Vol. 14, Part II · pages 236–240

1016 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES cases there is saptapadi. I hope the modification which I have suggested will be acceptable regarding customary divorce. Originally it was the intention that all custom should be wiped out altogether. I am glad that Dr. Ambedkar has modified that stand but I am afraid he will have to modify it further. In one place where he had to explain his view point he said that custom must be such that it must be sensible, reasonable and satisfy certain other requirements. He expected custom to answer to standards of reasonableness. But what is reasonableness ? It can differ from man to man and from group to group. What may be regarded as reasonable by Dr. Ambedkar would be entirely unreasonable to Mr. Kamath or Pandit M. B. Bhargava…. Shri Kamath : Do you lump us together ? Dr. Deshmukh : Oh, No ! Not jointly but severally. From the point of view of custom I must say that the learned doctor, must be willing to go a little further, because every custom has had a history and it is not arguable on the basis of reason. Originally the view of the sponsors of the Code was that custom, whatever it was, was bad. That was why they provided that all “custom” was bad and no custom will be recognised under any circumstances. The whole society was to be governed by the provisions in black and white of the Code and no variation of any kind was to be recognised. Fortunately you have come to a stage when you are prepared to recognise custom. But to what extent is the question ? On the one hand you say that it should be reasonable but in many instances this is a contradiction in terms… Dr. Ambedkar : Why ? Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava : It has to be reasonable before it is recognised. Dr. Deshmukh : In customary marriage one of the things essential and recognised as a necessary ingredient is that the bride and bridegroom must take seven steps round the fire. I do not see any reason or reasonableness behind it. What function does it perform ? How does it help so far as the wedlock is concerned ? Shri Kamath : It is symbolic. Dr. Deshmukh : Similarly….. Mr. Chairman : Is the hon. Member likely to continue his speech ? Dr. Deshmukh : Yes, Sir, I will take sometime longer. The House then adjourned till Half Past Eight of the clock on Tuesday, the 18th September, 1951.

1017 DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL *HINDU CODE— contd.. Clause 2. —(Application of Code )—Contd. Mr. Deputy Speaker : The house will now proceed with the further consideration of the Bill to amend and codify certain branches of the Hindu Law as reported by the Select Committee. Dr. Deshmukh (Madhya Pradesh) : Sir, between the time I left my speech incomplete yesterday and now, two fine ladies who did not share... Shri Sondhi (Punjab): What is meant by “fine ladies” ? Dr. Deshmukh : Two cultured and.... Shri Sondhi : You may say modern ladies. Dr. Deshmukh : No, not so modern as we are accustomed to see. As I was saying, these ladies placed before me very strongly and sincerely their point of view. It was clear they viewed the Bill from a different angle. And while the Hon. Prime Minister is here I may also say that these ladies complained that their point of view has never received adequate consideration at the hands of the Prime Minister, and that there have been attempts made to come in the way of his being informed of the strength of their feelings and the view point that they wished to present before him. If this is a fact, and if it is not too late to do so, I would feel much obliged if these ladies could call upon the Prime Minister to place before him their point of view. They are entirely opposed to the Hindu Code Bill in any shape or form, including the provisions relating to divorce and monogamy. They say that it is an attack on Hinduism and on Hindu religion which will be not for the good of anyone. They also contend that essentially these are radical changes and these are sponsored by a few... The Minister of Law (Dr. Ambedkar) : For my own enlightenment, I would like the hon. Member to say what he means by “they”. I could not hear the opening part of his sentence. An Hon. Member : Two fine ladies, he said. Shrimati Durgabai (Madras) : Will the hon. Member give us the names of these ladies for the benefit of hon. Members, because this may reflect on many ladies who are not of that opinion. Mr. Deputy Speaker : Two ladies do not cover the entire world. *P.D., Vol. XV, Part II, 18th September 1951, pp. 2742-50.

1018 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES Dr. Deshmukh : They are as representative as my learned sister here claims to be in this House. And, Sir, it is also their contention that in their discussions they have been able to convert many persons who had agreed with my hon. sister here and who were of her inclination. They are opposed to divorce because they say.... The Prime Minister and Minister of External Affairs (Shri Jawaharlal Nehru) : Who are they ? Dr. Deshmukh : Sir, by this interruption I think the Hon. Prime Minister has admitted the statement that he has not seen them. Shri Jawaharlal Nehru : I do not know who they are. Dr. Deshmukh : There is a Women’s League in existence in India and.... Shrimati Durgabai : Yes, nobody denies that; but we want to know the names of these two ladies. The Deputy Minister of Food and Agriculture (Shri Thirumala Rao) : He is referring to persons who are outside the House and are not in a position to defend themselves. Mr. Deputy Speaker : There is no question of defence or offence. Dr. Deshmukh : I am glad Shrimati Durgabai admits the existence of a Women’s League Mr. Deputy Speaker : There are opinions and opinions on the Code hon. Members are entitled to say that there is a certain opinion, that some ladies came to him and represented it to him. Further reference to the ladies is not necessary. It is for the House to accept or reject such an opinion of those people. In so far as a Member wants to mention the opinion which he is either going to support or controvert he can do so, instead of saying two ladies every now and then. Shri Jawaharlal Nehru : The difficulty is that he particularly referred to me and wants me to see unknown people of unknown whereabouts. How can I do that ? Dr. Deshmukh : They will not remain unknown and unseen as soon as they appear before the Prime Minister. Shri Karunakara Menon (Madras) : Are they above sixty or below sixty ? Mr. Deputy Speaker : Evidently the Prime Minister has not given an interview to those ladies. If the hon. Member is not willing to give the names, he will communicate them. Shrimati Durgabai : Unless they want to remain anonymous.

1019 DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL Dr. Deshmukh : Not at all. The mere mention of there being ladies of a different viewpoint has excited our sisters here so much. (Interruptions). They are also aware that a good many ladies, not alone the few ladies who came to see me, have resigned from the All India Women’s Conference. Several Hon. Members : Who are they ? (Interruption). Dr. Deshmukh : I can give not only their names but if I present them before you in all their strength you will probably be frightened. Their number is so large that it is impossible to give their names. Shri Sidhva (Madhya Pradesh) : They are unknown women : they were canvassing in the Constitution House yesterday. Dr. Deshmukh : You have seen two of them yesterday. Shri Sidhva : They were unknown women. Dr. Deshmukh : Those are the very ladies I am referring to. . Mr. Deputy Speaker : The hon. Member will resume his seat. This is a very contentious matter. There is a large body of opinion in favour of it and there is also a body of opinion against it. It is no good talking of unknown women and unknown men. It does not add to the dignity of the proceedings of the House. The hon. Member need not refer again and again to these two women. There are not only two but two thousand against the code and there are also two million on the other side. So there is opinion both for and against. We are here discussing the bill dispassionately. Let nothing be said which, is derogatory to the high dignity of the House. Unknown women and unknown men are expressions which are not rather very parliamentary. The hon. Member need not pursue the matter by saying two ladies, again and again. Dr. Deshmukh : I had no desire to do so but for the interruptions. Sir, I will now come to the various amendments moved in the house. My friend Dr. Mookerjee suggested many alternatives to the acceptance of the Code. One of them was to make the provisions of the Code optional. There is also an amendment to say that there should be a referendum and if the majority of the people supported the Code in the referendum, then it should be made applicable. I had given notice of an amendment last time which referred to the Hindu Code as a whole and suggested that it be made applicable in any State after the Legislature of the State after the next elections had ratified it. There is a good deal of force in the suggestion regarding ratification by the State Governments and State Legislatures. After all we are not trying

1020 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES to go the way of Hitler and other dictators who forced social and other reforms on the people. We are a democratic nation and want to stick to democratic methods. If there is to be democracy and since this is only a personal law and not a law necessary for the maintenance of law and order or other purposes (it may be necessary in the view of some for the advancement of the community) there can be two opinions and one can be as honestly and steadfastly held as the other one. In the case of some of the reforms suggested the experience elsewhere in the world has not been altogether happy. Take for instance the divorce law. There are various degrees of divorces and varying facilities for obtaining the same current in the world. Those who advocated divorce and wanted to organise society on individual freedom have come to grief and looking at these consequences in foreign countries, when some of our people merely try to imitate others, because they think it is more fashionable to advocate that view, some people feel apprehensive that this is sheer mad and sheepish imitation. That spirit of sheer imitation is there and the support for it is also there, because these people have never had the patience to study the actual results which have come about in foreign countries. So the orthodox opinion which does not share the view of the reformists is equally honestly held and is as well founded. When we know that the Hindu religion, the Hindu law and the Hindu custom have survived the onslaughts of history for thousands of years, naturally we feel that this is the one country or nation or community which has something of its own and instead of there being a flat uniformity, the consequences of which have been evil in many cases, why not try and evolve a system just as it has been evolved all these thousands of years. I do claim that the Hindu religion and the Hindu law are the one religion and the one law which have been evolved through the centuries. They have not remained stagnant and I am sure Dr. Ambedkar will admit that the Hindu law and custom have never been static: they have adjusted themselves to the circumstances from time to time and are capable of doing so hereafter also. It is quoted that the Chinese and the Americans say that we are a backward people, because we have not got such and such a social system. Before we accept such comments bearing upon our society and before we incline ourselves to accepting their viewpoint, we must know what those people are. May I ask how far these Chinese and Americans have studied our religion and our law ? Have they imbibed the spirit