Vol. 14, Part I · pages 431–435

DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL 413 on my right think this is all the Hindu Code, they are out Ambedkaring Ambedkar. Sir, even if this Hindu Code is adopted in the form in which it has been brought before us, it will rail of its purpose for another reason also. My honourable sister Durgabai and my honourable friend from Mysore said yesterday, well, why do you worry about this : this will not lead to fragmentation of agricultural property. I do not know whether they realised that they were furnishing one of the strongest arguments for rejecting this Bill. Unconsciously, my sister and brother have furnished one of the strangest arguments for the rejection of the Bill outright. You are going to regulate the disposition of property. It is now generally accepted that 90 per cent.of the immoveable property in this country is in the villages, in the provinces, leaving aside the Centrally administrated areas. Therefore, they would be out of the purview of this Code. To house or other immovable property inside the Centrally administered areas, directly under the Government of India, this Code will apply. Then, how is this claim satisfied that this Code applies to all the Hindus in all provinces ? Thus is a very strong argument for throwing out the Bill; throwing out on the ground that it fails in its objective. Besides the three categories I have mentioned, there are so many things which have yet to be covered. The argument would be that provincial agricultural land is purely a provincial subject according to the Constitution Act; so also are religious and charitable trust properties, so also joint family property, and partition, self acquisitions, etc. When this vast field would lie uncovered. I ask the House seriously whether they are really satisfied with the claim of those who think that this is going to be an exhaustive Code or an all embracing Code and that it provides the panacea for all the social and economic ills to which Hindu flesh is heir to. Do they really believe that the 139 sections will be the vitamin tablets which will go to vitalise the whole Hindu society ? You may hold that view ; the House may hold that view; I do not hold that view. On the other hand, I think this is premature, absolutely premature. Even if the Hindu Code be passed into law, it could not come into force all until the provincial Governments pass similar legislation in their own provinces for devolution of agricultural land. Every single province will have to do it before this Act could come into force in all the provinces. I am not now talking of the states ; I am talking of the provinces. Besides, it is not inconceivable that the provinces may be taking different decisions. It is not for the Central Government to force the Provincial Governments to legislate on a particular line of succession, a particular line of devolution of agricultural property according to its dictates. Then

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES414 provincial autonomy will fail to the ground and I am certain that the provincial Ministries will not touch such a proposal from the Centre even with a pair of tongs if such direction went counter to their own views. Mr. Deputy Speaker: May I state for the information of the House that there are as many as 37 members—I have received chits, letters and so on from them—who are all anxious—most of them, if not all— to put forward their view points on this Bill. I would therefore suggest, however interesting the speech of the honourable member might be, that the points that have been raised on one side in support of the Bill may kindly be answered by others. Thus, all the points would be threshed out and this will contribute to the richness of the debate as well. Dr. Ambedkar has given a clear analysis of the Code with arguments. Of course, the House would like to know how those points are wrong and how they are met on the other side. Therefore, greater attention may be paid to that and also regard may be had to the number of speakers that are in the waiting list. Shri H. V. Kamath : May I request you, Sir, to consider, in view of the vital importance of this Bill, that two or three days time is hardly adequate and that at least a week or two should be allotted for general discussion ? Pandit Lakshmi Kanta Maitra : With great respect to the views which were expressed by you, Sir, if I have given the impression that I was filibustering, I am sorry. I may tell you, Sir, that this Bill is of such great importance that it would be utterly unfair to the House if you ask us to conclude this general discussion thus. Because, in the first stage, we had not the slightest opportunity to make a speech ; this is the stage after gating us committed to the principle of the Bill, in which we have to see how best we can serve our country, even within the limited sphere. If there are 36 speakers, there is the clearest possible indication that the Bill has now attracted serious attention and they want to give their viewpoints. Therefore, there is no particular sanctity to the period that is laid down for debates of this kind. If we do not conclude the discussion today, certainly more days must be found for further discussion of this. This honourable the Law Minister is very zealous about it; he can give another additional session for this ; if not, even in this session four or five additional days could be found. The matter must be thoroughly debated. I hope the House will not accept closure; nor do I think that a closure will be moved

DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL 415 by the Chief Whip and a motion of this kind cannot be closed by whipping without ascertaining that there has been a full and sufficient debate. Shri H. V. Kamath : Another point. May I request you, Sir, that the provincial MLAs who are not present here also be invited to come and participate in the discussion ? Mr. Deputy Speaker: We will now adjourn Pandit Lakshmi Kanta Maitra : I have not yet finished, Sir, I take it I may resume after Lunch. Mr. Deputy Speaker : Yes. We will now adjourn for Lunch. The Assembly then adjourned for Lunch till Half Past Two of the Clock, The Assembly re-assembled after Lunch at Half Past Two of the Clock, Shri S.V. Krishnamoorthy Rao (one of the Panel of Chairmen) in the Chair. Pandit Lakshmi Kanta Maitra : Before the House adjourned for the recess, I was trying to explain to it how this Code was bound to fail of its purpose in some of the material particulars. I explained that there was no necessity for codification as the Hindu law in all its aspects was not only well established but well understood by the people who were governed by it. I also explained that those who are to administer this Act—I mean the Judges, the judiciary of the land, including the highest—have never demanded that the law should be codified, and I also explained that the scope of the Bill was very very limited, and that besides providing for marriage, adoption and inheritance there was a water field which was left uncovered. While referring to the agricultural land, I may also point out to the House that according to the series of judicial decisions in this country, the question of land involves and embraces, a vast variety of interests and subjects, from the landlord of the topmost grade down to the tiller of the soil, the man behind the plough: and if the Provincial Governments of the different countries were to regulate the distribution of their property in different ways other than that indicated by the Central Act there was bound to be confusion worse confounded. Then, Sir, I would like to mention that the Code has not only tried digesting the existing Hindu law within its limited sphere, but in that process of collating and digesting, a number of things have been

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES416 introduced ; a number of subjects, particularly in the matter of marriage and inheritance, which go diametrically against the established notions of the Hindus. Therefore, it is not merely a case of digesting, collating : not also merely a question of amending—because amending is a very mild expression: it does a good deal more than that. It introduces innovations, far-reaching changes, not only in the law of marriage but also in the law of inheritance. Sir, I wish I could explain to the House the full implications of the changes involved. But I am physically unequal to the task. I will try rapidly to explain how I look at these changes. The two categories of changes which in my opinion and also in the opinion of the vast majority of my countrymen are very radical and sweeping, are those that relate to marriage and inheritance. Sir, my, honourable friend has no doubt provided for sacramental marriage in his Code. I do not know if in this country, up to the moment the Bill was drafted and given the shape it has now had, people really demanded of the Government of the land to prescribe a procedure by which marriages in this country are to be contracted. I think it is nobody’s case that prior to the introduction of this Bill, people had not been marrying or there was a good deal of difficulty in getting ourselves married. But how the question of marriage would be improved I do not know. My fundamental objection to these marriages is, that while on the one hand it characterises one form of marriage as sacramental marriage, inside this sacramental cover there has been introduced a number of things which cannot conceivably be called sacramental or sacred ceremonial marriage. Look at the prohibited degrees. Look at the character of the parties. It can easily be an intercaste marriage, a marriage outside caste, marriage of sagotras, and at the same time it would be sacramental marriage. It is rather curious, Sir, that while a sacramental form of marriage is being prescribed, along side with it there is a civil marriage. I do not know how it finds a place in the Hindu code itself. However, they provided an entirely different thing but a most objectionable thing is that while in the sacramental form of marriage one particular class of prohibited degress is put in, in the civil marriage an entirely different category is put; the ambit of the prohibited degree is narrowed down, so much so that the marriage in many cases becomes purely incestuous marriage. I do not understand, Sir, what necessity was there for this unless we by this measure, want to give direct encouragement to all manner of moral looseness and

DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL 417 lawlessness, which unfortunately is invading the youth of this country. Are we here going to give this the imprimatur of our sanction ? That is the question I would ask my honourable friend very seriously to consider and answer, not in a spirit of banter or levity but with all the seriousness that a difficult social problem demands. I feel that the basic conception of Hindu marriage has suffered the rudest possible shock by introduction into it of the matter of divorce which is so repugnant to Hindu notions of marriage. Hindu marriage as ought to be known to every one who professes himself to be a Hindu, who honestly takes pride in calling himself a Hindu, as I myself do, is a sacrament and not a civil contract and as such it will not be difficult for him to admit that divorce is absolutely foreign to its concept. Union by marriage, according to the Hindu Shastras is sacred and absolutely indissoluble ( Interruption ). If you want me to cut short my speech you will kindly interrupt me only on important matters. I am not afraid of interruptions—I know how to answer them, I can answer them in my own way. But if you keep on interrupting me, my speech will be unduly long and you also may not feel happy over the replies I will give. Babu Ramnarayan Singh : It ought to be so. Pandit Lakshmi Kanta Maitra : The institution of divorce in this country, or in any country for the matter of that, has not been found to promote the well-being of the community for whose benefit it exists. As an humble student of sociology, I have had occasions to read reports of matrimonial courts. An honourable Member referred to Judge Lindsay and I believe he also had in view the “Revolt of the Youth”. I do not know whether my honourable friend realised that he unconsciously provided one of the stronger arguments for opposing this form of marriage when he referred to that great Judge. I want honourable members carefully to consider, if within the family circle we should permit matrimonial alliances to spring up between a person and his mother’s brother’s daughter or his father’s sister’s daughter, as has, been provided in this Hindu Code. Shri H. V. Kamath : It is common. Pandit Lakshmi Kanta Maitra : It may be common in South India, but South India is not the whole of India. My whole point is that if there is a particular form of practice in a particular part of the country, you should not go out of your way to see that it is provided for the whole country.