Vol. 14, Part I · pages 46–50

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES28 It is true that the Code has abolished the six discrimination with regard to inheritance. A woman is recognised as an heir and she is also entitled to enjoy her property in her full rights; that is, the Code has abolished the limited estate of the woman. Even then we feel that it does not go far enough. A daughter who is recognised an heir inherits the property, but she inherits half the share of the son. This violates the principle of equality on which we have again and again said that our new Constitution is going to be based—a Constitution which aims to secure for the people of this country justice, social, political and economic. We, therefore, feel that the daughter should get an equal share in the property of her father with the son and the son also should get an equal share in the property of his mother with the daughter. It is also argued that a daughter gets her share from her father as well as from her husband, while the man does not get anything from his wife. We have already proposed, that is the Women’s Organisations have said, that the husband can also inherit the property of his wife in the same way that the wife inherits the property of her husband. In the Indian Succession Act the provision for the inheritance of husband is already there and I think we shall do well to copy that provision. People have argued, and the honourable friend who spoke before me has said that if a daughter is given her share, especially in a landed property, there will be fragmentation of land. But why is this argument trotted out in the case of a daughter’s inheritance? The same thing applies if a man has more than one son; if he has, say, four or five sons the land has to be fragmented; why is the argument not trotted out then, and only trotted out when the question of daughters inheriting the property comes up? The better thing would be that there should be law against fragmentation and the property should be sold if it goes below the prescribed limit. Or there is another alternative and that is collectivisation of the land. Then with regard to the question of marriage. I am gratified, and the women of India will be very happy to know, that the principle of monogamy is recognised, and if the Code comes into being then the principle of monogamy will be established. Sir, we have felt that all civilised nations, all civilised communities have adopted the principle of monogamy. Disrespect for women and all the atrocities that we hear of perpetrated on women are I think due to the fact

DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL 29 that this principle of polygamy exists. If we had monogamy, I do not think that women would have been abducted, married off or other things would have happened to them. This is a very wholesome principle and I hope the House will accept it. But with regard to some of the conditions of marriage there are one or two points that I would like to suggest. With regard to the marriage of the sapindas and the definition of sapinda, that requires a little revision; we are not quite satisfied with the definition that is given in the Code. Then again, we would like the age of marriage also to be a condition of a valid marriage. We have got the Sarda Act but that is not satisfactory; that has not satisfied the people because it has not been able to prevent child marriages; it is not effective. For that reason we would like the law to be more drastic. If we want sixteen to be the age of marriage, then it is very necessary that it should be included as one of the conditions of valid marriage and I would like the Select Committee to make that change. Then with regard to divorce, even that from the point of view of some does not go far enough. There is, however, one thing that I would like to bring to the notice of the members of the Select Committee and that is, the time given for desertion. If a man or a woman deserts his or her spouse, it has been provided, he or she can divorce her or him after five years. Five years is the period given in the Code. Even in “ Narad Smriti” it is given that a childless woman should wait for three years. After three years she can marry again. So why not also bring that particular provision here that if a woman is childless, she need not wait till five years, but can divorce her husband after three years? If a woman has got children, then five years would be the right period, but for a childless woman three years would be a reasonable period. With regard to guardianship, here also the Code has not made any changes in the present law. Father is the natural guardian of the children. The mother does not come in. We would like the mother also to be a co-guardian of the children with the father. With regard to adoption, I think the whole chapter should be scrapped. We are a secular State. We want to be a secular State. Adoption in Hindu law is for religious purposes. Why should a secular State have anything to do with a religious custom? What we are

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES30 concerned with is whether adoption which is for religious purposes should be recognised by the State for purposes of inheritance. We say that it should not. If a child is adopted—whether it is a boy or a girl—we would like a daughter also to be adopted—if a child is adopted not for religious purpose, but for real purpose, i.e. that the parents want a child, then that child should have the same rights as the natural child. But, if there is adoption for religious purposes, only then I think that adoption should not be recognised for purposes of inheritance. These are some of the important points that I would like the Select Committee to consider. Speeches have been made, at least my Honourable friend Dr. Pattabhi has made a very long speech—praising all sorts of things about our past traditions. We have looked too much to the past. We must now look to the future. It is for the future generation that we are making this law. It is not for us, but for the future generation that is coming after us that this law will be applied. We have to look to the future conditions. After all, it is the conditions that determine the law. The law reflects the society. The law reflects the conditions in which the people live. We have to see that the future generation is not fettered by our own prejudices with regard to marriage or divorce or with regard to any other ideas that we may have today. I hope the Select Committee will consider that and produce a Bill which will be a great boon to the future Hindu society. * Shri Ram Sahai (Gwalior State): ( English translation of the Hindi speech) Mr. Speaker, Sir, I have nothing to say particularly in reference to the Bill. I appreciate the manner in which this Bill has been drafted after keeping in view the needs of the present day Hindu Society. But, I find in it one or two defects, and I think it necessary to explain them for the consideration of the Select Committee. It has been laid down in Section 3(6) of Part IV of the Bill that in case of minor girls, the consent of her guardian must be obtained for her marriage. But so far as the question of declaring the marriage as invalid is concerned, it has been stated in Section 5 that it shall not be deemed to be invalid merely on the ground that such consent was not or had not been obtained. I fail to understand why it should not be deemed to be invalid when it has been expressely laid down * C.A. (Leg.) D., 9th April 1948, pp. 3646-47.

DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL 31 that the consent of the guardian must be obtained. If the consent of the guardian had been obtained by means of fraud or force, that marriage can be deemed to be invalid, but if the consent had not been obtained at all, then why should not the marriage be deemed to be invalid? On the contrary it has been laid down that the marriage will not be deemed to be invalid merely for this reason. This is the one defect which should be considered by the Select Committee. Another point which I have to mention is in regard to ‘Succession’ and which Mrs. Hansa Mehta has just referred to in her speech. But I do not see eye to eye with the views expressed by her and am of the opinion that the manner in which the order of succession has been prescribed ignores the fundamental tenets of Dharam Shastras (Hindu Code of Law). I do not mean that the women should not be given any rights. I am of the opinion that, they have been given more rights here than men. I may point out that while a daughter gets a share both in her patrimony and the property of her husband’s family, there does not exist any such provision in this Bill which gives a man a share in the property of his father-in-law in addition to his patrimony. The men are thus, being subjected to the same injustice which has uptil now been done to the women. On the contrary, it can be argued that the share which his wife will get in her patrimony will make up the deficiency. But after considering objects underlying the Bill and the worldly conditions which have necessitated it, it is felt that the real problem remains unsolved. The reason for this is that the property which a woman acquires out of her patrimony shall be treated as her Stridhana and her husband will have no right to that, therefore, he will not derive any particular benefit from this. In this way, I submit this second point for consideration by the Select Committee which is very essential. I have yet to say another thing. Whatever may be the differences between the tenets of Dharam shastra and the present day conditions, I feel that we must follow the fundamental principles propounded therein; and keeping these in view we should decide all the issues. We should make only those changes which are considered necessary in view of the present conditions and trend of the society. We should not resort to introduce any change merely under excitement or in imitation of the western civilisation which may obstruct the growth of our society and produce some sort of difficulties that may not be desirable.

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES32 Therefore, I would submit that those who are members of the Select Committee should consider these things and try to make necessary amendments. * Dr. B. V. Keskar (U.P.: General): Sir, I take this opportunity of congratulating the Honourable the Law Minister for bringing this Bill forward in spite of the inordinate delay that has taken place since this idea was first conceived. Sir there is no doubt that this is a very, very important Bill. As my Honourable friend, Dr. Pattabhi said, I do not think there has been any bill so radical and so revolutionary which is trying to change the very foundations of Hindu society, a society which has remained fossilized for the last thousand years. No doubt and it is to that that I want to draw the attention of this House and the members of the Select Committee, the very fact that this society has remained fossilized for the last thousand years and has developed such inertia, such lethargy, in the body politic that all manner and all kinds of forces will come forward to impede the passing of this Bill and passing of any Bill to change the existing structure of Hindu society. It is to this inertia, this lethargy of Hindu society which has probably become its bane, that the members of the Select Committee and the honourable the Law Minister will have to look to, because I have no doubt that until this Bill is passed, to the very last moment every sort of effort, will be made to see that this Bill does not become a law. The changes that are suggested are such that there is a fundamental change in Hindu law. I know mat orthodoxy will try in every way. My honourable friend, Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad was good enough to voice the alarm of a certain section of the orthodox society about the revolutionary nature of this Bill. No doubt, some of the changes suggested appear revolutionary. But as Dr. Pattabhi rightly observed the changes are really not revolutionary. They are due to the fact that for the last so many centuries, Hindu society has not been allowed to evolve. So we have to try to change in a few days what would have been done in centuries. I would, therefore, ask the Members of the Select Committee not to fall a prey to the pressure of what is called the so-called orthodox opinion which is really the opinion of the inertia of so many centuries which does not want anything to change, but after thinking over it for years and years, * C.A. (Leg.) D., Vol. IV, 9th April 1948, pp. 3647-48.