time by a unilateral declaration of his intention to separate from the family. This is quite sufficient to answer that charge against the breaking of the coparcenary or the replacement of the Mitakshara by Dayabhaga. I do not want to take more time of the House. Many things have happened since the achievement of freedom and India has been participating in international conferences and pleading for human rights and also for equal treatment of Indians in foreign countries. It will be a great misfortune if at this juncture we fail to enact a Hindu Code within our own borders, in which there will be no discrimination and where there will be equality for men and women to move, to develop and to contribute to the re-building of our India. Our constitution is in the making, we have already passed the Chapter on fundamental rights, and recognised the principle of equality of everyone before law. We have also passed the provision enabling ourselves to have a uniform civil code. Therefore, I make this appeal to you. Let us not be wanting or halting in having a Code of Hindu Law for ourselves which will prove a great boon to our own society in the way in which I have already stated.

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES404 * Pandit Lakshmi Kanta Maitra (West Bengal: General): Sir, I am thankful to you for giving me this opportunity to put in a few words what I feel regarding the motion before the House, namely the consideration of the Hindu code. I know I am in a position of great disadvantage inasmuch as I could not be present when the Motion was debated during the first two days, as I had to be away from this place. I had, in the few moments I could snatch in the midst of my preoccupations, noticed Press reports that my honourable friend the Law Minister, Dr. Ambedkar had made a magnificent speech in support of his motion. Also, that an equally powerful speech—I am not making any comparison. I rely on reports, though there is a divergence of opinion even among the reporters that an equally powerful speech was made on the other side by Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava. I listened with considerable attention to the four speeches that have been made in favour of the motion and the one against it. As the debate was going on yesterday, I could see the mood of the House— sometimes hilarious, but when a Member sought to differ from the main provisions of the bill, all manner of gibes and ironical cheers greeted him all through. ( Honourable Members: ‘No, no’) I am glad it is not so. Well, I think it will give me some encouragement because most members know—I think every single member knows—which way I will speak. I do not know how I came to attain this sort of notoriety—I could not say, fame—that I do not support the provisions of this Bill. I will make no secret of it, ( An Honourable Member : Why should you?) because I will speak out my convictions. I know what a delicate task it is for me to be addressing this House, constituted as it is and in the mood in which I find it. I know that I may have to rue the temerity which I have shown by taking courage in both hands to say what I feel. It is rather helpful that immediately before I address this House. I have had the opportunity of listening to my honourable sister, Shrimati Durgabai, who has made a closely reasoned speech in support of this Bill. I must apologise to my sister for not being able to agree with her in the theories which she has so confidently assumed as being almost accepted by all. She finished her speech with a peroration, appealing to the House to give effect to the principle in the Draft constitution * C.A. (Leg.) D., Vol. II, Part II 1st March 1949, pp. 995-1015.

DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL 405 providing for equality for all in the eye of the law. Yes, we have done that. She also reminded us that we have already passed, as one of the Directive Principles of the Constitution that there should be a uniform Civil Code for the whole of this country. I am glad she gave me the starting point of my speech today. When this subject was debated a couple of months ago in another place and when it was thrashed out elsewhere informally, I registered a vehement protest against this provision, as I felt, that it was nothing but an outcome of shibboleths and slogans— a uniform Civil Code for a country inhabited by 32 to 34 crores of people professing all manner of faiths : Hinduism, Sikhism, Jainism, Buddhism, Christianity ; and last but not the least, Islam! I tabled amendments that the personal law should be secure and that this was an encroachment by the Slate on the personal law of a person which the Slate had no right to make. Maulana Hasrat Mohani (U. P. : Muslim): Hear, hear. Shrimati Renuka Ray (West Bengal: General): That is the reason why you should support this Hindu Code. Pandit Lakshmi Kanta Maitra : The honourable sister in front of me says that it is the reason why I should support the Hindu Code. May I say that that is the very reason why I am going to oppose the Hindu Code—one of the main reasons. You must be logical. I can understand the feelings of my sisters. Do not think that I am a hater of women, that I am a misogynist, or that I have no feeling for women. (An Honourable Member:’ He is a married man ‘) Yes I am a married man. I have a humble wife—married according to Hindu shastric rites,— a simple, unsophisticated lady, bred up and nurtured in the ideals of our Hindu homes. ( The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: ‘What a pity’) It is a pity ! May be, but I have not much of love or liken for the lavender, lipstick and vanity bag—variety of that sex. I am happy, and I am sure out of every hundred Hindu homes, 98 have got these types of wives and are quite happy. ( An Honourable Member: ‘Why 98 ? 99.9 per cent, are so’) I am glad, a friend says it is 99.9 per cent, recurring. That enforces my argument. So I can tell my honourable friend Dr. Ambedkar that I have not felt the necessity for the drastic changes that he has sought to introduce in this Bill. ( The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: ‘Neither did I feel any’.) My honourable friend says he also did not feel the necessity. If he did not really feel any necessity for these sweeping changes, then do I take it that it was due to his megalomania that we have got this Hindu Code

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES406 Bill ? I have very great admiration for my honourable friend Dr. Ambedkar, with whom I had the privilege to work for a number of years before this Assembly. I respect him. I know the performance he has been daily putting in connection with the Constitution Act, ( Honourable Members: ‘Hear, hear’) I appreciate him. I admire him. But I will never appreciate what he has been doing in connection with this Social Legislation which is sure to disrupt the Hindu society by the revolutionary changes which very few of us can now realise. ( Honourable Members: ‘No revolution. No, no’) Yes, I am glad it is “No no.’ If this Bill is passed into law……………. Babu Ramnarayan Singh (Bihar: General): No. Pandit Lakshmi Kanta Maitra: What no ? Babu Ramnarayan Singh : It would not be passed into law. Pandit Lakshmi Kanta Maitra: I see. If this Bill is passed into law as it is I will then see who is a better prophet—myself or those who say “No, no.” Shri L. Krishnasvvami Bharathi (Madras : General): You wait and see. Pandit Lakshmi Kanta Maitra : Well, wait and see. Posterity will judge, and I do not think you will have to wait till posterity. You will have to wait only till the next General Election to see what the country has to say about you and your work. Maulana Hasrat Mohani: Hear, hear. Well done. Pandit Lakshmi Kanta Maitra: Sir, the first point raised by my sister Shrimati Durgabai was that having passed that Directive principle, you should not now object to the Hindu Code. When that Directive Principle was accepted by the House. I thought that the snake had been killed—the Hindu Code Bill,—but I now see that the snake was only scotched ; it has reared its head again and will in time spread out its fangs of venom. If you are true to your Directive Principles, if you mean to act on them, then why bring the Hindu Code Bill. Bring a Universal Civil Code applicable to Hindus, to Christians, ( Shri L Krishnaswami Bharati: ‘Will you support it ?”) to Parsis, to Sikhs, to Jains, to Buddliists, to Muslims. You dare not touch the Muslims but you know that Hindu society today is in such a bad way that you can venture to do anything with it. Only a few ultra-modern persons, who are vocal, but have no real support in the country, are interested in this Bill. ( Interruption).

DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL 407 Mr. Deputy Speaker : Let him proceed. Pandit Lakshmi Kanta Maitra : Millions of dumb people, ignorant but not the less intelligent or sensible simply because they do not have the collegiate education, or are not members of the legislatures think that such a radical change in their personal law is not called for. They are not to be ignored. Shrimati Renuka Ray : Then do not draw up the Constitution. Pandit Lakshmi Kanta Maitra : I therefore feel that there is no sincerity in the acceptance of the principles of one uniform Civil Code for the whole country; or else, how could you, within two months of it, come out with this Hindu Code Bill which seeks to govern only the Hindus, Sikhs, Jains and Buddhists? Shrimati Renuka Ray : Hindu Code came much before. Pandit Lakshmi Kanta Maitra: You have omitted Christians, Muslims, Parsis. Maulana Hasarat Mohani : Muslims will never accept any interference in their personal law. Pandit Lakshmi Kanta Maitra : You need not have reminded me. I know that. I perfectly appreciate the proposition of my honourable friend Maulana Hasrat Mohani. But all the same. I think this is a fundamental departure from the accepted principles in the Constitution. When my honourable friend Shrimati Durgabai said that codification is justified. She tried to prove that an irresistible case had been made out for codification. With all respect to my sister Shrimati Durgabai I submit I stand unconvinced. I can understand the necessity for codification when the law is in a state of flux or that there is much diversity of opinion, or a good deal of vagueness or uncertainty about it. Codification should in such a case be undertaken by the best legal brains in the country silting together to give shape to the various principles of law which are more or less in a confusing or uncertain state. Is that the case with regard to Hindu law in this country ? Shri Krishna Chandra Sharma (U. P.: General); It is. Pandit Lakshmi Kanta Maitra : I accept your statement but I feel deep regret for the colossal ignorance you have exhibited. Hindu law, if my honourable friend is a lawyer and holds that view, he has not practised. He will please excuse this friendly retort. I can stand interruptions. If you interrupt me you will be only adding ginger to my speech. After the advent of the British to this country, the Hindu