Vol. 14, Part II · pages 216–220

996 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES religion and Indian culture and whatever we decide to embody in this Code is final for the time being and nothing else will be allowed to be looked into by Judges and Courts. Does not the House know that even in 1951 after the attainment of Independence, our own Supreme Court had to draw from the original texts or their interpretations and give their verdict on cases where questions of Hindu law were under consideration, because they could not get any analogy from judicial decisions or text-books ? You are killing today the very fountain source of your religion which had given such a wide scope to generations of people to make it a living reality and you say that it is a forward measure : it is a backward measure ; it is a measure which does not help anybody at all ; it only helps in dividing the country. I do not wish to ascribe any motive to anybody. Anyone who may be supporting it or proposing it may be acting with the highest motives. I am prepared to admit that but what I would like to say is this : Do not give compulsory effect to the provisions in respect of all people. ( An Hon. Member : Where is the compulsory effect at all ?) Divorce is not compulsory but the breaking away of the sacramental ties of Hindu marriage will be compulsory and that is bad enough. Whether divorce comes or not is a different question altogether ; you are violently changing customs and convictions. Somebody said, when I was speaking earlier that south India was specially progressive and many of the laws which we are considering are already in existence there today. I say good luck to south India. Let south India proceed from progress to progress from divorce to divorce. I have absolutely no quarrel with south India, but why force it on others who do not want it. In fact I have got a letter with me. I received it only two days ago—it is a postcard and I do not know the gentleman who wrote it. Shri Gadgil : From the Dead Letter Office ? Dr. S. P. Mookerjee : It is not from the Dead Letter Office. I can make a present of it to Mr. Gadgil, if he likes. It is not a dead letter. This only shows how customs vary in this country. Here is this gentleman who writes from Nuzwid, Kistna district. “The Bill as published on the Hindu Law contains a provision rendering the marriages between a girl and her maternal uncle void as being within the prohibited degree. The aforesaid custom is widely prevalent in Andhra and Tamil Nad and even Brahmins consider maternal uncles of girls to be the most eligible and suitable bridegrooms for their girls. The prohibition is not known perhaps

997 DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL to lawyers and to others. I am sure that the vast majority of our people are ignorant of it, in which case marriages celebrated in ignorance of this provision would operate as a severe hardship. I therefore request you to move an amendment…..” I do not know why they had selected me in particular and not written to Dr. Ambedkar— “... saving the custom from the prohibition or fixing suficient time to elapse before the chapter on marriage, can be brought into force.” This is just by the way, for those who were talking about the progressive nature of the people living in those territories. Naturally they have gone very far ahead. ( An hon. Member : Is it true ?) I do not know whether the letter came from the Dead Letter Office but my friends from south India can tell me whether it is genuine (Interruption ). I shall refer the writer to Mr. Bharati in my reply. The point which I am developing is this. Shri J. R. Kapoor : It is not a progressive State. Dr. S. P. Mookerjee : Those who may follow him may consider it absolutely progressive. It is only a point of view. I am not challenging the wisdom or un wisdom of any State. It might have been followed by lakhs and millions of people in this vast country. Naturally customs might have developed in a particular manner. My proposal boils down to this. You do not make this Code applicable to all—I am talking of marriage and divorce for the time being— but leave it open to those who will be married in future to make a declaration that they would like to be governed by these provisions and not be governed by the consequences of dharmic marriage ; you leave it open to them to do so. ( An hon. Member : What about past marriages ?) That covers the cases of those who come in future. We are not legislating. I suppose for the purpose of helping the dissolution of marriage of the existing Members of Parliament. We are looking to the future ; we are thinknig of handing over something to the future generation, whereby they can live in peace and with greater comfort. But supposing you want to apply it to those who are already married.... Dr. Ambedkar : It does not apply to those who are already married. Dr. S. P. Mookerjee : There also you can make a provision. Supposing you want to apply it to all who are already married, there I will give a solution. You leave it open to anybody, say, within a period

998 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES of one or two years to register his decision whether he would like to be governed by this Code to opt for it, if you can use that language. (An hon. Member : Why not everywhere ?) Well, ‘everywhere ‘I do not approve for this reason that you are deciding something for others for which you have no right today. You are passing a law whereby you are saying that the dharmic form of marriage will continue as now without any modification or alteration and the other form of marriage also is open to people who would like to take advantage of it. Let the people in future make their choice. There is no compulsion and for existing people you may give a time-limit or you may not give a time-limit. You can say that if any particular party desires to be governed by the provisions of this Code, such persons may make a declaration before the Registrar or Registrar-General or Director General or whoever he may be and get the relief as is provided for in the Code. I ask in all seriousness what is it that you lose thereby ? Pandit Kunzru (Uttar Pradesh): What do we gain thereby ? Dr. S. P. Mookerjee : What you gain thereby is that you do not break the unity of the country. Pandit Kunzru : This Act when passed will be permissive. It does not compel any couple to take advantage of the provisions of divorce. It is perpetually open to a couple to say whether they are to be governed by that provision or not. Dr. S. P. Mookerjee : That is a point of view which maybe urged with some emphasis. Here the difference is this : that you destroy the indissoluble nature of Hindu marriage which is regarded as solemn and sacred by millions of people. Pandit Kunzru may not agree and many people in this House may not. I am not quarrelling with those people who believe that marriage is bilateral arrangement, that it is nothing but a matter of contract; I have nothing to say against them if there are people who hold that view. Let them hold it, but there are those who hold the contrary view, who genuinely and sincerely believe that this system which has been in vouge for thousands of years is something sacred, something deep-rooted in their traditions and religion. What right have you to sit in this House and say that you want by one stroke of the pen to take this great right away ? That is my answer to Pandit Kunzru. ( Shri Bharati : Monogamy.) I am coming to it. Shri Bharati need not be anxious I hope he is agreeing with me as regards divorce and that is why he wants me to go to monogamy. That is my line of approach. Believe me, rightly or wrongly, this country has been divided

999 DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL tremendously on this Hindu Code Bill. I do not wish that that should be so. I want that we should go on progressing and making reforms in our social structure. But, we will do it in such a way that we can carry the bulk of the people with us, not carry them by force in this House or carry them by threads of sweeping agitation outside, but carry them by appealing to their logic and to their conviction. When I discussed this matter with representatives of the orthodox school of view..... Dr. Ambedkar : That is Karapatriji. Dr. S. P. Mookerjee : No ; I have not met him recently. Pandit Maitra : What is the harm if he is consulted ? Dr. Ambedkar : No harm. I invited him and he expressed a desire to come. Afterwards, he refused to come. I have not shunned him. Dr. S. P. Mookerjee : I have not discussed this matter with Karapatriji rcently. I shall not be sorry to discuss it with him ; but, I have not discussed. Dr. Ambedkar : In fact; I invited him to come and discuss ; but he has not come. Dr. S. P. Mookerjee : I have discussed this matter with many people who represent his point of view and others who are not orthodox. Somehow, the country is divided today. How to proceed in the matter ? As I said, it is not a Press law, that something is in danger and so you must go and pass the Press law somehow and operate it. This is not an amendment of the Constitution. It is not a political matter. In fact, we may differ on matters of politics. But, there should be a fundamental agreement with regard to the need for introducing reforms into our great country, which will make our civilisation more progressive and more advanced. That should be our common ground of approach. Those who are following the existing practices, those who are abiding by the ; provisions of the existing laws are not retrograde. The tragedy is that many of the supporters of the Bill, who have been carried away by their notions of so-called progress and advance, in their exuberance think that what they think is the last word on the subject, that they represent progress and the others are retrograde. That is very unfortunate. ( An Hon. Member : Lipstick). I am not talking about lipstick at all; I have talked about progress. We should see the other man’s point of view, the point of view of man who believe in the existing ideology, unless it can be pointed out that something is happening in the society which

1000 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES is absolutely rotten, immoral, backward. If that could be pointed out. I am at one with Dr. Ambedkar and those who want to introduce reforms. But, if it is a mere difference of opinion, a mere difference in outlook, and you get whatever you want for those who share your point of view, why then do your force your opinions on millions of others, who do not share your view ? That is a point of view which I would very strongly urge before the Law Minister and Governmet. If I had given you a formula which indicated an abandonment of the provisions of the Code for those who believe in it, you can blame me. But, I wish you godspeed ; go ahead ; do whatever you like for those people who believe in the ideology which you are preaching here. But in respect of others who and whose forefathers had proceeded in accordance with the old traditions and Who are no less patriotic Indians than any one who is sponsoring this bill, why do you force your options on them ? Talking of divorce has the law of divorce solved all social problems in countries where the system of divorce is now in existence ? Shri Himatsingka (West Bengal) : Created more. Dr. S. P. Mookerjee : I have been going through some of the recent bookson sociology. People are perturbed, because this is a complex human problem. The word has not found a solution to these problems. Those who have taken to the system of divorce, their number is leaping up. Do they find peace ? Have they found happiness ? An Hon. Members : No. Dr. S. P. Mookerjee : On the other hand new problems have come up. Read some of the latest books on psycho-analysis. There it is clearly pointed out that many of the evils which face the western countries are due to the mal-adjustment of the sexes. These are complex problems. Why blindly copy something from the west because some people from some part of the world have come and told you that. You are backward unless you adopt this ? If there are forward people in this country, who believe in this ideology, give them a long rope, sufficiently long, so that they may hang themselves. But, do not interfere with others who have found a solution of their problems through different doors altogether. So far as monogamy is concerned. I shall support it with one reservation. Make it applicable to all the citizens of India. It is not a question that monogamy is good for the Hindus and monogamy is not good for others. Stand for one social doctrine.