Vol. 14, Part I · pages 546–550

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES528 do so to ?” I may point out that the three systems are entirely different and differ radically in these matters. A Muslim is not free to divorce his wife for practical reasons. He has unrestricted right to divorce, but he has to find the necessary dower money which is usually far beyond his means, because even if it is worth only Rs. 10,000 his dower would be something like Rs. 50,000 or a lakh. It is expressly provided in the Muslim Marriage Law that dower is a check on the Muslim husband’s unrestricted right of divorce. So there is a very effective practical check on every Muslim husband, however, dissatisfied he may be with his wife, against divorcing his wife. In fact this is considered to be a sufficiently deterrent condition to prevent many bold husbands from attempting a divorce. If a Hindu husband is dissatisfied with his ‘wife, we should allow some time for the dissatisfaction to blow away. If you widen the door and make divorce easy, the result will be the parties will rush to Court and benefit the very lawyers who are anathema to a section of the House. Those who have experience of divorce proceedings in Court know what sordid details are narrated there. They are such as should not be heard by any decent man. Adultery is to be proved to the letter otherwise divorce will not be allowed. The unhappiness is so complete in divorced families that divorce is not a panacea for family unhappiness. If the Hindu wife or husband is given the right to rush to court, the effect will be that temporary misunderstandings which may be healed by lapse of time will result in lifelong unhappiness. In attempting to remedy existing problems you will only create many new problems. [At this stage Mr. Speaker vacated the Chair, which was then occupied by Mr. Deputy Speaker (Shri M . Ananthasayanam Ayyangar). ] If resort to Court is provided what will happen is that, the male will take advantage of this provision more than the female. It is sheer nonsense to suggest that an aggrieved woman would get relief in divorce proceedings, as it is very likely that she will be the victim herself. The husband will more often go to Court alleging this and that wrong mentioned in the Bill and get an ex-parte divorce. Those who know our society can imagine what possibility is there for a woman to go to Court and disprove the allegations made against her. Who will defend the case of a woman whom the husband wishes want only to discard? It is the man who will more often rush to Court. Then again, the tendency to rush to Court will be accentuated if the wife is barren and there is a desire to have a son by another marriage. Now,

DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL 529 supposing a man gets divorce against his wife, what will happen to the woman ? Where would she go ? After being divorced, she would be without a husband, and without moral and physical means of livelihood ? Who would befriend that woman ? The sponsors of the Bill ? I do not think they will come forward. Would she go to her brother ? No. Has she not antagonised the brother by taking a share of the family property for the benefit of the husband who has discarded her? The result will be that her father’s relations will be entirely apathetic to her sorrows. Then how will she maintain herself? The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : She will marry Naziruddin Ahmad. Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : I do not think, Sir, that any divorced woman, with any sense of taste in her, would select me. I think the honourable Minister would be a better selection. Mr. Deputy Speaker : God forbid that any such thing should happen. Let us not make personal references. Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : It was not meant to be heard seriously by the Chair. Mr. Deputy Speaker : But I am serious. The honourable Member invited that remark by the Honourable Minister when he asked : ‘Where is that woman to go’ ? The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : As he was expressing so much commiseration, I suggested that for the benefit of his own mind. Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : I did not resent it. I fully enjoyed the joke. But jokes apart, I ask seriously and again, where she is to go ? Take the case of a divorced European woman. She has resources. She is educated. She can get a job. She can be a shorthand-typist. She can get a job in one of our Embassies and can get a free lift in a plane and a pay as well as allowances. Such women are absolutely free. They can make friends with strangers. They are trained and accustomed to rely on themselves. So a civilised European woman can stand on her own legs and her position is different from that of our women, not the advanced fashionable ones but poor unfriended woman discarded by the husband and fathers’ relations. It is not easy, as the Law Minister jocosely said, for a divorced woman to get a husband; even if she is willing a suitable husband is not to be readily available. So her position would be extremely difficult and such women would be the worst victims of the

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES530 system of divorce. Then allegations in Court would be too serious to be thought of. Proceedings in Court in such cases are sordid in the extreme and it would be impossible for us, in the present state of our society, to allow the husband and wife to rush to Court. Then there is another aspect. There are among tribal and other people a kind of customary divorce which involves very simple formalities. They get divorced very cheaply and expeditiously but if they are forced to go to Court it will mean that they could not do it for financial and other reasons and divorce, which they can get easily according to their own custom, will be forbidden to them. You want to complicate matters when you want to achieve uniformity. The law may be the theoretically uniform but it will work hard against the poorer people. In the name of easy divorce people will rush to Court when time would have effected a reconciliation; domestic happiness will be shattered and the parties and society will then repent for ever. To impose this artificial law upon the simple ways of living of these poor people would be very hard; it will make things costly; every decree would have to be supported by a decision of the High Court and it would be a costly affair. Instead of all this I submit the parties should be left to themselves. To introduce divorce in this way, making the same for all classes of people in different stages of civilisation and training would be highly mischievous. It is customary for people here to quote Sanskrit slokas to support or strengthen their arguments. I will also attempt one. “Aja juddhe, krishin sradhhe, prabhate megharambarah, Dampati kalahaschaiba, babharambhe laghukriah.” When two goats fight, they stand on their hind legs and a severe impact of the horns seems imminent, but the actual clash is very slight; when a million rishis meet for a sradh with great ceremony, only a minute quantity of food suffices the thunder clap of the morning cloud looks menacing, but it ends in no heavy rain; and marital quarrels, though seriously and menacingly begun, end in nothing serious. In Domestic quarrels natural and social forces should be allowed to work to bring about reconciliation. Instead of divorce you should give them time. The question of divorce is not all one way traffic. It has got to be considered from every point of view. The Honourable the Law Minister advanced a very novel argument that as 90 per cent of the people are sudras and these 90 per cent, of the people practise divorce, it is just meet and proper that the law of the majority should be made also applicable

DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL 531 to the remaining 10 per cent. This is not legal logic. It is not acceptable. The Muslims are microscopic minority in India. Should that be a reason for converting all the Muslims into Hindus or imposing upon them the laws of the Hindus and to cremate their dead bodies, for example, according to the Hindu custom ? Or take the other example. The Hindus are in a minority in Pakistan. Would the Hindus call it justice if the Muslim law is forced upon them—if according to the customs of the majority the Hindus are made to bury their dead ? Therefore, the argument of the majority is nothing. With regard to the statement that 90 per cent of the people have their system of divorce, the Hindu of Madras, in an editorial, said that so far as Madras is concerned it is a “damn lie” or something of the sort and that it is entirely inapplicable to the Scheduled Classes or the Sudras in Madras. May I now speak from my experience in Bengal. There are many distinguished Members from Bengal, particularly Pandit Maitra. He will correct me if I am wrong. Is it the custom amongst the 90 per cent Sudras in Bangal to............... Pandit Lakshmi Kanta Maitra : That is sheer nonsense ! An Honourable Member : He is not a Sudra ? The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Maitra, a Sudra ? Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : We live amongst them. Is it customary among the majority of the Sudras to resort to divorce ? Babu Ramnarayan Singh : In some cases. Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : Certainly. But that does not make it the rule of the 90 per cent Sudras. Some Assam Members whisper from behind that it is, I hope Assam grows tea and also divorce ! But Bengal produces tea without divorce. I submit Sir, that the argument of the majority is based on a mistaken notion. The facts are not true. It may be that in Bombay it is very prevalent and for that reason the Honourable the Law Minister might have been impressed with the applicability of the theory in other parts of India. Therefore, the assertion that 90 per cent of the people accept divorce is not based on facts, and even if it was true, that should not be made applicable to those who do not observe that system. That argument would fail and should not be used to support the result. A system of straight divorce or an uniform divorce, though a uniform procedure and rule would produce hardship in those cases where a simple form of divorce is prevalent by custom, and would

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES532 produce unhappiness and disruption in families where divorce is not prevalent. In these days of easy approach to the law Courts, it would be the wealthy classes that would seek the so-called advantages of this procedure rather than the poorer classes. Therefore, divorce, if it is to be provided, must be provided with the consent of the people. At any rate the second marriage may be permitted with the consent of the first wife under special circumstances. Polygamy is fast dying out and should not be stepped by legislation. This may lead to divorce proceedings, or a man may cross over to Pakistan or to Burma, or to Malaya or to other places and take a second wife and come back. So if society is not sufficiently advanced and educated and sufficiently alive to the need of monogamy and divorce, a provision of this nature would not be accepted by them and would lead to evasions in many cases. Court proceedings should not therefore be encouraged. Again, if divorce proceedings are frequent, it will lead to considerable amount of unhappiness. Shri Khurshed Lal (Deputy Minister of Communications): May I know if divorce is so bad, then would the honourable Member support the abolition of divorce in Muslim law ? Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : Although a Member of the Select Committee, the honourable Member was absent from the House when this matter was argued earlier. I think the honourable Member should concern himself more with further increase in the rate on postcards than intervening in the debate in a scrappy manner. This matter has already been very elaborately argued out in the absence of the honourable Member. Shri Khurshed Lal : Is ‘postcards’ relevant in this ? Mr. Deputy Speaker : It is better that we divorce ourselves from ‘postcards’! Shri Ramnath Goenka (Madras : General): I think you should move for changing the Shariat Law ! Mr. Deputy Speaker : Let there be no personal remarks. One remark of such a nature always leads to another. Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : Removal of the Shariat Law would interfere with the existing law. The introduction of monogamy and divorce among the Hindus would be an interference with the existing law. Therein lies the difference between the two. In fact you must not readily interfere with accepted law and therefore the analogy of the Muslim law should not be applied.