Vol. 14, Part I · pages 451–455

DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL 433 no demand in the country for a legislation of this kind. I oppose it because I feel that in all social legislations we must go slow and that we cannot bring about large scale social reform by legislation alone. The reforms will have to come from within by force of public opinion which has to be created inside the society. Thirdly, I oppose because of the most irregular manner in which this Bill is sought to be passed in this House. I oppose because I feel that I am not morally competent to discuss this Bill and pass it in the Legislature as it is constituted at present. I oppose this Bill because I feel that it has brought in radical changes in the concept of marriage, in the scheme of Hindu Law including the law of inheritance and succession. I oppose it because I feel that it will create endless and needless complications including such things as Civil Marriage Register, Sacramental Marriage Register, Marriage Notice Book, Director General of Marriages, Registrar Generals of Marriages, Ministry of Marriages, and so on and so forth. I oppose it on the further ground that it would give rise to bitterness, disunion and discord in our families leading to the disintegration of society. I oppose it on the further ground that it is undemocratic inasmuch as a vast body of opinion in the country is against it. In view of all these, I feel I am morally called upon to oppose this Bill with all the force at my command. With these few words, yes, these are few words in view of the enormity of the legislation, In view of the gravity of the issues involved ; these are few words in view of the opposition it has roused and the repercussion it will have on the society. Anybody who really wants society to be protected against this menace coming from the legislature cannot but be articulate and discursive; he has to devote time to the full and dispassionate consideration of things ; he must give his humble bit of advice of caution to the legislators so that they may not drive us along the wrong path and that the society may not slip down the declivity into ruin. * The Honourable Shri N. V, Gadgil : I have been somewhat provoked to participate in the discussion on a Bill which undoubtedly is revolutionary. I have heard with the greatest respect the speech of my honourable friend with whom I had the honour to work in this House for more than ten years. If there is anything which distinguishes him most, it is his earnestness which is only equalled by his great eloquence. I entirely agree with him that in matters of social reform one must go slow. On that point, I have not the slightest doubt. But this Bill has proceeded so slow that some of us have rightly *C.A. (Leg.) D., Vol. II, Part II, 1st March 1949 , pp. 1015-20.

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES434 complained that it has not been passed much earlier. As far as I know, this Bill or at least the main provisions of this Bill have been before the house or its predecessor and before the country including the members of the Bar for nearly eight years. It cannot be said by any stretch of imagination that this Bill has taken either this House or the country by surprise. I well remember in 1945, at the time of the general elections, I was opposed by certain groups precisely because I stood for social reform, because I stood for the codification of the Hindu Law. The very fact that I was elected and I am still here is an indication that I carry the views of my constituency. A point has been made by my honourable friend Pandit Maitra that this House is not competent to pass a legislation of this character. I think this objection I have heard so often in the course of the last fifteen years that every time when a social reform Bill was before the House, the same objection was raised. With what result, everybody knows. If this House is competent to pass the Constitution for free India, I fail to see how it is not competent to pass this legislation. As if to reinforce the agreement with a personal appeal, my honourable friend Pandit Maitra referred to the views expressed by Honourable Dr. Rajendra Prasad. I have, and, in fact, every person in this House has, every respect for Honourable Dr. Rajendra Prasad. Yet, there is a duty which every member of this House owes to his conscience and to his constituency and to this great country in which he lives above everything, not merely as a legislator, but as a person who visualises the reconstruction of Hindu society and he would be failing in his duty if he were to take into consideration only the personal views of one eminent person or another eminent person. When I say this, I say it in no spirit of disrespect, but because I feel duty is higher than any respect for any individual. The main point is, has the time not come for the codification of the Hindu law ; has the time not come for the introduction of certain reforms in the system of marriage, adoption, inheritance and all other things which go to constitute what is generally known as the Hindu Law. The sources of Hindu Law are so many. I do not want to dilate on this and I do not want to take much time of the House. But there is a clear case established that there must be some uniformity, some definitions about the interpretation of the law. If the law is not clear, if the law is not uniform, the stability of society suffers. If we have different interpretations of a particular text by half a dozen High Courts, I think the time has come when all this must be put an end to.

DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL 435 Further, my honourable friend suggested that we are attempting to destroy Hindu Society. My own feeling is that, here are about 290 persons who are in close contact with Hindu Society ; here we can come together, ventilate our views and come to some agreement and adjustment and pass a legislation calculated to secure the further progress of Hindu Society. When Manu, Parashara and Yagnyavalkya wrote their smritis, they had not the benefit, I should say, of any legislature. They were undoubtedly great men ; but I do not think that the race of great men died with them. On my left, I find a person so great in scholarship and character that it would not be wrong on my part to compare him with some of the old Rishis and law givers. If today, in addition to his own wisdom and learning, he requisitions the help and co-operation of all the 290 persons, I think his hands are strengthened and his views ought to appeal to us. The main point, as I said was, has the time come for certain reforms and has the time come for the codification of Hindu Law ? If the time has come, it makes no difference whether one man promulgates a Code and the country accepts it, or whether it is accepted by the process of discussion in a democratic manner and the country accepts it. The main point is to judge it without passion, without prejudice and without entering into any extremist considerations. We have in this House to judge it purely on merits and not on sentimental grounds. After all, what is it that is in this Code ? Except for the question of inheritance, there is nothing to which we have not listened so often and to which we have not agreed substantially. My own view is that there are two important things on which the controversy is centered, One is marriage; the other is ending of the co-parcenary in Hindu Law. So far as marriage is concerned, there is nothing revolutionary in this. In these days, when everything is pointing towards State control more and more, and when we are talking of nationalization, I think the only sphere for private enterprise is marriage. Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : Let that also be nationalised ! The Honourable Shri N. V. Gadgil : Now in this Bill a golden mean is struck. The entry and exit in this sphere is so regulated that a modern man coming from the West would certainly laugh at our backwardness. He would say if marriage is a matter which is calculated to secure the highest happiness for both, then one of the grounds for divorce must be incompatibility of temperament. Have you gone up to that ? The grounds in the Bill are very narrow. In fact, I say that

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES436 this is a very moderate measure. You do not expect a wife to carry on with a lunatic, a leper etc. and there is nothing in this Bill which runs contrary to the provisions of Smritis or which is inconsistent with the genius of Hindu society and culture. Most of us know the Smriti. u"Vs e‘rs izczftr] Dyhcsp ifrrs irks A ifr% vU;r~ rq ukjh.kke~ fo/h;rs A These are the grounds given in the ancient text and if something approximating to that is not available today in Hindu society, it is because we have become stagnant and all these dynamic urges for progress have ceased to operate. After all who, and to what extent of Hindu society will this effect? Speaking for my own province, 95 per cent. have already some sort of divorce, not as a matter of law, but as a matter of custom. It is only the two or three per cent. of people of the upper classes who are opposed to it. But taking a fair view, the educated section is completely for it. On the one hand I agree that divorce must not be made very cheap and that incompatability of temperament should not be one of the grounds. But at the same time, marriage should not be considered a life sentence, if it virtually comes to that. After all, just as marriage has an individual aspect, it has also a social aspect. If the two spouses do not agree, then the bickering and the bitterness and the lack of harmony is not confined merely to the precincts of the family but it has wider application and effect, and society and the general atmosphere roundabout also suffer. If it is the desire of any law giver that whatever piece of legislation he wants to get through it must have the capacity of securing the results contemplated then we have to judge whether what has been all along with us has really given us the result we have asked for. It is a matter for introspection. If today we are providing some way out from wedlock in order to make people, who are readily not happy to get out of it, we are only doing what I think is our social duty. So far as marriage is concerned, I fail to see how we can object to marriages between persons belonging to different castes. In the year 1949, it would be a sad commentary on our progressive outlook if a single person should stand up here and say—well, marriages between persons belonging to different castes should not be legalised. In free India, I think there is only one caste, the caste of free men : and one religion and that religion of humanity. ( Shri H. V. Kamath, ‘And free women !’). This reform has been before this country so long that

DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL 437 those who feel that this means dissolution of Hindu society, are enemies of progress ; such a Hindu society in my opinion ought to be dissolved. What is this that a man should be called untouchable because he is born in a particular caste. I have never seen a boy born with a broom : I have never seen a boy born in a Brahmin family with a Yagnopavita, nor a boy born in a Marwari family with a Taraju. tUeuk tk;rs ’kwnz% A laLdkjkr f}tksPprs fo|;k ;kfr foizRa; =kksfHk% Jhr;ksPprks pos A All are born Shudras and after Sanskara a man attains higher status and when he has gone through the different stages of learning and accomplishment he becomes a Shrotriya, Here is the real spirit of Hinduism, not the spirit which is evinced by some of our old Sanantanic friends here and outside. If the object of this great country, as has been often given out to be is to make a classless society, then we must see to it that proper institution, both social and political are evolved and enlarged. I therefore consider that whatever recommendations are made in this Code as regards marriage are not only absolutely necessary, but they do not go far enough. But as I agree with my honourable friend, Pandit Maitra, that in social mailers we ought to be slow, I am willing to accept this position for the time being. The most controversial part of the whole thing is the elimination of the coparcenary from Hindu society. Something was said of public opinion. Something was said of the press and the bar. In my own province there is an association called the ‘Dharma Nirnaya Mandal’, In this Mandal are to be found Mahmahopadyaya Tarkatirth Vidyavachaspati men of high learning and scholarship. Very recently they have passed a resolution and expressed views on the proposed Hindu Code :— “The Dharma Nirnaya Mandal takes this opportunity, when the Hindu Code is on the anvil for consideration in the present session of the Assembly, to express its appreciation of the general liberalizing influence which is brought to bear in the framework of the present code. The Mandal sees this influence clearly in the removal of— (a) distinction regarding joint ancestral and self-acquired properly: (b) different treatment of sons and daughters : (c) technical difficulties in the interpretation of Women’s Estate; and (d) distinctions between Mitakshara and Dayabhaya rules of inheritance. The Mandal believes that the above reforms will go a great deal to minimise court litigations and foster national spirit and engender a feeling of oneness by this one Hindu Code being made to apply to all Hindus in the whole of India. The Mandal notes this as the first attempt ever made in this direction within historical memory. This is the reason, why in spite of several differences in minor details, the Mandal heartily supports the present measure as it is.”