Vol. 14, Part I · pages 701–705

DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL 683 Delhi. It is very difficult to see the face of a woman. There is always a mask. (An hon. Member : The powder) If the ancient purdah is to be removed the modern mask may also be removed because the modern mask is even more complete than the purdhah. The purdah you can take off at will, but the mask can only be taken off at home and by certain chemical processes. Lest you may misunderstand me I tell you that I am a great believer in human equality. And in humanity I also count womanity. I want that this Bill should be passed because it gives us equality with women. I think that this Bill is in the interests of our equality. I have always thought that in comparison with women we are at a very great disadvantage. First of all, nature has put us at a disadvantage, because if you think a little, you will admit that everything that a man can do a woman can also do. But there are certain things which a woman can do which men cannot do—not even in our imagination, not even in our dreams, not even in our nightmares. I cannot conceive. Some Honourable Members : No, you cannot! Acharya J. B. Kripalani : I was talking of conceiving in an intellectual sense. But since you have already found out my meaning I need not dilate upon it. (An hon. Member : Oh, no.) But I have often been curious and have even asked women “what is this excruciating pain and what is this superb joy that you have in conception ?” and they only smile at my ignorance and give no answer. I have again asked them what pleasure they have in nursing the baby at the breast. Then also they smile at my ignorance and give no answer. In these matters I think we are at a very great disadvantage. They are great creators. Artists create inanimate objects, women create images of God, which sometimes degenerate into images of Satan. In these things, of course, nature has put a kind of block in our way and we cannot achieve equality with women. But in many other things we can achieve equality with women. So far as the question of women achieving equality with men is concerned, they have already achieved it in India. You know that as soon as we had Swaraj, we had a woman Governor. Two centuries of independence have passed in the United States of America, and there are fortyeight States, but I do not know if even once they have appointed a woman as Governor. Of course my knowledge of history may be old and I speak subject to correction, but I believe no woman was appointed as a federal Minister. I may also say that in a country

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES684 like England, where female education is widespread, I do not know whether up to this time there has been a woman Cabinet Minister. I am not talking of the many auxiliary Ministers that we have here too— they are also called ‘Ministers’—but I am talking in terms of Cabinet Ministers. So far as I know, there has not been one in England. Then I do not know whether in England and America there have been woman diplomats—ambassadors. And yet you must remember that one of our star ambassadors is a woman. Shri R. K. Sidhva : We are proud of our women, Sir. Acharya J. B. Kripalani : Well, Mr. Sidhva thinks that I am not proud. I am very proud of this. But I am thinking in terms of equality, not of pride. I say, “we have granted women equality, and now shall we be given some equality with women ?” I am very much oppressed because I am after all an old man. I have learned that old age is to be respected. But when a chip of girl comes into my drawing room I have to act just like a jack-in the-box and pop up. [At this stage Mr. Deputy Speaker (Shri M. Ananthasayanam Ayyangar) resumed the Chair.] I did not do that in former days. Not only that, may I tell you, Sir, that even when my wife comes in the drawing room I get up. Do you know why ? Because some boorish young man may be sitting there and he may not know the modern manners and he may not get up; just to give him an example, I rise. I want that there should be equality, because you just see, I as a male am obliged to get up when a female comes, while I know that when even our Prime Minister or the President or the Congress enters a room, I have seen young women sitting in their seats. This is a very great injustice to the mere male. My experience has been that if there is a quarrel between a man and a woman in the bazaar or in the market-place,—because I do not know about secret quarrels—or in the club, and supposing a man hit the woman, do you know what would happen ? There would be almost a riot and everybody would call the man a coward and rightly too. But supposing the man was beaten by a woman, do you know what would happen ? I think he would look very ridiculous and instead of anybody sympathising with him, he would be the object of ridicule and rightly too. Whether we beat or are beaten, both ways we are the losers. I want that this balance should be restored and there should be some equality to protect the mere man.

DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL 685 There is yet another thing. Not only in society are we at a disadvantage, but the law is also against us, as even our Law Minister will admit. Supposing a man runs away with a woman, the man is responsible in law. Supposing a woman runs away with a man, again the man is responsible. I have it on the highest authority, very modern authority, that it is the woman who is often the pursuer. Whether we are the aggressors or they are the aggressors, irrespective of aggression, the law comes down upon us. We are sufferers both ways. I would, therefore, request this house to bring about some equality, so that we men may be able to breathe more freely, so that if we are kicked, we may kick equally freely without ridicule, without the law coming to the help of the stronger party, namely, woman. You can now understand why I support this Bill. Let us now go into details. There is first of all the question of property. I really do not see how, we of the Congress, who are pledged to the abolition of private property, yet think in terms of as to whom one share or the other should go. I see a curious phenomenon in this nation which I have not observed in other nations. Shri Lakshminarayan Sahu (Orissa : General) : I want to know one thing. Is the Congress pledged to abolition of private property ? Mr. Deputy Speaker : That is the hon. Member’s opinion. Acharya J. B. Kripalani: I think if the Resolutions of the Congress are carefully read, it will be plain that the Congress does stand for the abolition of private property, that is, accumulated private property, not private property that is in use. But as the Deputy Speaker rightly said, this a question of opinion. I find that all people here are more concerned with redistribution of existing wealth. There is no effort in this land to create new wealth. Even our Socialist friends are not thinking in terms of creating wealth, but of redistributing the very little existing wealth that we have. I am indifferent where the little bit of existing wealth goes, whether it goes to the woman or to the man provided it remains in the nation. The nation should not be the poorer for it. You will be surprised to know, but I do not mind people taking bribes even, or going in the black market. After all, wealth does not go outside India. It is somewhere with the Indian people. I only think of the morality of it which is destroying our public life and our private morals. So far as wealth is concerned, it does not matter so much. After all these bribe-takers and these blackmarketers are not taking away wealth to any foreign country. If it is not my

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES686 brother-in-law, it is somebody else’s brother-in-law. It is after all there. So I do not for a moment think in these narrow terms of where the existing wealth goes. I am thinking in terms of the nation. The whole attention in England and other free countries is directed to creating more wealth rather than dividing the already meagre wealth that exists there. Therefore, I whole heartedly support that a share in ancestral wealth be given to women. If they have their own share, they may be more careful about their money. It has been my experience that the expenditure of a woman is much more than that of a man. I have seen that when girls go to college and school, the mother is more careful about their clothes than about the boys’ clothes. The young boys may toddle along to school walking all their way, but the young girls must go either in a tonga or in a bus even though the bus charges may come to Rs. 15 a month. So in clothes and in transport charges and in other things, woman’s education costs more. This is when she is not married. When the women are married, you can look at their dress and at our dress. I have very often found at weddings that the boy looks like an idiot and the girl looks like a queen. I have seen it and anyone who has critically observed it will certify that it is so. On the road, I have also seen modern women and modern men going together. The modern man generally wears English dress and it is not on everybody that the English dress sits will. There are only a few exceptions. On most of us it looks very awkward. But the woman is in her native sari, full of colour, and even if she has not ornaments, she looks better and more respectably dressed than the man beside her—nowadays he walks a little behind her and looks awkard. Those who are not acquainted with Indian middle class society today, or are foreigners, would think that perhaps some chaprassi is going behind. Therefore, I say, Sir, they have their own property, we will not be bothered by these things. They will spend it as they like and I am sure they will spend it more economically than when they have to purchase things and the bills come to us. Therefore, I am a great advocate that the women should have their property share also. Then there is another point about which I am very particular. I am told that you cannot adopt a girl child. I happen to be in the unfortunate position that I have no children. Shri B. L. Sondhi : What a pity ! Acharya J. B. Kripalani: It is a very great pity. I thought that as a Hindu I could adopt a child. But I have always had a preference 5 P.M.

DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL 687 for a female child, I adopted a couple of girls, but they ran away with their husbands. I yet want to adopt a girl. I do not know why this provision is there that you cannot adopt a girl. The girls, so far as the father is concerned are more lovable than boys and the more saucy and impudent the girl is the more the father loves her. Therefore, I request that if there be any defect in this Bill it may be corrected and female children may also be allowed to be adopted. About divorce, Sir, I may tell you that I am not personally concerned, because my marriage was not criminal, but civil. It is open not to me, but certainly to my wife to divorce me any time she likes, if she feels that I am not behaving properly. But I find that so far as provisions for divorce are concerned this Bill is more retrograde than old custom. As we have been told by Shri Alladi Krishnaswami Ayyar and a woman speaker, there is a simple system of divorce among the masses in the villages. There are no costly proceedings, there is no scandal, there are no newspaper articles. All this is avoided. I would suggest, Sir, that a more reasonable, more scientific and more up-to-date attitude be adopted in the matter of divorce. Sir, I have a suggestion to make, for what it is worth, for the consideration of the Law Minister and this suggestion would not involve expenditure, litigation, scandal or newspaper articles. All the marriages should be for five years and at the expiry of five years every marriage would be renewable. The renewal can take place by some declaration before any village officer or his parallel in a town or city. You can after five years go and say that you do not want to separate and the marriage continues. This will make divorce easy, scientific, without scandals, without litigation and I tell you it will be most up-to-date. I make this suggestion for whatever it is worth and I tell you it satisfies all the requirements of the new religion of progress and advancement. Shri L. Krishnaswami Bharathi : Sir, may I make a request to you, Sir, to allot one more day for the discussion of this Bill, in view of the fact that there are many hon. Members who wish to speak on it. The hon. the Prime Minister is here and he will be able to tell us whether Government would be prepared to allot tomorrow also for the discussion. The Honourable Shri Jawaharlal Nehru (Prime Minister) : Sir, the House knows that nothing is more precious than every day and every hour of this House. We have a great deal of very important