Vol. 14, Part II · pages 131–135

911 DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL Dr. Ambedkar : There may be very good reason for it. Shri Syamnandan Sahaya : That is what your Code will reduce the Hindu community to. If some people like it, then of course I have no objection to their adopting it. Shri Raj Bahadur : Hence the necessity for divorce. Shri Syamnandan Sahaya : I know young people like you are very anxious to have divorce laws, but there are other people who have to think of your welfare. So, these are the difficulties about this legislation and before I resume my seat I would strongly urge upon this House and the Hon. the Law Minister to accept the amendment of making this legislation permissive. Otherwise, I am afraid it will not be taken so lightly by Hindus as Government think. It is going to create a great furor in the country. Dr. Ambedkar : No. Shri Himatsingka (West Bengal) : Dr. Ambedkar is not afraid. Dr. Ambedkar : I don’t think so at all. Shri Syamnandan Sahaya : I have no doubt in my mind that the Hon. the Law Minister is not afraid. He need not be afraid either. I had attempted not to say this, but I am doing so now. When I was last in my constituency, some people came to me and said, “You have not been a Congressman before” I said, “Yes, I have not been a Congressman before.” They said, “You also dine with Muslims and are not orthodox and you are not a very devout Hindu.” I said, “Yes. I am not a very orthodox Hindu in that sense.” And then they said, “Is it therefore that this Hindu Code has been invented which has the effect of a bullet that kills two birds at the same time, namely, the Hindu community and the Congress ? If the Congress Government is not circumspect and responsive to public opinion even after this, let them go the way they like. The country and the people will decide what to do with them.” *Shri Alagesan (Madras) : Unfortunately yesterday the House was plunged into a mood which detracted very much from the seriousness of the measure that is before us. I am glad that we have now regained the proper mood to consider it more seriously than before. Yesterday, the Hon. the Law Minister put up a very vigorous plea for the acceptance of the Code and his amendments. He is always a superb advocate. Apart from the content of Iris speech, the tone and the manner of it brought even those who oppose him very near getting convinced. * P.D., Vol. VIII, Part II, 7th February 1951, pp. 2499-2504.

912 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES Shri Venkataraman (Madras) : But you were not. Shri C. Subramaniam (Madras) : That is why he said “very near”. Shri Alagesan : I would like to be completely convinced, but I am sorry to say that I am not convinced. I would still urge the Hon. the Law Minister to bring forward a common civil code, though he derided the idea and even went to the length of attributing motives to those who wanted such a thing. For instance, he asked : “How is it possible that those who oppose the Hindu Code tooth and nail would accept a common civil code ?” He questioned their motives. But I would respectfully ask him. “Why is it that they object to this Hindu Code ?” Is it not due to the fact—partly at least—that it does not apply to the entire nation ? It applies only to one community, however large a section it may be. Thus, this Code is only a sectional measure and it is not a common measure for all. Is not the opposition to it, at least partly, due to this fact it does not embrace the entire nation and the entire community ? Again, he said that he would produce legislation tomorrow, as if anybody doubted his capacity to produce legislative texts. He threatened to bring the text of a common and universal code tomorrow and confront the House with considering it. But that is not the main thing about it. If he proposes to confront this House with a common civil code, then it has to be considered in all its aspects and bearings by one and all and he will be the first person to come forward with amendments to that code. He said yesterday that no legal ingenuity can improve upon the Indian Succession Act, but I am sure, the artist that he is, he will go on amending even the best piece of legislation. Even for this Hindu Code, we find that his amendments are larger in number than the amendments proposed by any other Member. He can amend, and amend because others want it and desire it. Again, he went on to expatiate on the sovereign and supreme nature of this Parliament. Nobody ever questioned it, but the sovereignty and the supreme nature of this House need not have been affirmed at the cost of an insult to the master of this House. That was the unfortunate part of it. Though we are a sovereign body, we are subject to the people’s will and our sanction is the people’s will. Babu Ramnarayan Singh (Bihar) : Hear, hear. Dr. Ambedkar : Why don’t you live in the village rather than live here ? You will be a better master there than you are here.

913 DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL Shri Alagesan : I wish to put a counter question to the Hon. the Law Minister. He said that those who oppose the Hindu Code cannot agree to a common civil code. It is impossible, he said, because he knew those persons very well. Everybody knows that the new elections will be held all over the country for this Parliament as well as for the legislatures of the various States within a year’s time. It is not necessary that because this House is sovereign and supreme it should take upon itself the task of legislating on each and every subject. It may postpone some legislation : it may leave, with profit, some legislation to the House that will be elected within a very short time, and I do not doubt that the Hon. the Law Minister will concede that the new House that is going to be elected will have more time and will certainly be better placed and will certainly reflect the latest opinion and mood and temper of the people than this House can ever do. Will he not concede that such a House will be better placed to enact this piece of legislation than this house is ? And if he does not choose to do it, if he does not choose to leave the matter in the hands of the House that is to come, is it due to the fact that he is afraid that this measure will not be passed by that House ? Shall I attribute such a motive to him, though I would not like to do it ? ( An Hon. Member : You have done it.) Why then does he fight shy of placing this all-comprehensive codification of Hindu law, before the new Parliament of this country ? I think he should satisfactorily answer this question. But the chief complaint against the present Government, if one can say so, is this. After we have succeeded in our revolution, we have failed more in the psychological sphere than in other spheres. We have failed to enthuse the people : we have failed to strike that emotional chord in the people which alone binds them to us. Everybody is worried on this account. Why ? It is good that we consider this question and examine it a little more carefully. In my opinion, we have decided largely on a policy of carry-over. We simply carry on the old traditions and we have not done anything to show a striking change which appeals to the people. This Hindu Code is an instance in point. It has been conceived under quite different circumstances, when we were under the impression that everything that is Hindu is wrong and cannot be correct. We wanted to reform, we wanted to change, but not with a proper appreciation, in my opinion. We are simply carrying that over. We are trying to model the Hindu Code as a code that will apply to the Hindu community, though it is a very great community

914 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES in this country, and not to all. It is because we have failed to introduce any innovation that we are in this mess. We have got everything that goes to make an emotional appeal to the people and yet we have strikingly failed in that field. That is something like a play with all the ace actors and yet the play fails to impress the audience. Our performance I shall liken to that. What is the reaction that we have produced in the country by bringing forward this measure ? Supposing we had brought forward a common measure that would have applied to one and all. Then there would have been an electrical change in the atmosphere in the country ; there would have been an atmosphere of realism with regard to this measure. We would have been able to consider this measure more realistically than we are at present doing. And that we have failed to do. If we had done that we would have convinced the entire country that we are taking cudgels against and demolishing all differences based on caste and religion in the true spirit of our secular democracy. We would have incidentally translated our ideal of secular democracy into action and would have convinced everybody. Now there is not even a ripple on the surface except the placid placard holders outside this House and the imposing police cordon ; and perhaps occasional crowds in the galleries in multi-hued saris. We have not succeeded in producing any greater effect than this. But, I am sure that if the Hon. the Law Minister were to come forward with a common code that will embrace all communities, then the whole country will take interest in it and try to be more realistic about it. I may also venture to say that the reaction outside our country would also be much better, because at present we are held up to ridicule in the outside world by interested parties that we are a nation wedded to caste with the result that our prestige suffers. A common code would have done everything to dispel such a misunderstanding. Again, there have already been instance where the Hindu law embraced other communities. I am told the Moplahs of Malabar, the Kutch Momins and the Khoja community, the followers of the Aga Khan, were all following the Hindu law and were governed by the Hindu law up till the year 1937 when the Shariat Act was passed. I am told that even the author of Pakistan was governed by the Hindu law. When such is the case why should you fight shy of bringing forward a common code which will embrace all Hindus, Muslims, Christians and so on ?

915 DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL Yesterday, the Hon. the Law Minister was very pleased with the speech of my friend Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava. He was all praise for the Code. He showered encomium on the Hon. the Law Minister for having thought fit to bring forward this measure. But, he made one very important reservation. He said all this only on the condition that it should not apply to the Punjab. He made an observation that those who have moved amendments are trying to rope in the other communities, the non-Hindus in this Act, and he asked whether the non-Hindus in this House are prepared to come under this measure. He went on to answer the question himself in the negative. But, I have consulted some of the non-Hindu Members of this House and they are quite willing to have a common code. Dr. Ambedkar : Non- Hindus ? Shri Alagesan : Yes, non-Hindus. Shri Bharati : May I have the names of those Members ? Shri Alagesan : The hon. Member may have it later from me ? As it is, we are doing a great injustice to the non-Hindu Members of this House. They are unable to take any interest in this discussion. Dr. Ambedkar : Why, Mr. Nazruddin Ahmad has. Shri Alagesan : He only reflects the opinion of his clients. The other non-Hindu Members of this House simply sit back and relax. They are not able to take any lively interest in the discussion, if they support it they are afraid of wounding the susceptibilities of the orthodox section of the Hindus: if they oppose it they are afraid of still more terrible elements. So thay are playing a passive role. Prof. Ranga (Madras) : They support the Bill. Shri Alagesan : That is doubtful. It is, therefore, necessary that we should make this measure more representative. Because, there will be nothing objectionable in it. If monogamy is good for a Hindu it ought to be equally good for a Muslim. Shri Syamnandan Sahaya : Better for him. Shri Alagesan : The present day Indian Muslim would not, I think, oppose it on religious grounds, because when Muslims were permitted to marry up to four wives perhaps it might have been on account of the expanding phase of the Arab Empire. They wanted to expand and conserve, and so they were permitted to marry up to four wives, perhaps. But now we are faced with an entirely different situation in this country. Though our Prime Minister likes and loves to play