Vol. 14, Part I · pages 766–770

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES748 move; what are the conditions under which they should live. They are pearls. I do not understand why there should be objection to the woman getting equal share in all amentities that are given by God to the human beings. Some of the members who preceded me said that the time is not opportune. This measure has been before the country ever since the resolution of the Central Assembly was adopted on 20th January 1944. This Hindu Code has reached the nook and corner of India and not only educated men but the masses in general have understood the theme of this legislation. I do not know whether such members, as told the House that it is not competent to deal with this Bill, are talking with a sense of their responsibility to the country. I do not know whether members of this Assembly who have the proud privilege to produce a Constitution for thirty crores of people, which has been welcomed not only in India but in foreign countries, are not competent to deal with this Bill for the uplift of women in this country. We have clearly laid down in the Fundamental Right of the Constitution that the State shall not discriminate on grounds only of “religion, caste, sex....”. We have got again Article 15 (3) which says that “Nothing in this Article shall prevent the State from making any special provision for women and children.” Again in Article 46, it is stated : “The State shall promote with special care the educational and economic interests of the weaker sections of the people……” do not women come under this category , and ought they not to be protected? After all, this legislation is a permissible one and ought to be welcomed by everybody. If you study the rules regarding marriage, inheritance, adoption and all these things of Hindus in the different provinces, you will find that they are not the same. They differ in many places. In the Constitution we have said that we must evolve a common Civil Code. This legislation is, in my opinion, the forerunner before we come to that stage. I come from a district where there are a lot of hill tribes. Their marriage ceremonies, laws of inheritance etc. differ substantially from those of Hindus, although they profess to be Hindus. Among the picturesque Toda aboriginal community, there is poligamy and due to this social evil the community is dwindling. The ceremonrials of the other tribal community of Badagas also differ from those of Hindus, although they profess to be Hindus. The custom among them is that when a man wants to marry a girl, he has to pay dowry— what they call Thiraipanam. After that, if the woman wants to go away from the husband and if another man were to pay the same dowry i. e., Thiraipanam, the woman is free to choose another man.

DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL 749 In a land which has produced great saints and sages are we to continue these things? Whether it is the tribals or hill tribes they all have to be protected according to the New Constitution. Sir, in Madras province, as has already been observed by some of my hon. friends, poligamy has been statutorily abolished. Now, unless we codify the law for the whole country, it is open to a man to leave Madras, get married in some other province and return to Madras. Unless there is a uniformity in regard to the law obtaining in all the provinces, it is not possible for the Madras province alone to have this law enforced. The other cardinal points of the Hindu Code Bill which is now before the House are the chapters relating to marriage and divorce. It has already been pointed out how essential it is to have both civil and sacramental marriage. According to this, the Scheduled Castes find that the yogam must be performed and the ordinary thali tied. Then only does the marriage become true, Even now after the Civil Marriage Acts have come into force, I find people taking to this. I can find no reason why the same method cannot be adopted throughout and for all Hindus, orthodox or otherwise. Clause 33(f) makes reference to “adultery”. I wish that the word “adultery” had not been used at all in the Code, for, as was pointed out by Swami Vivekananda, so long as there live three women in our land the chastity of India will be upheld. I do not think, Sir. that adultery is largely prevalent in any section of the Hindu society. There may, of course, be rare cases. But there is no reason why that should necessitate a statutory provision. In sub-clause (2) of clause 9 and clause 16, I find penalties in regard to people breaking the law. The amount specified is too high, particularly for the poorer section of the people. I feel that it must be a very nominal amount. In the matter of judicial separation it is all right in the case of people who have got money and can afford to go to the courts to get a dissolution. But what about the villages in which India abounds. Communal panchayats consisting of members chosen by a few people will decide the matter, I do not think this procedure is correct. I think some formula must be evolved which will lead to the constitution of representative panchayats which will decide cases of dissolution. Next I come to the question of stridhana, that is what is given to the women either by her father or by her brothers. What is to happen

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES750 if it is not properly used by the husband. I feel Sir, that some clause must be inserted so that the stridhana may always remain the property of the woman. Clause 72 which deals with adoption says: “No adoption which has been validly made can be cancelled by the adoptive father or mother or any other person, nor can the adopted son renounce his status as such and return to the family of his birth.” I think, Sir, if the son or anybody who is adopted were to misbehave and squander the money of the family, there must be a saving clause whereby such a thing could be prevented. Section 93 deals with the dowry to be held in trust for wife and says that it shall come into force after the commencement of this Code. I feel, Sir, that section must apply to all cases existing before the commencement of the Code. Sir, I would finally point out that bringing this Hindu Code into force will greatly relieve all those women who are under the harsh treatment of men. Many people have been saying that the women are enjoying equal privileges and facilities. But in reality it is not so. In a few cases it may be so. But about 90 per cent of the women are still suffering from many social hardships. Out of the four yugas, Krita, Treta, Dvapara and Kali, we are now in the fourth yugam, iron age and are strong to bring in reforms. We must see that the women enjoy as many facilities as men. It is said that the hand that rock the cradle shall win the world. Before they grasp forcibly these facilities let us give them peacefully. I, therefore, support the Hindu Code Bill that has been brought by this Government and when it has come into fruition I might say that my hon. friend Dr. Ambedkar who has taken so much of trouble would have added a further feather to his hat. * Shri O. V. Alagesan ( Madras : General) : Sir, yesterday Dr. Ambedkar said that he was very glad that it had fallen to his lot to pilot this Bill. Sir, his name is sure to go down in history as the able midwife that assisted at the birth of the Constitution of free India. Sir, he is ambitious. He wants to add a further feather to his cap and he is justified. His ambition is to supersede the ancient rishis, Manu, Yajnavalkya and a host of other ancient law givers. *C.A. (Leg.) D., Vol. VI, Part II, 14th December 1949, pp. 614-21.

DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL 751 One of the previous speakers— I think it is Mr. Pataskar—made a reference to Section 44 of the New Constitution which relates to a uniform civil code for the whole country. He pleaded and asked: “Why not withdraw this Hindu Code and have a Civil Code? It may sound like pleading for postponing the day of mischief. But why does not Government come out with a statement of policy on this question? Is this a first step in that direction? Would they bring in more measures to put into effect Article 44 of the Constitution following this? I do not want to embarrass the Government, but all the same I would appreciate a clear statement of policy from the Government. Sir, the other day it delighted everyone’s heart to hear the hon. Mr. Santhanam pleading for monogamy. He challenged anybody to raise his little finger against this institution. Saint Tyagaraja admirably summed up Rama’s character in his own inimitable manner in these words: Oka mata, oka banam, oka pathni, That is One word, one arrow and one wife. We are all glad that that ideal has been placed before us. Sir, I ask, is it good only for the Hindus? Will the Government bring forward a Bill common to all and make monogamy applicable to all citizens of India ? I say this not to embarrass Government. I would like to repeat. When it is put in this manner, you will have to put the problem in its proper bearing. You will remember that there is a community in India which will object to it on grounds of religion and you will also remember the unhappy happenings that followed the partition in this country. You will be saying that it will be an interference with religion, that it will be against the secular nature of the State. Now the Prime Minister has declared that our State is going to be a secular one. We should educate the people on the secular nature of the State. There are many things that are happening on the other side of the border which are sure to have their reactions on this side. That State is based shamefacedly on a theocratic basis and they propose to carry the full implications of that policy and such a policy on the other side cannot fail to have its reactions on this side. So, people begin to entertain misgivings about the secular nature of our State. They understand it in this light and there is good reason for that, that secularism means meddling with everything Hindu, and fighting shy of any other group. That is the way in which the general mass of the people in this country react to measures like this.

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES752 So in the interests of the secular State that we want to establish in this country, we should try to carry the people also with us. It is no good Government alone saying that we are a secular State, and if that is not properly understood, properly appreciated by the general mass of the people in the country, then the State cannot long continue to be secular. We will be losing the ideal that we want to realise in this country and we will be postponing the day of such realisation. That is why, Sir, I say that people are at present not in a proper mood. They are sullen. They are in a pique; just as a child which is in a pique refuses to eat even the sweetest thing, people are not in a mood to appreciate this reform. Even though it may contain some good parts. So the best thing would be not to press down the throats of the people anything which they do not want. Dr. Ambedkar last time quoted Burke. He struck a gloomy note and gave us a warning just as he did at the conclusion of his speech during the third reading of the Constitution He said : “Anybody who wants to conserve should be prepared to repair.” It is very good, Sir, we should be prepared to repair, but does this Bill represent mere repair? I should say it pulls down the house in which we have been living. It wants to plan a new structure. It wants to make structural alterations. It is not mere carrying out repairs here and there. It is a structural repair. I should say that it is a new structure that it wants to put in the place of the old one. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : All repair is structural repair. Shri O. V. Alagesan : I have no objection to carry out even structural repairs, but before carrying out such structural repairs, this House itself should undergo a structural repair. That is what I want to say. By saying this, I do not minimise even by an iota the representative and sovereign character of this House. Sir, when we put through other legislation— Prof. Shah was labouring this point— nobody is surprised. It is a routine matter, but this is treated on a different basis. This is viewed with suspicion, with anger. That is the reason why I say we should discriminate, and allow the House that will have been structurally repaired to carry out this reform with greater confidence and with a degree of success which can be attained by then. Sir, another point is the atmosphere in which this Bill is sought to be pushed through. Sir, there was a great one in this country who led our thought and action. Even though we were slaves he taught