Vol. 14, Part I · pages 731–735

DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL 713 step which permitted inter-caste marriages and which removed such restrictions as one must marry either in his own sub-caste or, at any rate in his caste. That was the measure which was passed by this House unanimously, and so far as I remember at the consideration stage the only voice raised against it was that of Dr. Ambedkar. All other Members orthodox and un-orthodox, person governed by Dayabhaga, Mitakshara, by the Mayukha, person governed by tribal customs and everybody supported the Bill. Dr. Ambedkar : of course accepted it on a very narrrow ground. He was entirely in favour of the principle of the Bill but he thought that as this Hindu Code which was a very embracive measure was before the Assembly and therefore we should have a comprehensive measure that was a very technical type of objection. Otherwise we all unanimously supported that Bill and it came sometime late at the end of April. Now I will ask my orthodox friends who say that Hindu Dharma is in danger as to what has become of that. We were saying when the Constitution was under consideration that we want to have a classless and a casteless society. That is contrary to certain texts of Hindu law which have been in force in various parts of the country for centuries, but still the Bill was enacted and it is a part of the law of the land. At that time, if I may be permitted to say so, nobody took an objection that this House was not competent to deal with it because it had been elected only for the purpose of framing the Constitution or for the purpose of carrying on the day to day administration. Abolition of caste system in the matter of marriages was surely not part of the day to day administration of the country. It was a very vital and a very material and a very substantial change in Hindu law of marriage, the law which prevails in some form or another in all the Schools from Kashmir to Kanya Kumari and from Bengal to Gujarat but we all did it with open eyes when the Bill was passed and Mr. Munshi who was here at that time said that the Bill was a far-reaching one, though the Bill is a very short one; it is a very big change and a very important change. The whole House cheered him at that, I will ask my orthodox friends, the opponents of the Bill where was their regard and their enthusiasm for Hindu Law or Hindu Dharma at that time? I submit, therefore with great deference to my orthodox friends that this cry which is being raised, that this Bill which is now before the House is all attack upon the Hindu religion that the foundations of the Hindu religion will be undermined, that the whole fabric of Hindu society and Hindu culture will crumble to pieces or that this House is not

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES714 competent to enact a measure of this kind simply because it does not have many learned pandits or that the Members who are here were not elected for a specific purpose. I submit with the due deference that there is no force in this objection and I would most respectfully ask my orthodox friends to consider the history of the legislation which I had placed before them the various measures which we ourselves have passed in recent times and to consider that they might attack the Bill upon other grounds, but to say that this House is not competent either being merely a legislative assembly or that we have got no mandate of the country to look into this measure to enact or consider it and pass it, I submit with very great deference that that argument is not sound. I will ask them to examine the Bill upon its merits to accept it or to throw it out. It is one thing to say that the Bill has not been sufficiently considered; it is one thing to say that there are provisions in the Bill which require further discussion and examination; it is one thing to say that the bill requires to be re-cast in certain matters. Even today as I suggested and as Sir B. N. Rau in his original report of the Committee said perhaps it will be advisable to take this reform of Hindu law in parts. I can quite understand that, but when every morning—I hope I will be pardoned for saying so— every mail has been bringing in letters during these months, letters and reprints from speeches delivered by persons, resolutions passed by the Dharma Sangh and this society and that society, all giving the opinion of this great man and that great man and saying that this Assembly is not competent to deal with them : I with the greatest deference and in all humility submit that that is neither correct nor logical nor reasonable, and therefore, I would submit to my friends, the opponents of the Bill not to press those arguments but to look at the Bill very reasonably, rationally and with a proper point of view. That was my submission to my orthodox friends and now I may be permitted to say a word to our friends, the supporters of the Bill. Shri H. V. Kamath : Are they heterodox or orthodox? Dr. Bakhshi Tek Chand : Well let everbody decide it for himself. Now the position is that this Bill was introduced. It had as we know a very brief discussion at the first stage. When we met in the Select Committee we were given only six days to consider this important Bill and when certain objections were raised by Members of the Committee to some parts of the Bill, we were told that the principle

DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL 715 of this proposal goes against the fundamental principles of the Bill which have been accepted by the House when it passed the first reading and therefore, we the Members of the Select Committee who wished to move amendments to those vital matters are out of court and we were out of order. We submitted to the ruling and we had only six days to discuss this Bill in the heat of July and we did the best that we could under the circumstances within the short time at our disposal and within the narrow limits which were laid down by the Hon. Law Minister at that time. That was not only the Law Minister, but there were certain enthusiastic Members of the Select Committee who thought : “Well now is the time we have got this Bill; let us push it through in this very session and before the month of October or November arrives, it will be a part of the Statute Book.” Several objections and several arguments were given : ‘Let us wait for a few months.’ Ultimately the Select Committee decided to proceed with it on a majority of two. Things have gone in such a way that within one month this Bill could not be put on the Statute Book. Things have dragged on due to circumstances much beyond the control of us, beyond the control of the majority of the select Committee. One point which I raised in the Select Committee and one which I also dwelt at some length in my note of dissent and which I ask the permission of the House to repeat was that this Bill is a very half hearted, and a very, if I may say so, a very truncated measure. I fully endorse the view and I have no hesitation in repeating it, that the time has come when we must give full rights to our sisters and our daughters; that is to say, the time has come when we cannot allow the old texts to continue, or their interpretations which have been given by the British Courts that a woman has not got a full estate, that a woman is not entitled to succeed to this type of property or to that type of property and so on and so forth that must go. In the first place I maintain, and I have always maintained it that all that is against our original Hindu law. I maintain and I hope to show; if the Hon. Deputy Speaker will permit me a few more minutes, that this theory that a woman’s estate is limited is a creature, a creation of the British Indian Courts. It is not countenanced, not supported by the Mitakshara law not by the Mayukha nor by the Smritis. All that must be done away with But in order to do that, what shall we do? I suggested that some changes should be made in the Bill, that we must look at it from 3 P.M.

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES716 another angle which will give woman a higher status than we have got in the Bill; they said “No, we have got the Bill having the imprimature of Shri B. N. Rau and the authority of Dr. Ambedkar, and no change of a substantial nature can be made in it.” That was the attitude of the supporters of the Bill. If I may be pardoned for saying that, in the Select Committee and later on also, they have not been less fanatical than the opponents of the Bill. They say, “ Well there is the Bill, take it or leave it and reject it if you can. That is being repeated now after the declaration which the Prime Minister was pleased to make a few days ago, and which I know, must naturally, tie down most Members of the House in their vote.” Some Honourable Members : No, no. Dr. Bakhshi Tek Chand : Well, it will have an unconscious effect, even if permission is given to everybody to vote as he likes. Well, I ask the friends who are supporters of the Bill, I ask my sisters ‘ Does this Bill do you full justice? Is this all that you want? Does it give you the rights you want?’ I say, ‘no’; I say most emphatically, ‘no, it does not’. It is a most truncated and half-hearted measure, and if I may say so, it will do the maximum of mischief to Hindu society and the minimum of good to the members of the female sex. An Honourable Member : Are they agreeable to your solution? Dr. Bakhshi Tek Chand : I do not know. Now I will deal with a few of the provisions of the Bill. One of the provisions of the Bill is that the chapters relating to succession, etc. will not apply to inheritance of agricultural land. Why? Because at that time when the Bill was introduced, the position was that under Entry 7 of the Seventh Schedule of the Government of India Act of 1935, this Legislature, the Indian Legislature could not pass any law relating to agricultural land, that was a provincial subject. Well, that was the position at that time. In 1938, Dr. Deshmukh’s Bill was extended to include agricultural land also. The matter went then before the Federal Court and the Federal Court agreed that this was ultra vires of the Indian Legislature. That was the decision of the Court and that was the provision of the Government of India Act, 1935. And therefore naturally, Sir B. N. Rau and the Committee, as well as Dr. Ambedkar and his Law department omitted it and they said this is a matter which will have to be left to each Provincial Legislature to deal with. But luckily, by that time, the Drafting Committee of the Constituent Assembly had published its Draft Constitution. In that Draft Constitution it has

DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL 717 been stated that Entry ? in the Seventh Schedule be amended so as to include or rather to make the subject a concurrent subject, namely, the subject of succession to immovable property or movable property, including agricultural land. That was the provision. I suggested at that time, in my minute of dissent, both in the Select Committee and in my minute of dissent, that we might wait for a few months so that whatever measure we adopt to give redress to females, giving them a share in their father’s or husband’s property that that might apply to all kinds of properties. What you want is unformity of law, and I venture to point out that instead of uniformity, you will have diversity, and instead of unity, you will have confusion. If this provision had been passed, the position would have been, when a man’s immovable property is situated in a town, when he has urban property, to that movable property one law, namely the law of Dr. Ambedkar’s court but with regard to agricultural land situated, some three miles off, the old law will continue. The sons will have all the rights from the moment of their birth and the rule of survivorship will remain, and nobody will know what is the position with regard to the property. See how many loopholes you are leaving? If you do not want to give the property to your daughter, you can sell her share in Poona and go and buy agricultural land five miles outside and then you can deprive your daughter of her share, and thus circumvent the provisions of the Bill. But now luckily, what has happened? To-day when we are at the end of this first of the second reading of this Bill, the situation is this. The suggestion of Dr. Ambedkar and the Drafting Committee has been unanimously accepted by the Constituent Assembly and it will, God willing, come into force on the 26th January which will be long before the third reading of this Bill. I asked the other day whether he is going to make a change now so that this particular clause in the Bill which excludes agricultural land be removed so that we might give one fourth or half or full share or no share, and he said, “No.” The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : I do not think the Hon. Member is entitled to disclose a conversation. All I said was that that was my present view : later on we may reconsider the position, Now that we have power, one of the impediments in our way had been removed. Dr. Bakhshi Tek Chand : I am very glad that my learned friend has corrected me. I am much thankful to him for the correction, that his present intention is not to repeal that clause, but to retain the distinction but later on...