Vol. 14, Part II · pages 171–175

951 DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL in the country should be left out. We must let the next election take place when representatives would be elected on adult franchise. If at that time we think it necessary to bring up the provisions concerning social reforms, we may move them as amendments to this present Bill and pass them. Such an approach will cover both the things. It would bring about an amalgamation of the laws and with that we would also avoid the controversial points. One thing more should be done. As my friend Shri Jaspat Roy Kapoor said, its application should not be made obligatory on all people. Of course, such social reforms should be brought about through legislation ; but it is imperative to mould public opinion in their favour. It would not be ill-advised to make it applicable only over those who accept it and not try to make it binding on the entire population. Therefore, I would again submit that it were better for this Bill not to have come up before us at all. I am also of the opinion that in keeping with the ideals of our Constitution if we could make this Bill in the times to come applicable to the entire society, according to the amendments moved by Shri Jaspat Roy Kapoor or others we must endeavour to make it such. Along with this we should also endeavour not to make it applicable compulsorily over the people. It may be applied to those people only who accept it, or else in the existing conditions we may leave out its controversial portions and so far as the matter of amalgamation goes, we may do it in as much as we are unanimous about it. *Shri Hussain Imam : Sir, today I also want to speak in my own language as our Seth Govind Das has delivered a good speech.” Prof. Ranga : Why not speak in English, so that we may follow ? Shri Hussain Imam : In considering the Hindu Code Bill, ordinarily, I would not have taken part in the debate, because it is a measure applicable to my sister community and as such they should have the right to have whatever they wish for themselves. Shri Tyagi (Uttar Pradesh) : But the amendment covers you. Shri Hussain Imam : That is the reason for my rising to speak. Some of my hon. friends are anxious to bring us under the purview of this measure. Well, there would have been no objection on our *P.D., Vol. VIII, Part II, 7th February 1951, pp. 2550-55.

952 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES part to come under a common code had it been in advance of our own system. But my complaint is that it is very much backward ; and you want to draw up and bring us down to the level to which you have brought yourself down. I, therefore, wish to be excused from coming down to your level. I may mention that the Hindu Code Bill has a very long history behind it. At one stage of it I had occasion to participate in the Committee on Hindu Law that was appointed in 1944-45. As such I have my sympathies with those who wish to advance the cause of the weaker sex. I believe that no country or society can advance if it has got submerged and suppressed people in its fold. It is very necessary that everyone should have equality before the law and in the matter of inheritance and other things. But it would be idle on our part to ignore the feelings of others. Feel as I may for myself. I must also realise what others are feeling, and as you, Sir, very poignantly pointed out, it is very necessary that there should be no dictatorship. The Hon. the Law Minister in his speech in the Constituent Assembly, on the memorable day we completed the drawing up of the Constitution, said as follows : “It is quite possible in a country like India—where democracy from its long disuse must be regarded as something quite new— there is danger of democracy giving place to dictatorship. It is quite possible for this new born democracy to retain its form but give place to dictatorship in fact. If there is a landslide, the danger of the second possibility becoming actuality is much greater.” I commend to him his own speech and ask whether it would not be dictatorship on the part of this house to dictate to the thirty-six crores of people of India to come under a law compulsorily, just as the old orthodoxy was denying the right of going forward to the moreadvanced members of society. It is a dictatorship which a minority is going to exercise on a vast majority. I wish to tell my sisters and the reformist brothers that they must take heart. In everything there is a fair way of fructification. They have the whole field before them. I find that orthodoxy is not only not aggressive, but is on the defensive— is putting on the garb of reformists to fight its retreating battles. It is fast losing its momentum. We have the eternal dilemma of an irresistible force meeting an irremovable mass. But that mass is becoming every day lighter and lighter and its roots are getting uprooted

953 DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL every day. Therefore, this orthodoxy will not remain adamant, as it has been in the past. But is it necessary that the reformist should become aggressive ? Should they play the game of the old orthodox people and try to dictate what they feel to be the best to people who do not regard them as the best but as the worst ? Why should you do that ? That is the question and in that question my community also joins. We feel that our system of law, and our system of distribution of wealth is more democratic and more socialistic and more, if I may say so, akin to the communistic, than the system which is proposed in this piece of legislation before us. I think the major amendments to clause 2 can be divided into three categories. Firstly, some of the amendments, notably amendment Nos. 13 and 14 of the Consolidated List want to increase its applicability. Amendment No. 13 of the supplementary list also. Then there are certain amendments, like No. 18 which wants to decrease its applicability. Then there is the third category, which wants to restrict its applicability to only those who wish to come under this. I think it is a very good media which has been suggested by Shri Jaspat Roy Kapoor and deserves the most serious consideration of this House— whether it would not serve our purpose by having a better code than the reformed Code which Dr. Ambedkar has brought before the House. He had to give some concession much against his wish. I wish to state a few facts for the consideration of the House. These facts are that the Bill sought to be amended by Dr. Ambedkar is so materially different from the Report of the Select Committee that we should in common justice recirculate these amendments and get the opinion of the country whether they wish to have this in the form in which they have been brought or not, and there is no time for that. This House is under dissolution. It will last probably, if things do not move in an untoward direction—which may quite possibly happen on account of the war—for a few more months. Now, I ask my lady friends and reformists whether it would not be better for them to take up the challenge of the orthodoxy now. According to Shri Jaspat Roy Kapoor’s amendment it is only a question of how far you are going to get the co-operation of the people to come and be under this Act. There is no occasion better than the election. In the election booth all the adult population of the country will be coming. If you have a system of registration running side by side with the

954 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES election booth and have a register in which every voter will put in. his thumb impression to indicate that he is willing to come under this Code, you can get the mandate of the people. Then you can confront orthodoxy and come and say that a vast majority of the country wants this reform, orthodoxy must go back and the day has been won for the reformists. But you do not do it. If you do not seriously convert the people to your idea, why do you ask that this body should get the odium of thrusting something on the people which it is professed they do not want and which you are unable to prove they want. I therefore suggest that if the Hon. the Law Minister is not prepared to accept the amendment of my hon. friend Mr. Jaspat Roy Kapoor in toto, he may at least follow the example set in the Shariat Act of ours where parts of it were made compulsorily applicable to all but parts of it were reserved for only those who would come and get themselves registered. This is the second suggestion which I wish to make to the Hon. Minister. Shri J. R. Kapoor : Will the hon. Member please say which are those parts ? Shri Hussain Imam : I wish to state that there are certain parts to which very serious objection has been taken, notably by you, Sir, about the distribution of property to the daughter. If you want that this portion should not apply to all, you can make it a provision of this nature, namely, that this part—Chapter IV—may apply only to those who wish to come into it. I would also mention the possibility of the grave dangers which this amendment of Dr. Ambedkar on the question of property has brought in. My valued friend Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava suggested that the girls should get a share while they are unmarried and when they get married they should be entitled to the husband’s property in the father-in-laws’s house. But you must not forget the divorced women. How has the modern Manu provided for them ? Dr. Ambedkar has not provided for the divorced women who are deprived of the share. He has provided for the share to remain permanently for the girl—half a share for the unmarried girl and quarter of a share for the married girl. But Pandit Thakur Dasji has suggested no share for the divorced woman. Under Dr. Ambedkar’s rule she will continue to have a quarter of a share. But Pandit Thakur Dasji would deprive her even of that quarter share because as soon as she gets married she will have no share.

955 DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava : According to me she would be entitled to the rights of partnership in the property of the new husband. Shri Hussain Imam : If she does not remarry ? I therefore think that another danger of the provision made by Dr. Ambedkar is that it might lead to immorality—the provision that on marriage a woman will lose half of her property and will be entitled only to a quarter of the father’s property. A rich girl would never marry a poor husband. Dr. Ambedkar : Why bother about the rich ? Shri Hussain Imam : As long as you have not changed the system and do not go to the Moscow-Peking axis of my hon. friend Brajeshwar Prasad, you have to care for wealth and capital. When you come to that day you will no longer bother about this. I was rather surprised that Dr. Ambedkar who is a born democrat should have made disparaging remarks about the electorate. The ‘electorate with all its ignorance is the only touch-stone by means of which we can test democracy. If that is removed, democracy will become meaningless, lifeless and only an effigy of democracy. Because, what did Hitler do ? He had elections, but a system was evolved by means of which elections were made. ..(an hon. Member : Easy)...not easy, but they were made only a cloak to cover the dictates of the dictator. The same thing will happen if we accept this dictum that the electorate has no right and the right is reserved to the Members of Parliament alone to decide whatever they like and in whatever manner they choose to do. I would again mention one fact, not the competence of this House— I would be the last person, having been for twenty years in the Central Legislature, to question the competence of this Legislature—but would it not be better to leave a measure of this nature to the popularly elected representatives who would come to this House with the direct mandate of the electorate ? I am suggesting this as a method of finding out the will of the people. As long as we pay at least lip service to democracy our ultimate masters and the arbiters of our fate are the electors. This is going to affect all. I wish to warn the House that as against the Bill as reported by the Select Committee, as a result of the change of the Constitution, we are going to hit each and every individual property. Even a small farm of an acre of land is not free from the ambit of this new Bill, because land is now brought in under the purview of the Central Legislature, whereas what the Bill as reported by the Select Committee affected was only fifteen