Vol. 14, Part I · pages 726–730

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES708 provisions of Hindu law, because it is a matter of a time honoured religion which has come to us through centuries and that it is only a Pandit Parishad which will be competent to effect any change. I submit with great humility that is a position which cannot be accepted for a single minute. Hindu law, as has been pointed out by Sir Alladi Krishanaswami Ayyar and others, has never been static. It has changed from time to time. Each time when the structure of society changed a smritikar appeared—a sage, a rishi, a muni—and he made such modifications as were suited to the times. This process went on for centuries until the country came under British rule. During this period, the only changes that could be made in the law were either by judges who were to interpret the law or by the legislature. No new sage could appear with the authority of a Manu or a Yagnavalkya or a Viswamitra. Either the judges who were duty bound to interpret the law as they found it in the smritis or nibandas could interpret it or the legislature had to intervene. It is idle therefore to contend in the year 1949 that the legislature is not competent because it consists of all types of people who are not learned in the smritis. That is a argument which I submit, should be rejected forthwith. If you see the course of events that the legislatures of this country have followed for more than a century, you will find that whenever it was found that the Hindu law or any branch of it was found to be defective, legislation was introduced. It began with the Removal of Sati Act in 1829 under the guidance of late Ram Mohan Roy The custom of sati which was considered to be a part of Hindu religion, but which was not really a part of it and which was an abuse, if I may say so, of the principles of religion, had to be done away with and for that purpose legislation was introduced as far back as 1829. Mr. Deputy Speaker : There is too much of whispering going on. The reporters are unable to take notes. I am also not able to hear. Sjt. Rohini Kumar Chaudhari : The Speaker’s voice is indistinct. He has got two mikes close to each other. We do not hear him properly either. Mr. Deputy Speaker : He is speaking before the phone. Each seat has been converted into a small phone. What am I to do? The Honourable Member will kindly resume after Lunch. The House is adjourned till 2.30 p.m. Shri A. Thanu Pillai (United State of Travancore and Cochin): May I make a suggestion ? (Interruption). My point is this.

DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL 709 Some Honourable Members : The House has already been adjourned. Mr. Deputy Speaker : You are late. The House has already been adjourned Shri A. Thanu Pillai : I am sorry. I did not know. The Assembly then adjourned for Lunch till Half Past Two of the Clock The Assembly re-assembled after lunch at Half Past Two of the Clock, Mr. Deputy Speaker (Shri M. Ananthasayanam Ayyangar) in the Chair. Dr. Bakhshi Tek Chand : Sir, when the House rose, I was referring to the Acts passed in 1829 under the inspiration of Shri Ram Mohan Roy for the abolition of sati. Now as we all know, it was argued at that time that sati was a part of Hindu religion. It was said that sati was one of the essential features of our dharma and any interference with it would be an attack on Hindu religion. But the sense of the community prevailed, the law was passed and sati ceased to exist. This custom, as I was saying, was not a part of Hindu law. It was an innovation which has been introduced during the, what are called dark ages, or the medieval ages. Luckily that was removed by legislative enactment. After that we had the 1850 Act for the removal of class disabilities so far as inheritance was concerned. If a person or the heir changed his religion the right of succession was not affected. That was the second great change that was made in Hindu law. Then came another very great reform in 1856 when the Widow Re-marriage Act was passed. For centuries it was believed that the Hindu religion did not permit the remarriage of widows. Shri Mahavir Tyagi : May I know. Sir, if the Treasury Benches are represented. The Honourable Shri K. C. Neogy (Minister of Commerce): Government is one and indivisible and so long as there is one Minister present I think he is competent to represent the whole Government. Mr. Deputy Speaker : I think it is always a healthy ambition for Members on the other side to come and sit over this side. Dr. Bakhshi Tek Chand : As I was saying, widow re-marriage was considered to be an essential feature of Hindu religion and any suggestion to repeal that law or to enact a permissible legislation which

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES710 would enable a widow to remarry was opposed tooth and nail. But under the leadership of Shri Ishwar Chandra Vidya Sagar and other leaders of that day public opinion asserted itself and this great disability under which Hindu women suffered was removed by another piece of legislation. Well, the Hindu religion did not come to an end by the enactment of that legislation. After that there have been numerous other Acts by which Hindu law has been modified by the Parliament or the Legislative Assembly of the day. Most of you will remember the great agitation which took place in 1890 and 1891 when the age of Consent Bill was introduced. At that time the cry was raised that it would be a gross interference with the Hindu religion if a legislature consisting of Hindus, Muslims, Christians and dominated by bureaucrats were to legislate in regard to a custom which permitted intercourse with a child wife below the age of twelve. If you have a recollection of what appeared in the papers, even advance papers like the Amrit Bazar Patrika, you will see in what kind of convulsion the Hindu society was at that time. But again the legislators persisted and that Bill was passed a Bill which ultimately has culminated in the last session by almost unanimous vote of the House in the further amending Bill which our friend Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava introduced and which if I remember aright was unanimously passed by all sides of the House. At that time none of our friends thought that this Assembly was not competent to legislate with regard to a matter which was considered to be an essential part of the Hindu religion. Coming to more recent times, you will find that in 1916 the Indian Legislature passed what is called the Dispensation of Property Act, an Act which has had the effect of repealing the law which has been laid down by Privy Council in what is known as Tagore versus Tagor case. In that case, following certain texts of the Smritis the Privy Council had ruled that behests or gifts in favour of a class of persons who are unborn on the date of the gift were void according to Hindu Law. That had continued to be the law for about sixty or seventy years. It had been suggested that that was a wrong interpretation of the texts. The matter was examined and it was found that certain texts according to their literal meaning could only lead to the conclusion at which the Privy Council had arrived. This was found to be a great handicap and a great injustice. Therefore the legislature again intervened and by a unanimous vote of the House, it passed that Bill in 1916.

DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL 711 After that came what is called the Removal of Disabilities Bill. Under certain texts of Hindu Law as enunciated by some of the Smritis if a person was suffering from a physical disability, if he was blind, if he was deaf and dumb he was not entitled to inheritance. Many people thought that whatever the meaning of the texts might be, this was a great hardship. If out of five sons, one was deaf or was blind or suffered from some other disability, it was more necessary in his case that he should get a share in the father’s patrimony rather than the persons who are physically fit and capable of earning. Well, that text might have been of some validity or of some utility at a time when in ancient times the structure of society was such that in order to increase the family wealth it was necessary that all should work. It had become obsolete and the Hindu community revolted against it and the agitation was such that the Indian Legislature passed this Act in 1928 after which persons suffering from physical defects were allowed to inherit in the same way as persons who were physically sound. This was another inroad into Hindu Law. Then came another and very important Act, Act II of 1929 by which certain classes of people, who till that time had been ruled by the courts as not entitled to succeed to property, were allowed to succeed. According to the text of the Mitakshara school, it had been ruled by the courts in India and ultimately by the Privy Council that there were only five classes of females who were entitled to succeed, because these five were mentioned in Mitakshara. The Bombay school was of opinion that this list was not exhaustive but it was only illustrative and the great commentator Nil Kantha and his followers held this practice was due to a wrong interpretation of the Mitakshara in Northern India. Well, a Bill was introduced in this Assembly and after a great deal of deliberation that Bill was passed and the daughter, the sister and the sister’s son and so on were all included in the list of heirs. That again was a great change in the structure of Hindu Law particularly in Northern India. You are all aware of the Sarada Act. I will not repeat that. At that time also it was argued and argued seriously in this House also that fixing a minimum limit for marriage was an interference with Hindu religion. Well, the opposition did not succeed and the legislature persisted and the Bill was ultimately passed. After that, we have had what is known as the Deshmukh Bill. That Bill of 1937 had a great effect : it effected a very great change in

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES712 Hindu Law of succession. In areas governed by Mitakshara school, when there was a joint Hindu family after the death of one co-sharer, if he left no son the widow was not entitled to any share. She was dependent upon the brothers-in-law or the husband’s father and the other coparcener, dependent entirely upon their mercy for their maintenance. She was to receive only food and clothing and nothing else; mere maintenance only. Under that law it was enacted that childless widows would be entitled to the same share of the property as her husband would be entitled to and if she so liked, she could even ask for the property to be partitioned. It was held at the time that Hindu women in a joint family being entitled to sue for partition was considered to be repugnant to the fundamental principles of the Hindu Law, but the Legislature again made this change, a change which was warranted by the changing times, by the rising consciousness not only among women but among the men in this country, among Hindus who wanted that this should be done to their sisters and mothers. Now, at that time also there was a great deal of stir in the country but ultimately that stir also died down. Twelve years have passed and we cannot say that Hindu society in any way has crumbled to pieces or that Hindu religion has been attacked in a very vital matter so that it is now going to pieces. I come now to more recent times. In 1946, shortly before the present Assembly came into existence, a Bill permitted marriages among sagotras was passed by this Legislature. That Bill did not interfere with the prohibited degrees. Even though persons were living in different parts of the country and did not belong to the same caste, yet because they belonged to the same Gotra according to some technical meaning of the texts, the marriages could be invalidated, Such marriages, even though performed in several parts of the country, their validity was in doubt. That was again an enabling measure which was passed in 1946 and to which no serious objection has been taken. Now, I would ask Hon. Members to bear in mind what we did in the last April session of this Assembly. My esteemed friend, Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava brought a very simple Bill consisting of one section only, but a Bill which was of a most far-reaching and important character. By that Bill it was enacted that notwithstanding any text of Hindu law or any custom or usage having the force of law to the contrary, a marriage between various castes of Hindus would be deemed to have been validly made. That was a very great step, a