Vol. 14, Part II · pages 26–30

806 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES the Vedas. Therefore, Jain and Hindu Sanatana Vedic Dharmas were entirely different religions. The House then adjourned for Lunch till Half Past Two of the Clock. The House re-assembled after Lunch at Half Past Two of the Clock. [Pandit thakur daS B harga Va in the Chair .] Shri Sarwate: When the House rose for lunch I was trying to show that in the Bill along with Hindus, persons of other religions are also sought to be included—religions which were contradictory to and opposed to Hindu religion, i.e., Sanatana Vedic Dharma. For instance, Buddhism was against Hinduism ; so also was Jainism. But these two religions have been included in the Hindu Code Bill. So, if the mover of the Bill is entitled to include certain religions other than Hinduism, then I am entitled to move that certain other religions may also be included and in doing so I think I shall not be outside the scope of the Bill. I was going further to show that the Bill under discussion also seeks to codify and reform Hindu law, if I remember aright, it has been stated in the Statement of Objects and Reasons. Possibly that has been done to obviate or remove any possible difficulty that the Constitution may bring in at this stage or later on. What I mean is this. Article 25 of the Constitution lays down that all citizens of India are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practise and propagate religion. If as man were free to practise his own religion, then he would certainly be at liberty to marry according to the tenets of his religion. But what is sought to be done by this Bill is that he will be forced to marry in a particular way. The principles laid down in this Bill may be entirely opposed to the tenets of his religion. I have a feeling that objection to this may probably be sought to be covered by the subsequent clause of article 25 which reads : “(2) Nothing in this article shall affect the operation of any existing law or prevent the State from making any law— (a) regulating or restricting any economic, financial, political or other secular activity which may be associated with religious practice ; (b) providing for social welfare and reform or the throwing open of Hindu religious institutions of a public character to all classes and sections of Hindus.”

807 DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL By my amendment I want to reform what is Hindu religion. I want to reform Hinduism by widening its scope to all those persons who are citizens of India, including Christians, Parsis, Jews, etc. Now, Sir, what is Hindu law ? Hindu law is said to be based on Shruti and Smriti, that is Vedas. Further it is said that that is not the only source. The other source is the enactment by proper legislature or proper authority. So, let us say that enactment plus Vedas is equal to Hindu law. If X represents Shruti and Smriti and Y represents enactment, Hindu law is equal to X plus Y. The value of X in the beginning was 100 and that of Y zero. But as time went on encroachments were made by enactments one by one with the result that the position was completely changed. The very basis of the Hindu religion is the caste system and secondly the particular way in which marriage is held. It is held to be sacred ; it is held to be sacramental and therefore it is said to be indissoluble. It cannot be dissolved. There cannot be a divorce according to the strict Sanatana Vedic Dharma as practised by orthodox Hindus. But one by one these fundamentals are being removed. For instance, divorce is allowed . In certain cases castes have been totally ignored and in this Bill it has been said that there will be no caste. So this Bill takes away the whole basis of ‘Hinduism’ according to the Sanatana Vedic Dharma. What this Bill seeks to do is that whereas previously X was hundred and Y was zero and the total was hundred, X is sought to be reduced to zero and Y raised to hundred. They are exactly reversing the position. While once the Shruti and Smriti was the whole source and enactment nil, now the enactment would be the whole source and Shruti and Smriti nil. Therefore, what I am now saying is that instead of giving this benefit only to those who are Sanatana Vedic Dharmas it should be extended to all. That would be doing on the professed lines of the Bill. My object is to give equality to all persons who are inside the limits of India. I am neither partial to the Hindus, nor to Sikhs, nor to anybody else. It may perhaps be pointed out that I am trying to extend the scope of the Bill to persons who were not examined; for instance, Christians and Parsis were not examined, and that it would be unfair. My answer is that it would be unfair to include the Sikhs either because they were not examined. So, in point of fairness there is not much to choose between the provisions of the original Bill and the amendment which I am seeking to move. The logical course would be to examine those

808 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES persons who were not examined previously and to get their opinion. If necessary the Bill may be held over or returned to do this. The chief claim of this Bill is said to be this that it is based on a very good sense of fairplay, justice and equity. Suppose it is said, for instance, a person has three sons and three daughters. If he has affection for his sons, he has equal affection for his daughters. If the sons are to inherit because they are born of the parents, it follows that the daughters also having been born of the parents they should also take the inheritance. That is the only reason that can be advanced for giving the inheritance to the daughter, namely, that she is born of her parents, and therefore she necessarily ought to get a share in the property of the father. In a way it is right. Then it should be right not only in me case of Hindus but of Muslims and Sikhs also; it should be so in the case of Christians and others. Therefore, if the law has to be amended it should be made applicable not only to Hindus but to all citizens who happen to be within our jurisdiction and for whom we can legislate. And here I have a very good support. I shall just quote what Dr. Ambedkar himself has said at a previous stage of the Bill—I am quoting from page 3651 of the report of the proceedings of the House : “ If my hon. friend’s alternative was that there ought not to be communal laws of inheritance and communal laws of marriage but there are to be a common Civil Code applying to all sections, all communities, in fact applying to citizens without discrimination as to religion, cast or creed, I am certainly one with him.” He said this in the course of the discussion on the Hindu Code Bill at some previous stage. An. Hon. Member : He has changed his opinion. Shri Sarwate : He should keep his word. There is also a provision in the Constitution in my favour, and that is article 44 which says: “ The State shall endeavour to secure for the citizens a uniform Civil Code throughout the territory of India.” A Civil Code necessarily means a Code which deals with marriage, inheritance, adoption and so on. The scope of the Civil Code is co-terminous with and almost the same as that of the Hindu Code Bill. The article in the Constitution says that “the State shall endeavour………”, which is being made by this amendment. So it is but proper that the earliest opportunity should be taken to put this provision of the Constitution into effect and Dr. Ambedkar should be the first person to accept my amendment.

809 DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL While the discussion on this Code was going on in the previous session, some of my Muslim friends, and also some of my Parsi friends, expressed their entire satisfaction and were very loud in praising the provisions of this Code. I would welcome them and appeal to them to support me. When they consider that the provisions are so good and reasonable, they should follow up their convictions by similar speeches as the one which I am at present making, namely, that the Code should be made applicable to all. I say that the expression “Hindu” in this Code shall, unless otherwise provided, mean a citizen of India. I have put in the expression “unless otherwise provided” for this reason, namely, that if certain provisions of this law are not applicable to people of certain religions, if for instance they think that adoption is not necessary for them, they can move that for the purposes of adoption “Hindu” should not include, for instance, a Muslim or a Christian. The phrase “unless otherwise provided” would show that it is sufficiently elastic. My definition would be sufficiently elastic to enable every religion to adapt the Code to its own tenets or whatever hon. Members think that their religion requires them to do. So there should be no difficulty in this way either. For instance the Roman Catholics think that divorce is not allowable in their case. If they are convinced they can say that for purposes of divorce “ Hindu” should not include a Roman Catholic. According to this Code there can be two ways of marriage, sacramental and civil. Sacramental marriage would mean a marriage done according to religion. It may be any religion—It may be Hindu, Jain, Christian. That does not come in the way either. For instance there are necessary ceremonies in the Sanatana Vedic Dharma. What I am suggesting is that people of those religions need not be afraid that their whole religion would be nullified. Shri Tyagi: What about those who are already married according to another Code ? Shri Sarwate : My hon. friend Mr. Tyagi may suggest the necessary amendments at the proper stage for that. I, therefore, suggest that my amendment meets the provisions of the Constitution ; it is in conformity with what has been said by the Mover of the Bill, the Hon. Dr. Ambedkar ; it meets also all the claims which have been made for this Bill, those of logic, justice and fairplay. I therefore commend my amendment to the House and to the Mover of the Bill for acceptance.

810 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES Mr. Chairman: There are some amendments from the hon. Member Shri Gopinath Singh. They have come today. The rule in this House has been that unless the hon. Member in charge of the Bill consents, the Chair does not allow them. The notice has been received only today; I would ask the Hon. Dr. Ambedkar if he is willing to accept them. Dr. Ambedkar: I have not got copies of those amendments at all and I cannot say anything. *Shri Indra Vidyavachaspati: (English translation of the Hindi Speech) Sir, my amendment is that the Hindu Code Bill when passed, should be made applicable to every Indian. There should be no distinction of caste, creed or religion therein. This is my amendment. In the beginning, I would like to submit as to why I am speaking today, I have been a member of this Parliament for one year. But I have not taken a single minute of the House. It was because our Hon. Speaker had said that every minute of parliament costs fifty rupees. Thus I have saved thousands of rupees of this Parliament, but I am not inclined to make a saving today. The reason is that I have a fear lurking in my mind. The fear is that I feel there would be difficulties both if this bill is passed and if it is not. I am a staunch social reformer and I want that there should be such legislations for social reforms. The State has a right to frame laws for making reforms in the society. Therefore, what I want to point out is that it cannot be said that it is an interference with any religion. On the other hand I am of the opinion that the State and the legislature must take steps to provide for such legislations relating to social reforms. I do not say that this Bill should not be passed but I am afraid, this bill will not be passed in the form in which it has been presented although Dr. Ambedkar and our Prime Minister have repeatedly expressed the view that it would be passed. I think even in a long session as the Budget Session, we will not be able to pass it unless the guillotine is used. But it is not proper to use guillotine in the case of such bills which affect the whole country. So, this is the first difficulty. The other difficulty is that by passing the Bill in its present form, we will give encouragement to an evil which must not be there and against which we have always stood up. And that evil is communalism. If we pass the Hindu Code Bill, this evil of communalism will raise its head for ever. As this Bill is not applicable to all sections of the * P.D., Vol. VIII, Part II, 5th February 1951, pp. 2387-92.