Vol. 14, Part II · pages 336–340

1116 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES by clause and determine. ( Interruption) I see that the Hon. Law Minister has a very clear vision. The Law Minister or any other member or even myself may have any view of a matter. But when the hon. Law Minister and others agree that there is a yardstick by which a piece of cloth has to be measured, there can be no room for any difference or controversy. ( Interruption). I have already mentioned but obviously it has not yet been sufficiently mentioned for my friend Mr. Bharati that there is a yardstick, which has come down to us from the ages, ( Shri Bharati : The measurement differs so widely) according to which the interpretation of the sacred texts has to be made. Shri Bharati: The difference in the yardstick is one inch to a mile. Pandit Malaviya : My friend Mr. Bharati says that the difference between the yardsticks is one inch to a mile. I do not know if I can say anything about that remark, because it carries in itself the visible and the obvious, that my esteemed friend is altogether unaware of the nature of the yardstick I have mentioned. There would be no question of any difference, not even one in one millionth of a millimeter. Therefore, if that can be agreed upon, I think, all controversy on this matter would end and there would be no need for us to say anything more at this stage. We can then easily leave it to the hon. Minister. I can place the entire matter in his hands not only as the umpire or the judge for those who are in favour of the Code but also for those who, like me, want him to go through the clauses, item, by item according to the text of the Shastras, interpret them through the Mimansa and apply them to the provisions of this Code and say if they do not militate against them. If he says that I shall be satisfied and I will offer no further opposition. I do not think anything more fair or reasonable could be said. If however, that cannot be done, the least we could ask for is that the claim that the Hindu Code Bill contains provisions which are all based upon what is contained in the Shastras, should be completely given up and withdrawn, so that the millions of our people who may not have the opportunity of being critical enough to examine the basis of such statements may not be misled by such entirely wrong and misleading statements and they may not fall into that dangerous pit. Probably the Bill may have been prepared innocently, but it has within it the potentialities for untold and immeasurable mischief. If that also cannot be done there can be no other way for Members of this House or those of them who feel like me, but to examine all these proposals in extensive detail in the

1117 DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL light of what is said in the Shastras with regard to them. It will be a long process, because, if the claim is made that what is stated is according to what is laid down elsewhere, it can only be given up either by mutual agreement or by the weight of facts as distinct from opinions ; and establishing those facts can only mean that on every clause and every sub-clause, on every subject and almost on every word, this House should have the opportunity and the benefit of having its attention drawn to the relevant texts in the wide range of Shastras and law books of the Hindus. I do not know if that will be considered possible : I have no doubt it must be permissible ; but I do not know whether that will be considered possible and practicable. I would therefore beg the Government not merely in the interest of fairness and justice towards the subject which is before us and towards the people who are affected by it, but indeed in the interest of the progress of this Bill in this House, that they should re-examine their position on that point and either make up their minds to proclaim to the world that the Hindu Code is not based on the Hindu Shastras and does not care for what is laid down therein, and is the product of the wisdom and fancy of those who have prepared it; or, they should adopt the procedure which I have suggested, viz., have a thorough and nonpartisan examination made of each of the clauses and then bring up before this Parliament only those which, it is incontrovertibly agreed, are in accordance with the Shastras that have prevailed since so long. There are certain other difficulties also in this matter. This bill, it is now said, will confine itself only to the subjects of marriage and divorce. But my difficulty is that, that fact by itself does not make the slightest difference in the nature of this question. If there were any part of this Bill which was altogether uncontroversial and if that were taken up, I would understand that the same might have been allowed to go through this House without much difficulty or controversy. But can there be anything more fundamental, more controversial than the question of changing the laws of marriage among the Hindus? I submit it is not possible to think of anything more contentious. Somebody may say that the other parts of the Bill are more contentious—I am quite sure somebody else will equally emphatically say that the part relating to marriage and divorce is the most controversial. Therefore, the fact that it has been decided that the progress of this Bill will remain confined to these parts, does not make any change in the fundamental aspect of this question. We have therefore to be very cautious in

1118 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES proceeding with it. I mentioned that the vast bulk of the people are against it, but there is something even more fundamentally wrong in the situation. The Hon. Law Minister himself at one stage, when on a previous occasion this matter was before this House, said in reply to an inquiry by an hon. Member that it was not intended at that time that his Bill should apply to the people of what was then called the Indian States. And in his usual, careful and accurate manner he said that if at any time the States came into the picture, the matter would have to be gone into entirety before it was taken up—or something to that effect; I am not quoting his words. Everyone knows that this Bill was not published in any Gazette of those States. It was published in the Gazette of the Government of India, it was published in the Gazettes of some of the Provinces, but because there was not thought to be any occasion for it, it was not published in the Gazettes of any of the States. And the people of the States did not therefore find themselves called upon to consider the matter; in fact, they had no concern with it whatsoever. What has been the result ? Today, by the fact of our new Constitution, all that territory forms part of the land and whatever is passed today is going to apply to the people of all those areas. Does anybody pause to consider the preposterous nature of the situation ? One-third of this country—not a little portion here or a little portion there—but whole one-third of this vast country......... Shri Munavalli: It is not so, because many States have already been merged in the provinces. Pandit Malaviya : My friend says “It is not so, because many States have been merged in the provinces”. I dare not controvert so wise a statement, but I thought that even before they were merged and surely since after their merger no publication of the Bill has been effected anywhere. Shri Munavalli: Question. Pandit Malaviya : My friend questions that statement. I think he is beyond me. One-third. I said and I repeat of this great subcontinent is going to be subjected to a law which is going to affect fundamentally the very foundations of their life and existence without their having had an opportunity to see what it is. Shri Lakshmanan : (Travancore-Cochin.): May I point out that in some part of States the Bill was published—in Travancore-Cochin, for instance ?

1119 DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL Shri Bharati : I wonder if the hon. Member knows about any of the other States also. Pandit Malaviya : I do not belong to that school which refuses to see anything except the palm of its hand. I do not mind the interruptions because I know what I mean and I know what I am saying. I am not saying it merely because I wish to say something or because I should say things which would please anybody, but because I believe in what I say. No amount of interruption, no amount of cries of ‘Question’ can dislodge the truth. If a thing is true and correct, then whatever anybody may say and these ‘Questions’ only help to clarify matters. Shri J. R. Kapoor : Interruptions are helpful. Pandit Malaviya : Whether they are meant in a spirit of helpfulness or otherwise, I do not in the least degree mind them. If on a matter of such importance and gravity there are indeed any doubts in anyone’s mind and if any questions suggest themselves to any Member, I feel, on the contrary, that the object, the very ideal, of a parliamentary system of legislation would be defeated if that Member did not have the opportunity to raise his doubt and to ask his question, and if anybody who is on his legs, does not attempt to reply to his best ability to the question that is asked. I therefore do not object to interruptions. Shri Radhelal Vyas : May I ask the hon. Member to enlighten us as to how the law of mongamy and divorce which is in force in Madras and Bombay has affected the Hindu society ? Mr. Chairman : May I ask the hon. Member not to lose the thread of his argument and not to be misled by the interruptions ? Pandit Malaviya : I am very grateful to you, Sir, and I assure you that I stand to no fear of being misled. I was saying that in all these States people have had no opportunity at all of knowing what this Bill is. It is possible for me to go into this point at great length, to go into the well known and universally accepted principles and methods of legislation and to point out the monstrous impropriety of such a state of things. But I believe that instead of doing that I should merely draw attention to that fact and hope that Government will still see how grave an injustice is being proposed to be done in that manner and would find out if they can yet undo it to some extent atleast, if not wholly. It cannot be possible now, if the Bill is to be proceeded with immediately— as the Government have declared—for it to be circulated or published for the information of those people. I will, therefore, not waste time in suggesting that procedure.

1120 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES I happen to have the privilege of having by my side a sister who is all the time helping me by murmuring something or the other into my ears. Shrimati Renuka Ray : I was pointing out that this was the best speech in favour of bringing in the reforms contemplated in this Bill. Shri Munavalli: I want to enlighten my friend over this matter because... Sardar B. S. Man : It is now the time of the hon. Member who is already on his legs to elighten the House. Pandit Maitra: The hon. Member has raised a very important point that the Bill was not published in the States... Mr. Chairman: I do not know why the hon. Member should advocate his cause. Pandit Malaviya : In view of the fact that the Bill has not been published in the States and is now going to be applicable to them also in all probability, something should be done to redress that glaring injustice. How it can be done would probably be best devised by the hon. the Law Minister. As I said, it is no use making an impracticable, theoretical suggestion at a stage when it is not feasible. I, therefore, do not say that this Bill should now be published or circulated for their information. But, probably, we can devise some other way by which that difficulty might yet be overcome, at least to a degree. And I would suggest for the consideration of the Law Minister—not as one who is opposed to the Bill necessarily, but as one with whom, I think, he may find himself at one on this issue— that the people of such a vast portion of the country should not have a clear and legitimate grievance of that nature. I would suggest to him to consider this proposition at least with respect to those States, if not for the rest. The amendment of which I have given notice and which I have moved says that this Bill should apply to anyone only after a referendum has been taken in the State to which he belongs and, in accordance with the result of that referendum, the Legislature of that State has decided that the Bill should apply thereto. I shall come to that in due course. But may I suggest now—whether that amendment of mine is accepted in its entirety or not—that the hon. the Law Minister might consider the propriety of providing in the Bill that at least with regard to the parts of the country which were then called the Indian States, where this Bill had not been published, this Bill should not come into force unless,