Vol. 14, Part II · pages 266–270

1046 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES Hindus. We can now say that there is a similar law in the State of Madras. Indeed the State of Baroda where there was a Hindu ruler and whether the large majority of the people were Hindus passed a law many years ago in favour of monogamy and divorce. Shri D. D. Pant (Uttar Pradesh) : The Ruler violated it. Pandit Kunzru : If the Hindus in all these places have violated Hindu Law, then where can you find real Hindus—only in this House ? It was yesterday that the demand was put forward that the Bill should be made permissive, that is, the enforcement of the provisions should be left to the States. Now, here are two important States in which the principle of monogamy is already in force. There are other parts of the country also, for instance, the district of Malbar and the State of Travancore-Cochin, where legislation has been passed to prevent polygamy amongst Hindus. In view of this and in view of the fact that it was freely admitted in the debate yesterday that in a large majority of cases, in an overwhelming majority of cases, the marriages were monogamous, on what ground can anybody now ask that provision relating to monogamy should be made permissive ? This is the only provision of the bill that is not permissive but compulsory, and it is compulsory for a very good reason. It will be compulsory, but that principle appears to have been accepted by Hindu society at large. In those places where it prevails Hindu law has not been subverted. There are as good Hindus there as there are amongst the Hindu Members of this House. I think therefore that my hon. Friend Dr. Ambedkar is on strong ground when he asks that we should lay down as a rule of law that monogamy should prevail amongst the Hindus in this country. The next point that I should like to deal with is divorce. Here too it is asked that the provisions should be made permissive. But they are already permissive. Unhappy couples will not be under a compulsion when this law is passed to rush to a court of law and ask for immediate divorce. It will depend upon them whether they will take advantage of the provisions of the law. What more can be done in order to remove fears and in order to enable only those people who find the existing conditions intolerable to seek either separation or complete divorce ? The Hindu Law Committee, dealing with this point, said : “From the evidence adduced before us we should think that there are thousands of women in British India who have been deserted by their husbands.”

1047 DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL Then it goes on to say : “Many hard cases were also brought to our notice by other witnesses in which re-marriage was both desired and possible but could not be effected by reason of the existing law. The number of these cases may not be relatively large and reckoned in terms of percentage the problem may not appear to be a formidable one. But as we have already stated there are thousands of such cases in India and if even a small proportion of these women desire a divorce with a view to getting themselves remarried the question is whether the law should say upto them ‘nay’. Evidence was brought before us that in many cases re-marriage is quietly celebrated and that society tolerates and recognises such remarriage.” Here, again, the facts are incontestably against the view that there is no need for having a provision for divorce in our marriage law. No one is compelled to take advantage of it. There is no reason why for the sake of the patient sufferers, those who seek relief should be denied. I have already referred to some of the States where monogamy is legally in force. I may add that the law allows divorce in all the States mentioned by me in respect of monogamy. Now what has happened to Hindu society there ? Has the sanctity of marriage become less than it was before ? Do not the Hindus there regard the tie of marriage as a sacramental tie ? Have they no respect for Hindu religion or Hindu culture ? Pandit Maitra : The sample is here. Pandit Kunzru : I should very much like to see a discourse between my hon. Friend Pandit Maitra and the people of the States mentioned by me on this point. He will not find it easy to convince them that they are inferior to him in their regard for Hindu culture and Hindu society. Pandit Maitra : Then leave it to individual areas to legislate : why force it here ? Pandit Kunzru : I have already pointed out that there are so many areas in which this law is in force. In the second place I have taken pains to point out that the provision will be permissive. What do you mean by asking that it should be permissive ? Pandit Maitra : Make it optional for all. Pandit Kunzru : It will be optional for unhappy partners to seek relief under this law or not. Nobody is going to compel them either to separate or to seek divorce. What more do you want ?

1048 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES The law in Baroda has probably been in force for a much longer time than in the States of Bombay and Madras. But it appears from the evidence given before the Hindu Law Committee that both in 1940-41 and 1941-42 the number of suits by persons belonging to castes in which custom does not allow divorce was three only. My hon. friend Dr. Syama Prasad Mookerjee said yesterday that if 90 per cent, of the people could already get divorce, where was the need for bringing the remaining ten per cent, who were following a higher law and who regard marriage as indissoluble. Well, I am sorry that he is not in his place. But I should like to point this out to him. Besides, we all know what is happening in Hindu society. If a husband drinks and beats his wife, or deserts her, is this a sacramental act ? Is this in accordance with the sacred character of Hindu marriage ? An hon. member behind me ask : “Why not check it ?” Pandit Maitra : There are also wives who beat their husbands. Pandit Kunzru : I do not say that the wives are impeccable. Wives have their own faults, but the law will apply not merely to wives but also to husbands. In view of this it is idle to claim that the upper strata of Hindu society, that is men belonging to the Brahmin, Kshatriya and Vaishya castes have a higher ideal than the members of the other castes. Again, it has been said that this Bill has caused a great deal of perturbation in Hindu society. I find that this is due to the fact that people are misinformed with regard to the provisions of the Bill. When the provisions are explained to them a good many of their misapprehensions disappear, and I have no doubt that if those who assiduously voice the fears of the people in this House will take a little trouble to explain what its provisions really are….. Pandit Maitra : Let the government do it. Pandit Kunzru : ……much of the dissatisfaction that exists will disappear. Government is doing what it can to spread a correct knowledge of the provisions of the Bill, but is it not the duty of those people who believe in truth and in the spirituality that underlies Hindu law to take a hand in this good work ? Why should they not seek to remove the prejudice that has been wrongly created against the Bill . Pandit Maitra : Leave it to them to decide. Pandit Kunzru : My hon. Friend disregards facts completely. I confess that I am powerless to convince him....

1049 DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL Pandit Maitra : It is my misfortune also. Pandit Kunzru : …..if he continues to shut his eyes to facts…… Pandit Maitra : I am looking straight at them. Pandit Kunzru : ……and says that nobody in India has before the introduction of this Bill ever heard of the words monogamy and divorce. Shri R. K. Chaudhari : Monogamy means monotony. Pandit Kunzru : I think that those who are supporting the principle that underlies the provisions that we are considering, who are trying to bring about complete equality between men and women, who are trying to renovate Hindu society, who are asking it to go back to the great principles that once made it great and the envy of the world, are rendering the greatest service they can to Hindu religion and culture. I hope that they will persevere in the path they have chosen themselves and make Hindu religion as respected throughout the world now as it was some centuries ago. *Shri Bhatt : (English translation of the speech) Sir, I am being asked to speak in English, but as ill luck would have it, I cannot speak in English. I cannot express my ideas and feelings as suitably in that language as I can in Hindustani. I may be excused for that. Shri R. K. Chaudhari : Sir, we do not understand high-flow Hindi and we cannot follow if the hon. Member speaks swiftly. We can understand if he speaks slowly. Shri Bhatt : I have not taken the floor simply in order to reply to what the Hon. Minister has said, but I am here to express my own ideas. We are going to perform a big task and curs is a Herculean endeavour. We are descendants of Bharat and Bhagirath, Rama and Krishna, Manu and Yagnavalkya. The systematisation and codification of Hindu Law in such a way that we may be in a position to apply, it to our lives, is a Herculean effort. As Shri Gour has said about England: “Various attempts have been made to codify the laws of England but the attempts have so far failed.” England is a progressive country and yet its laws could not be codified. In our country where there are so many complications and anomalies and customs have a very heterogeneous character, the magnitude of our task is indeed great. As Hon. Minister Kaka Sahib Gadgil said, if we do not perform this task, how would we be able to *P.D., Vol. XV, Part II, 18th September 1951, pp. 2815-35.

1050 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES bring the divine Ganges and Yamuna to the plains as Bhagirath did ? I congratulate him on his courage. We also want to help him and not impede his efforts. I want to say that things should be done at an appropriate time and by suitable methods. I do not say that Hon. Pandit Kunzru wants to deprive the Hindu Shastras of their sanctity and importance but at the same time I do not like that we should drift towards materialism and see things only from the point of view of our convenience. We do not want to make his law only to prove its ineffectiveness in the long run. Our Hindu Shastras have also been amended. Today they call Dr. Ambedkar as Manu, Shri Gadgil is called Yagnavalkya and Shri Gadgil can give any such name to Shri Naziruddin Ahmad also. Shri Syamnandan Sahaya (Bihar) : Call him Narad. Shri Bhatt : It is difficult to say today whether we have made any progress or have gone back. I would say that from the point of view of food, clothing and living, we have the same standard which our ancestors had during the Mughal period. Is our standard of living the same as obtained 150 years back ? Do we have the same facilities which we had thirty years back ? Applying this standard, we can not say that we have progressed. Can we say that we have made progress simply because we have passed more laws ? Or shall we say we have progressed as we have become more healthy and courageous and have become true Aryans ? This is a difficult question ; I cannot answer it nor have I the time to do so. It is a new subject and I do not want to go into its different aspects. I shall try to confine my remarks only to my amendments and clause 2. Our Smritis and Shastras have kept changing according to times. I agree with the Hon. Minister in that we have our Dharma Shastras. Shri Maitra may interprete them in one way. Shri Gadgil in another ; Dr. Ambedkar may ex-pound them in his own way and my interpretation may be different from those of all these gentlemen, though I am not a scholar of Shastras; all I want to say is that our religion, our Smritis and our Shastras are eternal. Changes have taken place in them and new things have been incorporated in them at times changed. They change with time and place and never lag behind. Without showing disrespect to the scriptures of any other religion or community I want to say that the Hindu Shastras and tradition live to this day ; that is why Hinduism has kept place with time. It is in that sense that I consider them as eternal. Pandit Malaviya : After the code has been passed it will not remain so.