Vol. 14, Part I · pages 631–635

DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL 613 say it, the Japanese said “I am the son of God”. The Chinese Emperor wrote in 1559 to George III a letter that the Chinese potentate comes from God and his territory shall have nothing to do with English commerce or be tainted by foreigners. But forty-nine years later there was a war by the Englishman upon China and the former accepted the opium dealer. Where had the land of the son of God gone then ? Where was that son of God when there was the cannon mouth of the Englishman ? Even the Englishman claims such things, that it is the whiteman’s burden that he has been sent to Africa and India to civilize other human beings; that he has been destined to do so. But such claims are false, as false as it is for us to claim that ours is the only monopoly of truth. I am a Hindu and I am a Brahmin, and I am proud of being a Hindu and Brahmin, but I do not like to claim that the truth is my own monopoly, that the truth came to my ancestors and not to anybody else. If God gave the truth only to my ancestors and to nobody else, then it was unjust, and for the matter of that also foolish to have created other people on this earth. So my only request is—and I make it with all the humility and respect of a Hindu child for the elders— please do not bring in religion, do not count upon culture. Do not say Hindu society will come down. But please accept it on the basis of an intelligent view, a common-sense view, a scientific view, of law as prevailing in the modern world. The law of every country is the outcome and result of the economic and social conditions of the country as well as the expression of its intellectual capacity for dealing with those conditions. Now I come to the next point. We have been for a long time separated from the world as such. As I said there were six civilisations and the Chinese Potentate, the Japanese Emperor, the English King, the Czar of Russia, Babar of India all of them claimed that they came from God, all because. . . . Pandit Lakshmi Kanta Maitra : To what particular clause of the Hindu Code is my Hon. friend referring ? Shri Krishna Chandra Sharma : I am referring to your remarks. Well, as I was saying, they all said they were supreme and they were the most mighty, and that was because they could not understand other people and they had no knowledge of them. Therefore they said, theirs was the best religion. But now with the aeroplanes, through the ships, through literature and the printing press and publication, you have come into contact with all the people of the world. You know other

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES614 people and you understand them. You are influenced by them. Look at the desk of your child and there you will find the works of Bernard Shaw and Shakespeare. You do not find ganga lehri there. But you don’t think the child is not a Hindu because he has only Bernard Shaw and Shakespeare and Pearl Buck on his table. So every thought and action affect and influence all the countries of the world. You cannot have any law whatsoever which is divorced from the influence of others, it has to be dynamic and then it will help the people to a great future. Divorced from that, separated from that, they are weak. So let us have the law on the scientific basis. In times past there might have been prejudices and there might have been different customs, and there might have been any other thing. But today religion is a matter of scientific study. You cannot say that everything you believe is religion. Nobody is going to accept it. Religion is that which takes man from human stage, from the comprehensive human life to the region of Godhood and in raising humanity from humanity to Divinity, there are certain accepted principles from which you cannot escape. So in this twentieth century, neither is everything religion nor is everything culture nor everything the basis of society. There are certain well accepted principles, accepted by the world at large, by the jurists, by the religious teachers and all the great men of the world as the basis of society, as the basis of culture and as the basis religion. Everything that you speak and believe is neither religion, nor culture nor the basis of society. My friend asked me to what I was referring. In Mulla’s Hindu Law the first page deals with castes. It says there are four castes in Hindu Society. The second paragraph deals with whether Kayasthas are Sudras. The third paragraph deals with the question whether Marathas are Sudras or Rajputs. I put it to you in all humility : Is there anything of culture or religion in it ? Religion takes from the universal love to the Divine bliss and culture means light and sweetness. The division of a people into castes is no culture and much less has it anything to do with religion. An Honourable Member : Only agriculture. Shri Krishna Chandra Sharma : Agriculture will give you food; your view is a thing that will bring you down. Now, I shall put to you the sources of Hindu Law. I think my hon. friend is a lawyer and he will appreciate it. The sources of Hindu Law are, the Shrutis, the Smritis, customs having the force of law,

DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL 615 commentaries, and then the judicial decisions of the Privy Council and the High Courts. So far as the Shrutis are concerned, nothing is known about them. I have quoted Jayaswal who is the greatest authority on ancient polity and he is of the view that what is stated in the Smritis is only a codification of the custom and usage prevailing when the Smritis came into existance. The Smritis, as I said, differ on the same point. The commentators are accepted; but they are accepted as authority not because they tell you what the law was, but because they tell you something that must have been in existence. According to the principles of Hindu Law, custom and usage override the written text of the law, and they are to be accepted. Then comes the case law of the Privy Council and of the High Courts. How was this case law made ? Up to 1868, the condition was this. The Hindu Law was administered by English judges with the assistance of Hindu Pundits. The institution of Pundits as official referees of the courts was abolished in the year 1868. Your case law is the result of the English man’s decision with the help of the Pundits. Now, I tell you, when the country is ruled by an aggressor, when the country is ruled by an invader, no self-respecting man much less a learned man, will sit beside him. Therefore, whatever class of Pundits were called, they were demoralised creatures; they were not representative of Hindus. Do you mean to say that you do not want to change the Hindu Law because Hindu Law is something sacred ? What is that Hindu Law ? Decisions of Englishmen given with the help of or at the suggestion of demoralised creatures. That is your Hindu Law. What is the sacredness behind it ? That is my point. You judge this present law on its own merits; judge the present code according to principles of jurisprudence. In accordance with principles a law is judged as necessary and good. Coming to this Code, the first thing that it deals with is marriage and divorce. If you go through the different small Acts passed during the last two or three years, you will find that this is a mere codification and nothing new. You can have the sacramental marriage; you can have the civil marriage. You find Hindus marrying in different castes, even beyond the Hindu fold and they remain Hindu all right; you do not say they are outcastes. Therefore, what is prevailing, what is a fact already, you take as the law. I do not think you are changing anything. With regard to judicial separation and dissolution of marriage, look at the grounds : either party to the marriage was impotent, the

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES616 husband is keeping a woman or a concubine, the other party has ceased to be a Hindu, either party is incurably of unsound mind, either party is suffering from a virulent and incurable form of leprosy. Now, I put you a simple question. Is there anything in any law, in any text of Hindu Shrutis or Smritis which bar these conditions ? I have been looking into the Manu Smriti and I have found nothing repugnant to this. If my hon. friends find anything, they may bring an amendment. I am not against the Smritis and I am only proud of them. I have gone through the texts; I have not been able to find anything in them repugnant to this. If these conditions are in accord with notions of social justice as it is prevalent, I see no reason why you should not accept them. Are you an enemy of women? Are you an enemy of your mother and daughter ? Our mother is a respected being and our daughter is part of our life and blood. Is that not so ? Why then do you raise the cry that this is something which will bring down Hindustan and that the Hindu society will be crushed to pieces. There is nothing in religion, there is nothing in culture, there is nothing on the basis of Hindu society that is against these conditions and repugnant to them. Take the case of adoption. My own feeling is that at this stage of evolution of our society, it is unnecessary and it has no meaning. There is a text in Manu on which this adoption is based : that a son-less father has no region in Heaven. The basis of that text was this. At that time, the Aryans were facing the aboriginal tribes or some people who were non-Aryans. Therefore, they naturally wanted their number to grow. They put it this way. A Hindu has three “ Rinas”: Rina to God, Rina to the Rishis and Rina to the Pitras, that is the race. That is, to carry on the thread of the race. To carry on the thread of the Race was necessary at the time Manu wrote the Smritis. It is not necessary today. Today the cry is not that we have not got children; on the other hand, the cry is that we have not got food and cloth. The fewer we are, the more of these things we will have. Therefore, at this stage, I do not see any reason for adoption. As to going to Heavens, the meaning behind the oblations and all these things was to keep up a spirit of charity in our society. Human society has grown so well and so organised that there is enough scope for charity and social service and generosity in this world rather than giving something to our ancestors who have gone beyond this world. It is better to work in this wide world. That is an institution which has no meaning. The meaning that it had has no application in the present

DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL 617 day society. So far as secular purposes are concerned, that if a son is adopted he will serve the old man or old woman, I think it is of no use. Today, there are so many sick homes, hospitals and other homes. If you have got no property, it is useless to adopt a child and nobody is going to serve you simply because you have adopted him. If you have got property, there are enough institutions to help you in old age. My contention is that this institution of adoption in the present state of our society has no meaning whatsoever. Regarding minors and guardians, I don’t think it has made any departure from the Hindu Law as it is. Regarding law of Succession, I am sorry I have not been able to see much about Succession and I cant’t say with confidence whether the present system of Succession is right or wrong. One thing I will say viz., there is nothing wrong in principle to make a daughter co-heir with the son because under section 3 of the Women’s Property Act, 1937, the mother gets a share along with the son. What objection there is on earth to a daughter inheriting along with the brother ? If mother can inherit along with son, there is no reason why the daughter should not inherit with the brother. Pandit Bhargava raised the objection that the sons-in-law will come and create trouble in the house. If two brothers do not create trouble why should the son-in-law create troubles. Go to Cannaught place and you will find that the fate of the husband is to take the coat of the wife behind and pay the bill; and so how can a husband create trouble when the wife.does not want it. An Honourable Member : That is in Northern India. Shri Krishna Chandra Sharma : That is the evolution of man. The evolution of humanity is like that. Where are your moustaches ? It is an ordinary biological principle that the female cells were developed and separated later and woman was better evolved. She is fairer, more tender and more beautiful. It is the way of progress to go to finer and more beautiful life. If you are otherwise inclined, I think you are less than human. Then I come to the joint Hindu Family. I have looked into authorities on this point and all great authorities agree that Hindu Custom came into existence when the state of Society was pastural. For that it was necessary to have Joint Hindu Family system. At present there are a number of laws by which we have done away with the Joint Hindu Family property conception. This was made at a time when there was not much trade and commerce. A farmer looks to the cow not as