Vol. 14, Part II · pages 211–215

991 DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL Americans and Negroes and even they go to the length of indicating the fraction of African blood which will negative any marriage between an American and Negro. In some States marriage between an American and Chinese is prohibited, or a marriage between an American and a Mongolian. In practically all the States there are different marriage laws. Somebody interrupted me just now—what about uniformity ? I suppose people of the United States of America are getting on quite merrily and quite well without having complete uniformity of all marriage laws. So uniformity is not the last word on the subject. Uniformity suggests stagnation, deadness... Shrimati Renuka Ray : rose— Dr. S. P. Mookerjee : ………and I suppose even Mrs. Renuka Ray has not reached that stage. Shrimati Renuka Ray : Should we follow America ? Dr. S. P. Mookerjee : I am not saying that you should follow America. I would suggest that we should follow the lead given by our own country and that is the lead which Mrs. Ray should follow and which she has not followed as yet. That is so with regard to America. Now take again the Roman Catholics. According to their strict law, according to their religion, divorce is not allowed. But in almost all countries they have passed civil laws which allow Roman Catholics to adopt divorce if necessary. But they have not touched their religion. They have allowed that to remain separate, but those among the Roman Catholics who desire to be governed in accordance with the civil laws, it is open to them to do so. Well, Dr. Ambedkar is nodding his head. It is difficult to know whether it is in approval or dissent. In any event, he can explain later on—I am open to correction. It is very difficult to get these Jaws. But whatever books are available in the Parliament Library I was trying to go through them and I find that a clear distinction is made between the two systems. Now we are confining ourselves for the present to marriage and divorce. What is it that is worrying the so-called progressives in this country, including progressive ladies? Shri Kamath : In the House or outside ? Dr. S. P. Mookerjee : They are anxious that there should be a provision for divorce and there should be provision for monogamy. These are the two things on which great stress has been laid. Now let

992 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES us take divorce for the time being. You have got your laws passed by the Indian Legislature which permit divorce. At one stage a Hindu could not get married under the civil law, unless he declared that he was not a Hindu. Even that has been changed. A Hindu may remain a Hindu and at the same time contract a marriage which will be according to his taste or that of the couple. Similarly, with regard to inter-caste marriage, you have already passed laws and made such inter-caste marriages permissible, without taking away the Hindu character of the persons involved. Even sagotra marriage which is considered to be very revolting by large sections of the people has been recognised by laws passed by Parliament. Dr. Tek Chand : By the previous Parliament. Dr. S. P. Mookerjee : By the Legislative Assembly. These are indications as to how the demand for a progressive development—if I may say so—of marriage laws has been mat by Legislatures of this country. This is a subject which is placed in our Constitution in the Concurrent List and I believe Bombay and Madras have passed laws on the subject. ( An Hon. Member : Mysore as well). There are several States where provincial laws have been passed in some form or another. ( An Hon. Member : Not in North India) making provisions which are consistent with the wishes of the people. Now the point is this. Why do you wish to make the new laws obligatory upon all Hindus ? You do not wish that the system of divorce should be taken advantage of or must be taken advantage of, by people against the will of the parties concerned. It is an enabling measure and that power is already in existence. On the other hand, what is the blow that you are giving at the feelings of million of people ? Now you have kept this form of sacramental marriage on paper. You have changed its description from sacramental to “dharmic” in order to give it a little oriental and attractive colouring. Of course the substance has not changed. I would ask very seriously those Members of the House who are supporting this Bill : What is it that you are achieving by this proposal ? So far as sacramental marriage goes, this is an ideology which lies deep-rooted in the minds of millions of people—educated, and uneducated, literate and illiterate—the indissoluble nature of Hindu marriage. That is a matter of religion : it is not a matter of mere body and flesh. Now that is a feeling which lies deep in the minds of millions of people and I have talked to many people not only in my own province

993 DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL but in verious parts of India. People who have not the remotest chance of taking advantage of any divorce law for various reasons are simply shocked at this idea and many people who are well-intentioned, who are reformers suggest that if there are Hindus in the country today who want to take advantage of the modern system of divorce or want to do away with the religious nature of Hindu marriage, there is enough opportunity given to them under the existing law. If, however, the law has to be revised in order to make them ultra-modern and completely up-to-date, let the law be revised for their benefit. But why do away with the fundamental and sacred nature of Hindu marriage ? What is it that you gain thereby ? I have not been able to get any satisfactory answer to this question. Because it is nobody’s case that the new methods which are being laid down will be compulsorily adopted by all Hindus. Obviously that is nobody’s case. Therefore, if option is given and if people take advantage of that option, naturally your case is won. I was told that even in India, as India is today, there are nearly about 90 per cent, among Shudras amongst whom some form or other of divorce or dissolution of marriage exists. Very well, then the answer is there. You have got your Hindu Law which provides for the dissolution of marriage in castes and communities where it is wanted. You may say, well, why should about 10 or 15 per cent, of the Indian population stand against these changes ? It is not a question of anybody’s standing against the changes. If you want to go ahead or go backwards— whatever it may be—you are welcome to do so. But why drag others who do not believe in you and also who believe in something which is perfectly morally justifiable and in accordance with the highest standards of human conduct ? I have not been able to get any answer to this fundamental question. We are told very often that our system is backward. I have got with me many extracts from the writings of great Indians and great Western scholars who have admired at the way in which Hindu society has carried on its existence in spite of tremendous odds and difficulties. I am not for a moment saying that all is well with Hindu society. I know where the defects lie. But it is something amazing, something unprecedented that our religion or the great truths on which Hindus for generations past, for thousands of years, have lived, somehow have shown a degree of adaptability and vitality which is hardly to be witnessed anywhere else. What is the reason ? The reason is that whatever truths were propounded by the ancient sages or rishis, or

994 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES commented upon by those who came after them, were not dogmatic in character. Just as the needs of the society changed, so also the laws were altered. In a huge country like India which is one politically today—and we would undoubtedly like to see that it grows politically, socially, culturally and economically as one solid nation—at the same time, we cannot forget that in this country dwell thousands and thousands of people in various parts, in towns and in villages, men educated, uneducated, men with vision and with no vision and they have built up a structure of their own consistent with individual and social progress and welfare. Somehow that society has developed. Do you find any other country in this world where in spite of tremendous onslaughts the social structure has remained one ? India passed through seven hundred years of Muslim rule. Now, many theories were propounded during that period which in the context of today’s circumstances may appear to be rather conservative. But they were dictated by considerations for the preservation and consolidation of the society as such, and that is how those particular principles were propounded by the masters who were in no circumstance less qualified to speak on matters with which they dealt than any of us sitting in this Parliament today. From time to time movements came into this country. Reference has been made to Brahmo Samaj to Arya Samaj as soon as it appeared that the society was becoming stagnant, was becoming conservative, some outstanding personality raised his head in this land and drew upon the great sources, the fountain head of Indian knowledge, the Vedas or the Upanishads, gave their own interpretation and thereby tried to check the growth of the evils of conservatism or the moral decay of the society. But what has happened today ? The ideology for which the Brahmo Samaj stood in this country, say, about a hundred years ago has practically been absorbed by the Hindu society as you call the Hindu society today. The other day we were discussing about Buddhism, a matter on which Dr. Ambedkar naturally would be the best authority to speak in view of his latest transformation to that religion. But in any case some friends from outside India came, I have something to do with the Maha Bodhi Society. I happen to be its President. (An Hon. Member : Are you a Buddhist ?) without being a Buddhist. I am a Hindu and yet I am its President, because I have liberality enough to admit the greatness of Buddhism and yet remain a Hindu. The point I was about to develop

995 DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL was this. There were friends who came from outside India and they asked with a tone of complaint. “Well, India was the land of birth of Buddha, but India killed Buddhism”. I do not wish to go into those controversial matters now. But one point comes out very prominently and that is that when Buddha started preaching his great doctrines India needed Buddha, not only to save the world but to save India. And Buddha succeeded in checking the growth of certain tendencies which were about to destroy the very life-blood of Hindu civilization Buddha has been absorbed by the same Hindus as an avtar. Although there were people in India who fought with Buddhism—whether they were right or wrong is a matter into which I need not enter now—but gradually it was realized that Buddhism was a factor of growth on Indian soil and had to be absorbed in Indian culture. Shri Gadgil : The same thing will happen to the Code. Dr. S. P. Mookerjee : Far from it. That is a paradise that my friend is creating where he may dwell for ever. So far as Buddhism is concerned it went and spread in other countries but the tenets of Buddhism were gradually absorbed in Hindu ideology .The reason why I am saying all this is to show that we should never tolerate any criticism from any quarter, especially from a foreign quarter when they say that Hindu civilization or Hindu culture has been of a static nature or of a stagnant nature or of a decadent nature. There is something in our culture and civilization which is of a dynamic character and which has lived from generation to generation. Even when India was a subject nation people were bom in this country, men of our soil, who stood up for great ideals which gave a new lease of life under new and modern conditions to the eternal tenets of Hindu civilization. This code is destroying that fountain-source. I shudder to think of the effect of cause 4. You read clause 4 of the Hindu Code. You are closing the door there. You are saying that except such manners or customs which might have been recognized in the body of this Code, everything else will be taboo from today. And my friend Mr. Gadgil says that this will be another Code of a modern Buddha or Manu or something like that (An Hon. Member: What a fall !) It is these manners and customs based upon the ancient ideology, which allowed the Hindu society to grow and prosper from time to time. 12 noon Today, this great Assembly—and all of us are honourable and learned men—is solemnly deciding that we are the: fountain-head of Indian