Vol. 14, Part I · pages 711–715

DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL 693 sure the love and the loyalty of our women is not going to diminish. That their devotion to their menfolk is not going to diminish in any way, and that the future women of India will be both true to their home and to the nation. Sir, I have done. *Shri Gokulbhai Daulatram Bhatt (Bombay States): (English translation of the Hindi speech) Sir, ever since the Hindu Code Bill has been before the House, it has agitated the minds of the people in India. Dr. Sen claims that the bill has already been before us for the last fifty or sixty years. But, in the books I have gone through in this connection, nowhere, I have been able to find a reference to any earlier existence of this Code. There was however, a Hindu Law, changes wherein have, no doubt, been engaging the attention of the Hindu society from time to time. It was only after 1939 that we have come to know of this Hindu Code Bill in its present form. There may have been some talk on the occasion. Dr. Deshmukh had brought the Marriage Bill before this very House in 1938. Dr. P. K. Sen (Bihar : General): May I just explain ? I said that it had been before the legislative anvil for longer than 60 years, i.e. from 1856 or 1855, but that was with reference to the Marriage Law, not at all in respect to other aspects. Shri Gokulbhai Daulatram Bhatt : I also say that only some of its aspects were before us and before the Hindu society. In fact such issues were not facing the Hindus only, the Parsis and the Muslims were similarly confronted by them. I mean only to give you some glimpses of the history of the manner in which this Hindu Code Bill has been brought before the House and the circumstances under which the Committee called the ‘Rau Committee’ was set up. I want also to give you an idea as to the time-limit fixed for framing the rules and regulations concerning the social structure of the Hindu society populating over 30 crores as also the methods employed for publicity and elicitation of public opinion or for ascertaining any other reaction. Whether the Hindu Code Bill should be introduced or not, the Hindu society should be integrated or not, or whether or not there should be a synthesis of the various piecemeal legislation of the Hindu Law are not the real issues. I want to draw your attention to the fact that the Rau Committee was set up on January 20,1944; they *C.A. (Leg.) D., Vol. VI, Part II, 14th December 1949, pp. 576-85.

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES694 undertook the work and got a Draft Bill ready. The public came to know of this Bill on August 5, 1944 when they were given two months thereafter to send in their opinions by October 5, 1944. Sir, I will like to point out also that only 1,000 copies of this Bill were printed by the Government of India for a population of 30 crores. Subsequently 3,000 more copies were printed under pressure of public demand. Shri Mahavir Tyagi (U. P. : General): Were they printed in English or Hindi? Shri Gokulbhai Daulatram Bhatt : All the 4,000 copies were printed in English. Thereafter Shri Rau had asked the Provincial Governments to get a translation of the Bill printed and distributed. Despite this translation, to my knowledge not more than 50 to 60 thousands of such copies were distributed in all in a population of 30 crores. Now I would proceed to speak about the extent of publicity and circulation among people to ascertain their reaction to a Bill of this type which is of so much importance; which aims at integration of the Hindu society, which seeks to introduce a new way of life and which is considered to be a reformatory measure. A time-limit of two months was fixed for this purpose and thereafter the committee undertook a tour of the country. Their tour lasted for 38 days only. They did not visit all the cities and left out all towns and villages. Never did they care to go in the midst of people at any time during this tour nor approach any widow to enquire about the reason for her misery even though she may have continued to share property in accordance with the Dayabagh system of Bengal. They never went to Madras to know why our sisters and daughters were unhappy there in spite of the matriarchal system of sharing property. They did not find out whether widows were in distress in Bengal or Madras only or their fate was the same all over and, if so, what could be the possible reason for such distress. I can’t agree to the plea that they are in a miserable state only because they possess no share in the property. This is not the case. Their miseries exist not solely because of having no property whatsoever. Formerly a hitch existed that the women widowed in a young age could not seek wordly enjoyments, there was hardly any justification in refusing an opportunity for second marriage to such widows. Ishwar Chandra Vidya Sagar and Malabari Saheb made efforts in this behalf and though I do not remember it clearly but I think it was in 1856 that a Widow Remarriage Act was

DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL 695 passed and is in force till-date. I would however like to know the number of people who availed its benefits or the nature of happiness and prosperity towards which this Act has contributed. I mean to submit that the mere legislation cannot bring a change in the society or nothing material can result by thrusting something down the people’s  throats from above. I wish to cite the Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act as an instance. The Act was first enacted in 1865 and Sir Cowasji Jehangir had placed a Bill to amend the original Act before this very House in 1936. I intend to go in history of that very amending Bill. Some friends of the Parsi society felt the necessity for amendment just as we are feeling at present. Kripalaniji is required to support the Bill so that his home may not be in danger. Likewise I have no desire to put mine in danger. Should I also support it for that matter? Shri Krishna Chandra Sharma (U.P. : General): In this respect all aged men behave alike. Shri Gokulbhai Daulatram Bhatt : Quite right. I don’t wish to reply Sharmaji just now. He may continue to follow his wife everywhere carrying her coat. Shri Krishna Chandra Sharma : But she never puts on a coat. Shri Gokulbhai Daulatram Bhatt : My intention in this submission is to explain the course of action adopted by the Parsi friends once they had thought to reform and amend their Bill of 1865. What did they do? They set up a Law Committee from among their Panchayat. And what did this Committee do. It did no such thing as to hammer out an amending Bill, fix two months as time-limit to elicit public opinion and arrive at the decision thereafter. They had with them a questionnaire for four years which among other things wanted to know the number of Parsis who on basis of 1921 Census might be one lakh in all or at the most one and a half lakhs. The report was before them for another four years and it was only after that they had accepted the proposal. The Report was circulated in the Parsi Society again and opinions were invited on the same. These opinions did not come from Bombay. Ahmedabad or Madras people alone. Rather Parsis living in Persia and China, may be only a few of their families may have been there were consulted first on that Report and their desire ascertained. The educated persons and the lawyers always present an issue in a distorted way and people somehow accept their version

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES696 of a thing. Being gifted with a powerful faculty of argumentation, they are competent to impress other in the way of their liking. But the Report in question was circulated even among those who possessed no such faculty. Opinions were invited from groups irrespective of their being in a minority and a majority. Thus when everyone was consulted in 1936 the Bill was sent in an amended form. So the issue embodied in this Bill continued to engage their attention from 1923 to 1936 and the same was ultimately passed in an amended form. I have much respect for Shri Rau. He has laboured very hard and has been of great help in the framing of the Constitution. But I will submit that he has mentioned this fact about consulting only a very few persons in the Report itself and thinks no harm in that. He however, did agree that the society was divided on the issue. Sister Renuka is not present here just now, but I have to say no different thing about her as well. She was speaking on the Marriage Bill in 1943-44. On that occasion she had laid a claim that if a referendum were to be held and all votes to be counted then all the young men of high spirits (Joshila jawans) will be found to have supported that Bill. She had not used the phrase ‘joshila jawans’. I am merely elucidating the original phrase viz. ‘the youth’ used by her. I wish to submit it to my sister along with the other six or eight in this House that if they really think the Bill a very necessary one in the interests of women like our Acharya Kripalani who has come round to see in it the liberation of our women then, please, do not give it a title like the Hindu Code Bill. Name it the Post Independence Civil Rights of Hindu Women Bill or something like that. Thereafter you may proceed to give them as many rights as you please. After all we have always shown reverence and done honour to our women. Our ladies accept their husband’s house as their own after marriage. Sister Sucheta has set up a house likewise. Once a woman goes to her husband’s house, that house becomes her’s also, she can claim her father’s house as her own no more. It becomes merely her father’s place from the time of her marriage. Her house is the one into which she is married. I need not go into further detail. But our sisters are wrong to think that it is a Bill of theirs only and for them only. Men have a right to it as much as the women do. I don’t want to discriminate anyway between them on this score. So no man or woman should take it that the Bill concerns a particular section of the society exclusively. I shall be excused if I take rather a longer time.

DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL 697 So I was telling how sister Renuka had laid a claim for the support of all the enthusiastic young men in case of a referendum. In the Report submitted by Shri Rau in 1947, he said, ‘ Opinion is sharply divided some to the left, some to the right. Also that those in favour of the Bill were persons of brain and quality whereas the others opposing it were mere idiots, devoid of any brain, possessing no status in life and without any sense to understand the society and its complexities.’ May I know who then are those who understand the society and its problems? Does Shri Rau understand it? And does the Dwarka Nath Mitter really not understand it? I have nothing to say about those people. But there is no one who could lay a claim to more work in this field than Malaviyaji, whose birth anniversary we have celebrated only yesterday and acknowledged him as an unequalled cultured man. He, though an orthodox, was always in the fore-front in the matters of reformation of the society and rights of the people. But that very venerable Malaviyaji had not thought it to be a proper way in which the Hindu Code Bill was being ushered in. We may not heed him. You all know Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru quite well. He too was second to none in wisdom or intellect. He had declared himself to be in favour of the Bill, but had agreed that it was not a suitable time to frame a Bill of this type. I go further. Sir Chiman Lall Setalwad enjoyed a status in life not less than any other man and had always taken a leading part towards reformation of the society. He never agreed to codification on principle but expressed himself in favour of giving a share to the widows and daughters without any codification. Surely it is not right to consider all persons to be wise who talk in the same vein as you do and denounced all others as mere fools who cannot share your opinions. I will request my brothers and sisters through this House and Sir, through you, not to consider the Bill in this manner. And, to my Hon. Leader, the Prime Minister, Pandit Jawahar Lal Nehru, who is not present in the House. I would like to say that I should certainly have joined with him—and I am in fact with him—in his efforts to evolve a uniform set of rules for the Hindu society and his desire to assemble the scattered provisions of Law and to form them into a system—a code—but I ask, have the public been, allowed an opportunity of expressing their views. Take the case of the small sized Parsi Community. They kept all their component parts with them, ascertained the opinion of each one of them separately and it was then only that the Bill was brought forward. Then only did they succeed for otherwise they could not have achieved