Vol. 14, Part I · pages 621–625

DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL 603 educated women of the country. We have also accepted that equality in our Constitution. So, superficially looked at, it strikes one as to why there should be any difference between a son and a daughter in the matter of inheritance. But the question is not such a simple one. A father’s desire for the wellbeing of a son or daughter cannot be different. Naturally his love and affection is bound to be equal. No sensible man can think that the son should get everything and the daughter nothing. In fact that has not happened. Reference was made that even in the middle-class families,—leave aside the rich, they are very few in number—the father spends much more on the marriage of the daughter than what his son could ever hope of getting, in many cases even at the cost of the education of his sons. I say ‘in many cases’. That is my reading of the matter. Why then is there opposition in regard to inheritance ? Even the Sanatanist loves his daughter as much as his son. We cannot say that Sanatanists make a difference in this respect. The opposition is due to an important factor for considering which we must look to the whole structure of our Hindu society. A reference was made by my hon. friend Pandit Mukut Bihari Lal Bhargava in this respect. I would like to elaborate that point a little in as short a time as I can. The whole structure of our Hindu society is evolved through centuries and centuries of time. In the structure of our society the basic unit is the family. And on the continuity of that family as a unit rested naturally the stability of our society. It is not based on an individual as unit, but more or less the basis of the whole structure is the family as a unit. And the continuity of the family was naturally the main object with which all our laws and customs have been evolved from time to time. The pivot therefore was the continuity of the family which was the unit of the structure. Daughters naturally by marriage pass into a different family while the sons remain in the family to continue it. To foster the continuity and to prevent its being broken up, the joint family system was evolved. Why was the joint family system a peculiar feature of Hindu society ? Because Hindu society is based on the continuity of the family. That is why the joint family system is a peculiar institution of Hindu Law not known to other systems of law which are more or less based on individuals. Till only a generation or two back the joint family system worked well. It has maintained the continuity and stability of our social structure for centuries past. That is why there is objection to the

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES604 throwing open of inheritance to the daughter. That objection is not for political or social reasons but because if you open the inheritance to a daughter the result is that the whole social structure based on the joint family system will be broken. The trend in the modern world is towards individualism. The joint family system is cracking in many places. I would go to the length of saying that the joint family system would not continue for all time under modern conditions. But as it is there, the question is whether we shall gradually replace it by the individual as the basis of our society or whether we shall break it up by law as is proposed to be done by this measure. If we want to break up the Hindu society suddenly, then I am afraid we shall be rocking and shaking the foundations of that society which may result in consequences unforeseen and unpredictable. The danger involved is not the mere opening of inheritance to daughters but the fact that by that opening up of inheritance the whole basis of society is involved. Hence the opposition. If only we try by an evolutionary process to help in the process of disintegration of the family which has already started owing to various economic and social causes, the same results as are aimed at will be achieved but not suddenly and abruptly. There is a clause in the Bill which says clearly that from the date of the commencement of the Code the whole joint family system as such will disappear. You are trying to do it suddenly and to my mind that is sure to rock the very foundations of the society which has been based for centuries past on the joint family as a unit of society. I would appeal to my enthusiastic reformer friends that while I am one with them, that this system no doubt has to be changed, and that as the world stands today no one will be able to resist it for too long, while that is so the question is whether we shall do it gradually, whether we shall carry the people with us and go as far as they come with us, or as far as we can drag them with us, or on the other hand whether we shall suddenly, by a stroke of the pen and by legislation, say that all this joint family system is destroyed. Even in these days when owing to abnormal circumstances people are worried by so many problems, this question is attracting their attention and therefore any abrupt action is likely to result in a state of affairs which is desirable neither to the reformers nor to the others. I agree we can’t remain stagnant. The Hindu society has undergone so many changes in the past but by a different process altogether. If we try to force the events which must happen gradually, I am sure the result is not going to be very happy.

DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL 605 Sir, I am surprised at one thing. Here we are trying to preserve adoption. I don’t know for what purpose. Adoption is a thing which is peculiar to Hindu law. In other societies also children are adopted but not for the purpose of continuing the family, only to satisfy the natural craving in any human being to have children and to rear them. I am told that in America and England also people do adopt children but there the object of adoption is different. The adoption as envisaged in the present system of Hindu law is peculiar and it is so because the Hindu structure of the joint family is based on the continuity of that joint family. But after the break up of the joint family in the way you are trying to do by this legislation, what is the necessity for making a provision for adoption? Look at it from a different view. Why was adoption a peculiar feature of Hindu society ? Because the main feature of the Hindu society was the basis of the joint family and its continuity required adoption. With the breaking up of the joint family and the coming of individualism, I don’t see why we should waste our time on trying to preserve adoption. I am certainly against adoption. Even in the case of adoptions that now take place, 99 cases out of 100 result in litigation in courts because the whole idea has undergone a change. The widow adopts a child thinking that the boy adopted might be useful to her in managing her property and affairs free of charge. The boy thinks that by adoption he will get something from the person who adopts him for nothing. So, at present adoption takes place purely from a motive of selfinterest; adoption as conceived in the olden days is disappearing. As a lawyer of some standing and experience, I have found that in 99 out of 100 cases of adoption the result has been litigation because the original idea underlying adoption has undergone a change. But now with the coming into force of the provisions of this Bill the whole joint family system will disappear, the individualistic society as in other parts of the world will come and it is therefore not necessary to make any provision regarding adoption. It would be confusing to do so. If we are consistent and logical in what we are doing, we should do away with adoption altogether. I have now to refer to marriage and divorce. A point was raised by the Hon. member Mr. Santhanam who asked everyone whether they were against or in favour of monogamy. I would say that monogamy is absolutely necessary in these days. I don’t think there is any member in this house who is opposed to it. But is the Hindu

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES606 Code Bill necessary for that purpose ? We have got a measure in the Bombay Province by which, so far as that Province is concerned, there is monogamy and as a natural corollary to it divorce in certain cases is allowed. We have not gone further than that measure in these matters. If the only object is to ordain monogamy then I say there can be no objection to it, for, apart from ideological reasons there are practical reasons also in its favour. Nobody now wants to have more than one wife. There are very few excepting a few millionaires and multimillionaires who can afford to have that luxury; others can’t have it. It is not even a mental luxury as suggested by the hon. Mr. Santhanam for the simple reason that one cannot manage without anxiety even with one wife and her children. What mental luxury can a man derive by the idea of being able to marry another wife under these circumstances ? As a matter of fact, it is quite simple proposition and I think both sides would agree that monogamy must be the rule. But let us not try to confuse the real issue regarding divorce. As soon as you have monogamy the result is that supposing one of the mates is a leper you have to make arrangements to see that the other is relieved from that liability or else you will be denying him the conjugal right. In some respects divorce is a corollary of monogamy. Even Manu, the great law giver, has provided for such cases. u"Vs e‘rs izozftrs Dyhcs p ifrrs irkS iapRlq vkiRlq lqukjh.kk ifrjU;ks fo/h;rsA But the main point so far I am concerned is that whether you lay down monogamy by law or not it is going to be the rule with at least 9,999 out of 10,000 people. So that question need not agitate our minds at all. Sir, apart from all these considerations, there is one last point. A uniform Civil Code must be our endeavour according to article 44 of the Constitution which we have already passed. We have incorporated a Directive Principle in our Constitution that the State shall endeavour to secure a uniform Civil Code throughout the territory of India. I would like you seriously to consider whether by enacting a measure like this only for the Hindus we are advancing the cause of our progress towards that ideal. I should think that we are going backward rather than forward. My hon. friend Mr. Santhanam seemed to think that after the passing of that article 44, we are trying to progress towards that ideal by this measure intended to weld Hindus into one. It may or it may not be so. What is to be welded in the interests of the security of our nation is not the welding of Hindus alone but all the citizens of this country. All the inhabitants of India

DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL 607 should be welded into one. Marriage, inheritance etc. form part of civil codes of all the countries world over. They must do so in India also. That Code should apply to all citizens whether they be Hindus, Christians or Parsis or Muslims. From that point of view, we are going exactly in the opposite direction. I tell you why. The shibboleth of no interference in religious or semi-religious matters was the creation of a foreign government. It was imposed upon us in their interests and not in our interets. What is there today to prevent us from including all these things in a uniform Civil Code ? The present Hindu Code was conceived under different circumstances, and at a time when there was no ideal of having a uniform Civil Code. But since then, things have changed enormously and especially after Pakistan, it should be our endeavour to bring closer all the different elements in the country, be they Hindus, Christians, Muslims or Parsis. I do not want that anything should be done for Hindus alone in such matters. We have already decided upon joint elections for welding all the people of our country into one. One uniform Civil Code will further bring all the people together. That is the process which we must follow and which demands the attention and interest of all of us. We must give up this idea that we cannot interfere in the laws of inheritance and other social matters of persons belonging to other religions. That idea must go. At the present moment,instead of building one well-knit society, we want to stick to the old thing which was conceived at a time when the aim was to keep us apart. Now the idea is different. The security and well-being of our people demands the enactment of a uniform Civil Code. I do not care whether I offend the susceptibilities of some orthodox friends when I say this, but I am quite frank and open. If things are to be done, they must be done in the right way. We cannot partly stick to the old things and partly bring in new things. In this connection, I can mention that a, uniform Civil Code is in operation in Goa. The Law minister himself probably knows that. The laws of inheritance etc. are applicable to Christians, Hindus, Muslims and everybody alike in that part of India under the Portuguese. If that is so, why should we be afraid ? Our fear is the result of what we have inherited from the past—this shibboleth, I said, of noninterference in religious or semi-religious matters. But that was done by the British for their own purposes, because they wanted to keep us apart. Now our ideal is to unite all our people in the nation. What we ought to do is instead of proceeding with a Bill of this nature,