Vol. 14, Part II · pages 281–285

1061 DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL In this way what I beg to submit is that I have suggested in my amendment that those persons, who have left Hindu religion and embraced any other faith but whose social customs are still like those of the Hindu Society, should be given the privilege to have this Hindu Code applied to them if they so desire. When Hindus are going to benefit by this Code why don’t you allow others too to have its benefits ? After all what objection have you got to that ? There are some Indian Christians whose social customs are like those of the Hindus notwithstanding that they have embraced Christainity. As such why do you exclude them from its application, and why don’t you allow them to have the benefits of the Code in the same manner as the Hindus would have ? I, therefore, request the Hon. Doctor to keep all these things in view. Should I state which of the non-Hindu communities can benefit by it ? I do not want to go into detail, but I certainly want to draw his attention to it. Take for instance, Dr. Gour and Mr. Gupta who are great authorities on Hindu Law. They have given the names of those non-Hindu communities to whom this Code can apply. About Kutchi Memons….. Shri Syamnandan Sahaya : You know it, he too knows it, but we do not know it. Kindly read them out. Dr. Ambedkar : Do not be brief. But please read them out. Shri Bhatt: The Memon Act which has been framed…… Dr. Ambedkar : Do not mind about the time, but please read them out. Shri Bhatt: I am going to read it out. It is laid down in the Kutchi Memon Act: “Whereas it is expedient to enable those Kutchi Memons who so desire to be governed in matters of succession and inheritance by the Mohmmedan law, it is hereby enacted”. The operative section is : “Any Kutchi Memon who has attained the age of majority and is resident in British India may by declaration in the prescribed form and filed before the prescribed authority, declare that he desires to obtain the benefit of the Act, and thereafter the declarant and all his minor children and the descendants shall, in all matters of succession and inheritance, be governed by Mohammedan law.” Shri Syamnandan Sahaya : It is an optional clause. So there is a precedent.

1062 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES Shri Bhatt: So I hope the Hon. Minister of Law would keep some sort of provision in it in the same manner in which some laxity has been allowed in the above clause, otherwise you are only limiting its scope. The then Home Member Mr. Henry Craik made a mention of it in his speech and said: “I think it deserves very careful consideration, whether it is not wise in those matters to give the individual the option and not to compel him to accept a rule or law of which he may be imperfectly informed.” Shri B. Das (Orissa): I think Sir Henry Craik was a bachelor—he did not understand society. Shri Bhatt: I have taken this from the Debates of 1937 where it is given on page No. 2544 of Volume No 3. Hence, my submission is that we too should keep a provision of this nature in it. Look into the Baroda Act which all of us appreciate. Baroda is several years ahead of us, ask them now where they are at present. Ask them what facilities they enjoy and from what difficulties they suffer, and how they enforce their various laws. They might perhaps admit that the old days were by far better. I do not say all that with any special motive. I hold that so far as social laws are concerned Mysore is ahead of all other parts of India. And if I am not wrong—Mysore friends would excuse me— Sir Sayaji Rao Gaikwad was the first to introduce Educational and Health reforms long before Mysore and other stepped in. Dr. Ambedkar : He did a blunder : Shri Bhatt : You want to take us, the people of Rajasthan, on to progress. We find that we are a tardy people and go slow. Our speed is that of a camel which cannot go along with the speed of your aeroplane. So it is good to slow down the speed of your aeroplane. The Baroda Hindu Code also lays down : “ This Act shall apply to all persons domiciled in the Baroda State. (a) who are Hindus by birth or by conversion to Hinduism or to whom any part of this Act is made applicable by this Act, to the extent to which it is so applicable. Explanation 1. The people to whom the Hindu law or any part thereof is applicable by custom and usage shall be deemed to be Hindus…..” Shri Syamnandan Sahaya : Which Code is this ?

1063 DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL Shri Bhatt : The Baroda Hindu Code. Shri Syamnandan Sahaya : Monogamy Act. Shri Bhatt : Yes. It lays down : “ The people to whom the Hindu law or any part thereof is applicable by custom and usage shall be deemed to be Hindus for the purposes of this Act in so far as the matters in respect of which the Hindu law or any part thereof is so applicable or concerned ”. You have been saying that whomsoever would it apply to would be considered a Hindu whether he professes the Hindu religion or not. But I say all the people who live in India are Hindus. I do not say so from the cultural point of view alone. I am saying it from the English point of view as well. After all why are we called Indians or Hindustanis ? As a matter of fact the word ‘Hindu’ refers to the man who is born in a particular territory and certainly not to his religion. And because it refers to the man born in a particular area rather than to the Hindu faith, it means that it covers all the people who inhabit that land. See the following: “(b) who have not renounced following the Hindu Law shall, be deemed to be Hindus ”. This is the thing and so I request the Hon. Minister to accept my amendment. Now I come to the portion which is not still covered. Shri J. R. Kapoor: Which of the amendments do you support specially ? Shri Bhatt: I support my amendment i.e. “Those who want to be governed”. This covers everything that I want. I would like to draw your attention to one thing more. Our Hon. Shri Gadgil and Pandit Kunzru too have dwelt upon this point. When Sarda Act, i.e. the Child Marriage Restraint Act was introduced in 1928, originally its title was the ‘ Hindu Child Marriage ’ Bill. But in 1929 when the report of the Committee was received, some alterations were made in it and its name was changed to “ Child Marriage Restraint Bill ”. You know there were some Muslim members as well on that Committee. They opposed it. When it was discussed in the House in the year 1929 they again opposed it, but in spite of their opposition it was thought desirable to enforce it throughout the country as it was a good legislative measure. With the exception of Mr. Jinnah all the Muslim Members opposed its application to Muslims and said that their divines were opposed to it and as such it should not be applied to them.

1064 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES If I remember well there was a Christian member, Mr. Chatterji, of the House in those days. He too pointed out that it went against their religion and as such it should not be applied to them. There were speeches of this nature. But in spite of all that opposition the Government applied it to all sections of the population because it was, in fact, good measure. My submission is that if monogamy is really a good thing why don’t you impose this restraint on all sections of the population and why do you leave out some people from its purview. May be some Muslim friends are having two wives—there are very few such cases in Hindu society. Generally it has been seen that people from lower classes alone keep two wives but they keep them only to help them in their occupations. Broadly speaking, the majority of Hindus are monogamous either by nature or by circumstances. It is difficult to get even one wife, wherefrom can one get two ? At that time it was stated in the Select Committee Report that : “ The object of the Bill, as introduced in the Legislature, was to impose restraint upon the solemnisation of child marriages and the method adopted was, broadly speaking, that of declaring all marriges of boys and girls below a certain age to be invalid.” I would like to draw your attention to the fact that the aim and object of the Sarda Act was ‘to declare the marriage to be invalid’. But afterwards it was altered. And why was it altered ? It was done because it would have been very strict. You have to keep this thing in view. I would speak about monogamy when I would come to it. After making alterations it was laid down : “ The Bill has been circulated under the orders of the Government and has elicited a strong expression of feeling that it is objectionable both on religious and on legal grounds of interfere with the validity of a marriage which has been performed. In our opinion, these objections are at present insuperable and we have accordingly acted upon a suggestion which has been widely made that the Bill should effect its purpose of restraining child marriages not by declaring such marriages to be invalid but by imposing punishments upon those who participate in them.” You would see what a difference it has made. The things that were formerly contemplated to be rejected, were not rejected. Those marriages were not made invalid. But some punishments were imposed on them. Further it was laid down that : “ The Bill, as introduced applied to Hindus, Jains, Sikhs, Brahmos, Arya Samajists and Buddhists and was a measure relating

1065 DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL to the validity of marriage. As we propose to amend the Bill by making it a measure imposing criminal penalties on participants in a child marriage, it seems invidious that it should be restricted to those particular communities, since child marriages do occur, though not so frequently, in other communities. We propose, therefore, that the amended Bill should be general in its scope and apply to all classes and communities in British India.” This was a marked departure. They did it after fully appreciating the trend of the public mind and so the Hon. Minister of Law should also go ahead after taking into view the trend of the society. This is my only request. See what is laid down about the Indian Christians in the Christian Marriage Act. See what is laid down in the Parsi Act regarding the bona fides of the Parsees. This is a very limited definition. A Parsi is he who professes Zoroastrianism. There are several cults here in this country and people follow someone or the other. That is why I submit that all the people should be considered as ‘Hindus’. The Sarda Act has not been applied to Part B States so far. According to the amendment of 1950, the subject is in the Concurrent List and can be applied to any State. You can apply anything you like to those States as well. But in spite of that provision being there this Act has not been enforced in Part B States so far. Shri B. Das : I hope Dr. Ambedkar takes note of this. Dr. Ambedkar : All that would be cancelled. Shri Bhatt: So I was speaking to the Hon. Minister of Law about divorce. I respectfully want to submit that he should allow a law to continue so long as it does not go against the social customs. And for those persons who favour these reforms, provision for Civil Marriage is already there. Dr. Ambedkar : For them too the door should be closed. Shri Bhatt: Do not close the door for those for whom it is open, notwithstanding whether they come from the door or from the window. But allow the various customs to prevail in the various sections of the population, at least in those sections of the Hindu population who are backward in education and in other respects. Our Hon. Minister of Law has not made a tour to peep into the actual working of the Hindu society. Please have such a tour and contact the people, show them your books and convince them about what you have brought for them. A real thing