Vol. 14, Part II · pages 241–245

1021 DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL of the Hindu religion before they condemn it or suggest any reform in our society ? That is a very pertinent question. Merely saying that a group of persons from foreign countries do not like it and suggest some modifications in our law or custom cannot be accepted. If we merely try to please a certain group of individuals without judging the background of the views they hold we would be meeting the fate of the donkey, the old man and his son, who tried to please every group of spectators they met on their way. In the beginning they were carrying the donkey and the old man and his son were walking. People laughed at them saying “Here is a man leading a donkey without either he or his son riding” so the old man got up on the donkey leaving the son to walk beside him. Still people laughed at them saying “Here is the old man riding the donkey leaving the poor little boy to walk along.” So the boy also….. Mr. Deputy Speaker : Every body knows the donkey story. Shri Bharati (Madras): Who is the donkey here ? Dr. Deshmukh : I want to impress upon the people that they are donkeying……… Mr. Deputy Speaker : Details of the donkey story need not be retailed here. Dr. Deshmukh : I would not have referred to this story but since this donkeying is going on time and again, very sensible people who ought to understand the value of the opinions of foreigners somehow or other try to persuade us and influence us by that mere fact. They say because certain foreigners say something there should be certain changes. I for one would not only not listen to such opinions but would not like anybody to give up his own viewpoint on this ground. So far as the basis of the Code is concerned it should be introduced only where we find that the circumstances demand it and not force things against the will of the people. It is certainly true that there is a very large body of educated women who are behind this Code. They are said to be very firmly of the opinion that the passing of the Code is necessary. If we analyse the amount of education there is especially among the women of India, we will realise that these women are hardly a drop in the ocean; the number of these women who are asking for a radical reform and changes in our law is extremely small. On the other hand, they are so impatient that they are not prepared even to listen to the other point of view of the ladies who have as much sense as they have except their English or Foreign education. When I was referring to

1022 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES “they”, I was referring to those millions of women living in our villages who have as good commonsense, and who know what they are and what they wish to be; it is they who are apprehensive of the changes that you are suggesting because even the introduction of divorce is going to change the attitude of everybody, of the society as a whole. The question I would like to ask is : Are you going to enter a wedlock with the idea of divorce, or are you going to enter wedlock with the idea of staying in it permanently ? If you adopt measures of easy divorce there is going to be a big change of attitude. Of course we are prepared to have that change and suffer the consequences, but the educated ladies who are sponsoring and advocating the passing of this Bill have not thought of all the consequences that are going to be fall especially to the lot of the illiterate women. After divorce an educated girl may be able to stand on her own legs, get a sufficiently lucrative job anywhere, and probably get a better husband. But what is going to happen to an illiterate woman ? My lady friends here still complain of the dominance of the male sex, and to the extent that the woman is tyrannised by men, what is going to happen to the illiterate woman who will be the object of these vagaries and domination of the male sex ? Have these educated women ever considered the consequences which will result from divorce for example, the care of children and their protection ? So, although I have expressed myself in favour of it, I would like to caution that in introducing any reform or changing any portions of our law we must coolly study the consequences that are going to result therefrom. Unless we do that we may be trying to do things which may not be necessary at all. I feel that there is much in the Hindu religion, there is much in the Hindu Law which deserves to remain, though probably in a slightly reformed condition. But the attitude behind some of the suggestions is somewhat anti-Hindu : they regard everything Hindu as suspect and look down upon it with contempt. They have somewhere or somehow imbibed the idea that whatever exists in India is absolutely rotten and that unless they go on the lines of foreign nations and imbibe their ideas and introduce them here, the Hindu society will not come up to the standards they expect of it. I am quite prepared to admit that they are actuated by honest motives, but at the same time there can be a different point of view which suggests that merely by blind imitation you are not going to survive. The way to survive is to modify according to the times and not go on in a whole-hogging fashion to change the very basis and fundamentals of our law and society. And

1023 DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL from that point of view I suggest considerable caution. When I spoke yesterday, I thought the intention was to pass this Bill with only the marriage and divorce sections in it and that the rest of the bill was not likely to come up. But now I find that is not the attitude of those who are in favour of the Bill; they do not wish to omit the other portions. They are prepared to confine the enactment to the two chapters only from the point of view of availability of time but they do not wish to give up the rest of the Bill. If that is the idea, then I am afraid many of the Members of this House will probably change their attitude because it does not mean it is a compromise which will last as after getting these two chapters passed they will probably insist upon the property clauses and the other sections of the Code. If we look to the history of the codification, we will find that there is a great and important body of public opinion against the Bill. Most of the bar associations have not only been against modification but they have been against codification also. The Committee that was appointed for the purpose found, when it went round the country, innumerable associations and innumerable individuals who expressed their strong condemnation of the proposals that were going to be made. Under these circumstances, I feel that it is not proper that we should say that after passing these two chapters we will take up the rest of the Bill also and that we will not give it up. It should be definitely understood that so far as this Parliament is concerned, we should confine to the marriage laws provided in this bill. The question of whether there is any possibility of the property clauses being taken up will, I think, determine the attitude of support or opposition of certain Members of the House. If it is the idea that the entire Code should be taken up, then it would be very wise to leave this to ratification by the State Legislatures. Then we will be giving them sufficient time to educate public opinion so that if the Code is really wanted, if there is any important body of public opinion in favour of the various detailed changes sought to be made in the Hindu Law, then the concerned State can accept it. And there is no harm in one State accepting it and another not accepting because this is a matter of personal law and it should be completely open to any individual or group of individuals to choose the sort of law that they want. While I support the provisions with regard to monogamy and divorce and say that they may be passed, although I would like to suggest certain modifications, and one I have already moved yesterday, namely that the customary divorce should be allowed to continue—and I am glad

1024 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES to find it is likely to be accepted, I suggest that the present proposals should be confined only to the marriage and divorce laws and nothing else should be enacted by this Parliament for the present. *Shrimati Jayashri (Bombay) : I beg to support the amendment moved by the Hon. Law Minister to clause 2.I am glad that subclause (4) of clause 2 is sought to be dropped. That sub-clause says : “Notwithstanding anything contained in the Special Marriage Act, 1872 (III of 1872), this Code shall apply to all the Hindus whose marriages have been solemnized under the provisions of that Act prior to the commencement of this Code.” 10-00 a.m. I am glad that this sub-clause has been dropped, because under the Special Marriage Act the rights that people enjoyed were much broader. This applies to the Indian Succession Act also. Although under the Hindu Code we are trying to bring about reform, yet this Code does not confer the same rights which are available under the Special Marriage Act.. Mr. Deputy Speaker : Under the Special Marriage Act, they cannot adopt. Under this Code, they can. Is that not an advance ? Shrimati Jayashri : I am saying that the inheritance rights there are broader than under the Hindu Code. So, I am glad that he has dropped this sub-clause from the Bill. With regard to the argument as to why we should not make this an ideal and universal Code which can be applied to Muslims, Parsis and Christians, I would like to say that we must first find out whether Members are prepared to go so far. It would be an ideal Code if we could reach to the stage of the Indian Succession Act and the Civil Marriage Act, but it is clear that our society is not at present prepared even to accept the reforms under the Hindu Code and go thus far. So, I wonder whether Members will accept the broader principles which underlie the Special Marriage Act. Yesterday, Dr. Mookerjee said that the Muslims also should be asked to accept the monogamy principle. I would like to say that the Muslim Law gives much more rights to women. Under our existing Hindu Law, women are not given those rights. *P.D., Vol. XV, Part II, 18th September 1951, pp 2750-54.

1025 DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL Mr. Deputy Speaker : He was on the question of monogamy. Shrimati Jayshri : Monogamy and sacramental marriage. In regard to our sacramental marriage, this is what the married couple pledge themselves to do : “Having taken these seven steps with me, we have become companions. May I retain that companionship and never part from thee nor thou from me. Let us be united. Let us always take counsel together, loving each other and ever ready in each other’s company, let us be united in mind and grow together in strength and prosperty. Let us join in our aspirations, our vows and our sorrows.” May I ask whether this ideal of sacramental marriage is kept in our present society ? I would request Dr. Mookerjee to give his honest opinion whether he really thinks that no reform is necessary in our present Hindu Marriage Law. We all know that our Hindu society allows a man to marry as many times as he likes. This vow which we take during the marriage ceremony is only meant for women. Our laws are one-sided. They are only meant for women. We all know that when a man becomes a widower, even at the burning ground when he goes there to attend his wife’s funeral his engagement takes place. So, a man considers marriage in such a light manner. And still, we talk of our Hindu marriages being sacramental. Mr. Deputy Speaker : Widows also can marry. Shrimati Jayashri : Women are more conservative in that way. They still consider that they would not like to marry even if they become widows. They do not seek to have second mrriages, but due to the one-sidedness of our Hindu Law Nariprathishta has gone down. Hon. Members must have read K. Mushruwala’s article in the Harijan where he shows how we are treating women in our society at present. We all know how in the Mahabharat the clothes of Draupadi were removed and she prayed to Krishna: “dkSjok.kZoeuukekHkq¼jLo tuknZu ” (“I am sinking in the sea of Kauravas. Save me O Krishna.”) Similar cries we hear today from our poor women who are illtreated by our society. We call our Hindu society Sanatana, that is to say, Sada Nutan (always new)—it is always changing. Change is the essence of life. If society does not change, it becomes stagnant. For thousands of years our society has survived because it has accepted changes.