Vol. 14, Part II · pages 261–265

1041 DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL House either to accept the option or reject the measure. In fact I thought at one stage of accepting closure today…… Several Hon. Members : No, no. Pandit Maitra : It is a most important clause, the very life-blood of the whole Bill. Dr. Ambedkar : I am prepared to accept closure even on the tenth day. Pandit Maitra : Do it on the 15th day. You make its application optional and we will pass it straightaway. Mr. Deputy Speaker : On this clause at an earlier stage about 17 or 18 members have already spoken. Shri Naziruddin Ahmad (West Bengal) : All that has been forgotten entirely. Mr. Deputy Speaker : That is why I have allowed references to all clauses. The discussion has been on the details of the Bill as a whole and not absolutely confined to clause 2. We must see to the end of the discussion some time. I therefore, request hon. Members to confine themselves to those matters which arise out of clause 2 and the amendments to the clause. I do not want to curtail discussion but this kind of discussion will be endless. It so happens that whenever I call upon Pandit Kunzru to speak I have to make some suggestions to the House but they are not intended for him particularly. Shri R. K. Chaudhuri : The Hon. Minister who spoke just now has to be answered and should we not follow him ? Pandit Maitra : We have now been told that this Bill will be proceeded with in regard to its first two parts. You will realise easily that clauses 2 and 4 are the two fundamental clauses in the whole Code. After passing these two you can go ahead at the speed of the Frontier or Punjab Mail. The main point is the question of the applicability of the law to the communities mentioned. You should not be carried away by the mere fact that 16 or 17 Members have spoken. You are going to legislate for 30 crores of people and therefore a momentous measure like this has to be given serious consideration. If the Bill has been taken spasmodically now and then it is no fault of ours. They introduce it and at one stage when they meet with opposition they put it by. Then they gather strength and come back again. That is no fault of ours. If they had taken it up in a special session the House could have devoted its whole time and we would have been in a better position to know what we said on one day and what are our contentions now. It is not the old bill before us : It is a new thing that has come before us.

1042 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES Sardar B. S. Man (Punjab) : Since you, Sir, mentioned the closure motion and there is the threat thereof may I request you that those Members who have moved amendments as regards certain communities should be given their chance so that they may explain their view point. I hope closure will not be accepted by you till we have had the chance to speak, that is those of us who have moved amendments. Mr. Depty Speaker : My difficulty was that I looked up for those gentlemen who had tabled amendments. Others who had already spoken with respect to their amendments I did not call. I picked out four of the hon. Members who had tabled amendments and had not spoken so far. I was looking round for them to stand. The whole of yesterday none of them got up from their seats. Therefore they cannot say that no closure can be accepted until they are called to speak, if they are not inclined to stand up. Today the hon. Sardar B. S. Man sent me a chit saying that he was anxious to speak, because yesterday he did not catch my eyes…… Sardar B. S. Man : Even yesterday I stood up. Mr. Deputy Speaker : The general principles of the Bill have been already discussed fully in the consideration stage. With respect to this clause, whether it ought to apply immediately or it should be optional are matters with regard to which amendments have been moved. But going into the entire frame-work of the Bill and whether it ought to be accepted or not on the analogy of some other pieces of legislation, are not, I think, quite relevant. Shri J. R. Kapoor (Uttar Pradesh) : So far as I am concerned I did not stand yesterday to catch your eye in deference to your direction or view that you would like to give an opportunity to those who have moved amendments after those who had not spoken on the previous occasion. That was my reason…… Mr. Deputy Speaker : Even if he stands I do not propose to call him. Shri J. R. Kapoor : Not even in respect of the new amendments I have moved ? Mr. Deputy Speaker : I have tabulated all the amendments now and they have been circulated. No new amendment has been given by the hon. Member: they are only repetitions in another form of the amendments he had already moved. After I finish with the others I will consider those who have already spoken. But as a rule I would not like

1043 DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL to allow any hon. Member to speak, who had spoken already. Somehow Dr. Deshmukh was called yesterday when I was not in the Chair. If I had been here I would not have called him. Shri J. R. Kapoor : My amendments fall into two categories : one old and the other entirely new. Mr. Deputy-Speaker : I shall come to that later, after others have been given an opportunity. Shri Bhatt : Sir, excuse me. I am sitting opposite to you but am not catching your eye. I have been getting up since yesterday. You said that those who have given notice of amendments did not stand up. May be, there is some forgetfulness on your part. Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order, order, the hon. Member need not cast aspersions, that I had not seen him or I did not notice him. Hon. Members have no patience to sit and await their chance. When they come they expect to be immediately called and if they are not, they go away to the lobby. You cannot expect me to bear all this in mind. When I make up my mind which hon. Member to call next and if he is not in his seat I am entitled to ignore him. I cannot call them by the order in my mind one after the other. That is not the practice even in the House of Commons. I did not find the hon. Member standing up when I was in the Chair. I have a note here. I made a note of those Members who have not already spoken but have tabled their amendments. But they have no patience to sit here and the moment they are not called they go away to the lobby. Pandit Maitra : There is absolutely no dissatisfaction at what you, Sir, have done. I want to assure you that we have the feeling that we are all getting an honest and fair deal—absolutely impartial deal—from you. We have no feeling against the Chair. Pandit Krishna Chandra Sharma (Uttar Pradesh) : May I suggest that the words used by Shri Bhatt may be withdrawn ? Pandit Maitra : He never meant any objection. Shri Bhatt : With your permission, Sir, I want to clarify the position. All I wanted to bring to your notice was that I have been standing, but perhaps you did not notice it. Mr. Deputy Speaker : I shall come to hon. Members who have not spoken and who have tabled amendments next.

1044 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES *Pandit Kunzru (Uttar Pradesh) : If I may say so, I agree with you. Sir, that we expected that the debate on the clause. But important questions of concerned with the merits of the clause. But important questions of principle were raised yesterday and I see that the minds of hon. Members are coloured by what was said in the course of yesterday’s debate. It is therefore unfortunately necessary to say something on these points so that the prejudice created agains those parts of the bill that we are going to discuss may be removed. My hon. friend, Shri N.V. Gadgil has dealt admirably with some of the points that were raised yesterday, and I venture to say something more on this subject because I feel that what was said yesterday ignores not merely the spirit of Hindu Law but the changes that are already taking place in Hindu society. In considering the Bill before us it is not enough that we should confine our attention to the provisions of the Bill. It is necessary that we should understand the character of the society for which we are legislating ; Its most important character is change; it is in a state of transition. To mention only one important factor that is vitally affecting our society, a great deal of awakening has taken place among our sisters during the last twenty-five years. They have happily become conscious of their just rights and they are making organised efforts in support of their just demands. It is partly to the credit of these educated and enlightened women that this Bill has been placed before us. But we have to add to this the fact that education is fast growing amongst women…… Shri R. K. Chaudhuri : You mean Western education ? Pandit Kunzru : The education that you have received and in spite of which you claim to be a good Hindu. Our sisters are receiving the same education and there is no reason to suppose that they will become denationalized or adopt an attitude of disrespect towards their religion or culture. Our women are receiving education in ever-increasing numbers. They will enjoy the franchise on a footing of equality, complete equality, with men. Is it conceivable that in a society that is being moulded by such forces inequalities between men and women will be tolerated for any length of time ? Those who use the name of religion in order to defend social ineuqalities and social injustice are doing the worst service they can to Hindu religion. There is nothing, I venture to say, in those provisions of the Bill that we are going to discuss *P. D. Vol. XV, Part II, 18th September 1951, pp .2772-77.

1045 DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL in this session that is in any way in conflict with the best principles of Hindu Law or with the spirit that has always underlaid it. What are the main features of the bill so far as we are going to discuss it now ? They are monogamy and divorce. As regards monogamy, my hon. friend, Dr. Syama Prasad Mookerjee said realistically yesterday that in view of what had taken place in the past it was too late today to contend that this Parliament was not competent to undertake legislation in respect of social reform. He also said that he would be prepared to support monogamy if the Muslims were brought within the purview of the Bill. I remember distinctly that when the general principles underlying the bill were discussed, some speakers expressed the fear that Hindu society was being compelled to imitate the Muslim society in respect to inheritance. We know that among Muslims daughters have a share in the father’s property. Yet, we were not in favour of assimilation between Hindus and Muslims in this respect. What right have we now to ask that no legislation should be undertaken in respect of Hindu marriage unless it applies as much to the Muslims as it will do the Hindus ? People who are not prepared to allow women to have a share in the property of their fathers have no right to ask that the law relating to marriage that is applied to the Hindus should in all respects be applicable to the Muslims also. The arguments that have been put forward now were carefully considered by the Hindu Law Committee. I should like to remined the House of what this Committee said with regard the objections that had been urged after considering them one by one, it came to the conclusion that they were either far-fetched or had no relation to existing facts and then said: “We have accordingly decided to retain the provision for monogamy in the draft Code. It will prevent the husband from deserting the wife at will and contracting a second marriage. There is a substantial body of evidence before us that cases of desertion and re-marriage are increasing and this problem is best solved by enacting monogamy as a rule of law.” I think that the observation of the Committee has great force and those who oppose monogamy on any ground must deal with the concrete reasons put forward by the Committee in favour of proposing monogamy. The Committee drew attention to the fact that monogamy had been enforced by law in the State of Bombay. Legislation was undetaken there four or five years ago to prevent polygamy amongst