Vol. 14, Part I · pages 751–755

DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL 733 competent to deal with a subject of this character, whether the House has been elected on a clear issue to determine the contents of this Bill, or whether there is sufficient urgency in this matter to allow this House to deal with this proposition. I for one do not think that there can or should be a question about the competence of this body to deal with subjects of this character. The Hon. Member, who spoke just before me, has given a number of illustrations in which structural changes including the Constitution had been proposed by legislative measures in this House and carried. Even more important reforms had been made by the legislature preceding this which was not of the same sovereign character that this Legislature is, and therefore the question as to the competence of this House to deal with matters of this character seems to me to be irrelevant, unbecoming and if I may say so, not quite respectful towards this Assembly, for while it is quite true that this single issue was not placed before the electors, those of us who recollect the manner and method by which we have been elected to this House will realize that not on any issue was this House elected except that of acquiring independence and shaping a constitution for the country. If you press that argument too far, I am afraid you will render many matters with which this House has dealt with as either illegal or ultra vires. I would not like therefore that any suggestion of this character can be or should be advanced so as to throw any doubt whatsoever, on the competence, the authority and correctness of this House in dealing with and disposing of such matters. Sir, in general elections also, it is not possible to have each issue separately examined. As all those, who have an experience of popular general elections, will realize general elections are always fought on a multiplicity of issues. There is therefore not any clear indication of a majority on any individual issue of such complexity as we are dealing with now. Unless the Constitution provides a method like referendum, unless we had a constitutional device like that suggested by Mr. Gokulbhai Bhatt, we would find it extremely difficult if not impossible, to get a clear verdict of the people on issues of this character. There would really be no means of ascertaining popular opinion. Even then there may be those who would say, given the state of public education in this country, given the state or the condition in which the press in the country is monopolized by a few individuals, given also the lack of experience of the voter in matters of this character, 4 P.M.

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES734 the decision of the people, even if competent, may be open to question. I would therefore suggest that an argument of this character ought not to influence the judgment of this House and we should confine ourselves to the discussion of the proposition, as I am happy to see in many quarters it has been. The opposition to the Bill is led and is made up of people for whose opinions, I have personally very warm regard. I am not, therefore, prepared to say that this is an opposition of vested interests, that this is an opposition inspired by ulterior motives or dictated by other considerations. I fully realize, Sir, that the opposition has in many cases very serious grounds for holding the views that they do, and though, I have the misfortune of differing from them, I cannot for that reason say that their views are not entitled to the widest consideration we can give them. On that standpoint, I feel that there is a great deal of force in the arguments of those who question the urgency of the matter and are prepared—if not differ discussion— at least take much more time on the discussion than seems likely to give to this matter, but by saying this, I should not be misunderstood I should not be understood to say, that I would like the matter to be indefinitely postponed. I should like this body whose sovereignty, I would not question, to give a decision on this matter once and for all, and though I am fully alive to the consideration advanced by one of the hon. speakers that there is no guarantee that the next House will accept the decision, even if we give it, I feel that once an indication is given, once a sign-post is erected, once a road is built, it would be difficult to reverse the engine and go back. However, that is a matter of faith rather than of reason, of general belief rather than of intellectual conviction, and I am therefore, open on this matter, altogether, but taking however into consideration the main points that have been urged against the merits of the provisions contained in the Bill, I feel it impossible to accord my support to the opponents of the several sections of the Bill, several chapters in the Bill, or the provisions in the Bill. The main difficulty centres round, so far as I can see on the position of women. I have already said Sir, that I have not the slightest desire to bring in the least bit of levity in this discussion, and therefore, some of the arguments, some of the points made earlier in this debate on this matter leave me somewhat cold. We are building up a country of equal citizens irrespective of religion, sex, class or creed. If that is the principle upon which we take our stand, if that is the preamble of our Constitution and the guiding

DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL 735 principle of the life that we are to build up for this country hereafter then I think that the provisions of this Bill are in full conformity with the ideals enunciated in the preamble to the Constitution and as such, anything which we now propose, that would be in any way different from or derogatory of this provision, ought not to be accepted by us. The attempt made in this bill to place women on a position of equality in regard to family relationships, in regard to inheritance, in regard to property, in regard to marriage or divorce, is an attempt not only in consonance with conditions now prevailing all over the world and coming into vogue in our society as well, but are conditions, which in my opinion are dictated by a full realization of the actual conditions and observed trend of events everywhere. It is true that for ages past, marriage has been regarded as a sacrament, but there is nothing, so for as I can see in this Bill, to prevent anybody from realizing and treating it even today as a sacrament. After all, I venture to submit, sacrament is a mere matter of your own heart and creation than an imposition from outside. How many sacraments are there, which though continuing to be sacraments are daily broken, broken in the worst possible manner and disgrace, both the breakers and those who are parties to that? Sacraments cannot change merely because the law gives a particular character to the relationship of man and wife as is attempted to be in this Bill. Whether or not, the law declares and recognizes a union to be a civil marriage or a civil contract, those who are parties to such a union, who have a very highly idealized opinion of the nature and function and objects of such a union will not cease to continue to do so. If however, circumstances develop which make it impossible for them any longer to continue in that position, if conditions develop which make it impossible to maintain that high ideal. I for one think that it would be much better to discontinue the relationship by any legal and reasonable manner that can be found than to continue it to the mutual prejudice, to the continued misery of the parties concerned or the offspring. It is not a very pleasant matter, Sir, to suggest that there should be freedom for divorce if unions could be all made in the form in the ideal, in the spirit in which they were supposed to have been made, but we live in a mundane world, with material considerations, with human weaknesses and therefore, it is too much to expect that merely by an ordinance, merely by a fireman, we would continue to keep and maintain unions in the idealist sense in which they have been believed conceived and maintained.

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES736 Permission, therefore to dissolve in a legal, reasonable public manner unions which have become oppressive, which have become a source of misery to the parties and their off-springs, is nothing more in my opinion that a recognition of the actual prevailing circumstances and the developments that may have in any given case taken place, and therefore, it is that even though one may not like the idea, one must recognize realities, one must face the actual position and admit that it is much better that we should discontinue or dissolve such unions than that we should continue a misery for such parties. The idea that these unions should be monogamous in character while they last is also one which in my opinion is the basis, is the foundational condition of a continued happiness, continued success of such unions. There may be occasions, however, when such unions as I have just said prove unbearable or intolerable by circumstances that neither party could foresee, but in that case, without too much fuss, without going into an operation that might involve washing of the dirty linen and mere playing to the gallery, so to say, by sensationalism, we might in our law devise machinery by which this union could be easily dissolved without unnecessary prejudice to any party. I do not see therefore that we need insist upon reasons or conditions or excuses that any other legal systems have been made necessary for granting divorce and I think it would be much better if divorce is made easy, simple and unexpensive, more than is at any rate, the case in some of the western countries whose model we have been following. The question of inheritance, the question of enjoying a share of the patrimony is again one which does not seem to me to be a just cause for the degree of heat that it seems to have evoked in this House. After all, in this country how many people are in a position to have property and leave such property outside beyond their life? If you go by standards, if you go by measurements such as that of the income-tax statistics, you will find that perhaps less than a million people are in a position to have an income of about Rs. 250 a month and that would include all people, not only those who are regarded as income-tax payers, but those who try or manage to escape that. In a population of over 300 millions, the income tax paying class number about one million, or with their dependent about three to four millions and that is less than one per cent of the total population who can possibly afford to have some property that can be divided or that can be the cause of disaffection or of inequality of rights as

DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL 737 between the descendants of common parents. I see really no reason why on this subject any heat should be generated, as regards the recognition of equal rights of daughters and sons in the matter of division of patrimony. Speaking for myself, I may say, I do not believe in any property at all, and the sooner the day comes when property as a whole is abolished, when provision is made for everybody by the community, provision to see that everybody gets work and gets his or her wants or requirements met, the sooner that day comes the better for the community. And this source of evil, a learned lawyer called it the source of strife, I call it this property which is the source of evil, I say that property should be abolished, and the sooner it is done the better it would be for the community and for legislations of this kind. If it were possible at this stage to suggest an amendment of the kind I like, I would even suggest that all clauses relating to property be abolished or deleted and a simple proposition be inserted, that while property continues, property of any kind, both land or personal, it shall be equally divided. That would be sufficient for the time being and we ought to endeavour that the day draws nigher and nigher when property as a whole will be abolished and everbody would have the same right to work, the same right to enjoy a given standard of life as those who are advantageously situated with patrimonies in their hands. On these two crucial issues therefore, one of marriage and the other of inheritance, I say that the Bill goes no further than what conditions around us necessitate. If and while you maintain an individualistic society, if and while property remains to be the corner-stone of or the foundation of your social system, and the profit motive remains the governing impulse of the social machine, so long I see no reason why there should be inequality. The equality should not be merely nominal. Political equality, the right to vote would mean nothing so long as economic equality also is not assured to every human being, to every citizen of this country. One has heard a great deal and I was very glad to hear it all that in the essence of Indian civilisation, in the essence of our social system, the highest honour is paid to womanhood. If that is true—and I do not doubt it—then I do not see why mere sanction of equality in property should be excluded, if you are really so worshipful of womanhood, if you are so respectful and reverential to womanhood, why do you hesitate at all to give her equal right to what after all, is mundane property, that which must