Vol. 14, Part I · pages 786–790

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES768 Sjt. Rohini Kumar Chaudhari : Because you didn’t allow us to speak. Mr. Speaker : Order, order. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : I hope, Sir my friend will not interrupt. Mr. Speaker : The Hon. Member just now promised that he would not like to spoil the atmosphere of a compromise. Sjt. Rohini Kumar Chaudhari : He is not to speak now that was the term of the compromise. Mr. Speaker : Order order, No running commentary now. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : As I said, Sir, the Bill seeks to modify and codify the Hindu Law with regard to Marriage, Adoption, Guardianship, Joint Family Property, Women’s Property, Intestate Succession, Testamentary Succession and Maintenance. So far as Adoption is concerned, I have seen no opposition to this part of the Bill, nor to the part relating to Guardianship…………. Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava (East Punjab : General): I opposed some of the provisions relating to adoption and absence of provision for appointment of heirs. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Nor to Women’s Property, Testamentary Succession and Maintenance. The only parts of the Bill to which there has been some opposition are those which relate to Marriage, Joint Family Property and Intestate Succession. Even with regard to these parts of the Bill, the opposition is concentrated on one or two points. Sjt. Rohini Kumar Chaudhari : On a point of order, Sir, You yourself ruled that all these matters can be discussed when we come to amendments. Mr. Speaker : Will the hon. Member resume his seat ? I think Members have to be patient and must not interfere when other Members are putting forth their points of view. The hon. Minister must be allowed to go on uninterrupted, and if hon. Members have to say anything, they will have a chance later on when the bill comes in for discussion here. Sjt. Rohini Kumar Chaudhari : But, Sir if you don’t allow us……… Mr. Speaker : I do not propose to allow any interference at all. Sjt. Rohini Kumar Chaudhari : To explain the position . . .

DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL 769 Mr. Speaker : Allowing to explain the position is again to go on replying at every sentence. I do not propose to allow anything of the kind. (Interruption). The hon. Member will not now interfere at all so that I may not be compelled to take a very serious notice of these interruptions or points of order or suggestions. But when I put the motion......... Shri H. V. Kamath (C. P. and Berar : General): Did you say, Sir, that the Bill would again come up for discussion? Mr. Speaker : The clauses will come up for discussion. Dr. B. Pattabhi Sitaramayya (Madras : General): May I respectfully make a small suggestion? This is going to be discussed or not— the question of the consideration motion being accepted. Therefore, whatever statements are made by the hon. Minister in charge of the Bill, they will go unchallenged. And so long as they go unchallenged a vote cannot be correctly obtained. The hon. Mover has been absent for a number of hours and he is not posted with information as to what has been said or what has not been said. For instance he says that on the question of ‘Adoption’ there was no opposition and here is a gentleman who rises and says that he did oppose those provisions. I would therefore request that the hon. Minister will not make his reply controversial. Mr. Speaker : The point is as I have understood the hon. Minister that he is trying merely to summarise his point of view. Dr. B. Pattabhi Sitaramayya : No. Mr. Speaker : Order, Order. Let hon. Members not interfere. I believe he is perfectly entitled to lay before the House his point of view. It may be correct, it may not be correct. Therefore, when he is replying, his reply has to be heard for what it is worth. Hon. Members should not immediately get up and say “this statement is wrong” or “that statement is wrong” because we will then be drifting into a controversy. Let us hear him. And the best method of democracy is to be patient with the opponent. Sjt. Rohini Kumar Chaudhari : Can we not reply to the wrong statements made? Mr. Speaker : No reply now because the opposition will get their chance when the clause by clause reading comes in. Sjt. Rohini Kumar Chaudhari : He will also get a chance then.

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES770 Mr. Speaker : If the hon. Member now interferes I am afraid I will have to take a very serious notice. There should be no interruption at all, no interference and no remarks. The hon. the Law Minister is entitled to proceed and give his own interpretation and his own reading of the facts as he thinks, are correct. We may not all agree with it (Interruption). Order order. No replies, no arguments now. I propose to allow no interruption. The hon. the Law Minister will go on. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Sir, as I was saying, to five parts of the Bill there is practically no opposition. With regard to the three parts relating to Marriage, Joint Family Property and Intestate Succession, so far as I have been able to follow the attitude taken by those who have opposed this measure, I find that their opposition is concentrated on certain points and not to the whole of those parts. With regard to Marriage I find the Opposition is concentrated on the subject matter of Divorce. With regard to Joint Family again, the opposition seems to be concentrated on the rule of survivorship. And with regard to Intestate Succession the opposition seems to be concentrated on the daughter’s share. If I was therefore required to give a full reply to the debate and to the arguments advanced by those who have opposed the measure I would have concentrated myself upon these three matters, namely Divorce, the rule of survivorship and the brighter’s share. I might say that I had thoroughly prepared myself to defend the provisions contained in these three parts of the Bill. But in view of the statement made by hon. the Prime Minister, I think it is unnecessary to enter into any controversy now. I welcome the suggestion made by hon. the Prime Minister and I undertake to give the fullest trial to the suggestion that he has made. Consequently I do not propose to give a detailed reply on these matters at this stage. As you, Sir, have suggested I too would like to reserve my reply to a later stage. There is only one point which I think it is necessary for me to dwell upon in order that the House may realise the position in which the country finds itself. It will be noticed that the integration of India into one State and one Republic has brought within its territory a variety of Codes dealing with Hindu Law. There is the State of Baroda which has a Hindu Code which is different from the Hindu law as it is in operation in the provinces of India. That State has now become part and parcel of the Bombay Province. Similarly, Travancore and

DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL 771 Cochin which were outside the territorial limits and the sovereignty of India as we knew under the Government of India Act, 1935, have become part and parcel of one India. Mysore which has also a Hindu Code of its own in the matter of women’s right to property, considerably different from the law prevalent in the Provinces of British India, has also become part and parcel of one India. Therefore, on the 26th of January, 1950, when the Republic will be inaugurated, we will be faced with a variety of systems of Hindu Law which we must do our best to co-ordinate. How would it be possible, for instance, for the Bombay Province to administer two systems of Hindu Law, one operative within that territory which is called Baroda and the other in the rest of the Province, when both territories have become integrated and part of one Province and one State? The same will be the case with the other territories. Supposing for instance, some of the parts of India which are under the sovereignty of the Portuguese or the French and which we hope to be able to recover under our dominion, also have different systems of Hindu Law, when they come in the same question will arise before us. What is to happen to the Law which the Hindus in Goa will be bringing with them? Are we going to allow them to retain the law which they will bring? Are we going to impose a Law which is in existence at present on them? Or are we going to evolve a system of Law which would be acceptable to both? The integration of India, therefore, has in a very pointed manner brought before us the problem of the codification and the modification of Hindu Law and what I want to suggest to the House is that this is a problem which could not be postponed nor could it be avoided if we want to bring about harmony among the variety of people who would be coming and becoming the citizens of the Indian Dominion. Dr. B. Pattabhi Sitaramayya : Codification has been accepted. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Then, Sir, I would like to draw the attention of the House to one other point which appears to me a very important one. The House, at any rate those who indulge in opposing the Bill, seem to have completely forgotten the provisions contained in the Indian Constitution. Article 15 of the Indian Constitution which we have passed says in definite and clear terms under Fundamental Rights : “The State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them.”

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES772 Any one who has studied Hindu Law carefully will have to admit that apart from the many defects which the Hindu Law has, there are principles in the Hindu Law which discriminate between the Savarna castes and the Shudras. They also discriminate between a male Hindu and a female Hindu. Shri Mahavir Tyagi : And a Hindu and a Muslim also ! The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : It is therefore quite clear that parts of Hindu Law will be in conflict with the provisions of the Constitution. But that is only an understatement. There is a further point to be considered; it is not that this limitation imposed by article 15 is going to apply to future laws that the Parliament or the State Legislatures may make. The Constitution has gone stage beyond and in article 13, which I should like to read to the House, it is provided that: “All laws in force immediately before the commencement of this Constitution in the territory of India in so far as they are inconsistent with the provisions of this Part, shall to the extent of such inconsistency, be void.” Therefore, looking at the matter as a lawyer, I have not the least doubt about it that unless Hindu Law is not only codified but also modified so as to bring it in consonance with the provisions of article 15, parts of the Hindu Law will be declared to be void by the judiciary in view of article 13. Does the House desire that the Hindu Law should be exposed to judicial scrutiny in terms of article 13 of the Constitution and to have parts of Hindu Law declared, bit by bit, as and when matters are taken before the Court, as void, or would the House like to take the matter in its own hands and reform the Hindu Law so as to make it consistent with article 15 and not to expose it to the danger of having been declared void under article 13? If the House does not wish that the Hindu Law be broken bit by bit by the judiciary but that it becomes an integrated system consistent with our Constitution, then my submission is that it will be very wrong for this House to postpone the consideration of this matter. Sir, these, in my judgment are very important considerations, and in view of that the House could not afford to postpone or delay the consideration of this matter. I hope the House will therefore accept my motion and carry through the consideration stage of this Bill. Dr. B. Pattabhi Sitaramayya : Sir, may I ask for a clarification? Dr. Ambedkar has stated that all those provisions which are inconsistent with the particular article of the Constitution which he has quoted