Vol. 14, Part I · pages 666–670

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES648 on the Government Benches. The Bill under discussion neither deals with Railways nor with Transport. Will you be kind enough to call the Hon. Law Minister, Sir ? Mr. Deputy Speaker : I am sure the Law Minister will be here soon. Till then, the other Minister who is here will take notes. Shri Ajit Prasad Jain (U. P. : General) : This is almost a contempt of the House. Mr. Deputy Speaker : I have got chits sent to me by no less than 36 members so far. Shri M. Tirumala Rao (Madras : General) : Some have not sent our names. Our chits are lying here. Shri Mahavir Tyagi : And many have been waiting to catch your eye. They have not sent chits. Mr. Deputy Speaker : So the position is that, besides these 36 there are others also trying to catch my eye. As the position stands at present, Government had fixed only yesterday and today for this Bill. I do not know the state of government work. I do not want to stifle discussion, but at this rate I do not think we can go on. Therefore, I suggest to hon. Members to limit their speeches, as far as possible, to fifteen minutes. An Honourable Member : Impossible. You suggest to Government to extend the time. Shri R. K. Sidhva (C. P. and Berar: General) : Such members as are hopeful of finishing their speeches within five or ten minutes should be given preference. There are many such members, I know. Shri L. Krishnaswami Bharathi : But will they keep to their assurance? That is the point. Shri R. K. Sidhva : I give a definite assurance. Shri Biswanath Das (Orissa : General) : May I just bring to your notice, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the hon. Speaker had given an assurance to this House that he would give full scope for discussion of this motion and it will be unfortunate if you allow only ten or fifteen minutes for a speaker. It is something absolutely different from an ordinary Bill. It concerns the life and the economic and social existence of crores of people. Under these circumstances, I would beg of you to stick to the assurance given by the hon. Speaker. Shri L. Krishnaswami Bharathi : He is the Speaker. He can now decide.

DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL 649 Mr. Deputy Speaker : It is unfortunate that the Speaker is not here in his seat. I do not want to stifle the discussion, but I am only suggesting a time-limit so that all Members who want to take part in the discussion may have an opportunity. I leave it to the good sense of the hon. Members themselves. Fifteen minutes is not an inviolable limit. One minute above or one minute below may not be very bad. But beyond that I am afraid even if the government were willing— I do not know whether they are willing or not—to extend the discussion by a day, it would be impossible, having regard to the number of speakers who want to speak, that everyone will have a chance. Pandit Balkrishna Sharma (U. P. : General) : Then keep it to the next session. Mr. Deputy Speaker : It is not in my hands. Shri S. Nagappa (Madras : General): Why not sit for one or two hours longer? Mr. Deputy Speaker : At present the Members who can finish their speeches within fifteen minutes can do so, but in cases where individual Members consider that they must have more time, they can have more time. Shri M. Tirumala Rao : You can consider the merits of a speech, and if many arguments are repeated, you can ask the speaker not to repeat the arguments. Mr. Deputy Speaker : Very well, then, Dr. Sen. Shri H. J. Khandekar (C. P. and Berar : General): There are only 2½ hours more. Only ten speakers will be able to speak even if each speaks for fifteen minutes. What about the others who want to speak on the bill? I request you to request government to extend the debate by a day or two. This is such an important measure that the eyes of the whole nation are focussed upon it. We must have full discussion over it and then only pass it, in whatever form it is agreed to. Mr. Deputy Speaker : I am sure the proceeding of this House and the suggestions made by hon. Members will be communicated to and taken notice of by Government. Dr. Sen may continue his speech. Dr. P. K. Sen : Sir, I quite realize that brevity is the soul of wit, but there are occasions when brevity is the soul of unwisdom, because I shall not be able to make things clear at all and therefore, it will not benefit anybody at all if the House were to hear a discourse which is inconclusive and obscure. I shall therefore, try to touch only on the fundamental points and not enter into details at all.

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES650 The question that I was last addressing this House on was, whether or not by giving permission for divorce this country will not be plunging itself into a large number of divorce cases like other countries. My answer to that question was—and is—that the cases for divorce will depend entirely upon the quality of the moral values that a country has. A society may be so constructed that only in absolutely unavoidable and necessary cases would the parties seek a divorce and that there would be inherently a dislike, a distaste, a contempt for divorce where there is no occasion for it and where evidence is really fabricated for the purpose of establishing that there are reasons for divorce. In this country the experiment has been tried in Baroda and in some parts of South India, where there is and there has been divorce for a long time past, but I am told there have been only three cases so far in Baroda and these three cases during twenty years. I submit, again, that it is the social atmosphere and the moral values prevalent in the particular society that determine the number of divorce cases. Therefore, it is not the law that makes the society. The law only gives sanction to certain cases where it is necessary to give sanction for divorce. In this part of the Bill which deals with marriage law there are four characteristics. The first is : intermarriage has been allowed. The second is that there is prescription for divorce. There is, thirdly, prescription for monogamy. Now all these are present in Act III of 1872 and, therefore, it is not the Hindu code which has raised these points for the first time. It was in the fifties of the last century, as I have said, that the agitation arose and ever since then the agitation has been going on. The crusade against caste was no doubt first led by the Brahmo Samaj under Keshub Chunder Sen. The Brahmos at that time suffered persecution, ex-communication and ignominy of every description. Today we recognise that caste shall go and therefore, all these provisions that are laid down here in this Bill relating to intercaste marriage need not raise any opposition at all. There is no doubt whatsoever that there is a very large body—if not an overwhelming body—of public opinion in favour of abolition of caste. Otherwise, what are all these provisions that we have laid down in the Constitution? Caste shall go. If we take that position then there is nothing objectionable so far as those provisions are concerned which relate to intercaste marriage. The same consideration applies to monogamy. I do not know whether there is any public opinion now in favour of bigamy or

DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL 651 polygamy. There may be individual cases; but that is quite different. The whole body of public opinion now, I submit confidently, is in favour of monogamy. Therefore, there is nothing objectionable, so far as that is concerned in the present Bill, and, as I have said, permission for divorce cannot possibly raise any difficulty because, after all a permissive provision must necessarily be there for those unfortunate cases where divorce is called for. Proceeding, Sir, to the next point as to why there should be any change at all (that was the point on which I was) it has been said that there must be a strict adherence to Shastric law and that there should be no departure whatsoever from it. For hours this discussion has been carried on the floor of this House. It has been contended that shastric law is absolutely final, inviolate and inviolable. You cannot change it. I should like to know what Shastric law means. As a matter of fact, in our shastras there is always provision for change and there has always been change. Otherwise what is the meaning of these numerous Smritis. We have it in Manu the well known injunction that there are four sources, four norms, of conduct laid down: Jfr% Le‘fr% lnkpkj% LoL; p fiz;ekReu A ,r’prq£o/ izkg% l{kk…eL; y{k.ka AA Which being translated means Shruti, Smriti, the usages established by righteous men and the satisfaction of one’s own inner self—these furnish the four standards or norms of conduct. These four norms of conduct include within them the inner satisfaction of the soul, the conscience by which, I take it is meant not individual conscience only, but social conscience also. The social conscience of the age in which we live has got to be respected and that is one of the standards by which our conduct, our Dharma is to be ascertained. That is one of the standards by which law must be laid down and it is on this principle that all along, the law, the so-called Shastric law, has changed and changed and changed. My hon. friend, the Minister of Law said in his opening speech that if you go to Parasara Smriti or Narada Smriti you find there provision for widow re-marriage, and provision for very many other things which may be called revolutionary. How did they ever come to it? How did they get beyond the barriers, as it was, and break through them and start upon something which was revolutionary? It was because according to the highest injunctions laid down, there are not only Shruti and Smriti but other

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES652 sources also. You have to take the conduct of the righteous and the pious,—those who know the way of life that leads unto self-realization—and it is those people who laid down the norms of conduct. You have to follow those. They are not Shastric. They are not necessarily to be ascribed to any particular Shruti or Smriti, but those are the ways of right living that have been laid down definitely for the purpose of regulating our conduct—individual as well as social. If that be so, if that is the way in which the law must evolve itself, then necessarily where we find that there is a strong public opinion, where the conscience of society or a particular section of society, the minority section, let us say, dictates that a particular way of life should be sanctioned by law, law comes forward to the rescue and lays down that it shall be so. If that be our standard, then can we possibly at this moment say that there shall be no change at all ? Can we possibly assert that our law, our Shastric law, has been stationary ? If it is inviolable and inviolate, if it is unalterable and inexorable, then there will be no progress and it will be a poor compliment to pay to our Indian law-givers to say that law has been stationary. On the contrary, it is time today to muster up courage and to say that the views of no particular section, whether minority or majority should be trampled upon, that if there are strong opinion held in regard to a particular point then the law must come forward to give permission for that. I pass next, Sir, to the other fundamental points. What is the other main objection raised with regard to this Bill. It is on the question of property—the Mitakashara and the Dayabhaga. Is it possible at this moment, let us ask ourselves seriously, to raise this question? The joint family system had its virtues; it had its glories in the past. Nobody can deny that. But I have been under the impression that of late it is the tyranny of the joint family system which has appeared most obnoxious to a very large number of people. They feel that the earning people in the family are sucked dry by the indolent ones. There are people who do not want to go forth and earn at all because there is a family behind them, and they think, “What is the use of our taking any trouble for earning when there is the family to support us?” And those members of the family who by the sweat of their brow earn something, it is their income that is sucked dry by others who are indolent and who are also in every way extravagant. Dr. P. S. Deshmukh (C. P. and Berar : General): Have they ever complained, Sir?