Vol. 14, Part II · pages 166–170

946 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES So far as inheritance is concerned I am not in favour of allowing the daughter any share after her marriage in the father’s property. But if she is unmarried she must be allowed the same as her brother. That is an amendment which would meet the viewpoint of my learned friend Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava. In conclusion, I would say that so far as the opposition to the Bill is concerned it has made out of certain political considerations also. The elections are looming large on the horizon and people consider any stick good enough to beat the Congress with. People outside the Congress are trying to whip up passion against the measure just because the elections are coming. They want to use it as a weapon in the election fight. It is therefore meet and proper that we should consider each provision of the Bill as coolly as possible, thrash out every issue threadbare, so that people may be able to see the Code in the proper light without the mist that now surrounds it. It is obvious that when we come to the clause by clause discussion, most of the superstitions and suspicions will be removed and controversial matters may be settled by mutual agreement and nothing will be there which will offend public conscience and public morality. With these words, Sir, I oppose the amendments moved and support the clause [mr. Deputy-Speaker in the Chair.] Seth Govind Das (Madhya Pradesh) : First of all I want to say that it would have been very good if…… Shri Hussain Imam (Bihar) : On a point of information, Sir; Will the Hon. Minister of Works, Production and Supply, who is now here, tell the House about the tragedy of the Delhi clock tower ? The Delhi clock tower has fallen. Some Hon. Members : This is not the time. Seth Govind Das : You can ask that after the speech, not in the middle of it. Mr. Deputy Speaker : It is possible some hon. Members are anxious to know what has happened. If the Hon. Minister has any statement to make he may do so after Seth Govind Das concludes his speech and we shall have an opportunity of having more information about the tragedy. The Minister of Works, Production and Supply (Shri Gadgil) : I have learnt about it only an hour ago. Secondly, I am not

947 DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL administratively responsible for what has happened in Delhi. The property known as the clock tower is managed by the Delhi Administration and probably by the Delhi Municipal Committee. But if it is the desire of the House that it should know some facts I shall try to contact the proper authority and at about five I may be able to give some information. Mr. Deputy Speaker : Yes. The hon. Member may continue his speech. *Seth Govind Das : * (English translation of the Hindi speech) Sir, I was submitting that it would have been very good if the Hon. Minister has not introduced this Bill at the present time. When I say this, it should not be inferred that I want to stick to the old customs or want to follow all that is given in our Smrities and Vedas. I have some knowledge of Sanskrit and I love my Indian culture, therefore, as far as Smrities and Vedas are concerned, they are not of the same opinion on every subject. If one Veda or Smriti says one thing regarding a particular subject another veda or Smriti says another thing regarding the same. We have always been lover of knowledge. Knowledge has always been given first place in our history and culture. We have admitted the fact that Kalabheden dharma bhedah i.e. Religion changes according to times. I admit that we need reforms and reforms should also be brought about through legislations. I remember the days when Raja Ram Mohan Ray pleaded the case for the abolition of sati. Even in those days there were people in the country who were in favour of Sati custom. I also remember those days when Iswarchandra Vidyasagar advocated the cause of widow remarriage and it was strongly opposed. Enough has been said regarding Sharda Act. I admit that child marriages have been prevented to a large extent due to the Sharda Act and to a greater extent this Sharda Act has tried to put an end to this bad custom of ours. Therefore, I admit that we have always been rational in our outlook. We should not follow the Vedas and Smrities blindly and we need laws to reform our society. But I could not understand one thing which our Minister said yesterday. He laughed at those persons who suggested that this Bill should be made applicable to the entire society as a whole. If we want to get our different societies knit in such a way, if we want to create such a society where there should be no class or caste distinction or so much difference as at present, then I submit that we need such a law * P. D., Vol. VII, Part II, 7th February 1951, pp. 2545-49.

948 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES which may be applicable to the entire society without any distinction. Yesterday, the Hon. Minister made certain observations which in my opinion do not befit him, it is just possible that I may be wrong. I thought that he became somewhat irritated and lost his temper or he felt that we were putting obstruction in the passage of the Bill. But this is not the thing. This is the opinion of the most of the people, and I am one of them, that it would have been far better had this law been made applicable to the entire society without distinction. According to the Hon. Minister, it will be a matter of great pleasure if such a Bill could be introduced within two days. It will be very good if this Bill could be got passed within half an hour. It was not a good thing for our Hon. Minister, holding such a responsible post, to laugh at those people who hold different opinions than what he holds. It has been clearly stated in our Constitution, it may not be in the chapter relating to fundamental rights but it is in the preamble chapter: “That State shall endeavour to secure for the citizens a uniform Civil Code throughout the territory of India.” It has been clearly stated in our Constitution. The Bill which has been presented before us today is opposed to this clause. We have suffered a lot as a result of this class and caste distinctions. After attaining independence, we framed our Constitution and this is the first social Bill which has been presented before us after the passing of the Constitution. We should have incorporated some of the ideals in this social Bill and that could have been easily done., if only this was to be applied to the entire society. If some clauses of this Bill are deleted and the good ones selected then a Bill could be prepared which could be applied to the entire society as a whole. Then, the people who are opposing this Bill today would not have done so. There is one thing more and which is quite apparent. There are many good things in this Bill as well. I would rather say that it abounds in good things and the points of disagreement are very few. There is one important point in the fundamental things, which have been laid down in this Bill. One of the disputed points is that women should also be given the right of succession to property. It is easy to say a thing as my friend Shri Syamanandan Sahaya has done, I hold him in great esteem, by declaring that we already treat women as masters of our household. I would like to tell him that that is akin to the maxim “the safe is yours but let the keys remain with me.” We have seen and are aware of the consequence’s resulting from non-existence

949 DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL of the rights of women to property. We know of the lives that many women had to lead. Will Shri Syamanandan Sahaya or those who are of his opinion deny the fact that many a chaste and respectable women belonging to wealthy families had to lose their prestige and status on account of having been left without property ? As far as I am concerned, I have, therefore, no difference of opinion about women’s right of succession to property. The question is whether they should obtain share in the father’s property or in the father-in-law’s. Giani G. S. Musafir (Punjab) : There is no objection to father-inlaw’s. Seth Govind Das : So this is a big question. Today our system of marriage is such that the woman goes to her husband’s place. There was also a time when there existed no system of marriage in the society. The story of Uddalak and Shwetketu in the Mahabharata clearly shows that there was a time when no marriage were held. Then came a period of matriarchy, where the husband used to go to the wife’s place and the female child among their children inherited the property. That system still prevails in some places, in Malabar for example. Then the period of patriarchy came. Most of our social structure today comprises of patriarchy, not matriarchy, and how far would it be proper to make a woman inheritor of father’s ‘property in such society is a controversial matter. I would like to impress that so far as the women’s right of succession to property is concerned that must be there, but that should exist in such a manner that an unmarried woman should be entitled to it at her father’s place and a married one at her husband’s. There are also some other clauses of this Bill about which there may be a difference of opinion. So far as this Bill is concerned. It incorporates two things. First, various existing laws have been emalgamated. Secondly, some clauses for the purpose of social reform have been added. As I had just said, it would have been in the fitness of things had this Bill not come up. When our President Dr. Rajendra Prasad was the President of the Congress, he had pleaded for not presenting such a Bill and so according to him it had better not come up. But now it has been carried so far that if it is withdrawn at this juncture, various interpretations shall be forthcoming for that. The next election is before the people. I do not give very much importance to the elections and believe that the Congress is not so ineffectual that if the present Bill is passed and people are told that the Congress has done it, the Congress Party would be defeated. But if the Congress

950 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES is such a trifle that it can thus be defeated. I would say that the earlier it is defeated the better. So I differ from those who keep the elections before them and proceed with that point in view. I have recollections of 1923 and 1926 when the Swarajya Party went to polls for the first time. I was a candidate for the Central Assembly from the Zamindar party and it was being said that the Congress and zamindars were far apart, that zamindars would not vote with the Congress; but still nobody contested my seat. After that I stood again for the Council of State in 1925 and then too it was doubted whether the voters of the Council of State would vote for the Congress. Sir Manekji Dadabhai and Sir Hari Singh Gour opposed me, but I got three-fourth of the votes. Therefore, I do not consider the Congress to be a touch-me-not institution which may wane into a defeat if we pass such a Bill, which thought may continue to give us a constant fear of elections. I am of the opinion that if we are in favour of this Bill and if our leader, our Prime Minister, considers that it should be passed, it would be a mistake for us not to pass it for fear of elections. It is a different thing if we do not want to pass it. But if we do not pass it for fear of elections, there would be nothing worse than that. And I would say a word to those also who would not like to see it go through for fear of elections. If the Bill is not passed now, they shall find people saying that if the Congressmen were returned they would do such things as were not there even in the Bill. Such horrid pictures would be drawn before the people the like of which we cannot even imagine today. So we have not to deal with this Bill for consideration or fear of election. We have to deal with it on its merits. In this connection, I would reiterate before the Hon Minister what I have just said, namely, that the Bill has two parts—one of amalgamation and the other of social reforms. We are utterly opposed to many provisions of social reforms. I want that under the prevailing circumstances in the country all such provisions should be left out because their incorporation is inopportune. Things over which there is divergence of opinion should be excluded and those of amalgamation may be taken up. I make considerable distinction between these two things and wish the Hon. Minister to give sufficient heed to this suggestion of mine. I want that so far as amalgamation is concerned we should take that up as also the provisions with which we are not at variance and these provisions may be passed. Those provisions that are controversial and with regard to which there is going on a campaign