Vol. 14, Part I · pages 761–765

DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL 743 they have suffered and that they are not prepared now to continue to suffer, I would certainly advise my brothers to take up the subordinate position. But I feel that this insistence on equality in every matter and in home life would not be conducive to happiness or peace in the family. Then again my complaint is that only two kinds of marriages have been recognised in this Bill. One is the sacramental form and the other is the civil form. I must inform the House, though I believe, most of the Members would be knowing it already, that the Sikhs have another form of marriage which they have observed for the last one hundred years. That is called Anand marriage ceremony. That is a simple form. The couple are brought before the Guru Granth Saheb, they take a vow and go four times round the Granth Saheb, then offer prayer and then the marriage is complete. Now, it is not civil marriage because it has not to be registered anywhere. It is not scramental marriage because the sapinda relationship or the restrictions of prohibited relationship degrees are not adhered to strictly. Therefore what I am afraid of is that this form of marriage that we have been observing for so long would not be a valid marriage. Doubts arose in the beginning of this century and then a particular Act had to be passed in 1909—the Anand Marriage Validating Act— when it was enacted that all marriages solemnised according to this form were valid. But now, as I read it, I am doubtful whether this marriage will be recognised under the Hindu Code. Therefore, I feel that the Sikhs would feel much concerned over this and would have grave apprehensions over this matter particularly. I want to bring it to the particular notice of the Mover that, left to themselves, they are not prepared to forego this form of marriage and he should take particular note of this. Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad ( West Bengal Muslim): Such a marriage would be invalid under this Bill. Sardar Hukam Singh : I also feel that it would be invalid under this Bill and that is why I am submitting the position before the House and before the Mover particularly. Then I have to submit one observation about divorce. It has been said that divorce is already there among a large percentage of the population. It may be. My appeal is this. If it is there let it go on. Do not restrict it with certain conditions that would make it more expensive. An ordinary man would feel that this change is not for

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES744 the better but for the worse. If they have an easy mode of dissolution of marriage now and are hereafter being compelled to resort to some more complicated and more expensive method, certainly they would not welcome it. It is argued that there are evils creeping. The bill is a permissive one. That there is no compulsion for anybody, but we have to be on our guard whether the remedy proposed is not worse than the malady itself. There are evils no doubt to a certain extent. But if we loosen the bonds, a small percentage of the population would be happy to break all ties and secure relief from their self-created miseries. But what about the large minority? Would you not be opening a trap for them, and a temptation to make mistakes, and have a trial of their future as they will realise that there is a way out to end it? Then I come to my second main point and that is about adoption. Adoption in my province, that is the Punjab, is a peculiar institution. It is called the customary appointment of an heir. It has nothing to do with religion. It is a simple declaration for practical purposes, where the owner of a land nominates a person who is to be his assistant for cultivation during his lifetime and an heir to his farm after his death. As I have said, it has nothing to do with religion. There is no restriction as to age or as to relationship. You are now proposing in this Code that a daughter’s son or a sister’s son may be adopted but I must convey to you that already in the customary appointment of an heir daughter’s sons are most ordinarily appointed, sister’s sons also are appointed. There are absolutely no restrictions. A young man can adopt a man of his farmer’s age, a man with many sons might be appointed as an heir. That might look strange to some people here but I tell you that it is a fact. A married man, a man with children might be appointed an heir. That is a most secular institution; it has got nothing to do with religion. How are you going to provide for such an institution? Are you going to throw it out? Surely that has the sanctity and sensation of ages, it is so popular in our part of the country that it cannot be thrown away like that. People would not submit to it so easily and so far as this part of the law is concerned, it would be a dead letter if it is pressed and forced on our people there. Then there is the question of succession. I agree with my friends that our females, sisters and daughters, should have a share in the property, but I cut it short by saying that I agree with my learned friend Dr. Bakshi Tek Chand when he enunciated some time ago that

DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL 745 they should have a share in the father-in law’s property and not in the father’s property after marriage. I have particular reasons for that because as I have stated the circumstances of my province are very peculiar. The Punjab is a province of small peasants; small farms of three or four acres are the ordinary holdings. Such a person cannot be expected to have more than two bullocks which he might have secured after raising some loan, one hal and one panjali and one gadda also to take manure to the field or to bring fodder from the fields to his house. The Code would not apply to agricultural land, but what about the movables? What about his bullocks? Take the simple case of a family with one son and one daughter. The father dies, these movables are to be divided among these two. (An Honourable Member : Why not ?) I don’t say that , I say it must be divided. Ordinarily they would have a cow as well and I think the Mover would have to give us the mode of dividing that cow, hal and panjali. The son-in law who comes from a distance, of say fifty miles, is interested in that part of the country; here he cannot live with this brother-in-law because the four acres holding cannot provide him with anything. His interest is elsewhere and therefore he must divide the property and go away. The sister would demand her share; surely she will take away one bullock, one half of the cart, one half of the panjali and would go away never to come back, thanking the framers of this Code, and of course not to be welcomed again ! (An Honourable Member : The brother’s own brother-in-law will thank him !). That is a very easy question that is put, but it is not realised that when there are more than one-two, three or four—brothers in the East Punjab, they join the army, they are adventurers, they have gone to the farthest corners of the world to Argentine, Brazil and South America. They bring money from there and buy more lands, they live together with a common kitchen. Sir my submission is that this provision would create difficulties. I agree with my learned friend Dr. Bakshi Tek Chand that so long as the daughter is unmarried she must have a share in her father’s property, but as soon as she is married she must be transferred to her fatherin-law’s, there to have an equal share with right of partition and everything else. I am not against giving a share to the females— I might not be misunderstood in that respect. I am afraid that our educated girls have much leisure. An ordinary girl, when she gets educated, does not absorb herself in the household

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES746 duties, therefore she has not enough work to keep her busy in the house. [At this stage, Mr. Deputy Speaker (Shri M. Ananthasayanam Ayyangar) resumed the Chair.] The State should provide occupation for their leisure hours, give them useful and constructive work to do. Legislation like this and divorces would not root out the evils that you want to eradicate. Before destroying the joint family, the State must provide for old-age maintenance, illness allowance and several other things. If the pious duty is gone a mere charge on property would not do. The effects of this legislation, so far as I can think out, will be further fragmentation, love and sympathy, eliminated divorce and partition courts in larger numbers, female infanticide promoted, and care and attention of children neglected. Shri V. I. Muniswamy Pillay : rose — Shri B. Das (Orissa: General): Sir, are we continuing till 7 O’clock.. Mr. Deputy Speaker : I have no objection to sit till 7 o’clock. What is the general sense of the House? Some Honourable Members : No. no. Shri L. Krishnaswami Bharathi (Madras : General) : Sir, we can sit as long as there is a quorum. Some Honourable Members : No, no. Mr. Deputy Speaker : I have heard sufficiently. One voice cannot multiply itself into many. How long is the hon. Member likely to take? Shri V. I. Muniswamy Pillay (Madras : General): About fifteen minutes. Shri L. Krishnaswami Bharathi : Sir, the idea is to give opportunities to as many Members as would want to speak. It is rather surprising that people don’t want to speak. I suggest that we sit as long as people are ready to speak and we are here to hear and when there is no quorum we will automatically stop. Shrimati Purnima Banerji (U.P. General): The argument forwarded by hon. Members is that many members want to speak on such an important measure as the Hindu Code. When there are so many of us who are willing to say what we want to say and can be accomodated what is the objection to sitting till seven? 5 P. M.

DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL 747 Mr. Deputy Speaker : I entirely agree. If majority of the members are willing to sit and speak I have no objection. Some Honourable Members : Yes, we are willing. Mr. Deputy Speaker : Very Well. Let Mr. Muniswamy Pillay finish. We will see. * Shri V. I. Muniswamy Pillay : Coming as I do from a community that was at the outside of the Hindu Society for centuries, I welcome this measure of religious and social reform. We, who form one-sixth of the population of India, welcomed the advent of Mahatma Gandhi who revolutionised the Hindu society so that not only Caste Hindus but all sections of the Hindus could have an equal place. Some of the friends who preceded me said that religion was in danger. I do not know wherefrom and in what from their objection springs. This country is proud of many Avatars —Lord Buddha, Sankara, Ramanuja—and great social reformers like Ram Mohan Roy and in the present century, the great Mahatma Gandhi who found that untouchability was eating into the very vitals of our nation and himself showed the way for inter-caste marriage. All these reforms show that we are in line with the present age. Whenever any social reform came up before the legislatures, obstructions were placed in the way, so that reforms may not come about. Coming from Madras, I may inform this House what kind of trouble we had when the Temple Entry scheme was before the Madras Legislature. Even in the matter of removal of social disabilities of untouchables, the Ministers had to find themselves in the midst of people who threw chilly powder in their face. Such is the state of affairs when we bring social reform in this country. The great Sankara who brought Advaitism to our land, when he was asked by his Guru “Who are you?” he said: u es e‘R;q˜ïk u es tfrHksn%A firk uSo es u ekrk u tUe%AA u ca/quZ fe=kks u xq#uZ f’k";%A fpnkuan#i% f’koksMag f’koksMga%AA These were the words uttered by the great Sankara. He never differentiated man from man, woman from woman. He thought every one was equal. I do not understand why there should be so much opposition to this Bill. In the South the great philosopher. Thiruvalluvar has given to the world tenets as to how a man and woman should *C.A. (Leg.) D., Vol. VI, Part II, 14th December 1949, pp. 611-14.