Vol. 14, Part I · pages 776–780

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES758 though enacted a century ago. So if you do not want it to remain a dead letter, but that it should be taken advantage of by the members of the community then it is better to wait and educate the people. Now I would like to pass on to a few of the important observations made by Dr. Ambedkar. This Bill seems to be a Law of Exceptions. Dr. Ambedkar said that the coparcenary system allows ten categories of property to remain outside the purview of the coparcenary. They form private property. So he says, because it has granted so many exceptions, let it, once and for all, go. That is one of the points that he has made. And then he says, woman has absolute right to Stridhana and so let it be so for all property. And also that this coparcenary system has the seeds of disruption in itself, and so let the joint family go. I would ask him ; he has just now passed the Constitution and the various provisions in the Constitution, as you know, are riddled with provisos and exceptions. For that reason, are we to make the exceptions into the main articles? When you look into the pleadings, it looks as if one has to make the exceptions into the main law. Then again, Sir, this Bill about which my sisters are so enamoured…………. Shrimati G. Durgabai : Brothers also. Shri O. V. Alagesan : This Bill does not in my opinion deserve it. Monogamy has been praised by one and all. It is not such a new institution. Women have been having monogamy in this land, but were there divorces provided? As soon as men are brought, within this law of monogamy there is demand for provision for divorce. As long as woman was under monogamy, there was no provision for divorce, but now they say divorce is the natural corollary of monogamy. Why are my sisters so very enthusiastic about it ? What is the meaning of it? If divorce is the natural corollary of monogamy, how is it that this natural corollary did not come into existence so far? Mr. Deputy Speaker : How long further will the hon. Member go on? Shri O. V. Alagesan : Only ten more minutes, but I shall try to cut short. So I say it is not a very pleasant thing to be given the right to divorce. I do not want to read out extracts, but many women have pointed out that this divorce would work greater havoc for women than for men. Shri A. Thanu Pillai : Is the hon. Member advocating monogamy without divorce?

DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL 759 Shri O. V. Alagesan : I want monogamy without provision for divorce. Sir, what this bill gives with one hand it takes away by the other. Dr. Ambedkar, in justifying the provision for divorce, has enumerated the difficulties that the women who are deserted by their husbands nowadays are made to undergo. All these difficulties the divorced women will have to undergo. The prospect for the divorced woman is as bleak as the prospect is today for the deserted woman. It is easier for the divorced man to marry again and it will not be as easy for the divorced woman. Dr. P. Subbarayan (Madras : General): So you want a double standard. Shri O. V. Alagesan : I want my sisters to make note of it and beware of the pit to which it leads them. Even on other grounds I would very seriously object to the provision of divorce. What is the experience of other countries? This has been touched on by other speakers and I do not want to enlarge on it. Recently we were told that the number of divorced cases in Paris alone increased from 600 to 1200, which is only 100 per cent increase. An Honourable Member : There is no Paris in India . Shri O. V. Alagesan : I am glad there is no Paris in India just now but I am afraid the Bill tries to usher in Paris in India. Shri L. Krishnaswami Bharathi : Baroda is there and Malabar is there. Shri O. V. Alagesan : In one of the most advanced countries in the world, Soviet Russia, the family as an institution is breaking up. Soviet Russia is hard put to resuscitating the family as an institution, having allowed easy divorce. They now want to inculcate the sacredness of the family as an institution and infuse communist morality into their citizens. They are trying hard to save this institution which they have lost by lightly introducing divorce in their land. One had only to write a postcard to the Registrar saying that he is divorcing his wife and he had his divorce. I understand that they have now made their divorce laws more difficult. There is an example before us. Shri L. Krishnaswami Bharathi : What about Malabar? Why go to Russia and Paris? Shri O. V. Alagesan : There they have tried this method and found it dangerous. Why put ourselves in the same situation and again try to remove it ? Our Indian homes today are poor, steeped in ignorance

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES760 and ill-health, but it cannot be said that our homes are broken ones. In other countries they may be rich, healthy and very enlightened but one is sorry to note that many of the homes in other countries are broken ones and that is entirely due to the license given in their divorce provisions. That is my opinion. Such an eminent person like Dr. Tek Chand said that the joint Hindu family should be kept and wife be made a coparcener in the family. I should like to say that the real economic independence of women would come not by giving a share to the daughter, to which I have no objection, but by giving her an equal share in the husband’s property. That is how she will attain her economic independence. It is not by taking a share from the father’s property. After all the daughter is a trust to be given away to the son-in-law. The father keeps the girl as a trust and it is therefore better and more proper that she is made a joint owner or equal sharer in the husband’s property rather than made to claim a share in the father’s property. She may claim a share in the father’s property if she remains unmarried. I do not want to dilate further but I should like to end on this note. The chief man who conceived the Code (though a gentleman found it difficult to conceive yesterday) was Mr. B. N. Rau and we may be sure that he is very anxious about this Bill. He would want to see all his proposals, though in a modified form to be put into effect as early as possible and I should like to read his opinion, which has also been the opinion of the Hindu Law Committee……… Shrimati G. Durgabai : There was a select committee to consider those proposals; not he alone. Shri O. V. Alagesan : The Hindu Law Committee has stated as follows : “The aim should be as far as possible to arrive at agreed solutions and to avoid anything likely to arouse acrimonious controversy. This need not mean any real slowing down of the pace of reform, for true reform proceeds by persuasion rather than coercion.” Sir, I have done. The Assembly then adjourned till a Quarter to Eleven of the Clock on Thursday, the 15th December, 1949.

DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL 761 * HINDU CODE— contd Mr. Speaker : The motion that the House was considering was: “That the Bill to amend and codify certain branches of the Hindu Law, as reported by the Select Committee, be taken into consideration.” * The Honourable Shri Jawaharlal Nehru (Prime Minister) : Sir I crave your leave and the indulgence of the House to make a statement in regard to the Hindu code Bill and I trust that the Statement I make will meet the approval of the House. When at the commencement of this Session, I referred in the course of my remarks to the Hindu Code Bill, I said that Government attached a great deal of importance to this measure and they hoped that this consideration stage would be passed during this session. At the same time Government were very well aware that there was a variety of opinion on this subject and a large number of people were interested in the provisions of this Bill. And, therefore, I had suggested then that we propose to follow a course which we hoped would lead to a broadbased agreement in regard to a number of controversial clauses in the Bill. I should like now to amplify that statement and to make clear the policy of Government in regard to this matter. We have had fairly prolonged debate on this Bill, not only in this session but in previous sessions. We had set aside two days on this occasion and as the House knows, those days have been prolonged on two occasions. Government had no desire and have no desire to restrict debate on an important measure of this kind and in spite of the fact that we have been very hard pressed for time—and we have very important legislative measures awaiting disposal during this session—we extended the debate on two occasions and indeed to day was also fixed for it. While we have no such desire to restrict this debate, naturally Government is hard put to it to find more and more time, still we are prepared to find more time because of the importance of the measure and the desire of some Members of the House. But there was another aspect to this question and that was this; that if we are going to consider this matter in a spirit of trying to find an agreement as far as possible, in regard to controversial clauses, if, as I said we are going to proceed on the lines I indicated right at the commencement, then it is desirable for us at this stage to carry on this debate and * C.A. (Leg.) D., Vol. VII, Part II, 19th December 1949, pp. 783-85.

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES762 perhaps produce an atmosphere, or help in producing an atmosphere, which does not lead easily to that kind of settlement? That was an important consideration which Government had in mind. Right at the commencement, as I have reminder the House, we had that in view. It was no intention of the government to proceed with this merely by virtue of a majority and complete acceptance of every clause of this Bill although there might be considerable variety of opinion in regard to it. The position of Government, so far as this bill is concerned is this. We stand committed to the broad approach of the Bill as a whole. We are prepared, however to consider every clause in a spirit of accommodation. Naturally, Government have put forward this measure as it is because they believe in it. But in such matters they desire to have as large a measure of support as possible. Now there is a distinction between that and this general consideration at this stage which is going on, and which they feel has been debated quite considerably, and a large number of Members of the House have participated in this debate. They attach importance to the conclusion of that stage of the debate so that they may take up the next stage of consideration, that informal consideration, as soon as possible. Now that informal consideration cannot effectively take place in that way until this first stage is ended. Otherwise we remain in midair, and we cannot get on to that next stage. So our proposal now is, and I venture to place it before the House, that we conclude this debate, on this consideration motion as early as possible. I would not mind government giving more time, even at the expense of other legislative measures; but I would submit to the House that if the general proposal to have this informal discussion is agreeable to the House, then it is desirable to go to that stage and not to vitiate the atmosphere by acrimonious debate any more at this stage. When I talk about informal consultations, I should like to make clear what I mean. I say ‘informal’, not that I do not consider it important, but because I wish to give a measure of flexibility to that discussion so that my hon. colleague the law Minister, who has shouldered the burden of this Bill, and who I trust will gladly accept and give effect to the proposals that I have made, so that he can consult not only the Members of the Select Committee, but other Members of this House who are interested and may even consult others outside this House. Now, that would be difficult if a certain rigid procedure was adopted, and also when you adopt a formal and rigid procedure, it becomes a little more difficult for that attitude of free and easy