Vol. 14, Part II · pages 126–130

906 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES An Hon. Member : He is his own electorate ! Shri Syamnandan Sahaya : But if he chooses not to do so as it appears, then I will submit to him to make the law a permissive legislation. If he makes the law an obligatory legislation—I do not know for what he will take my warning worth—but let me tell him that he will fail in his attempt as did the Slave Kings of yore—the Lodis, the Tughlaks, the Khiljis, the Sayyids and the Moguls—who attempted in vain to eradicate the old religion and the old religious laws, which he called archaic yesterday. I have no doubt that his attempt at ending what he called archaic laws will fail in the same manner as did the attempts of others similarly placed in authority for thousands of years. There is something more than mere laws in the Hindu system of Social Codes. Its foundations have been much more deeply laid and could not be shaken by legislations passed in such haste without consulting the people affected. When listening to the speech of the Hon. Law Minister I was reminded of a story which for a long time was published by the Amrita Bazar Patrika year after year on a particular day. The story was about an old Pandit and Pandits are proverbially poor. His wife pestered him from time to time about finance for running the household. The Pandit was able to fork out a rupee or two now and then to enable the household to be carried on. One fine morning he struck upon something very novel and told his wife, “You need not worry about funds any more. I have found out a device by which I can get a lakh of rupees.” The wife asked him what was the device. He said “I have composed a few couplets last night and I shall go to the Raja tomorrow morning and place before him the couplets. I will tell him that if he could find any Pandit in his Durbar who will be able to interpret the couplets then I would pay him a lakh of rupees. If, on the other hand, no one can interpret my couplets the Raja would have to pay me a lakh of rupees.” The wife laughed and said “You must be a fool. Supposing some one interpreted the couplets, where are you going to get the one lakh from to pay to the Raja ?” The Pandit in his turn laughed and said “You ladies have no imagination. You people never had any since creation……….” An Hon. Member : Is it your opinion ? Shri Syamnandan Sahaya : Not mine, it is the Pandit’s opinion. I cannot speak so disparagingly of women. Continuing, the Pandit said” It is very simple.” She asked what was it and the Pandit said

907 DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL “I shall accept no interpretation. The Pandits will come and go and I shall accept nobody’s interpretation. I will say that is not the interpretation and ultimately the Raja will have to fork out the one lakh of rupees.” Even so whatever advice or suggestion or opinion we may express here., if the Hon. Law Minister is in the mood of the Pandit what can we do ? We have to appeal to him and tell him what is the opinion outside. I have no doubt that he will depend upon us for giving him such information as we are capable of gathering by going round our constituencies… Dr. Ambedkar : I have more information than you have. Shri Syamnandan Sahaya : You may have more than what I personally have but I am talking of the Members of the House and I am not talking of myself only. I dare not say that I have more information than you have……. An Hon. Member : What about the lakh of rupees ? Shri Syamnandan Sahaya : The Pandit got the lakh of rupees all right. Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava (Punjab) : Has the Hon. Minister not admitted before in this House that public opinion does not favour this Bill ? Shri Syamnandan Sahaya : Has he ? I am very glad. That very strongly supports my case. If that is so, then there is no ground for the Hon. Minister to come to this House at all with this Code. In any case the difficulty arises when you come into power : then, naturally apart from power, one has also the feeling that one has the knowledge, the information, which no one else possesses. Mr. Gladstone was once rebuked by Queen Victoria by remarking, “You must know, Mr. Prime Minister, that I am the Queen, the Sovereign of England” And Gladstone hit back by saying. “Yes, Your Majesty, but I am the people of England”. So, you Mr. Law Minister may be today the Sovereign of India., we are the People of India, and if you don’t listen to us you will go the way the sovereigns have gone. Whether you like it or you don’t, this is what will happen. This matter of the Hindu Code, in my opinion, should not be taken— pardon my saying so—as it is being taken. Religious reforms and social reforms are certainly necessary. No one could possibly get up in this House and say, “No, we shall stay where we are”. What are we then asking you to do ? We are only asking that the legislation be made permissive. Let the people know all about it. Let them think

908 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES over the matter and having considered the whole matter if they think it is for the betterment of the country, for the betterment of the society, they will accept it. But do not for God’s sake make it obligatory. Shri R. Velayudhan (Travancore-Cochin) : Then what is the meaning of a legislation ? Why have it ? Shri Syamnandan Sahaya : I will explain to you presently what is the meaning of legislation. You are perhaps fresh to a legislature. Otherwise you would not have asked that question. Anyway I will reply to you in a few minutes. Shri R. Velayudhan : I have read the Hindu Code. Shri Syamnandan Sahaya : You have read the Hindu Code. That is good enough. Then you will go to heaven straight. If you look at the legislation and the different parts of it, you will find that on various details certain exceptions have been made in the Code itself. Now, the Code excludes in certain respects the two communities following Marumakkattayam and Aliyasantana laws. And yesterday the Hon. Law Minister said that he was omitting sub-clause (4) to allow some type of married men to be governed by the Succession Act, that is those who were married under the Special Marriages Act. Mr. Deputy Speaker : He said it was more liberal. Shri Syamnandan Sahaya : Well, if it is more liberal for them I do not see why the more liberal law should not be good for everybody. He is codifying the Hindu Law—not laying down any new but bringing up-to-date in certain respects the existing laws and bringing in some reforms. If you want you can be more liberal—who prevents you ? But after all, if you claim that one of the main purposes of this Act in the first place is to codify the Hindu Law, keeping in view the different rulings and different interpretations and making the best use of them and also introducing progressive reforms—if that is so then I don’t see why you should have one set of succession laws for one class of married Hindus and another set for another class. If you want to do it, do it. There is no use saying that such of our friends here who advocate the passing of a Civil Code do not really want it. Pardon me for saying so, but let me assure the Hon. Law Minister that it is not so. The feeling is that if you want to put the whole country on a certain basis even if it meant some sacrifice, do so and we will gladly accept it. But you pick and choose and single out one community who perhaps would not be prepared to fight with you on that issue.

909 DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL If you pick out that community and do what you like with it, and the rest say, “Don’t touch our religious susceptibilities”, then that is where the real difficulty arises. Then the Code already excludes customary laws which will operate in spite of the Hindu Code. Exclusion has also been permitted for those who were governed by separate customs although they may be belonging to the Hindu community : so that it will be found that these differences and these exclusions, these permissions to be able to be governed by another law are already found to the Code. I therefore submit that it is not really asking too much of the Hon. Law Minister and of this House to make this Code a permissive legislation. There are other difficulties also which I would like to mention for the kind and sympathetic consideration of the Hon. Law Minister. For instance, it is laid down mat all divorces henceforth will have to be registered. When I read this—not only this but other paragraphs and other sections of the Code—I felt like exclaiming that the Code was really a heaven for lawyers, and that if anyone was going to profit or benefit by this it would be the past colleagues in law courts of the Hon. Minister. You may pass this Code tomorrow. Supposing we all agree that we shall not discuss this legislation any more and we pass it tomorrow, even if we do so do we really and seriously think that the people living in the villages, whom the Hon. Law Minister refuses to consult by a referendum because they are ignorant, will from day after tomorrow start registering all their divorces and all their marriages? Dr. Ambedkar : There is no provision for registering divorces. Shri Syamnandan Sahaya : I am sorry if I take time but before the House rises I shall read out to the Hon. Minister this provision. I have already tabled an amendment on that clause. Shri Bharati : Registration for marriages only. There is no registration for divorces. You make a mistake. Mr. Deputy-Speaker : The hon. Member evidently means that there can be under the Code no divorce except by a decree of court. Shri Syamnandan Sahaya : Yes. The hon. Member has again drawn a distinction between tweedledum and tweedledee though it was not expected that he of all persons would take recourse to these. Well, if it is not registration and if it is only through law courts, then it strengthens my argument all the more. Is it possible to imagine, when we have a vast majority of people—thirty-three crores—many

910 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES of them living in rural areas, not knowing anything about procedural laws and rules, is it possible to imagine each of them going to court for marriage and divorce ? I had thought it was only registration where the lawyers would get very little fee. But if it is the law courts then I have no doubt, and the house and the Hon. Law Minister will agree with me, that it is a heaven for the lawyers. In this vast country at least for some time to come—I should say for a long time to come, but certainly for some time to come—there is no justification for such an obligatory legislation to be passed. Give them the chance—if they think it is necessary then let them adopt it. We have said a lot and the Code also claims for itself a very great and progressive position when you say we are giving this and we are giving that to the women of our country. I suppose that up to a certain point there is something to be said about it. But if we study the social conditions today among the Hindus, shall we not agree that these ladies in their households are almost each of them an Alexander unto herself ? You want to reduce that position of being the monarch of all they survey to that of a mere partner and you know what respect partners evoke, particularly when you are doing away with the joint family system. In a joint family system, the partners had a certain respect and position. There was inter-dependence and therefore one partner cared for the other partner. But having done away with the joint family system, you want to reduce the women to the position of a partner. If you are a partner, you have your set rights and your set quota. Today, the women are the masters of the whole household. Dr. Ambedkar : Yes, very much. Shri Syamnandan Sahaya : Tomorrow, you will make them partners. An Hon. Member : Partners in what ? Shri Syamnandan Sahaya : Partners in property. An Hon. Member : Not in life ? Shri Syamnandan Sahaya : I meant partners in property. After all, she gets something from her father’s house. She is the owner of that. She feels she has got something by herself. Why should you not make her depend upon the newly acquired house of her husband ? You know, after all, properties create difficulties. I know of families, not one but many, where the power of attorney by the wife is not held by the husband but by some other person.