Vol. 14, Part I · pages 456–460

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES438 Babu Ramnarayan Singh : What people do they represent ? The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: They are most learned and orthodox men. The Honourable Shri N. V. Gadgil: But enlightened orthodox. Now, I come to the question of joint Hindu family. The house will no doubt agree with me that a progressive society ought to change with the change in times and that it should evolve appropriate institutions both of property and of laws. The time has now come to assess dispassionately the merits of the joint family system, both as an institution to secure family happiness and as an institution of property. Even today, if somebody gives me convincing arguments about the benefits of the joint Hindu family, I am prepared to hear him, for I am not dogmatic— I feel that truth is the real thing, not prestige for ones own views. Now, taking the first point, has the joint family system secured happiness for the individual members of the family ? I am not speaking what the daughters-in-law feel when they have to live in a big family. What I have seen and heard definitely goes to show that so far as happiness and harmony are concerned, this institution has ceased to be of any use or value. After all there is nothing new in this. If out of 32 crores of Hindus nearly 5 crores are already governed by Dayabhaga and if that system has worked well, at least one cannot say that it is absolutely bad and that we must even think of it. ( An honourable Member: It is absolutely new.) That it is new there is no doubt. But what is the society that we are visualising for the future ? It is of a patriarchal type ? What is exactly the nature of the society you want to reconstruct ? As I understand, that society is going to be one in which there will be equality of status and equality of opportunity because those are the two phrases we have incorporated in the Preamble of the Draft Constitution. I think with that Preamble the joint family property system is not consistent. The real trouble seems to me to be—after having listened to the speeches of various members—what is being given to daughters. But as an institution of property the joint family system must go, because it concentrates wealth. People will ask me, “Well, has it or has it not done something good?” I at once agree that it has done some good, but so far as property aspect is concerned, so far as social credit aspect is concerned, other alternatives have already come into existence, such as co-operative societies and the joint stock companies. Therefore, there is no need of this institution so far as the creation of social credit is concerned. As a mechanism for business other 4 P.M.

DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL 439 alternatives have come into existence and by experience we have found that they give better results. Therefore, we are not destroying anything without putting something in its place; we are not leaving the whole society in a sort of vacuum as it were. What has outlived its usefulness is being liquidated so that new India will go ahead with greater speed and may attain greater progress. Now, the real trouble as I said is about some share being given to the daughter: whether it should be half or whether it should be something less are details which can be discussed later on. But one point is certain and that is that the daughter must get some share. In free India if you are only going to say that— ;=k uk;ZLrq iwT;Urs jeUrs r=k nsork and then say that she should either go to a court of law or ask for maintenance, I say it is not fair. My own feeling is that some difficulties may arise at the beginning; when new institutions come, when new thoughts generate; society does take some time to adjust itself. The question is not whether these difficulties are great or small: the relevant question is whether the new arrangement proposed is good or bad. If you are convinced that it is good, naturally there will be some difficulty in adjustment. We must not mind the difficulty at all. It has been suggested that as soon as the marriage is over the bridegroom will start trouble, by suing or otherwise, for the share which his wife has got from her parents. It would be welcome to lawyers. Well, when we are trying to nationalise as much as possible, what little will be left will not be of great consequence, that people would go to the court for a small share of it. In times to come there will be little left both for the boy and the girl. Even if it leads to litigation, does it mean that we should not do justice? Because a good tiling may be abused by a few, does it mean that it should be denied to all? It is for the House to decide. It is high time that the general talk of equality of sex must be followed by equality of ownership of property. If we do not do that we will have to face the charge of hypocrisy. My honourable friend Pandit Lakshmi Kanta Maitra has prophesied all sorts of trouble for the great Hindu society. Such prophets have always been there in the past and they have always proved false. I have not the slightest doubt that Hindu society has got such a flexible nature that it has absorbed various cultures and if it has lived through

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES440 the ages successfully it is because those who guide the affairs of the society had in time suggested changes suitable to the times. That is the reason why it has survived till now. Here is an attempt to bring the law in line with public opinion. What the law does is that it consolidates the public opinion but public opinion being dynamic by its very nature it goes ahead every now and then. It is like a horizon which recedes the nearer one goes to it. Modern society by its very nature progresses very quickly. Therefore, we have to adjust public opinion and the law of the land. There are other means by which it can be done, like legal fiction or equity but the best and the honest way is to do it by a piece of legislation. I think here is an attempt in that direction. Although I agree that it is revolutionary, it is a planned revolution and therefore it is going to be a success. *Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : I have but a short time at my disposal. (Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Why? You have your own time.) I mean comparatively short time for the enormous subject which I have to deal with and I hope the House will give the subject that amount of thought and attention which I have given to it ( An honourable Member: What have you to do with it ?) At the very outset I am asked what I have to do with it. I say I have every thing to do with it. Two very enormous changes have taken place in the country. One is that we have decided to shed our communal character and the other is that we have decided to impose upon ourselves the benefits of joint electorates. Can any honourable gentleman in this House deny the right of a Muslim to’ think in the same way as a large part of the Hindus think? After all we have to live with Hindus. In West Bengal they form 80 per cent and we have to live with them and think with them. Come with me to West Bengal. Pandit Maitra put the case of the opposition in Bengal very mildly when he said that there is serious opposition to this Bill .... Shrimati Renuka Ray : There is equally and more serious support. Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : Come with me to West Bengal. I am not speaking on behalf of the orthodox section. With regard to that aspect of this legislation I have nothing to do. I have certain serious questions to raise before the House which have not been raised up till now. The objection in Bengal is so serious that if anybody undertakes a journey to ascertain public opinion—( Interruption ) I mean intelligent and advanced public opinion—if anyone will go there, if anyone will make a journey from town to town in West Bengal, he * C.A. (Leg.) IX. Vol. II. Part II, 1st March 1949, pp. 1020-30.

DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL 441 will be faced with opposition to the Bill from the most intelligent section, the most enlightned section ( An honourable Member: Which the Honourable Member has not done). I believe the interruption is not based upon a thorough consideration of the subject. I submit that it will be agreed that the members of the bar are not very conservative people Shri L. Krishnaswami Bharathi: Most of them are orthodox and conservative. Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : They are not perhaps the orthodox section. . . . Shrimati Renuka Ray : What about the opinion of Mr. Atul Gupta recognised as one of the most eminent lawyers and chosen by Congress for the Partition Committee? Shri Krishna Chandra Sharma : Does the lawyer line on precedents ! Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : In spite of these interruptions I submit they are not the orthodox sections. You go to any bar library and you will find that this Bill is opposed tooth and nail . . . . Shri L. Krishnaswami Bharathi : Because their occupation will be gone. Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : I do not agree that you eliminate the profession of the bar by this Bill. You are introducing complications which you can not think of. On the other hand, I submit that the lawyers in a different capacity, in a professional capacity, will thank this House for introducing this controversial measure. Four judges of the Calcutta High Court, four advanced Hindu judges of the Calcutta High Court— one of whom now adorns the Federal Court Mr. B. K. Mookerji have said—that the law is already well settled, the law is well known. The law may be different here and there but that is due to various reasons into which I need not now go. The law is well known. Shri A. Karunakara Menon : If the law is so settled why Law reports every week? Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : It is because I feel that my honourable friend does not realise the subtleties which underlie the law. In fact precedents are necessary. You cannot cover any possible case in anticipation by legislation. So precedents are necessary. They illuminate difficulties and they are helpful in deciding cases in future. The moment mankind gives up precedents, specially in the domain of law,

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES442 they will cease to be intelligent animals. That is why I submit that lawyers who are not orthodox people are opposed to this piece of legislation, not because it will deprive them of their food . . . . . . Shrimati Renuka Ray : What happens when limited estate for women goes out in regard to litigation in Bengal? Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : I only hope that my honourable sister Shrimati Renuka Ray did represent the ladies of Bengal. ( An Honourable Members: ‘ She does.’) She is only one star in the whole of West Bengal. I will cite at least a dozen stars in opposition who are equally well known as Shrimati Renuka Ray. She is only one guiding star leading the case of the Hindus. . . . Shri R. K. Sidhva (C. P. and Berar: General): The only star. Shrimati Renuka Ray : There are hundreds of women who have gone to Noakhali and other places. There are many guiding stars in Bengal: these women social workers are all leading stars, but they all support the Hindu Code. Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : I submit that my honourable sister has not the experience of litigation. He has not lived in the law. If he had lived it he would have seen the enormous possibilities. . . . Honourable Members : Say ‘she’. Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : . . . . . for a good thriving business. There is no difference between he and she. According to the latest standards ‘he’ includes ‘she’. I submit ladies should no longer be called “she”, but they should be called “he”. The lawyers are against this measure. Their family system will be seriously disturbed. They are very much averse to the Bill. ( An honourable Member. ‘ Are they afraid about their profession?’) No, they will get more cases. I assure the house on behalf of the lawyers to which profession I have the honour to belong that for their personal interests they should all welcome it. ( Shri L. Krishnaswami Bharathi: You are mistaken). I am not mistaken, I have lived in the law much longer than my honourable friend has done. I have taken part in litigation. The divorce provisions will introduce endless litigation and will lead to endless complications and endless difficulties for many families and more misery for women than men. Coming straight to a very important point, I have to submit before the House a very serious state of, affairs in connection with this Bill.