Vol. 14, Part II · pages 206–210

986 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES Khwaja Inait Ullah : I wish to oppose some amendments, which were moved in the last session. Mr. Deputy-Speaker : Nobody prevents him. Shri Bharati (Madras) : His difficulty seems to be in regard to what you, Sir, have stated that those who have moved amendments will get preference. Mr. Deputy Speaker : I have not said that I am going to cut it short. All will have an opportunity unless and until the House itself puts a ban upon them. I only indicated that hon. Members who have moved a number of amendments must be given preference. Others may also speak. *Dr. S. P. Mookerjee (West Bengal) : rose— Mr. Deputy-Speaker : Dr. Mookerjee—though he has not tabled any amendments. Dr. S. P. Mookerjee : I happen to be one of those Members. . . Shri Rajagopalachari : It goes against all rules. . Dr. S. P. Mookerjee : ……who have not tabled any amendment, nor have I, Sir, spoken on this momentous measure at any time since the Bill was introduced. Shri Naziruddin Ahmad : He was a Minister at the time. Dr. S. P. Mookerjee : Sir, we have met here after about seven months to take up consideration of the Hindu Code Bill. Many things have happened during this period. If I may say so, it is a matter of some satisfaction that Government has kept its mind open and has volunteered to make amendments in order to meet criticisms which may be made either in this House or outside. Shri Gadgil : Reasonable. Dr. S. P. Mookerjee : I believe never in the history of our country has a measure given rise to so much criticism in support or against it. Shrimati Renuka Ray : What about the abolition of sati ? Mr. Deputy Speaker : No, hon. Member need interrupt another hon. Member. I already said that it is likely to generate heat. Whatever •is not to the taste of any hon. Member ought not to be imposed upon any other hon. Member. Dr. S. P. Mookerjee : The clause we are discussing now is of a general character. It raises the question of the applicability of the entire Code and from that point of view I should like to make some general observations which will be of a relevant character. *P.D., Vol. XV, Part II, 17th September 1951, pp. 2705-23.

987 DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL The question has arisen as to whether this Code should be made applicable to Hindus as such or to such other classes of persons including Sikhs, Jains and Buddhists as have been mentioned in the amendment moved by the Hon. Law Minister. The question has also been raised whether the Code should not apply to all citizens of India. I know that this matter was raised on the floor of this House in February last and ‘I do not wish to dilate upon it very much but I would certainly say that as the Chapter in the Constitution dealing with the directive policy of the State indicates, Parliament under the new Constitution has really been called upon to pass a Code which is to be applied to all citizens— an all India Civil Code. When this bill was started to be discussed, we were working under a different set of circumstances altogether. It is therefore a matter of regret that the new Government even after the Constitution has been passed should proceed with a measure of this description applicable only to one section of the community. It is said that we are a secular State. In fact we suffer very often from a new disease which may be called ‘secularities’. How far is it open to Parliament—I am not raising any technical point—but how far is it desirable for Parliament to pass a law which will be applicable to only one section of the community ? I know what the reply of the law Minister is, because he dealt with this question in one of his previous speeches. He said that there was no difficulty in formulating an all India Civil Code if the country really wanted it. If that is the answer, then why not let us have such a Code ? I doubt very much if some of the provisions which have been suggested in this Code can be proposed to be made applicable to other communities, in particular to Muslims. We are discussing the question of monogamy, I believe it is nobody’s case that monogamy is good for Hindus alone or for Buddhists alone or for Sikhs alone. I believe those who are advocating monogamy honestly feel that this system is sound in principle and it should be made applicable to all—if not to all persons in this civilised world, at least to all citizens in India who are liable to be governed under laws passed by this Parliament. Now, why not have a separate Bill dealing only with monogamy and make it applicable to all citizens ? What is the objection thereto ? The objection thereto may come from quarters to which the Law Minister pointed his finger, I believe Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad. Shri Naziruddin Ahmad : I am sufficiently troubled with one wife. I do not want two. Dr. S. P. Mookerjee : The law Minister has got his answer. In any case, if a bill dealing with monogamy is introduced...

988 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava : A Bill to that effect has been introduced in this House by me. Dr. S. P. Mookerjee : If such a Bill is introduced, at least the Law Minister will get support from Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad, but the real reason is that Government dare not touch the Muslim community. Shri Bharati : Why ? Dr. S. P. Mookerjee : You make a test. Shri Gadgil : Wait and see. Dr. S. P. Mookerjee : I am making a suggestion. Let the Law Minister declare that the Bill will be amended and the portion dealing with monogamy will be applied to Muslims. Shri Rajagopalachari : Are we to make laws in order to test courage ? Dr. S. P. Mookerjee : Laws are sometimes made to test the sincerity of individuals and Government and therefore the sincerity and the partiality of the Government including the Home Minister are very much in question today. Shri Bharati : Not at all. Dr. Ambedkar : No, no. Dr. S. P. Mookerjee : I am not going to tread on this question because I know the weaknesses of the promoters of the Bill. They dare not touch the Muslim community. There will be so much opposition coming not from men like Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad but from many others throughout India that Government will not dare to proceed with it. But of course you can proceed with the Hindu community in any way you like and whatever the consequences may be. Shri Rajagopalachari : Because we are the community. Dr. S. P. Mookerjee : My appeal to the House and to the Government would be on a somewhat different basis. I do not wish to make my speech very controversial. Shri Kamath : Why not ? Make it as controversial as you can. Dr. S. P. Mookerjee : Because I want to create that atmosphere where matters affecting social reform can be discussed in a method of give and take. It is not a Press Bill which the Law Minister is sponsoring on behalf of the Home Minister. We do not want the Police to stand outside this Parliament to help the smooth passage of a Bill dealing with social reform. That does not really help anybody. Any Bill whose object

989 DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL is to introduce social reform must have the support of the vast majority of the people of the country. I see the Home Minister rising. Shri Rajagopalachari : I am not interrupting, I am only helping him. My interruption has given a twist to the hon. Member’s argument. I was only objecting to the particular argument. I may be entirely in agreement if he proceeds on the other basis. An Hon. Member : So, you are a supporter ! Dr. S. P. Mookerjee : As the time of retirement from his office is drawing nearer and nearer sense also is dawning upon the Home Minister quicker and quicker. In any case, if we want to have social reforms in this country, we would like to carry as large sections of the people with us as possible. I do not share this view that parliament has no right to deal with matters of social reform. I know the sacredness of our ancient texts— Vedas, Smritis and Srutis. But historically there were commentators to interpret the great theories which are propounded by the original lawmakers in days of yore. Gradually, the commentators also disappeared and what we have witnessed during the last 150 years is that in many matters affecting social reform Judges including European Judges sitting in distant London and legislators have from time to time come forward and made alterations in the social structure of the country. So it is rather too late in the day for any one of us to say that Parliament should not now have the right to pass legislation which may interfere with the rights and privileges which may be enjoyed by the people of this country under the existing law. Pandit Maitra : Not this Parliament as constituted at present. Dr. S. P. Mookerjee : So far as the right of this Parliament is concerned, naturally it is a very delicate matter. For me being a Member of this body it is rather difficult to challenge its jurisdiction, but of course so far as its right to present the will of the people goes, that is a matter which will be decided in the next few months and the people themselves will give their verdict. It is no use either for us sitting on this side or Members of Government sitting on the other side claiming for this Parliament things which may not be actually, honestly and legitimately claimed for this body. But my point is this that today there is a volume of opinion—a strong body of opinion, against some or many of the fundamental features of this Bill. I beg of hon. Members who are supporting this Bill to appreciate the depth of these criticisms. There may be some features in this Bill with which I am in agreement, but

990 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES I am trying to look at this measure from the point of view of those who are opposing it either in whole or in part. Just as we may appreciate the depth of the feelings of those who are supporting this measure, so also the depth of feelings of those who are opposing it must be appreciated. How to find a solution ? From the papers we find that for strategic reasons it has been decided to omit the consideration of some portions of this Bill. Dr. Ambedkar : Strategic reasons ? Dr. S. P. Mookerjee : A sort of toss is supposed to have been taken. On the one side are marriage and divorce and on the other side is property and somehow marriage and divorce have won the day, and property has been relegated to the background for the time being. An Hon. Member : Property has won the day. Dr. S. P. Mookerjee : Is it possible for us on the consideration of the amendments which are now before the House under clause 2 to devise some procedure whereby it may be left open to those who desire to come under the Code to take the fullest advantage of its provisions, and at the same time give freedom to those who do not believe in the sanctity or legality or justice of the provisions to continue to be governed by existing Hindu Law ? Shri Bharati : That is uniformity. Dr. S. P. Mookerjee : That is a proposal which I am making in a perfectly relevant manner on the basis of the various amendments which you have ordered to be placed before the House for consideration. I have been told by some friends that we are liable to criticism for our backwardness in many foreign countries. During the last few days I have been told that some people have come and said that in China they are watching when the Hindu Code Bill will be passed ! Pandit Maitra : In Honolulu too ! Dr. S. P. Mookerjee : In America some people are supposed to be watching as regards the progressive nature of the Indian people in relation to their attitude towards the Hindu Code. Shri Gadgil : Old rishis are watching from Heaven also. Dr. S. P. Mookerjee : That I consider to be an entirely irrelevant consideration. Let us look at the American laws. I was trying to get some information with regard to the American laws. I find that in 26 different States in America they do not allow marriage between