Vol. 14, Part I · pages 641–645

DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL 623 Clauses 86, 87 and 88 will show that none of them could be made applicable for the tenancy-in-common being introduced into the joint families that exist in Malabar. With respect to inheritance, I do not know why mother should not be made an heir along with son and daughter. Suppose a man dies—suppose I die. My natural love and affection induce me to see my mother who has brought me up and who has taken interest in me all through my life, an heir to my property. Here what I find is that the mother has been omitted in Clause I. My second complaint is why the son of a predeceased son or the son of a predeceased son’s son ought to be introduced in Class I. He ought to come in Class II. It is revolting to us to make them preferential heirs in Class I. If you ask anyone in Malabar as to whether he would like his property to go to his son’s predeceased son’s son, or his son’s son even, or to his sister or sister’s children, he will certainly say that even in preference to his brother it should go to his sister and sister’s children. So I say that the rank given to sister and her children in Class II of the Seventh Schedule ought to be raised than what has been given there. Sister and sister’s children come very low; in Schedule VII, they come only after son’s daughter’s son, son’s son’s daughter, son’s daughter’s daughter. It is after all these persons that we find even brother and sister appearing as heirs. I do not know why promotion ought not to be given to brother and sister who were born of the same womb. Natural love and affection should certainly induce us to give brother and sister a higher rank than what has been given to them under the provisions relating to inheriance. [At this stage Mr. Deputy Speaker vacated the Chair, which was then occupied by Shrimati G. Durgabai (one of the Panel of Chairmen)]. Looking at the question from all these points of view, it will be seen that the whole Bill has been locked at only from the law that is prevailing in the other parts of the country than Malabar—which no doubt is certainly followed by the largest number of people—but the matriarchal system of law has not at all been taken into consideration in framing this Bill. Therefore I feel that this Bill is not sufficiently progressive either with respect to the rights of women, which we all desire so much to be given to them, or from the general point of view. We are very anxious to be brought within the scope of this Bill. We do want uniformity. I am one of those who wish, and the people

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES624 of my part of the country also want to see, that there is one uniform law existing for all the Hindus in the country. But at the same time it should not be made so revolting or made impossible for my people to follow the law, or even if they do so to do it with a certain amount of reluctance. It ought to be made attractive. My submission is that in framing the law the matriarchal system of law has also to be taken into consideration. I submit that proper amendments might be introduced to attract us also to come within the scope of the Bill. If for any reason the two systems are so divergent that it is impossible to introduce amendments in the Bill so as to attract us also within the scope of the Bill, my appeal to the House is that we may be left alone, that we may be allowed to follow our own law which stands on a higher footing of love and affection than the Hindu Code Bill that has now been introduced in this House. According to me this Hindu Code Bill is not a secular measure, it is not a rational measure ; religion still pervades throughout the Bill. The Bill ought to be entirely a rational one. I would have had no objection if the whole Bill had been framed from a natural outlook, an outlook entirely divorced from religion. If a Bill like that is introduced, our people would be too glad to follow it. What we notice is that the Bill as it is framed now is religious still to a high degree; though it has been watered down, it is not yet sufficiently secular. I don’t know why in marriage, adoption and inheritance, religion ought to interevene, why the provisions relating to them ought not to be made more secular as they prevail today in our part of the country. There is no reason why we who follow a system which has nothing to do in all these mundane matters with religion, should be roped into this Bill in which religion plays a prominent part. *Mr. Chairman : There are only ten minutes left. I want to know if any of the Members will finish his speech in ten minutes. Some Honourable Members rose— Shri Sita Ram S. Jajoo (Madhya Bharat): Madam, I will finish my speech within ten minutes. At the outset I want to make it clear that I am wholeheartedly in support of the present Hindu Code Bill. It is with a hesitant heart that I am standing here because I feel that almost all the Members belonging to the older generation were speaking against the Hindu Code Bill. I don’t challange their hearts, but so far as the Hindu Code Bill is concerned their hearts seem to be older or staler. * C.A. (Leg.) D., Vol. VI, Part II, 12th December 1949, pp. 506-508.

DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL 625 Shri M. Tirumala Rao : May I say that ladies of the older generation also are supporting you ? Shri Sita Ram S. Jajoo : Yes, because they are progressive, because they want to progress. In the words of my friend Mr. Krishna Chandra Sharma, they are more progressive and going forward whereas the men are going backward. Any way, I am concerned with the Hindu Code Bill as it stands today. Madam, I would not have spoken but for the fact that I can represent the views of the younger generation here, and I can confidently say that the younger generation in the country stands by the Hindu Code. Much ado has been made about the fact that this Bill has not been circulated for public opinion in the Indian States. I want to say that there have been many Bills which we have passed in this House, but at that time nobody raised his little finger and said that those Bills were not circulated for eliciting public opinion in the Indian States. Some Honourable Members : But this is such a controversial Bill. Shri Sita Ram S. Jajoo : There have been so many controversial Bills. The question of Sirohi was most controversial but the States people were not consulted on it. Shri Gokulbhai Daulatram Bhatt (Bombay States): Madam, there was no Bill connected with Sirohi. Mr. Chairman : May I request hon. Members to allow the speaker to go on uniterrupted ? Sardar Hukam Singh : Is it not for the elders to correct if the younger generation goes astray ? Shri Sita Ram S. Jajoo : They are definitely in their rigits to control and guide the younger generation, but that must be towards progress, it should not be a retrogade step. An Honourable Member : Our experience extends upto 80 years. Shri Sita Ram S. Jajoo : The experience of 80 years may be there ; but the experience of the Father of the Nation, Mahatma Gandhi, is also there. There are volumes of books containing the articles by him from time to time in favour of the elevation of the Hindu women. And so far as the Hindu Code is concerned, I have heard from many of the staunch opponents that they won’t mind if the whole Code is passed excepting the provision regarding inheritance and the sharing with daughters and sisters. It has been opposed mostly by the community, to which I also belong, the Marwari community. But I

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES626 say that the Marwari youths are for the Hindu Code Bill. If we say that the older people are there and their experience is there, Mahatma Gandhi in his autobiography has written that it is a most pitiable sight to see the Hindu wife .... Pandit Mukut Bihari Lal Bhargava : You can’t exploit Mahatma Gandhi’s name. Shri Sita Ram S. Jajoo : Perhaps you might have exploited his name much more than what I have done. I have just started my life and I had no opportunity of swearing by the Mahatma’s name whereas among people who are old and who have got grey hair there might be some who might have exploited his name hundreds of times. Madam, Mahatma Gandhi writes that so far as the position of Hindu wives is concerned, it is most pitiable. He says that if the master is annoyed with a servant, the servant may leave his master, if one is annoyed with one’s father he can’t demand partition, if a father is annoyed with his son he can ask him to get out, but so far as the Hindu wives are concerned they cannot go anywhere. If that was the case with Kasturba at the hands of the Mahatma, what would be the position of women at the hands of ordinary human beings like us ? So far as the Constitution is concerned, we have agreed that there is equality of sex, but here we are afraid of granting that equality to our women folk, to our sisters and daughters. You can adopt a boy from a family simply because he also happens to have the same Gotra or the same surname, but you are not prepared to tolerate your own daughter or your blood sister simply because she happens to be a female. That is the position. Much ado has been made about the Bill by saying that it is an insult on the Hindu religion. I want to ask this of my friends. The Hindu religion is very adjusting and accommodating. It has adopted itself to changing circumstances from times immemorial. The very fact that there are 137 or 138 Smritis is evident to this statement. If there was a fixed law and no change suggested or expected in the Hindu law, then why are there 138 Smritis ? And why we cannot have one more Smriti, codify and have a new Hindu law ? We can have in it all the good things of those Smritis together with all the good things which the modern times and the scientific developments and the social progress demand. What is the harm if we codify all these into one law ? The very word Smriti indicates whatever is written from memory, the word Shruti indicates whatever is heard and written.

DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL 627 It is nowhere stated that they were written by a particular Rishi or a particualr Muni. So, I don’t think there should be any hesitation in having this Code nor should anybody feel that his conscience will be killed if this Hindu Code is enacted. We have always been speaking from the political platform about freedom. Political freedom has been achieved. We have achieved independence but we have also to see . that the social evolution of the country also takes place. If we want the social order to change, I say this is the time for it. We have to prove it by our actions, not by words. We must see that the whole social order is changed. As regards reform, I may say that even the late Raja Ram Mohan Roy had to face opposition, many other reformers had to meet with opposition, some of them died an unnatural death at the hands of their opponents whom they wanted to help, whom they wanted to elevate and to whom they wanted to bring salvation. Here we have got our leaders who are certainly with us. After the Prime minister’s speech on the opening day of the session, I don’t think there is anything for arguing here or for fighting over this issue when he said that he was for the greatest common measure of agreement if it could be arrived at. If we are prepared to have a compromise with others then I feel this will not become a progressive measure, it will lose its charm. But still I have more faith in the wisdom of our Prime Minister. I feel he is much more wise than I can be or my young friends can be. I have faith in him. If he wants compromise, or if the Government wants compromise, let there be compromise, but so far as young people are concerned, we do not like the compromise. But we certainly have faith in our leaders and we shall obey their commands. Pandit Lakshmi Kanta Maitra : But none of them are here. Shri Sita Ram S. Jajoo : If they are not here, the Hon. Dr. Ambedkar is here. He is the sponsor of the Bill and he is doing it on behalf of the Government. It is no use cursing this Government. After all, if we go into the history of this Bill, we will see that it was brought by our predecessor Government .... (Interruption). Madam, I would like to speak for about ten minutes more, because there have been interruptions. If you so desire, I may continue tomorrow. I will not take more than ten minutes. Mr. Chairman : The hon. Member is requested to close his speech, because he has assured me that he will take only ten minutes. Shri Sita Ram S. Jajoo : But you will appreciate my difficulty, Madam. I have been interrupted so much. I would like to speak for ten minutes more tomorrow, if you do not mind.