Vol. 14, Part I · pages 626–630

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES608 our Law Minister should, immediately after the 26th of January 1950, bring forward a uniform Civil Code applicable to all people throughout India. I know my enthusiastic sister Members thought when I rose to speak that I was an opponent of this Bill. Let me hasten to add that I am entirely for equality and all those things. But this is not the way in which we should do it, by destroying one thing and creating difficulties in another. For the sake of a uniform Civil Code, we can go and tell our Hindu friends that the joint Hindu family must go, that it is necessary in the interests of the nation. But what we are doing is in the opposite direction. I am afraid it will lead to very undesirable and unforeseen consequences. I will just cite an example. In Ahemadnagar City in Bombay province, a young Hindu widow wanted to marry a Muslim. I do not know whether it was a love affair or what it was. But she wanted to marry a Muslim. As you know, those days we were passing through critical times. There was a lot of trouble. There were riots and some lives were lost. So this Muslim gentleman got afraid not only for the sake of his own safety but the safety of his community. He said I do not want to marry or do anything of the kind. She could not marry without conversion to Islam as the Muslim gentleman had already wife and children. She could marry only if she converted herself into a Muslim. In the Province of Bombay we have also enacted a measure which prevents a Hindu from marrying more than one wife at a time but does not prevent Muslims from doing so. By the present Bill also you are giving the exclusive right to a Muslim to have as many wives as he likes or at any rate up to four. Now what happens is, if a man,—a very wealthy man— wants to marry another wife, he can get himself converted into a Muslim and he can have as many wives as he likes. Considered from all points of view, the interests of our country demand that hereafter at any rate we should strive to achieve a uniform Civil Code for all people. That is what is happening all over the world. As I pointed out before, such a code exists even in a Portuguese territory in India viz. Goa. The present Hindu Code is an artificially engineered device of the former rulers, when they tried to keep us apart. We must try to get out of that rut. We must endeavour to form a well-knit, uniform society. We want to form a single State, not based on religious tenets, whether they be Hindu or Muslim or any other, but a truly secular State. For this a uniform Civil Code is absolutely necessary. I therefore suggest that this Bill should not be proceeded with. It will serve no purpose. Therefore, I appeal to my hon. friend

DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL 609 the Law Minister to withdraw this Bill, bring forward a uniform Civil Code regarding the matters covered by this Bill applicable to all citizens alike whether they are Hindus, Christians, Muslims, Parsis, Jews or others. * Shri Ram Sahai (Madhya Bharat): ( English translation of the Hindi speech.) Sir, while welcoming this Bill at the time it was being referred to the Select Committee, I had submitted that the Members of the Select Committee should consider some of its features which are at variance with the modern culture and civilization which we profess these days. But I note they have paid no particular attention to that. Only yesterday we have come to know that once more, a Committee is going to be set up in this connection. For this reason alone, I stand here to take a little time of the House. I am not opposed to this Bill. I seek only to bring in certain amendments which may accommodate to some extent the views of those who are opposed to it and that is the only consideration which has guided me to stand here to take a few minutes of the House. The hon. Mr. Santhanam, I have to submit, had observed that through this Bill we were going to discard all caste distinctions and thus marching towards integration. I agree that such an idea and a Bill of this type is worthy of our welcome and, as such, must be welcomed. In my opinion nobody need object if it becomes possible to have inter-caste marriges, adoption and develop other family relations with one another. But, in this regard, I feel a little difficulty which I intend to place before the House. This is over the succession issue. The custom of inheritance, no doubt, prevails and is practised at many places while in some a similar custom is being introduced in the Hindu Society. But considering its general set-up, it seems to me and I am of the opinion that ultimately this won’t prove to be a good thing. My opinion is not based on any desire to withhold daughters’ rights or deny equal rights to women and for the matter of that to treat them on a different footing. I emphatically disclaim any such motive. I doubt only if the idea can be made a workable one in a suitable way in he general set-up of our society in which we are living at present and which has been followed by us for so long. For instance, I want to say one word in connection with the right of inheritance. Herein share on equal basis has been conceded to daughters. I have no objection even if * C.A. (Leg.) D., Vol. VI, Part II, 12th December 1949, pp. 496-98.

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES610 they are given a greater share. I want only to place before the house a few things in connection with some possible difficulties which may arise in future whenever such a problem comes up. At present girls enjoy a status in the Hindu Society which none else enjoys. Consciously or unconsciously we have tampered with the social regulations for the worse and now have to bring up this Bill as a repenting and a compensating measure. This is certainly our misfortune. Despite this I will assert that there is much scope left for reformation. To me no Hindu father can ever desire to mete out a prejudiced treatment to his daughter, rather he wishes to give away more and more to her. Babu Ramnarayan Singh (Bihar : General): It is correct to a large extent. Shri Ram Sahai : He wishes to marry her in the house of a man placed better than himself. Not to speak of the father only, I am in a position to assert that even no Hindu brother can desire not to marry his sister in a more fortunate family. There may be found an exception in thousands or lacs of cases. But I think that such an instance is almost non-existent. I fail to understand why then the issue of parity between sons and daughters in the matter of inheritance is made to confront us. I say so as we have before us the quarrels among the brothers over the division of property in the middle-class of our people. The daughter is given her share in the other family. But should she think of having a share in his father’s property also; in my opinion it is certain to lead to disruption in our social structure. Out of this consideration I have come before the House to make these observations. In my opinion such a course is bound to impair the affection between a brother and sister to some extent. When disruption is possible among the brothers with a common family-link over the division of property, surely more serious quarrels will arise with daughter living in a different family. When such quarrels can arise among brothers who have a common bond of love in between themselves, there shall be none in the house where the daughter goes who can maintain that affectionate regard. There shall be, on the contrary, persons who will incite and thus pave way for litigation. I don’t at all follow why we should take recourse to a thing having full consciousness of its being pregnant with possibilities of disruption of our social structure. Likewise I would like to say something as regards the the Hindu joint family. We have recognised to set up co-operative societies and invite people’s co-operation to spread this idea in the country. Why

DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL 611 then we are anxious to do away with the joint family system which is based on principle of co-operation. Keeping these two things in view there should be some such provision which can meet them both. In my opinion the reason for restlessness prevailing in some sections of the public and the provision that makes this measure controversial is mainly the issue of succession. If somehow we can meet the point of succession we can then proceed with its proper consideration and pass this Code unanimously. Taking no more time of the House, I will submit only that the Members who are likely to be appointed to the Committee should conduct their deliberations keeping this difficulty in view, not because a daughter should get no share in her father’s property but to see that it does not disrupt our social system any way. There is another point of controversy that strikes me. I may be wrong but so far as I have pondered, it seeems to me that taking an individual case of a son and a daughter, whereas a son is entitled to a share in the property of his parents only according to this Bill, a daughter enjoys a share in her father-in-law’s property as well. I do not see any reason for this disparity. I fail to understand why such a provision has been made therein. The Hon. the Minister of Law may kindly throw some light on this aspect while replying to the Debate as to what consideration has led for the inclusion of such a thing. Taking no more time of the House, I will submit only this much. * Shri Krishna Chandra Sharma (U. P. : General): Sir, I have been very attentively listening to the debate. I have very great respect for the views expressed by my elders, particularly Pandit Thakur das Bhargava and Pandit Lakshmi Kanta Maitra. I have been looking for support for their contention that the Hindu Code Bill interferes with our culture and civilisation and if it is placed on the Statute Book the whole fabric of our society will go down and there would be undue and improper interference with our religious institutions and our cultural background. To my misfortune I have not been able to find anything of that sort. There is nothing with regard to this Code which interferes with our religion in any matter whatsoever. Whether the Code is good or bad is another question. But the proposed Bill has nothing whatever to do with Hindu religion and as such if it is passed the Hindu religion remains as good or as bad as it is without it. *C.A. (Leg.) D., Vol. VI, Part II, 12th December 1949, pp. 498-502.

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES612 The second is the question of culture. The question is whether a house belongs to A or B, it may belong to Ramkumar and Krishnakumar, and 4 P.M. if you just include Vimalkumari also, that is not going to affectHindu culture. I want my friends before interrupting me, to understand the basis of culture. No culture is culture unless it has any function with a view to the development and evolution of society. If culture is merely static, then it cannot last, and if Hindu culture had been static, it would never have been stable, and it would not have lasted so long. Culture must have some function connected with evolution, it must have something to do with a society as it is evolving. Let us understand this before crying that culture is in danger. Culture and religion and the present Hindu society or Hindu law and even the Hindu religion are not the same as they were in the Vedic times. Do you want us to believe that the Greeks came here and the Romans came here, their penetrations were there and yet we remained blindly static ? Had we no heart, no mind and no receptivity whatsoever ? Because of the receptivity and ability to evolve, the greatness has been preserved; if we had not this receptivity, we would not have existed so long. That is my reply. So I say, let us take a rational course, take an intelligent view of the thing, a scientific view of the thing. Hindu law as it was in the Smriti was only a codification of the customs and usages prevailing before the Smriti writers came. There are lots of Smritis and they differ on various points and on the same point different writers have different views. And the Privy Council has said that even if they differ from each other, their commentary is to be accepted, not because it is based on the Smriti, not because it is based on truth, not because it has come down from the Vedas, but because if it is recorded in the Smriti, it must have been the usage or custom of the time before the Smriti. According to the view of Hindu law, a custom overrides the written law, the written text of law. Now, taking this view, I ask you seriously whether this is any question of religion, whether it is a question of culture, whether Hindu society will fall down by including Vimala along with Ramkumar and Krishnakumar ? Therefore, do not bring in religion in this question. Do not bring in culture, do not bring in other things and say that Hindu society will fall down. I say Hindu society has never been so weak, Hindu culture has never been so weak, nor Hindu religion, that it will fall down, if this Act or that Act is passed. It is too strong for that. And then again, it is not our claim alone that we have come from God. There have been six great civilisations and every great civilisation claims that it has come from God. The Muslims say it, the Christians