Vol. 14, Part I · pages 671–675

DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL 653 Shri L. Krishnaswami Bharathi : Yes, they do. Complaints are inherent in the situation. Dr. P. K. Sen : If their complaint could be heard, then of course it will be a different matter, but if they were people in the family, then there would be no opportunity whatsoever, to make a complaint. The only way in which they can possibly complain is now laid down namely, by expression of intention to separate. Now, what is the actual position ? Howsoever strong the family integrity may be, any individual member can come forward and say, I intend to separate, and that expression of intention will instantaneously effect separation in the eye of the law. Where is the integrity of the family then ? What then has the mitakshara family to do ? According to judicial decisions now, it has come down to this that the slightest intention to effect separation and the expression of that intention will effect that separation. In that case I do submit that it is too late in the day to say that the joint family is a huge institution which remains intact. It is tumbling down and there can be no doubt whatsoever that with the effort of man it cannot possibly be protected any longer. People want individual liberty now. Everybody who earns wants to earn and also go his own way. He does not want to be fettered by other members of the family. It is individual freedom which is now their aim and object. This cry has been raised from the earliest times. “The individual withers and the State is more and more.” That is a complaint which has been heard for some time past. Today also we feel that in our society the rule of the majority, the rule of society, is predominant, but nobody wants this predominance any longer. The individual now wants to go off at a tangent. He says, I do not want to be governed by the family. I want to earn my freedom and I want to go my own way. I appeal to every individual Member of this House to ask himself if that is not the spirit of the modern times, and if that is the spirit, then where are we ? Where is the advantage in trying to bolster up an edifice that could not possibly exist any more. Therefore, this great difference which is being drawn between Mitakshara and Dayabhaga is practically gone. It may be that when we sit round a table in perfect amity and goodwill, in perfect understanding of each other, we may be able to iron out all these differences and we may be able to arrive at a very satisfactory solution without hurting the instincts of any particular section, and I do hope that that will be so. I do not want to go into details, but I just want to point out that this is the line upon which our discussions may proceed in future.

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES654 Then, Sir, take the other details. Practically in the matter of inheritance or in the matter of succession, there is nothing upon which controversy rages except on the daughter’s share. All the other things are more or less now things of the past. Legislation has taken place, numerous judicial decisions have been passed whereby rights have been given to all other members of the family, those that claimed them. The only thing upon which controversy centres now is about the daughter’s share. It may be half the share that the son gets, it may be an equal share with the son, it may be any other share that may be decided upon by everybody sitting round a table. I am perfectly confident that with goodwill and mutual understanding, something satisfactory may be evolved in this line. It is not that every individual member of the Select Committee is bound down by its decisions. We are all free to exercise our own views. I frankly admit that there are certain things which I do not like. There may be other members who say that there are certain aspects of the Bill which do not commend themselves to them. Therefore, all these differences have to a certain extent to be ironed out by mutual discussion, but apart from that, the fundamental question is whether the daughter has to get any share at all. Now when it is said that the daughter cannot get a share at all, then I do think—and I have no hesitation whatsoever in expressing my views freely and frankly,—I do think that it is the the same old prejudice against the female members of the family that dictates this objection. Shri L. Krishnaswami Bharathi : Quite right. That is the real point. Dr. P. K. Sen : We may hold our women members in high esteem. No doubt it is often said that the ladies of every family are angels of grace, that they are ministering angels. That is perfectly true, but do we do all that is needed, all that is called for, towards them? Do we do all that is wanted from the men-folk to the women folk in our families ? Let us be perfectly sincere and frank about these things. There is a great deal that has to be done for our women-folk. Women today want their place in society. Continuing to do their duty by the family and continuing to be ministering angels of the family, they have also some other work to do. They have to take an interest in public affairs. They have to take an interest in social organisations. Their presence is indispensably necessary in many organisations which are being set up today. Therefore, we cannot possibly have a framework

DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL 655 of society in which such women could not possibly exist. They must always be the ministering angles of the men-folk, that is to say, looking after their physical comforts and welfare, and do nothing so far as their higher aims and aspirations are concerned. But they have a function to fulfill in society. In the society of independent India, women have a very large place to fill in every organisation, in every movement. That being so, we must set them free and there is nothing that is wanted more than economic freedom. (Hear, hear). There are many cases in which lives are blasted because they have got to be dependent upon some male member of the family for their very existence. Therefore, the question of their economic freedom has a place in the affairs of today. Let us not be absolutely oblivious of that fact. If we want to give economic freedom, then there is no reason whatsoever why we should turn away and say : “Oh a daughter, she cannot have a share, she will remain a ministering angel of the family” by which it is meant that she will always be a dependent there ; and if she is a widow, she will be only looking after the comforts of other people and will not be able to do any other service to the family or to the society or to the nation at large. Well, Sir, I do not propose to go further, because it will take a very long time and I know that I shall then be trespassing upon the time of others. But a good deal has been said, a great deal of discussion has taken place upon the fundamentals. When I contemplate all these discussions that have taken place, I am firmly convinced that if after this debate, we can sit around a table and we can bring ourselves to consider all these details in a spirit of perfect goodwill and understanding, we shall be able to attain a solution. The minor points that trouble us are many, it may be, but their solution is not so difficult. It is the fundamentals upon which we have to concentrate our attention and when we do so, I think our path is clear. *Shrimati Kamala Chaudhari (U. P. General): (English translation of the Hindi speech) Sir, before I say a few words in connection with the Hindu Code Bill, I should like to congratulate the hon. Dr. Ambedkar for bringing forth this Bill. My own feeling is that this Bill has been brought up before this House in conformity with the spirit of time. This is absolutely in accord with the march of the time *C.A. (Leg.) D., Vol. VI, Part II, 13th December 1949, pp. 535-40. 3 P.M.

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES656 and present-day demand. Although it is being opposed on religious, cultural and many other grounds and various kinds of things are heard against it in the course of hostile propaganda, yet my personal feeling is that this Bill will prove a sort of panacea for our women community and the progress of our Indian Society, and this will go a long way to benefit our women-folk who are even today being degraded to the lowest ebb. Moreover, our future women-folk shall also remain indebted to the hon. Minister and this House if this Bill is passed in this Assembly. Those who oppose this Bill have expressed the opinion that this will prove harmful to our religion as well as culture. This thing does not appeal to me at all. This is another thing that the brain and heart of our countrymen have been framed in such a way that anything said in the name of religion highly appeals to the sentiments of the people. On the altar of this very religion—in what manner did we accentuate our communal feelings ? In the name of this very religion, we have seen the murder of Mahatma Gandhi—the father of the Nation. So, in this way, I see that this Bill is also opposed by raising a hue and cry in the name of religion and Indian culture, and those of the persons and our sisters, who cannot even as yet understand what is law, how this Assembly has been constituted, who cannot even understand the right of franchise which has been granted to them in our Constitution, are being told like this, and it is acclaimed that a great majority of women in the country are opposed to this Bill. But so far as my humble intellect can conceive, this Bill does not appear to contain any such thing which might be against our religion and culture. In one of the parts of this Bill, a provision has been made prohibiting the right of polygamy which is at present exercised by the religious minded Hindus. This is not permitted and a ban has thus been imposed upon it. With all the humility, I would submit that I apprehend that this Bill might be opposed by a majority of our brethren for the reason that some such ban is being imposed upon them that in the life time of their wives, they shall not be permitted to contract many marriages. But I do not find in it anything against the religion, because it so looks to me after going through our scriptures and ancient literature that never during any time, even in the olden days, the institution of polygamy was looked upon favourably. After scanning through the ancient literature, we do come across such instances where the ruling

DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL 657 prince was allowed to marry more than one wife. We find the rulers disregarding the customs, traditions, usages and the lofty ideals—ideals regarded as sublime—on which stood the structure of our society, but I would like to cite before you an example set forth by one who is considered as an incarnation of God and who has placed an ideal before us. After looking through the great epic written by Valmiki— the epic which has safeguarded our Indian culture and which has sustained our culture for the last so many centuries—it appears that when King Ramchandra sat for the performance of Ashvamedha Yagna and when the priests and elderly persons told him that the Yagna (oblation) cannot be perfected in the absence of a wife, even at that moment he performed the ceremony by installing a gold idol of Sita and did not have recourse to a second marriage. This ideal lies before us and if we scan through our classical epic, we shall have glimpes of this at every place. During the times when Lord Rama lived in the forests and when Shurpnakha implored him for marriage, Lakshman had told her that Ramchandra was a prince of Ayodhya and was likely to become the ruler of that kingdom and that be was even in a position to marry; but the latter was already a married man and could not thus re-marry. Even at that time the utterances which our Poet Laureate had attributed to Lord Rama establishes the same very ideal that the institution of polygamy was not looked upon favourably during those days. I do not understand how the restriction placed thereon in this Bill is opposed to religious doctrines. On the contrary I think that if such actions were to be encouraged then they would surely cause the destruction of the high ideals of our Indian culture and society. I believe this to be an ideal for every Hindu who professes himself to be a follower of Hindu religion and a supporter of Indian culture. It is a great injustice done to woman that the husband is allowed to enter into matrimony once, twice, thrice or even four times in the very life time of the legally wedded wife. For a woman this custom is horribly painful and demands utmost sympathy. It is another thing that since centuries restrictions have been imposed on our women folk and the women of this country have more or less been confined within the four walls of the house. Restrictions have been imposed on their social, mental and economic rights. Their tears dry up in their eyes only and are not even allowed to trickle down. But our poets, writers and authors have given a very vivid description of this colossal suffering and tribulations that the women have to endure. For a woman