Vol. 14, Part II · pages 276–280

1056 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES in whatever he does, will have the country’s interest before him ; that is why we consider him as our leader. We would not consider him as our leader if we did not have any faith in him. In the same way we believe that whatever our parents will do, will be allright for us. If we do not have any faith in them we will ourselves seek our mates but then we shall take into account our nature, habits and convenience. Our faith is based on these things and we should not make any such law as my create difficulties for the society, or spread discontent. After all, the object of every legislation is to make society happy and prosperous. But if people think that a certain legislation brings them disaster, bring them round to your point of view. If Dr. Ambedkar is so particular about this Bill let him address a meeting of a lakh of people and explain to them the benefits that will accrue from it. At the same time a pandit, an opponent of the Bill, should also put forward his point of view. If those one lakh people were to express their views by means of a secret ballot, may be that would satisfy you. Shri Naziruddin Ahmad: That will be the end. Shri Syamnandan Sahaya : Take a secret ballot in this very House and it will be the end. Shri Bhatt: You are afraid and that is why you do not put it before the people. There was only one person, and that was Gandhiji who believed in putting everything before the people. He thought that untouchability should be abolished. The capatalists threatened to boycott him. When Gandhiji went to the Mulji Jetha Market of Bombay to collect money for the Tilak Swarajya Fund and asked for a crore of rupees for that fund, the capatalists said that they would give not one but five crores, only if Mahatmaji expunged the abolition of untouchability from his programme. Mahatmaji replied that on that condition he did not want even a single pie from them, not to say of five crores of rupees. He said that he would stand by his principles and march forward towards Swarajya. It is the duty of the Government to go to the people. We are ordinary men, have not studied the Shastras to any great extent. You have wisdom, go to the Pandits, to the Shankaracharya, who is opposing it, go to those women who are against it and whom you want to make happy and try to persuade them. I don’t think that this Bill is going to benefit only the women. I do not consider this to be a Magna Charta for women only. You are trying to benefit the whole of the society and I thank you for that. You should bear this in mind that the subject under discussion is not new. Not to talk of 1942, in 1937 Dr. Deshmukh had introduced a Bill which brought this matter

1057 DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL to the foreground. In 1856 Shri Ishwar Chandra Vidyasagar and Raja Ram Mohan Roy brought about reforms like widow remarriage. These things have been going on. Authorities and commentators of our religious scriptures have writen different things about the subject. I don’t ask you not to pass this legislation. But why are you doing it today ? Why are you so impatient ? Please be good enough to wait for some time. General Elections are imminent and the new House will meet in May next year. At that time you may bring forward the best of legislations and pass it. Some of the present Members may again be elected and if I again sit in this Houser I will take part in the deliberations. But before that put the final draft of the Bill before the people and do not have an incomplete legislation and say—“Gokul Bhai, please get it passed”. I do not want this. Give me something wholesome to eat. If you give me something dirty to eat or say that I should eat controlled rice, because nothing better is available. I won’t have it. I will have something good to eat. It is another thing that hunger may compel me but if there is an alternative food I will prefer that. I would rather eat leaves of trees than eat anything dirty. So I request you to postpone this Bill. You have accommodated us to some extent and I want to thank you for that. I congratulate you on your sagacity because you have met the demands of time. But be more liberal and go a step forward. I would also ask my sisters what good would accrue to them if it is passed just now and how they would come to harm if it is delayed by four months. The skies would not fall, nobody would come to harm nor is there any question of monetary advantage if it is passed. That is why I am making this request. I again refer to the talk I had with some people in a factory. They want the question of divorce to be settled according to custom. But what are Customs ? Customs have a great influence, even Dr. Ambedkar won’t deny this. What I am opposed to is that you want to do away with our customs. That will not work at least for some years to come. If you want to take the backward classes with you you will have to slow down your pace. Only in that case shall we follow you. Mahatmaji was very progressive. When Shri M. N. Roy came to the Faizpur Congress and began discussing Communism with Mahatmaji, he (Mahatamji) said, I was not there. I am telling you what I came to know about their conversation—“Mr. Roy, say whatever you want to say in the strongest possible words about present day society and capitalists”. Mr. Roy made a strong and lengthy speech. Then Mahatmaji said, “Is that all ?”

1058 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES And after that Mahatmaji replied in a few words which took only some minutes. Mr. Roy was surprised and asked if Mahatmaji felt that way. Mahatmaji said—“ You don’t know me well enough. I shall put forward my ideas, as our society makes progress. I know our society is backward and many ideas have not developed to the extent to which they should have. But I have to carry the people along with me.” That is why I say, however high the ideas and whatever happiness they might bring, what are you Dr. Ambedkar going to achieve with 15, 20 or 25 members of the Cabinet, if we are not with you. I see that many people belonging to the majority accept certain thing because Shri Nehru or Dr. Ambedkar has asked them to do so, but if I do it, who will follow me ? I repeat that I will be deceiving you if I did not tell you that people do not want it in this way. I don’t want to deceive you. As we are your followers so are our electorate with us. We have to see to their good and convenience. It has been said, as you know, “ Shastra rurhi baliyasi” i.e., custom overrides the Shastras. After all, laws are made by men, so were the Shastras. When our customs have claims of precedence over Shastras., why can’t our society override our laws ? I ask you to take this into consideration. There is one more drawback which I would like to point out. Shri Kunzru is not in his seat, I would ask Dr. Ambedkar to excuse me. We have become so thoughtless that when the westerners say that our marriage laws and ceremonies are very good, we will agree with them. “When Max Muller says that our sastras, upanishads and vedas are the best in the world, we take that to be true and quote him. But our own commentators and authorities have said the same things in a better way, yet nobody cares to go through their writings. I have been just now told the copies of ‘ Yagnavalkya Smriti ’ could not be available in the whole of Delhi city even on payment. Dr. Ambedkar : I have got so many copies with me. Shri Bhatt: If you have got the copies please lend them to us ; they are not to be found in the Library. Sanskar Kaustuba and Yagnavalkya Smriti could not be found in the Library. You have got all these things, you might have personally purchased them; you are thirsty after knowledge and a lover of learning ; not only that, you are a learned scholar and a Pandit as well. But please place those copies in the library for some time so that we too may have change to benefit ourselves by those books, and may be able to have the necessary information. I have never been impressed with the translation of Gitanjali done by

1059 DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL Yeats, because it has always been my endeavour, and I had made up my mind in this connection when I was at College, not to read Rabindra Nath’s Gitanjali until I had learnt Bengali. I have always held that it is useless to read such a work without having the knwoledge of the language in which it was originally written. I have not been able to learn Tamil so far, but I would try to learn it, such has been my tendency from my early days. When I saw Gitanjali in original and its translation by Keats. I found a lot of difference. The translation did not contain anything worthwhile. Compared to it the translations in vernacular languages are much better. I have seen a more beautiful translation in Marathi done in Abhanga metre by some person under a pseudonym. But unfortunately we Indians generally close our eyes to those things which are our own and when somebody from outside throw light on them we exclaim ‘Yes now we have seen’. I would like to ask after all what flood lights are opened before our eyes by the foreigners which dazzle our eyes and we begin to appreciate those things ? After all what are the defects in our own lights ? What do you think is missing in the lights that we have ? We should try to understand our own things in the right prespective and after a full realization should gladly make the necessary changes in them so that everybody may be satisfied and it may be in the interests of all. Now, I come to the point as to what a Hindu really means and wherefrom has this word Hindu come ? Sir, you would excuse me if I would take a few minutes more to throw light on this. My submission is that I do not like to go into the historical facts nor do I want to go into Greek and Iranian histories. Neither do I want to go into the details as to what relations we had with Iran and Greece in the past; but I would only make an attempt as to wherefrom has this word ‘Hindu’ come. My amendment wholly relates to this very thing. One opinion about the origin of the word ‘Hindu’ is that there were two cities in Gandharva Desh, one of them was known by ‘Hindas’ from which the word ‘Hindu’ has been derived. The second opinion is that the word ‘Hindu’ is derived from the word ‘Sindhu’ the great river that we had according to Philology letter ‘S’ has changed into letter ‘H’ and in this way the word ‘Sindhu’ changed in to the word ‘Hindu’. The word Hinduani occurs at several places. It is difficult to ascertain the source of this word. I visited Central Secretariat Library but found it to be too poor. I have never seen a poorer library than this one. I asked for books related to this matter but I was told that they had no special

1060 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES collections on this subject, further adding that only some articles might have appeared in annual numbers of certain magazines here and there on this subject. That was all and there was nothing more in that Library. As against this, had I gone to the Royal Asiatic Society I could have definitely got some better and useful material, but, unfortunately. I did not find time to go there. Sometimes the Press Bill and sometimes this Hindu Code Bill and other things detained me here. Anyhow, I do not go into the details as to wherefrom has this word ‘Hindu’ come and what its origin actually is. But one thing need be kept in view that the word ‘Hindu’ means the people who inhabit this land of Hindu i.e., the whole of Bharat. All the people living in this land are Hindus, whether you call them by the name Arya or Dasyu. There were only two classes of people inhabiting India in the past; one was known as Arya and the other as Dasyu, but in spite of this distinctional of them were ‘Hindus’. Hence, I would like to know what meaning should be attached to the word ‘Hindu’ in the Bill which is going to be passed into an Act now. After all how many persons have been consulted as has been mentioned in the report and as was stated by Shri Kunzru ? How many persons have given their opinions and how many of them have been included in it ? But I do not want to bring in all those things. Dr. Bhagwan Das, while discussing the Marriage Validity Act, explained as to who was a Hindu. He said that Hindu was not merely a nationality. When ‘ Shariat’ Act was introduced in the House most probably in the year 1937, his sufi friend gave the definition of a Musalman which I read out here. While introducing the Bill in the course of his speech he said : “Islam has scores of sects but the belief in Mohammed seems necessary for all, though I am told that some sects do not consider the second part of Kalema of faith as essential and indispensable and regard Mohammed as one of the many prophets sent by God to help humanity on earth.” While replying that point and repudiating that view Sir Yamin Khan (Agra Division) said : “ There is no Muslim who believes in this. It is essential for a Muslim to believe in both the parts of the Kalema, namely ‘ La ilaha illallah’ and “Mohammed Rasulullah”. To this Dr. Bhagwan Das remarked “ I have heard it from a Sufi friend”. In reply Mr. Yamin Khan said : “ Those who do not believe in the second part cannot be called Muslims.”