Vol. 14, Part II · pages 146–150

926 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES that that amendment is accepted, still effect will be given only to such provisions as are ultimately accepted by the House. So when we come to any provision which involves expenditure then it will be competent for the hon. member to advance that argument—not at this stage. That is what I was pointing out. Shri Biswanath Das : Thank you very much, Sir. I would not go further into it. Shri Syamnandan Sahaya : May I make a submission, Sir, in this connection ? Under our new rules every legislation which involves any expenditure has to be presented to this House accompanied by an estimate of such expenditure. Therefore, perhaps my hon. friend was referring to those rules…… Mr. Speaker : There is nothing to be further discussed about it. It does not affect the point of relevancy. But I believe this Bill was introduced long before rule came into force. Dr. Ambedkar : Yes, Sir. And I can tell my friend that this Bill is going to be a revenue-paying measure. Mr. Speaker : That is another matter. We are not concerned with it. Shri Biswanath Das : My hon. friend says that this will be a revenuepaying measure……. Mr. Speaker : We need not go into that now. Shri Biswanath Das : Well my hon. friend claims the passage of this Bill and especially of this clause on the score that this is progressive. If it is so, I have no objection. If he convinces me that the legislation that he has adumbrated is progressive, I will certainly go with him. But I feel that it is as reactionary in certain respects as anyone could think of. I would in this connection invite my hon. friend’s attention to the Child Marriage Restrained Act, an Act which has been in existence for the last twenty years or more and is a dead letter. Several Hon. Members : No, no. Mr. Speaker : Let him proceed. That is his opinion. Dr. Ambedkar : His wrong opinion. Shri Biswanath Das : I will be glad if it is really “no” but my experience is otherwise. But what has my hon. friend the Law Minister done ? Whether the Child Marriage Restraint Act is dead or is alive, what has my hon. friend done with his show of progressiveness ? He has kept up and carried on the same age of marriage of 18. Why

927 DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL should you have the age of 18 ? I cannot see why he is so much enamoured of this 18. A boy to be put to married life and conjugal bliss in his eighteenth year is a thing unimaginable. I cannot think of it. I would appeal to him to consult his advisers of public health and ask whether such a course is desirable. Extend it to twenty or twenty-one years. If you really claim to be progressive, extend it. If you want to restrict, let the restriction be on justifiable grounds which will be for the well-being of the greatest number. That is why I claim that in certain respects the Bill is not at all progressive. In fact in ordinary instance you will not find people taking to married life at eighteen. Very few people do it. Therefore, the age limits of 18 and 16 that you have fixed in the Bill to me look retrograde from the national point of view. (Interruption). Mr. Speaker : I must be very clear on this point that interruptions not only prolong the speeches but they add to the irrelevancies of the debate. I was again going to remind the hon. Member who is on his legs that he is going into questions which do not form the subjectmatter of clause 2 or any of the amendments. He is now going into the age of marriage as if this is a general discussion on the Bill. I do not propose to allow any irrelevant discussion. We are taking the Bill clause by clause now; let us be strictly within the relevant scope of the clause. Otherwise we will never see the end of this legislation. I am not keen that it should be passed—it may be passed, it may not be passed—but at any rate I am keen to see that the debate on the clauses proceeds within the limits of relevancy and we go clause by clause to the end of the consideration. That is my point. I am not concerned one way or another. Therefore, the hon. Member will confine his remarks strictly to the provisions of clause 2 and the amendments thereto. Shri Biswanath Das : Sir, I am very thankful to you but my reference was necessitated by the fact that my Hon. Friend the Law Minister claimed in the course of his speech that his legislation is a progressive one. Therefore, I was forced to say that it is not, I have stated that the Code is intended for the “have-nots” and I have explained it. My objection to the clause is that the provisio to clause 2 is unnecessary and redundant. Unnecessary because it creates new complications and redundant because if anything is added without real necessity to the structure of the clause it creates further complications. Therefore, in any legislation such a redundancy is always given up.

928 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES I fail to see why sub-clause (4) is being retained. I don’t mind the daughter having more than the son or the son getting more than the daughter. Let it be a matter between the daughter and the son. I for myself would not hesitate to accept Marumakkattayam law instead of accepting division of the family property into bits. That being so, if my hon. friend would propose to give all the property to the daughter I would not object. Let the women have it. In fact, in Malabar, the women are by inheritance having almost all the property. Therefore, you may do that or you can give the daughters and the sons equal rights : this is not a matter with which I am very much concerned. Speaking for myself. I have no daughter to claim any share from me, but I feel for the daughters in general. Now, if you add to the share that the daughter gets from her father’s house by sub-clause (4), it means that you add to the financial possibilities of the women. She gets her stridhan, her share of the property and also special facilities as provided in the Special Marriages Act of 1872. Therefore, the continuance of sub-clause (4) is, I think, unnecessary also, I believe, unwarranted. I feel that the time has come when something has to be done to change the social structures of India. That some has to be done with the concurrence of the people and the thinking sections of the society. Therefore, I appeal to the Treasury Benches and to you to see that Government remove the objectionable features of clause 2 as also of the Bill, so that the Bill will have a smooth passage. *Shri M. A. Ayyangar : At no stage of the Bill hitherto have I had the good fortune to take part in the debate. You, Sir, were absent in the earlier stages and I had to take the chair. I have always tried to keep my opinions to myself, but the time has come when I should express my opinion regarding this matter. Let me first of all declare to the House and to the hon. the sponsor of this Bill that I am not wedded to whatever is ancient merely because it is ancient nor opposed to whatever is new simply because it is new. Merely because something is old, let us not cling to it; nor decry something that is new because it is new. It is up to us, as wise men, to consider both the pros and cons and accept what is good and reject what is bad. I shall try therefore quite dispassionately to go through some of the points that have been urged. I shall not go over the ground and make this a speech on the second reading of the Bill, but whatever is relevant in general I shall address myself to. * P.D., Vol. VIII, Part II, 7th February 1951, pp. 2517-31.

929 DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL I shall, first of all, try to dispose of some of the amendments that have been placed before the House and the objections that have been raised in regard to them by the sponsor of this Bill. It is said in one of the amendments that because this bill has far reaching consequences it must be only an enabling measure, it is said that option should be given to any individual to declare that he will be governed by the provisions of this Bill from the date of registration or declaration to this effect. The Hon. the Law Minister said that down from the earliest times when legislation was embarked upon in this country by the Britishers, there has been no precedent whatever for a measure being passed and option being given to any individual or class to accept or reject that measure by declaration. I am afraid his memory is too short. Now, let us take the Cutchi Memons Act of 1920. Indians who got converted to Islam were very often governed by the Hindu law, the law in which they were born. So the Cutchi memons had the joint family law and they also made adoptions among themselves. But later on it was urged by some reformers that the Shariat, i.e. the law of Islam, should apply to all persons embracing Islam. Islam has its own code of laws regulating inheritance, marriage, succession, divorce etc. The Hindu faith has attached to it its own law made by the smrithikaras relating to the same items which are also regulated by the Islamic law. For those persons who got converted to Islam, an enabling provision was made in this Act whereby any Cutchi Memon who wanted to adopt the Hindu law could by declaration before a prescribed authority do so; he could either ask to be governed by the Hindu law or by the customary law which prevailed before his conversion. Shri Raj Bahadur : That was a very special case. Shri M. A. Ayyangar : I would refer to a general case also. My friend should be a little patient. Under the Cutchi Memons Act, as amended in 1923, there are the following provisions :— “Any person who satisfies the prescribed authority— (a) that he is a Cutchi Memon and is the person whom he represents himself to be; (b) that he is competent to contract within the meaning of section 11 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872; and (c) that he is resident in British India may be declaration in the prescribed form and filed before the prescribed authority declare that he desires to obtain the benefit of this Act, and

930 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES thereafter the declarant and all his minor children and their descendants shall in matters of succession and inheritance be governed by the Muhammadan law,” Now, the argument of my hon. friend Shri Raj Bahadur cuts his own case, because this was not a law intended for the whole of India but was a law specially to safeguard the interests of a particular community. This section is an enabling provision. Cutchi Memons are not the only Musalmans in this country. The majority of Musalmans far outweigh the Cutchi Memons. When 99.9 recurring per cent, of Muslims follow the Shariat, why should a special provision be made for the Cutchi Memons? Therefore, this interjection from my hon. friend, far from helping him, helps the other side. Even if there is one instance, it is enough. Now, is it possible for you to enforce Buddhism on me or for me to impose Hinduism on another man? This Jaw of inheritance, marriage, succession etc. is based upon the same tenets. But if a person who got himself converted wanted to be governed by the ancient law which prevailed before his conversion, he was given an option to change over to the other law. Though he got himself converted, he had to convert himself voluntarily to the new legal institutions, changing one from the other. There was no coercion whatever. But without the suggested amendment, this Bill will be a piece of legislation which is of a coercive nature, bringing various other persons into its fold. So far as Hindus are concerned, if you want to marry out of the ancient law, there is the Civil Marriage Act. It was originally intended to apply to persons who had to declare that they were neither Hindus nor Christians nor Jains nor Parsis. Later on, it was changed. No two Christians could marry unless they disavow their religion. No two Muslims could marry unless they disavow their religion under the Civil Marriage Act. But we are always progressive. We are selfdenying. We are all-embracing even to the point of selfdestruction. We have amended this Act by saying that Hindus need not disavow their religion. Hindus, however they are married, may adopt the Civil Marriage Act.That is what we have done. What more is necessary ? Now you want to convert those people who follow the ancient law at the point of the byonet to your way of thinking. Why do you want me to change my religion? I have already quoted an instance where a special piece of legislation was made for the Cutchi Memons, a microscopic minority. It is because Dr. Ambedkar feels that a majority of us are archaic—to use the mildest word—that he