Vol. 14, Part II · pages 111–115

891 DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL Sir, I warn this House against this aggressive character of our women. I think it is time that we speak out. I want to ask the Hon. Minister for whom he is legislating this Hindu Code and who wanted him to push on and proceed with it against the wishes of a large section of Hindu Society. Is it not because the hon. Lady Members of this House have egged him on to do it ? I should, however, like to tell the Hon. Minister that he is not alone in that predicament. This House will recollect what our respected friend Acharya Kripalani said at the time we were considering the Report of the Select Committee, about the attitude adopted by one of his colleagues in this House and his companion in this world. He said that he was making bold to speak because his ‘colleague’ had gone abroad and when she returned she might ask for an account of the finances of the household, but also his conduct during her absence. That shows, Sir, where we stand today. It is on account of this that you are prepared to brush aside the sentiments of the less forward Hindu women, who do not know how to dress themselves properly. It is the women who do not have recourse to gaudy and gorgeous sarees, women who do not know how to paint themselves—it is that section of the Hindu women whom you are trying to suppress in the way you are doing today. An Hon. Member : Is all this in clause 2 ? Shri R. K. Chaudhuri : I want to make it perfectly clear that I oppose all the amendments, including that of my hon. Friend Dr. Ambedkar, except the one which has been put forward by my hon. Friend Mr. Jaspat Roy Kapoor. I support that amendment because it practically tantamounts to an opposition to the Hindu Code. I will explain how it is an opposition to the Hindu Code. It gives us the fullest discretion to make this Hindu Code a dead letter, because according to this amendment the Hindu Code will only govern those people who would come forward in the open and make a declaration and say that they want this Hindu Code to be applied to them. Shri J. R. Kapoor : I am tempted to exclaim ‘ Save me from my supporters’! Shri R. K. Chaudhuri : I may tell my hon. Friend Mr. Kapoor that he may leave aside the kambli but the kambli would not leave him. To the end of this debate on the Hindu Code I shall follow him wherever he goes. If my hon. Friend Mr. Kapoor’s amendment is carried, it practically means that we shall be in the position that we

892 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES are today, This Hindu Code will be more or less a Special Hindu Marriage Code. It will be something like that. Even now a Hindu can marry within a prohibited degree if he makes a declaration as is required under the Civil Marriages Act. Similarly, if this Hindu Code would only govern those who would make a declaration that they want to be governed by it, I believe that two-thirds—not twothirds but nearly cent per cent—of the Hindus would refuse to come forward and make declaration in the manner which has been suggested by my Friend Mr. Kapoor. That will mean practically that this Code will be shelved and the Hindu Law which governs us today will continue to govern us. I was very much interested to bear about this Punjab Customary Laws Act. This Punjab Customary Laws Act, as was admitted by my hon. friend Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava who referred to it in this House, did not prohibit bigamy at all. What my hon. Friend Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava wants is that the Punjab should be absolutely left out of this Hindu Code, that this Hindu Code may be in force in the rest of India but not in the Punjab—which means that although bigamy may be an offence in India, it will not be an offence in the Punjab and my hon. friend may go on merrily as he likes. I do not understand this, and I hope my Hon. Friend Dr. Ambedkar will be able to explain the position to us. It is this. When custom has got the force of law and that custom becomes invariable, no legislation can really over-ride it. Ordinarily if you are going to prove a custom, the burden is on you to prove that the custom is invariable, that the custom is not immoral, and that the custom has been followed. But when that custom is embodied in a piece of legislation which has been in force for some time and when that custom has not been abrogated, has been recognized. I do not understand how the application of the provisions of this Code can in any way interfere with that customary law unless it is stated clearly that all that law has been repealed by this Code. I may not have thoroughly studied the Hindu Code, but my impression is that no such provision has been made in this Code to repeal the Customary Law Act of the Punjab. And if that stands unrepealed you shall have inconsistent legislation in this country. Hindus in the whole of India will be governed by the Hindu Code, but those in the province of Punjab, where customary laws have been codified and are in force, will remain unaffected by this Code. I will ask the hon. lady Members of this House whether they are prepared

893 DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL to allow Hindus of the Punjab to ‘commit’ bigamous marriages whether they are agreed at any rate that there shall be no divorce in the Punjab and that they would allow their sisters in the Punjab to be “persecuted”—it is their language, not mine. I say no woman can be persecuted. The days of persecution of the woman have gone. Nowadays it is the men who are being persecuted by the tyranny of women. If any hon. Member of this House had the temerity to express himself clearly, he would say something about the tyranny of modern women. Therefore, I would ask this House to consider and pause carefully before it gives its assessment to this piece of legislation. Hon. Members of this House will remember that the Members of this House had no mandate to support such a sweeping legislation, a legislation having such far-reaching effects. Our election had taken place in an indirect way. I repeat what my hon. friend Mr. Naziruddin Ahmed said. It is not that we are not competent to pass this legislation. We are competent to pass any legislation today. We are competent to pass a legislation that the rule which is now obtaining—the salutary rule which has been accepted by the Government of India—that no married women should be taken in the Indian Foreign Service should be abrogated, and we can pass a legislation to say that none but women shall be taken therein. We are perfectly competent to do that. There is no question of incompetency here. Women can become constables and carry sticks ; they can put on pyjamas and turbans ; they can even wear beards ! also as Members of the Constabulary. Why can we not pass a legislation like this ? Nothing stands in the way of our doing this. Mr. Deputy Speaker : How do all these arise under this ? Shri R. K. Chaudhuri : I was only giving an analogy. Then I come to the most important thing. As we had no opportunity of getting a mandate from our electorate and as we have been ignoring the majority opinion given or received as a result of circulation of this Bill, we must take very great care to consider how far this legislation will be accepted by us. I therefore agree with my hon. friend, Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad that the consent of the people is necessary for passing this legislation. Now, speaking about discrimination, a great deal was said yesterday about the discriminatory character of this piece of legislation and about the way in which the Constitution has been ridden rough-shod. Dr. Ambedkar, if I remember a right, himself

894 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES referred to the question of breach of certain fundamental rights of the Constitution. He said if the present Hindu law is not amended, in the manner in which he seeks to amend this code, then a question may arise in the Supreme Court or in the High Court where it will be asked by the other parties that the Hindu law makes a discrimination between Sudras and non-Sudras. A Sudra of any age can be adopted. A sudra can be adopted even though he may be related very closely and then a Brahmin of a similar position cannot be adopted. Therefore there is discrimination in the present Hindu law and therefore he said that unless the present Hindu Code is adopted the present Hindu law will always be subjected to criticism by a court of law on the ground that it is discriminatory. Now, Sir I come to a more serious point. I suggest that the arguments which have been put forth by me hon. friends. Messrs. Jhunjhunwala and Naziruddin Ahmad should also be taken into serious consideration. I also want to draw the attention of the House to one particular point, namely the discriminatory character of this legislation which hurts the Constitution itself. My hon. friend Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad and I are behaving as if we are sailing in the same boat. He is isolated in one bench here and I am isolated in another. My hon. friend, Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad—God forbid—if he were to take another wife, if he wants to marry again during the life-time of his present spouse, then he will not be liable to conviction either under the Indian Penal Code or under the Hindu Code, whereas I being a Member of the same House, being a close neighbour of his, if I dared to follow his example and if I have in undergo another ceremony of marriage, what will be my fate ? I shall be simply prosecuted, convicted, sentenced to imprisonment and probably man-handled when I am taken to prison by my own friends. There will be a great public feeling against you that I was spared in any way. Is this not discrimination ? If that is not discrimination, I fall to understand the meaning of the word ‘discrimination’. We are subjects of the same sovereign power; we are bound by the same Constitution ; we are living in the same realm and while the one enjoys the privilege of marrying as many as four times. I cannot dare to marry more than once. What is then the meaning of discrimination ? Shri Tyagi : Bad luck. Shri Raj Bahadur : On a point of information, may I know how many times has the hon. Member married already. Shri R. K. Chaudhuri : That is a personal question. Examples are very contagious. My hon. friend Mr. Tyagi says that it was my

895 DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL bad luck that I have been put in such a discriminating position. Let us take it arithmetically ; if after having married once, I am called ‘unlucky’ then what are you to call a gentleman who has not been able to marry so long. Yesterday my hon. friend Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad mentioned about a certain kind of help which some of my esteemed friends would give in the way of vote by quoting Hindu Shastras. He being a non-Hindu probably was feeling delicate and refrained from saying what he wanted to say. Let me make myself clear. I submit that the first premises on which those who want to support this Hindu Code is this : Hindu religion is intimately connected with Hindu law, that is to say the Hindu law is intimately connected with Hindu religion. Divorce of Hindu law from Hindu religion means nothing. Here this is a religious question. If the Hon. Minister in charge of the Home Ministry were to take out a census of those people who believe that not to have a son is to go to Hell, you will find that two thirds of the Hindus believe in that. They believe that if you do not have a son, you will go to hell. Shri Tyagi : I want to know how can one help it if he has not got a son. What is he to do ? It is not in his hands. Shri R. K. Chaudhuri : You need not go into irrelevant questions. I would just like to tell my hon. friend that there is no limit of age so far as marriage is concerned. Dr. Ambedkar has been merciful in this respect. He has said do not marry more than once. You may divorce a dozen of your wives and there is no bar to your marrying again. Shri Tyagi : One by one. Shri R. K. Chaudhuri : Only one at a time ; not more than one. That is what is stated here. He does not lay down any restrictions of age. A woman of 85 years under this new picture of the Hindu Code can marry a young man of 25. There is no civic sense in this Hindu Code. Shri Deshbandhu Gupta (Delhi) : What about vice versa ? Shri R. K. Chaudhuri : Vice versa also. I submit that it is most inhuman for the author of this Hindu Code to suggest that you can, whatever your age, marry again if you are inclined to marry. Shri Bharati L. Krishnaswami (Madras) : What is the relevance of this to clause 2 ? Shri Deputy Speaker : He says that the Hindu Code Bill ought not to be applied to all persons except to those who voluntarily submit themselves to the Code. Therefore, he is developing that argument.