Vol. 14, Part I · pages 611–615

DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL 593 The Honourable Shri K. Santhanam : I am afraid I shall not be able to give way to my Hon. friend from Assam. Sjt. Rohini Kumar Chaudhari : All right, I shall keep quiet. If you want to suffer from the tyranny of women, you suffer. Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order, order. The Honourable Shri K. Santhanam : Sir, much has been said about the so-called sacred institution of joint family. In the mediaeval and ancient times, this so-called joint family might have served a very useful purpose. It is not my business to deny that. But, today, joint family exists only in controversy. I know the peasants ; I have been in the rural areas probably much longer than many of you. I have worked for ten years continuously in the rural areas. I know, Sir, the first thing, when a peasant’s son marries, the peasant does is, to set up a new house, give the son his share in the ancestral land, one acre or half an acre or one-quarter of an acre, and establishes the son as a separate family. Unless this is done, the peasant knows that his family will be disintegrated. In the case of certain very rich people, the so-called joint family may continue with a double system of account keeping for certain purposes, to cheat the Income-tax and for other purposes. Ordinarily, even today, in the middle class families, what happens? One son lives in the village; another son is in Delhi in service in the Government of India; another son is in Madras in some other service; another son does business. What is the meaning of maintaining a joint family and ancestral property ? It is better that they are allowed to partition. Then, if they want voluntarily to come back and live together, let them become a co-operative society, let them become any kind of legal personality suited to modern conditions. To continue the joint family owing to ancestral worship, without regard to the existing circumstances, I think it is sheer coservatism run mad. Shri Brajeshwar Prasad (Bihar : General) : A Daniel come to judgement. The Honourable Shri K. Santhanam : My hon. friend from Bihar is a supreme example of Daniel as he has proved in the constitution making, and I am sure he will prove himself so here. Shri Brajeshwar Prasad : You are also. The Honourable Shri K. Santhanam : I am not giving way. Mr. Deputy Speaker : Let there be no talk across the table. I am exceedingly sorry ; I have been a little indulgent. I find an acrimonious controversy is carried on. So long as there is good humour there is

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES594 no harm. However, the hon. Member must be allowed to go on. He may lose the trend of his thought. Otherwise also it is inconvenient to go on being harassed. Sjt. Rohini Kumar Chaudhari : Mr. Santhanam is in a very good mood. The Honourable Shri K. Santhanam : Because my case is simple and straightforward and I need not get a bad temper or raise all kinds of fantastic bogeys. Let me now come to the next aspect, that is, rationalisation. One point which has evoked the greatest amount of opposition is the daughter’s right to the father’s property. If the old property had remained intact and if property consisted only of agricultural lands, then I can sympathise with those who say that to bring in a foreigner, an outsider into the family may mean great deal of inconvenience. I have already stated that property is moving from immovable property to movable. Dr. P. S. Deshmukh (C. P. and Berar : General): How can it ? All landed property cannot be dissolved. The Hindu Code Bill will not evaporate lands. The Honourable Shri K. Santhanam : So far as the peasant community is concerned, they automatically divide on marriage. If a son-in-law is willing to come and live in the village, I do not see why he should not be allowed. Dr. P. S. Deshmukh : Hereafter, the rule will be divide and rule. The Honourable Shri K. Santhanam : If the sons can divide, the daughter also can divide. In the future property will consist of cash securities and other things. Therefore, there is no reason why the daughter should not have the same right as the son. As a matter of adjustment, I am prepared to throw out one or two ideas. In estimating the share of the married daughters in a family, I think it would not be unfair to set off any amounts which may have been spent for their marriage. In many of the middle class families, the amount spent for the marriages is often equal to if not greater than the share which the daughter may get. I think that would be a fair set off. Similarly, if there is only one dwelling house or if there is only a small extent of agricultural land, I think it will not be unfair to say that so far as the daughter’s share is concerned, she must take her share in the form of cash or other movable property rather than insist on a partition of the house or the immovable property.

DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL 595 Ch. Ranbir Singh (East Punjab : General): Wherefrom to bring that cash ? The Honourable Shri K. Santhanam : If you have a creditor, where will you find the cash ? Is it not possible ? It may be paid in easy annuities or in some such manner. In a harmonious family, adjustment will be easy; in an unharmonious family, courts can find ways and means of adjusting the burden without inequity to any party. Subject to these adjustments, I do not see any rational justification why the daughter should be treated exactly on the same basis as a son. I do not think there will be any kind of hardship. All kinds of bogeys have been raised. After all, the daughter becomes a daughter-in-law. If the daughter gets a share, similarly the daughter in the other house gets a share and therefore in the long run, except for an adjustment of legal rights through the establishment of self respect and social equality between man and woman, the property arrangements will remain much the same; because at present the daughter does not take away from the father’s house; she gets more in her fatherin-law’s house. Hereafter, under the Bill, she will take a little from the father’s house, much less from the father-in-law’s house. In the long run, there will not be much difference in the distribution of property. Only the process will be more satisfactory, and more self-respecting to all the parties concerned. The daughter will feel that she is as good as a brother; that is all. I think that that is a feeling which we ought to encourage in this country. We have removed all social inequalities in policies; we have given the women the same equal franchise as men. Why in point of inheritance and succession alone should we have any kind of stigma based on sex ? I think the sooner we voluntarily give it up, the greater will be the strength of the country. Otherwise, some day or other, on account of the adult franchise, there will be such a vast volume of feeling among the women all over the country that would compel us to make the change. Then, it would be a disgrace to the men of India. It is better you do it now in advance of adult franchise so that we can go to the probably five or six crores of women who will be voters and say, “look here, we have done the right thing before you wanted it; we have given you the votes; we have given you property rights; you are equal to men; there be no more sex conflicts.” The last point I have to deal with is the question of reform. It 3 P.M. is in the field of marriage there is any real attempt at reform. It is partly permissive and partly compulsory. The one

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES596 compulsion is monogamy. I want all my friends and Members of this House to stand up and say whether they approve this reform or not. They have been very prudently silent on this subject and in spite of speaking for three hours, I don’t see why people avoid this subject. Do they want to establish monogamy or not ? Pandit Lakshmi Kanta Maitra : Monogamy is already established. The Honourable Shri K. Santhanam : Some people actually enjoy the luxury of two or more wives, others enjoy mentally the possibility of more wives! Shri H. V. Kamath : What about polyandry ? The Honourable Shri K. Santhanam : Therefore I say this that this is one thing in which the old Aryan tradition had made a profound mistake. It is time that we who consider ourselves to be the glorious descendants of the great Aryans now confess that it was a mistake and correct it rather voluntarily and unanimously. This polygamy must go. But complete and absolute monogamy will also become a legal fiction unless you provide reasonable facilities for divorce in very hard cases. Unless we provide such an outlet, it will bring evil. Smt. Rohini Kumar Chaudhari : Do you agree for the women being prosecuted for adultery ? The Honourable Shri K. Santhanam : I agree to women being subjected to same penalties for the same crimes but probably my hon. friend from Assam has a soft corner for that subject. Monogamy and divorce provisions go together. They must be taken as one co-ordinated law and in this respect this Bill does propose a reform which is not sanctioned by the Shastras but this is a reform. . . . Pandit Govind Malaviya (U. P. : General): Do I understand that the hon. member will oppose monogamy also if divorce is not sanctioned ? The Honourable Shri K. Santhanam : I will support monogamy in any case but I will support it in a rational form rather than in an irrational form. If my friend wants monogamy and at the same time that wherever a husband is impotent or a criminal, there should be no divorce or vice versa, then I think he wants monogamy in an irrational form. I want it in a rational form. That is the difference between us. I will just touch one other aspect. One other great merit of this Bill it takes away all legal sanction from the caste system. We

DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL 597 abolished untouchability in the Constitution. Now we take the social reform further and take away all legal sanction for caste. Here in this Bill whether it is for marriage or for any other purpose, all Hindus from the so called Untouchables upto the so called Acharya Brahmins—all of them are one. Some Honourable Members : Without a caste, who is a Hindu ? The Honourable Shri K. Santhanam : My friend asks “Without a caste, who is a Hindu ?” With the caste, I think, Hindu is a monster according to me. (Hear, hear). In this country we want to establish a Hindu Community without caste. Either we cease to be Hindus altogether or we establish Hinduism without caste. There is no alternative left for us. Shri Lakshminarayan Sahu : Mohammadans also can be called Hindus. The Honourable Shri K. Santhanam : On the day the Muslims accept the Gita and Vedanta, I am prepared to embrace them as Hindus. Shri M. Tirumala Rao : Even Gita refers to caste. Mr. Deputy Speaker : Let there be less of this cross talk. The hon. Member may go on. Each one is trying to persuade the other. The Honourable Shri K. Santhanam : In spite of interruptions I am going to convince some of my friends. My friend Mr. Tirumala Rao says that I am swearing by the Gita. What I am saying is they form the minimum article of faith for all the Hindus. Therefore, if after this Bill, there are no distinctions between Hindus, Muslims and Christians, then it is better for the whole country. We are not proud of keeping alive distinctions which have no meaning or which are irrational. If Muslims also remove all such distinctions which are irrational; if Christians remove all distinctions which are irrational, we shall before long meet on a plane in which we are all one—whatever we may call ourselves. Meanwhile our object both in the Constitution and in this Bill is to see that the majority community in this country are strong, united and have shed all prejudices and practices which have divided it into sects and will become an invincible foundation on which the glory and strength of future India can be built. I am sure that without this Bill and without the changes the Bill advocates, the Hindu community will be a weak, torn and unprogressive community and if the majority of the people continue in that condition we cannot make much of the political and other economic opportunities which the Constitution and God have given us. Therefore I have said