Vol. 14, Part I · pages 756–760

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES738 be left behind by every one of us. However much we may be attached to it, however much one may hold and accumulate property, I do hold and I say it with the utmost reverence and the utmost humility, that I consider that in the process of evolution, woman seems to be more highly evolved, a finer organism than man, it is not, however, any disparagement of either sex. All I say is that, given the function that nature seems to have entrusted to women, given also the function and the objects with which womanhood has to deal in this social system, we cannot rever, we cannot regard or respect womanhood too much, and as such I would not like the least sign of inequality, the least semblance of differentiation or invidious distinction between man and woman, as between son and daughter of the same parents. The question, however, of adoption or of guardianship and so on, does not interest me to the extent that some Hon. Members of this House seem to be interested in it. Adoption or for the matter of that, testamentary powers appear to be artificial extension of the human personality beyond death which is utterly unnatural, in my point of view. It is bad enough to have and hold and control property, it is bad enough to have and hold the property and the profit motive in our minds while we are alive. Why should we continue to prolong our personality? Why should we desire to insist upon our orders being obeyed even after death? Why should there be this artificial extension of personality by such an instrument as adoption? Knowing, however, that it is an ancient institution, knowing however, that it is an institution which many regard as a point or as a factor in their salvation, I am not prepared to suggest that here and now we should abolish it. I am prepared to say, if you regard it as a source of your salvation, if you regard it as something by which your personality is perpetuated, your civilisation or culture or work in life is continued, then it is necessary. But, in that case, you need hot have inequality between man and woman. No discrimination or legal restriction between man and woman. The same right should be extended to every one in the community. I base my support of this Bill on grounds of social justice, economic equality and of political propriety. I should think that the Constitution that we have adopted, that the ideals that we have held before us, that the hopes that we have entertained of a planned and

DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL 739 progressive society here after, in view of all that, I think we cannot do better than take this Bill as the beginning in the right direction.We cannot do better than recognise the provisions it has incorporated, regarding removing all inequalities as between man and woman. It is not merely a matter of recording every five years or every three years one’s vote at the general election. It is also a matter relating to life and work, of equal opportunities to health and education of standard of life and the same fulfilment of the elementary wants of human beings, in the matter of food, shelter and clothing. These should be available, and should be made available if they are not available by the concerted and common action of our society as a whole. Society should realise this obligation that it is not merely a paper proposition that we have enunciated in our Constitution, but it is a sacred duty and obligation that ought to be discharged at the shortest measure of time that we can manage it, that all these things should be made available to every citizen of the country so that the hopes and aspirations that we have formed, so that the hopes that we have entertained ever since the freedom of this country was achieved, could be realised. It has been said by a very great American—President Lincoln, that a nation cannot be half slave and half free. While not exactly Slaves one half of this country, of our community still feel disabilities and weaknesses or invidious discrimination against them, which it does not wish, should be allowed to continue any longer. In this connection may I mention a statistical fact which perhaps is not realised by every person in this House. It is this. While woman is in a majority at birth, on the overall population she is in a very striking minority. Whatever may be the conditions in a province like Utkal, on the whole, in India woman has always been in a minority almost beginning from the age when marriage begins, from about fifteen onwards, their numbers go on thinning so that in the over all population woman was and is still in a minority. What is the significance of that? [At this stage Mr. Deputy-Speaker vacated the Chair which was then occupied by Shri S. V. Krishnamoorthy Rao (one of the Panel of Chairmen). ] I for one think, that is because of the unequal treatment given to women as between boy and girl, as between son and daughter that

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES740 it has resulted in a majority at birth being reduced to a minority on the whole, so that that charges of unequal treatment must be faced. Here is a Bill which tries to remove that. There are many provisions in the Bill which may not satisfy everybody, even those who on principle accept the Bill, even those who realise that it goes a great way forward in rationalising our society, simplifying our legislation and organising our social system to a given end. But we are not discussing details just now. Specific provisions apart, the principle underlying the Bill, the motive spring of the entire structure should commend itself to the House and I trust the House will accept it. Shri Lakshminarayan Sahu (Orissa : General): (English translation of the above speech) I would like to say, Sir, that I did not mention this thing as a joke that there are more women in Utkal. The number of women in Utkal exceeds by three to four lakhs and when it is not possible to find out a match for their marriage, then they are married to a Sahada tree. Prof. K. T. Shah : I am speaking of the whole country and not of any particular province. Therefore it is not necessary for me to answer this particular question. Let it be left there. *Sardar Hukam Singh (East Punjab : Sikh): Sir, at this late stage of the debate, I feel it is not very easy to advance fresh arguments or make new points on the subject on which so many distinguished lawyers and eminent scholars have taken part for so many days. But as I have been called as a representative of a particular community to which this Bill applies, I must say something which should represent the feelings of my community so far as this particular code is concerned. I do not agree with my learned friend Prof. Shah when he said that he wants to speak only as an Indian. I would have gladly repeated the same phrase, had this code applied to every citizen of India but as it stands it applies to certain communities only. Therefore I feel and believe that I have a right and a duty to speak on behalf of my community. *C.A. (leg.) D., Vol. VI, Part II, 14th December 1949, pp. 607-10.

DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL 741 Though I have the advantage of having heard so man scholars at the same time I feel I have certain disadvantages as well because most of the things have been said and if I repeat them they would look stale. I have, therefore, decided to confine myself to certain points only which particularly concern my community and on which I feel that I have to express my views. At the outset I might make it clear that I do not want society to stagnate. I am not one of those who would say that social laws should remain as they are, I would like to change them as times change. I am not so orthodox as to say that we have no right to march with the times. Nor am I of the opinion that this House is not competent to enact this legislation on account of its being elected indirectly or on account of lack of a special mandate as regards this Bill or on account of any other reason, I feel that this House is competent to enact any legislation and hence this Bill also is within its competence. In spite of all this, I feel that I cannot lend my wholehearted support to this measure as it stands. If the original scheme had been adhered to as suggested by the Rau Committee, perhaps certain portions of this Code might have been passed without opposition. There must be unanimity on certain branches of this Code. But I will confine myself to certain points only and therefore I do not want to touch on all aspects of the general principles of the legislation. The Preamble says that the Bill is intended to amend and codify certain branches of the Hindu law as now in force. But when I look into the Bill, I find that there is nothing of Hindu law that is being codified here. Divorce is being taken from the Christian countries and the law of inheritance from Muslim law. To me it is rather a misnomer to call it a codification of Hindu law. Dr. Mono Mohon Das (West Bengal : General): There are so many castes and tribes in the country among whom the divorce custom is prevalent. Are they not Hindus? Does the hon. Member want to get rid of them? Sardar Hukam Singh : If you will permit me, I will come to that question later. I hope you will have the patience to hear me. As I said I will confine myself only to certain points so far as my community is concerned and will not go beyond them. In the Preamble, it is said, that the Bill is intended to amend and codify the Hindu law and I repeat that I do not find that in this Code. If

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES742 as we were told by the Mover at the outset that 90 per cent, of the people have divorce, I have no objection and let them remain as they are. You might call that Hindu law but not this system you are introducing in this Code. In clause 2, it is said that this Bill applies to Sikhs as well. It would have been a matter of gratification or even of much pride to us, if Sikhs had been included among Hindus for the conferment of certain rights. But what I find here is that as soon as the embrace is extended in clause 2 a severe blow is dealt to all coustoms and usages by clause 4. All custom is gone and usages eliminated. I must submit here that “custom” in clause 3 has been defined as “having been continuously and uniformly observed” and that it must be “certain and not unreasonable nor opposed to public policy”. Why should such a sacred rule of conduct be treated with such contempt that it should be ruled over once for all? I have grave objection to that. My objection is particularly based on this fact that my Province, namely the Punjab, is a Province where custom is the first rule of law. In all matters like divorce, marriage, succession, inheritance, wills etc. custom is the first rule as is laid down in the Punjab Laws Act. They have those customs which they observe from a long time and everybody in the village understands what that rule is which he is to observe. There have been judicial pronouncements on these customs and they are ordinarily understood by every villager, There is no dispute about that. Therefore, I feel that this change would bring about a fresh phraseology and would create complications for simple peasants who have all along understood their laws well. My second objection is about marriage. I might make one observation here. It might be said that the Sikhs have all along been governed by Hindu law up to now. But what I object to is the change that is being brought about. I have no objection absolutely if the Hindu Law were to continue as it is. But as the changes are being brought from outside, I feel the Sikhs must have a grievance and feel that either customs should be allowed to remain as they are or they should not necessarily be bound to revolve round the wheel as it goes on. I was referring to the marriage question. Of course I feel that in Hindu law or in Hindu culture the wife has so long been advised to merge herself into the will of the husband. She has been an embodiment of sacrifice. That has been her nobility and greatness. If now our females feel that they have been subjugated for so long a time, that