Vol. 14, Part II · pages 256–260

1036 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES more than one wife is again public morality, I think, we must agree to monogamy. Monogamy in the first attempt at rationing in the social sphere so far. It is necessary in the highest interests of the community, in the highest interests of individual happiness that there must be monogamy and I have not the slightest doubt that the progressive elements in the Muslim community will accept it immediately. If the non-progressive does not accept it, it will equally be the duty of the Government to enforce it. I have no doubt about that, and if I ever am in that government, be assured that I will do my best to enforce it. That is so far as my personal attitude is concerned. My point is, if that is Amrit, because it is not taken by somebody else, does it become poison ? I think this is an insult to the intellectual greatness of this House to argue on these lines. Coming to the question of divorce, nobody argues that every married couple should go for a divorce. At the same time, if it is the duty of the State to see that there is less of social tension, and efforts are made to create an atmosphere in which every individual will have the right to have maximum satisfaction and happiness, then, it is the duty of the State to create conditions for having judicial institutions or legal institutions of that character. Eighty percent, or more in this country have something like customary divorce. They are not worried. But, in the five per cent, or ten per cent, or whatever the percentage may be, on account of marriage conditions or on account of several other factors,—probably the modern woman is more intellectual—if she for one reason or another finds that it is not possible to live with a man whom she has married, then, marriage should not be a life sentence. It should not be that there will be no happiness unless one of them dies. No doubt, such cases may be few but the exceptions are there. Therefore, there must be some provision made for the same. You may make it strict; you may not make it as cheap as in the West, but speaking for myself, this is the most orthodox and reactionary law that you are laying down. Left to myself. I would have said that incompatibility of temper was enough ground to dissolve the marriage. After all, what is the assumption under the provisions for divorce ? It is that the parties cannot be happy. Should they go through this tortuous process of adultery or alleged adultery or cruelty or desertion ? What is the idea ? Should they always go to a hotel and have evidence of hotel bills, etc.? I think it must be a straight and honest and genuine affair that those who cannot agree, let them part. That will secure maximum happiness. People think

1037 DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL that this will end society. But if this custom is available in 90 per cent. of the population and in spite of that society has continued to progress all these generations, I do not think the extension of it merely to the remaining five or ten per cent, is going to change the integrity of society. On the other hand, the consequences that will follow will all be for the good. In fact restricting marriages and all the old injuctions that you must not marry in the same gotra have good reasons behind them. These restrictions were due to considerations of eugenics. If that is the case with those injunctions, then these will have greater application if the boy or girl marries outside the caste. Then there will be greater virility in the race, better type of persons will come into existence. This is a matter which must be considered in an atmosphere of scientific understanding. This is not the time nor the occasion to dilate on this aspect of the question. I will only add that behind these injunctions against marriage between sapindas or sagotras there were eugenic considerations. They must be reassessed. Shri A. C. Shukla (Madhya Pradesh) : An old man marrying a young woman, is it according to eugenics or not ? Shri Gadgil : You should certainly stop an old man marrying a young girl. Shri A. C. Shukla : What will be the position of the child born to an old man and a young woman ? Shri Gadgil : It will be as healthy as possible. The point is, all those laws or customs which definitely have affected the progressive character of Hindu society ought to go. Dr. S. P. Mookerjee made a reference to Brahmo Samaj, Sadhanan Samaj. From Raja Ram Mohan Roy, to Ranade, Tilak, Agarker there is a galaxy of social reformers of whom we are all proud. But why should the process stop there ? If what was done in the past was good we ought to follow? the same principles of progress. And if we follow that same line of advancement, why should you be afraid now ? Why should you think that because Manu was great, therefore there cannot be any man as great as Manu in the centuries that may roll after his death ? I think Mr. Ahmad is as great or as good as Yagnavalkya, only without a jenuva. Otherwise he is as good an interpreter. And Dr. Ambedkar is as great as Manu or Gargya. An hon. Member : He is Manu. Shri Gadgil : And I am as good as any other old citizen. And why should we feel that the present generation cannot undertake the task of

1038 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES social reconstructions ? India could not be an integrated unit under one flag during ten or eleven centuries. But if that task was achieved by this generation, is not this generation competent to do something in the social sphere to make society progressive ? I want an answer to that question. You praise us and praise yourselves for having done something great in the political sphere. Why are you afraid of achieving something in the social field ? Why do you have this inferiority complex ? Of course what was done by Manu was good. But— “ rkrL; dwiks;fefr czqok.kk {kkja ty dkiq#"kk% fiofUr ” Because this well was dug by my great-great grand-father, and although the water of it is saltish, I must drink it. Well, that is not my outlook. Shri R. K. Chaudhuri : Then why not throw away your sacred thread ? Shri Gadgil: I have thrown it away. Look here. Pandit Malaviya : I believe the Hon. Minister puts it on now and then whenever he feels like it ! Shri Gadgil: No, nothing of the kind. And since it is a matter concerning me, you will kindly permit me to dilate on it for a moment. Shri Brajeshwar Prasad (Bihar) : Sir, on a point of order. Is it parliamentary for the Hon. Minister to show the House his tummy ? Shri Gadgil: Well, it was appreciated anyway. Mr. Deputy Speaker : I am glad this point was raised. I can only say that it is not proper for questions to be put whether a person is wearing this or that, leading to unnecessary complications. Shri Bhatt: I want to know one thing. Can he have Yagnopavita at the time of Yagna ? Shri Gadgil: I am prepared to satisfy the curiosity of the hon. Member. Mr. Deputy Speaker : The Hon. Minister need not discard his Yagnopavita to support the Bill. He can have it and still support it. Shri Gadgil : Some years ago when I was in Thana Jail and when I started thinking about Hindu religion, I thought I was not a good Brahmin and could not be one merely because I had a Jeneu and I discarded it. And only when I am a good Brahmin, even for a moment, I will put it on, and this I did when I attended the Somnath installations ceremony. Then I felt a moment of inspiration. I felt my whole being ennobled when I was there and I put it on for sometime. Later on I threw

1039 DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL it away because I came from Heaven to the dust below. I shall only justify a Brahmin using the Jeneu if he is following all those great ideals which are enumerated in the Gita. vHk;] vfgalk] vLrs;] vktZoe~ (fearlessness, non-violence, not to commit theft and straightforwardness) etc. Otherwise there is no good having a Jeneu and doing all sorts of things. The point is whether we are competent to make any changes, the whole history of Hindu society shows that it is continually progressing from stage to stage. Otherwise how do you explain the numerious Smritis, one Smriti laying down one thing and another Smriti another ? How do you explain this ? Society is continuously progressing and something has got to be found which is appropriate to the Sadachara or Vyavahara Dharma. And the definition of Sanatana Dharma, as given by a great Shastri is : lukru% fuR; uwru% [The eternal is always new.] Change is the watch-word of Nature. Change or perish. We have a progressive society and it is a dynamic society, as was pointed out by Dr. Mookerjee and so we must continuously adapt ourselves to the changing circumstances. Of course, that does not mean that there is nothing steady or nothing stable. Pandit Maitra : Where in Sanskrit literature is the word Sanatana defined as the Hon. Minister has just now given out ? Sanatana means…… lnkHko bfr lukru : It means eternal. That is the etymological meaning of the word. That is the grammatical meaning of the word. Shri Gadgil : I am not prepared to accept the grammatical interpretation of the word Sanatana. Shri Bhatt : Kaka Sahib can have his own interpretation. Shri Gadgil : That is not of lesser importance. Kaka Sahib also knows some Sankrit. The point is through out history, there is the Hindu community the tendency to progress. Why should we stop now ? Modern conditions require that changes should be effected by legislation and not by custom. If to-morrow something else is required, the leaders of the day, through the Legislature, will effect that change. I agree that this a matter which must be considered in an atmosphere of calmness and understanding. If we agree that there are certain evils, why should

1040 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES we not remove them ? I remember while speaking on the amendment Bill of my hon. friend Shri B. Das regarding the Child Marriage Restraint Act. I gave figures from the 1931 census and said that there were 1,300 widows below the age of one year. Is not that an evil ? And girl widows below the age often there were millions. And if you prevent them from re-marriage, just consider what will be the effect of it on society ? And only good has come out of the legislation that was passed. Today the position is that the average marriage age has gone up considerably. The problem now is not of marrying earlier, but of marrying at all. There was threat of opposition to this measure in 1930 and so great was me threat that all the communites were combined against the messure. I remember the description given at that time ; that before the Act was brought into operation thousands of children were taken from Calcutta to Chandernagore and married there, because it was not part of Birtish India, that thousands of children were taken in the midstream of the Indus and married, because there was no extraterritoriality so far as this Act was concerned at that time. This element of extra-territoriality was incorporated at the suggestion of Mr. B. Das. The point is that there are undoubtedly evils about which there is no dispute and it is not anybody’s desire to nurse or keep those evils going on. As to whether the remedy should be stringent or less stringent is a matter on which the Members of the opposition can certainly have a discussion with my Hon. Friend Dr. Ambedkar and a via media found out. What I suggest is let this House take some steps towards progress and let us go down in history that in spite of real or created opposition this House had the courage to take at least one step towards the reform of Hindu society. That would be the greatest tribute to you individually and collectively and I do hope the whole House will rise to the occasion. That does not mean that you should accept whatever is suggested nor that you should reject everything Let us not have a closed mind : let us have an open mind. Let us agree that there is evil in society and let us agree that some remedy must be found. This is all that I have to say and I do hope that in that spirit the House will respond to the Hindu Code introduced by my Hon. Friend Dr. Ambedkar. Mr. Deputy Speaker : Before I call Pandit Kunzru to speak I might say that I have been hearing speeches as if on the first reading and not on clause 2 which is before the House. Clause 2 consists of four subclauses and the amendments refer to them. Not many Members have addressed themselves to the clause proper. Evidently they want the 11 A.M.