Vol. 14, Part I · pages 681–685

DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL 663 but a girl should have none ? I feel that is also a kind of injustice. This is another matter that in view of the present set-up of our society some people might, per chance, be entertaining doubts and anticipating difficulties with regard to the practical application of this Bill, because the position occupied by a “son-in-law ” in our society is rather peculiar. All his life he is called Jamai babu or pahuna (the Guest) and never becomes a member of that family. I feel that if the daughter is conceded this right, the result would be that the son of another family who comes in as the son-in-law could also live as a member of the daughter’s family as if he were a third son to the father who already has two, and this should encourage mutual love and affection. The argument that this would strain relations between brothers and sisters or break them for good cannot appeal to me. I do not think that if this law is passed it would mean the disintegration of all our social, cultural and religious traditions. I am unable to appreciate that argument. With these words I express the hope that those people who have passed our new Constitution, who are out to make a radical change in our social and political set-up and who have conceded in that Constitution the equal rights of the women, will reflect coolheadedly over the present position of our women. Let them hearken to the call of the times. We should concede this right straightaway, Scholars, men of letters and historians have held the view, that if a society which steps forth into the field of progress, does not promptly carry out all those changes, which are urgently called for, it is likely to be left centuries behind in that field. On the other hand, if properly appreciating the call and the needs of the times, it promptly gives effect to the urgently needed changes it marches forth to a speedy progress. I hope this Bill is going to be passed by the present Assembly because here we have present, in a preponderating strength, persons who are called the followers of Mahatma Gandhi. Mahatma Gandhi was the great man who had a sound grasp of the problems and the handicaps facing the Indian women. Along with the political, revolution he also stirred up a powerful revolution against our old social conventions and was soon able to root out and destroy them. I feel that the followers of Mahatma Gandhi will give their thorough consideration to this Bill and pass it after having considered it generously and sympathetically in the light of our faith and culture. In the end, once again, I wish to assure the hon. Minister, on behalf of the women, that all those women of this country, who have been

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES664 able to comprehend this measure, are going to welcome it heartily and that even the women of the generations to come will feel grateful to him for having got it passed. * Shri Kameshwar Singh of Darbhanga (Bihar : General) : Sir, it has become very difficult for those of us who are opposed to the motion moved on behalf of Government to take part in this debate after what our Prime Minister has said in this House about the measure before us on the opening day of this session. I was not present in the House when he made the statement, but if the press report be true, he has made the passage of the Bill an issue of confidence in his Government. I am strongly opposed to the measure. (Interruption). Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order, order. Nothing will go on if these interruptions are made. The interruptions will only increase the time taken by the Members. Pandit Lakshmi Kanta Maitra : Apparently the hon. Member is making a very good speech. Shri Kameshwar Singh of Darbhanga : But I am equally strong in my view that in the present state of our country the Government of our Prime Minister is the best Government that we can have. Howsoever imperfect it may be, a better alternative to the present Government is not available. That, I think, is the view of the most of the people who do not belong to any political party. Thus, the stand taken up by our Prime Minister assumes the shape of “Undue influence”, if not “coercion”, for men of my way of thinking. I would therefore earnestly request the Prime Minister to reconsider the matter and unload the question of confidence in his Government from the consideration of the measure. I would like the House and Government to postpone further consideration of the bill till the wishes of the electorate are ascertained in the next general elections for reasons stated by the hon. Dr. Rajendra Prasad, in the note which he sent in the capacity of the President of the Indian National Congress to our Prime Minister last year. Hon. Members of this House know that there is a great divergence of opinion with regard to this important measure of, if I may say so, revolutionary character. It affects the personal law of the vast multitude of people. It affects their social and economic life as well as the forms and customs that have grown with the various schools of the Hindu law during so many centuries. In the name of uniformity and codification it threatens to arbitrarily disrupt the fundamental social *C.A. (Leg.) D., Vol. VI, Part II, 13th December 1949, pp. 541-43.

DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL 665 and economic structure of the Hindu community embracing all except the Muslims, Christians, Parsis and the Jews. I fully agree with the observations of you, Sir, and Sri Ram Narain Singh contained in your notes of dissent on the Report of the Select Committee on this Bill. The members of the present legislature have no mandate from the electorate even with respect to the major issues involved in the Bill. After all, the next elections are not far off and nothing will be lost if the matter is deferred till then. I am definitely of opinion that such vital changes as are proposed in the measure should not be made in this manner. If one cares to look into the views expressed before the Hindu Law Committee, he will not fail to notice that the opposition to the Bill is very strong. I belong to that class of people which considers the Smriti and the school of interpretation, he follows, as sacrosanct; and the class to which I belong constitutes a large proportion of the total population of the country. We consider marriage, succession and the like as a part of our religious duty and obligation. To us these are much more than mere secular or social phenomena. It is true that the social structure has gradually changed and is changing under the stress of circumstances. But such changes have taken place by the process of evolution and not by imposition from above. Further, these changes do not generally affect the principles on which the Laws governing the various Hindu societies are based. Now, the question is whether the changes proposed in the Bill are such as have been accepted by the people in general and require just legal sanction. My answer to this is emphatic ‘NO’. No doubt, the authors of Smritis and their interpreters made changes from time to time but they did so when they could enforce them by the popular support they had. The bulk of the people had abundant faith in their learning, in their foresight, in their purity of purpose and above all in their conduct. The authors of this proposed Twentieth Century Smriti have no such background. They do not have in the hearts of the people the status of those ancient Smritikars whose injunctions govern the lives of so many people even today. The diversity perceptible in different parts of the country goes a great way in establishing the fact that popular acceptance and not imposition from any central political authority has been the sanction behind the personal law of the Hindu. Unity in diversity is the chief characteristic of the Hindu life and religion and we should not take the seeming diversity as an evil which must be instantaneously removed.

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES666 The fundamental difference between the outlook of the ancient law givers and the present day law-givers is that, whereas the basis of the formers’ consideration was purely spiritual, the basis of the latters’ consideration is grossly material and to accept it, is to give a goby to our philosophy of life, to the continuity of our tradition and to the foundation of our culture. I, for one, am not prepared to do so. Besides this, I apprehend that there will be practical difficulties in implementing the provisions of the Bill. Just imagine how long it will take Government to educate the people that they should go to law court for getting their marriages registered. Just imagine what complications and confusion will the provisions for void and voidable marriages create. Just imagine what havoc will the provision for the dissolution of marriages and divorce play in the domestic life of the people whose conception of society has so far been quite different from the one on which these provisions are based. I do not agree with the view that only hard cases will come up for remedy. My own fear is that many interested persons will come into the picture to disrupt the domestic life of their neighbour relatives etc., for their selfish ends. Similarly, the provisions regarding succession will make the management of property difficult and become a prolific source of intrigue by designing persons in the society. Lawyers and law courts may prosper but families will be broken up and domestic peace will decay. The report of Dr. Dwarkanath Mitter, one of the members of the Hindu Law Committee, embodies the opinions of the vast bulk of Hindus. The facts on which he has based his conclusions are irrefutable. The report of the other members of the Committee is merely an attempt to explain away the irrefutable facts mentioned by Dr. Mitter in support of his contention. It appears that the Majority of the members of the Committee had already made up their minds on major issues and took no note of the public opinion expressed before them in different ways. I wonder how the Government of India of today which is so sensitive to public opinion has considered it proper to bring a measure of this kind before this House. For the sake of satisfying the sentiments of a few so-called “progressive” element in the Hindu Community, it should not have proceeded with the measure which is opposed by an overwhelmingly large number of Hindus. If those who advocate the adoption of this measure go from village to village and collect the reaction of the Hindus on the provisions of this Bill, I am sure that they will hardly find satisfactory support. At least in my Province, the public opinion is decidedly against this Bill.

DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL 667 *Dr. B. Pattabhi Sitaramayya (Madras : General) : Sir, the moment I rise before you I hear certain utterances from friends. Some say “Support; others say “Oppose.” Shri B. L. Sondhi (East Punjab : General) : You will do both. Dr. B. Pattabhi Sitaramayya : Perhaps I am doing both, because on a matter like this it is our duty not to be dogmatic. Only great men and fools are dogmatic and I disclaim being either. It is much better to string our thoughts with the thoughts of others and try to evolve a G.C.M., a thing which we learnt in our early days of arithmetic,—the greatest common measure of agreement upon such vital questions as the structure and functioning of society, which is a living organism and not a dead joint stock company with its own memoranda, and articles of association which are liable to be changed any day by paying three rupees to the Registrar. This society which we have inherited and of which we are proud to call ourselves members has been in existence for perhaps thousands of years. Babu Ramnarayan Singh (Bihar : General): Since the creation. Dr. B. Pattabhi Sitaramayya : Nobody knows when it started. At least I can say from the evidence that we have before us in Kautilya’s Artha Shastra that this had attained its prefection 2300 years ago. The same problems of marriage, of crime, of punishment, of psychological complications, of political puzzles, that were treated by Kautilya in his Artha Shastra are before me to day without one iota of change. I would ask friends who have not read that book to read it. Read the Sukra Nithi Sara : read the other political works of our ancient Hindu law. Shri L. Krishnaswami Bharathi : Kautilya’s Artha Shastra is not unfortunately available. Dr. B. Pattabhi Sitaramayya : It is quite available for those who have a mind to get it. Shri L. Krishnaswami Bharathi : But I have tried my level best. Dr. B. Pattabhi Sitaramayya : I would therefore, urge the House to look into the antecedents and the conditions of progress and conditions of evolution which have characterised the changes in what we call the “Hindu society”. I do not say that we should be proud of Hindu society and Hindu culture, but after all what is called Indian culture is largely Hindu culture and what is called Indian society is largely Hindu society, and if other people have come and mixed with *C.A. (Leg.) D., Vol. VI, Part II, 13th December 1949, pp. 543-52.