Vol. 14, Part I · pages 696–700

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES678 aghast, half angry and half surprised. “What do you mean ?” he asked. I said, “I mean what I say, she never married you.” “Why ?” “She has married this, electricity, this motor-car that is in this house.” The story is that the girl had said to her father “I don’t care to whom you marry me, provided there is electricity and motor-car in their house.” The poor girl of sixteen or eighteen, how could she judge of things and conditions ? She simply thinks, “I have been brought up in this house by my father, he gets twenty thousand rupees a year and there is electricity here, there is a motor-car, and a palatial house. I should like to have the same conditions there also.” That is all. But the English mother always complains that her daughter does not “make good”, that is the expression,“My daughter does not make good” she says. That is, “My daughter is not able to keep a bevy of young men round about her, dancing attendance on her, standing her bills at the cinemas and restaurants and so on.” That is what the mother wants. Don’t nod our head that way please. What I say is true. Pandit Lakshmi Kanta Maitra : I am supporting you. Dr. B. Pattabhi Sitaramayya : Not you, but the friend behind you. Shri R. K. Sidhva : Are you referring to me ? Dr. B. Pattabhi Sitaramayya : No, to your neighbour. What happens in England ? The mother is always anxious that her daughter should be able to attract the attention of half-a-dozen suitors, and it is then for the parents to select one out of them to make an eligible choice for a son-in-law. But the mother always feels jealous of the maidservant, because the maid-servant is able to make good, while her daughter is not able to. That is the tragedy. What does the maid-servant do ? At eight o’clock in the evening she changes her apron and gets into her clean smart gown and goes away. “Where are you going ?” “My lover is waiting outside, and I must go” “No, no, my son-in-law is coming now.” “Hang yourself and your son-in-law by the nearest tree. My lover is waiting and I am going.” Shrimati Renuka Ray : You have, a very poor opinion of women, whether Indian or foreign. Dr. B. Pattabhi Sitaramayya : But I have a very high opinion of my wife. Now then, the mother complains that “that woman is able to make good and attract a number of men, but this daughter of mine is not

DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL 679 able to attract them.” And so the mother is sorry. That is the fashion. That is the custom of the country. That is the order of the day. And there is nothing wrong in it. That is the system which has come into being. Go to Malbar and see the Marumakkattayam system. That is an altogether different thing. For three years you may study it and still you will never understand its secret. But it is a beautiful system, and my friend Mr. Thanu Pillai was against changing it at all. Sir, your predecessor gave my predecessor twenty minutes after the bell. But I will take only two minutes more. Now it is not too late to mend. We have not gone too far. It is well that we have discussed this matter, and discussed it seriously, so thoroughly and so sombrely. We have given so much attention to this subject. Now what shall we do ? Shall we proceed with the measure ? I appeal to the hon. the Law Minister to withdraw it and then put it up—and a more stringent measure next time—, with due authority and sanction from the electroate. Then I say no man dares attack us. He will be summarily shot, because I will have the sanction of the country, I will have the election manifesto ; I will come armed with that power, that strength and I will have a right to do it. Now you come without authority. You simply depend upon four women police for your protection. That is a pathetic sight for one, for any progressive Congressman to witness. Then again, there is another thing. I trust and hope that whatever may happen—and I hope that the Bill will not be proceeded with— but if it should be proceeded with, I feel that full freedom may be given to every Member of this Assembly to vote as he pleases. If that is given, half the sting is taken away. But we have already fallen into the trap of allowing this thing to go on. Now, friends, let me warn you. This will have a serious repercussion upon our coming election. After all ... . Shri Mahavir Tyagi : Postpone elections for another five years. Dr. B. Pattabhi Sitaramayya : After all, remember that we are here as the representatives of the people and after all, remember that ninety per cent, of the people belong to one community, bound by one social law and one civic institution, one patriarchal system, all this is there, and people are not so intelligent as to discriminate between one thing and the other. They only feel irritated. They are already irritated by more than one circumstance. Yesterday’s demonstration was not so much a protest against the Hindu Code Bill as an expression

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES680 of a certain sullenness and anger of the people with the Congress and Congress institutions. It is no use our concealing it, Wherever I go I feel I am assailed and attacked. But through my garrulity, my longwindedness, through my talkativeness I manage to get over the thing. But at the same time, I know on what delicate ground I am travelling. I speak not merely as a critic of the Government, but as a responsible member of the Congress who has given cent. per cent. support on all occasions to this Government. I say however that he is not a well-wisher who simply flatters, or conceals the truth from the Government. Perhaps you remember that last spectacle—not a scene in Hamlet—a scene in the drama of Germany where the Kaiser on the 9th November 1918 summoned all his generals and asked them to speak. Nobody would speak, they were all silent. Then he said, the Kaiser orders you to speak, and then Gen. Ludendroff spoke for when the Kaiser orders, and if he did not speak, he would shot. Just as when Queen Victoria asked Prince Albert to open the door. She said, “Dear, open the door” but the door does not open. Then she says, “The Queen of England orders you to open the door” and then the poor fellow came and opened the door. So it was with the Kaiser, and Ludendroff said, “Your Majesty, there are only twenty-four hours for you to escape across to Holland.” Then the Kaiser asked, “Why ?” “Why ? because the army would not fight”. The Kaiser said, “I will lead the army myself.” But the army would not fight and in twenty-four hours this man was transferred. When an unpleasant truth is said, please listen to it, because there is in it nothing but the best wishes for our conjoint prosperity and success. If not on principle, if not on sound morality, at least on expediency please reconsider the position and make it possible for the people to go along with you. *Acharya J. B. Kripalani (U. P. : General): Sir, in some quarters here is an apprehension that I may talk against the policy of the Government. Though I have spoken in this house only once, yet this apprehension exists in some quarters and I want to allay that apprehension. I stand here to support the broad principles of the Bill. I do so because I do not want this Government to resign upon a side issue, upon a social issue. I want it to resign on more substantial, political and economic issues. I would rather want it to resign, for example, as any other Government in a more democratic country would have resigned, on the issue of the sugar muddle, by which infants *C.A. (Leg.) D., Vol. VI, Part II, 13th December 1949, pp. 552-58.

DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL 681 of the poor could not get sugar but tons could be had by those who were prepared to pay fancy prices. On such issues, if this Government goes, there will be no regret but I do not want it to resign upon a social side issue . . . An Honourable Member : Sugar is not more important than this measure. Acharya J. B. Kripalani : Yet it is not as sweet. Even then I would not have come to support this Bill but for the pressure that I had from quarters from which I could not resist such pressure. I was told at home that I must support this Bill. I said that I was innocent of a knowledge of the Hindu law, that Hindu law ran into volumes and there were many volumes of commentary and how could I support or oppose a thing which I had not understood. Then I was quickly told “ I can make you to understand it.” An Honourable Member : Who was your teacher ? Acharya J. B. Kripalani : So I submitted myself to a few curtainlectures. I was assured that my teacher had been instructed by the highest authority in this Assembly, the great Dr. Ambedkar himself. After the curtain-lectures were over I was just as wise or as foolish as I was after my teachers in school or college had instructed me. I came to the conclusion that my teachers were more foolish than myself. When I was a professor I thought the students would pay me the same compliment. Knowing that, when I entered the class I always said “Gentlemen, your presence is assured and after I have marked the roll call you are free to go, because I know you will not give me more credit for my learning than I gave to my teachers.” Sir, I am pledged to support the Bill and I must support it, because I know that even though my wife may be absent, when she comes back she will not only take financial but moral and intellectual accounts from me. For me, Sir, it is not a question of religion in danger : it is a question of my home in danger. Much has been said about Hindu religion being in danger. I am afraid I cannot see the point. Hindu religion is not in danger when Hindus are thieves, rogues, fornicators, black-marketers or takers of bribes! Hindu religion is not endangered by these people but Hindu religion is endangered by people who want to reform a particular law! May be they are over-zealous but it is better to be

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES682 over-zealous in things idealistic than be corrupt in material things. It is this mentality of ours that brought about the death of the Father of the Nation. It was supposed that the murderer was a better Hindu than the person who lived according to the highest ideals preached in the Gita and in the Upanishads and whose life was lived in the light of the teachings of our scriptures. I would wish the Hindu community to divest itself of such false notions about their religion. Our religion was not made by murderers and thieves; it was made by Sadhus, Sanyasis and Mahatmas. Yet, there is the other side of the question. A great deal of confusion has been caused, for one party says that religion is in danger and another party says that the modern religion of progress is in danger. If you do not support the Bill you are a reactionary. I will tell you how I was converted to support the Bill. One reason I have already told you. Another reason I will give you now. There was a woman and she whispered to another woman “Kripalani won’t support the Bill : he is a reactionary.” Shri B. L. Sondhi : Were they both members of this house ? Acharya J. B. Kripalani : They were hon. Members, not members. She in confidence told me “I protested and I said Kripalani is progressive.” So I was put on my honour. You see what subtle kind of propaganda goes on. One woman tells something to another woman in confidence and she brings the story to me. Now how am I going to act ? I cannot consider myself reactionary and not progressive : I may be called a nonHindu but for a modern man not to be modern is a greater stigma than to be without religion. I may not believe in God, but how can I not believe in the God of progress as is in the West ? I will also tell you why the first woman said that I was a reactionary—it is a very interesting story—but only if you promise not to interrupt me by your laughter. I happened to be the Chairman of the Fundamental Rights Committee. In the Fundamental Rights Committee the proposition brought forward was that it should be the fundamental right of women not to be in purdah. Of course I am in favour of all women going without purdah—and what male will not. I admire those people who would not, but I am not one of those admirable people. I said that I have no objection to this clause going in the Fundamental rights, provided that all purdah disappears—the ancient purdah and the modern purdah. Take a round in the City of