Vol. 14, Part II · pages 356–360

1136 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES considerations come into play. Technically it is called Atma tushti, and according to the principle of Atma tushti each one has to decide— not for the pleasure of it; Atma tushti does not mean pleasure, it does not mean one’s whim of taking one thing today and taking another thing tomorrow, taking rice today and taking chapati tomorrow. But atma tushti has a fundamental religious place. According to Atma tushti the Dharma has to be selected, and once it is selected it remains permanently there, for all time. But that is so only when both the things are mentioned in the Shruti. The vikalp comes only when both the things are thus mentioned in the Shruti. For instance you find : vfrjk=ks "kksM+f'kua x`Êkfr A ukfrjk=ks "kksM+f'kua x`Êfr A (Late at night takes one of sixteen, takes not late at night.) Two directly conflicting things in the Shruti. But both being there, the vikalp is possible. If the Smritis say two different things, then if we found that there is mention of the two things in the Shrutis, the vikalp would be possible, and the claim which has been made by my Hon. Friend the Law Minister and others that these provisions are based upon what the Shrutis say, would become correct. But the available Shrutis are silent on the point. There is no direction about the matter. The question then arises, how then do the Smritis contain different rules if they have derived them from the Shruti sources ? Mr. Deputy Speaker : I understand the Bill to go according to the Shrutis if possible and without the Smritis if necessary. That is what, I think, the Law Minister has in view. Therefore, notwithstanding the doubt as to whether it is three and five according to strict rules of interpretation—and they have to be made consistent; I do not think he disputes the proposition that everywhere they are trying to make it consistent so as to avoid any inconsistency—he chooses the latter view. Even if it is not borne out by the strict rules of interpretation he says that it is the correct one and should be adopted, subject of course to the approval of the House. I think that is the view of the Law Minister. Dr. Ambedkar : Yes. Mr. Deputy Speaker : Therefore, there is no good labouring the point as to what the interpretation is. Pandit Malaviya : As I said, I am not doing this necessarily to go into the interpretation of this thing. I am taking this as an example to show the approach to the matter. What I wish to say is that according to the Mimamsa Shastra the two texts, one saying that it should be

1137 DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL five and seven and the second saying that it may be three and five, must be reconciled and an interpretation—an infallible, unquestionable interpretation must be there. An interpretation has to be found which is unquestionable and incontroverible. Otherwise the Smriti does not remain a Smriti. Paithinisi is among the Smritis. If we will only look for it we will find that we have in the Smriti Sangrah, we have in the Nibandhakaras a clear interpretation of this difference which lays down, and not only lays down but proves—it will take me time if I went into it, therefore I will not—but it is proved that this provision in the Paithinisi is not applicable to all people, it is not applicable to the aurasa and the others. In their case the seven and the five apply, and this variant of five and three can only apply to Dattaka putras or to Sapatni matas. That is how the Mimamsa Shastra reconciles these two. I took this instance to show that there is a clear way of interpreting the Shastras. If we want to go according to the Shastras we must go accordingly and we will find no sanction for deviating from the seven and the five degrees of Sapinda prohibition for marriage. Similarly, I will take another question. A member read out with a certain amount of righteous satisfaction and vehemence that in the Smritis themselves we have provisions for the marriage of once-married women. The well-known Narada Smriti and Parashara text was read out by an hon. friend of mine—here he is—and he said that the Smritis themselves have said that a woman may be married a second time. I can see some friends feeling satisfied about it. This is a tragic matter, for this reason that the meaning of that sloka becomes perverted if it is interpreted to mean that it relates to a married couple. I hope Members will not think that I am talking in the air. ( An Hon. Member : No, no ). The line is very simple: u"Vs e`rs izozftus] Dyhcs p ifrrs irkSA i=pLokiRlq ukjh.kka] ifrjU;ks fo/h;rsA It is allowed at disappearance, demise, reclusion, impotency and sinfulness of the husband. As it looks it is very simple. In the case of these and these and these ‘husbands’, these friends think, another husband is provided. But I wish Members of the House kindly to devote their mind to this. The simple rules of Vyakarana come into this question. An hon. friend says Vyakarna Padhao and one may feel tempted to play the pedagogue to so distinguished a class, but I shall resist

1138 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES the temptation and I will only briefly explain the matter because it is a point upon which the whole edifice of the Hindu Code rests. It is that one sentence upon which everyone seems to be taking his stand. It is a very simple matter. According to the rules of grammar Eka Vachana in Saptami of Pati is Patyau. That is formed according to definite Sutras. I do not know if you will let me go into details to show how the words Patyau and Patau are each formed. I am quite sure it will be interesting, but it will take time. But every thing will become clear if we understand that. Mr. Deputy Speaker: What will happen to Hari ? It is a masculine ? Pandit Malaviya: I see, Sir, you are interested and if you will permit me... Mr. Deputy Speaker : Then Hari is Ikaranta Pullingam and Saptami is Harau and Pati should be patau. That is my difficulty. I do not know if it is different. Pandit Malaviya : Sir, your question is quite valid. That is it. From Hari it is Harau. So from Pati, it should be Patau. But we all know it is Patyau. Why ? The difference is in this way. When it is Saptami Ek Vachan Gni comes in. Then the Sutra Patih Samasa Eva comes into play and the Ghi Sangya gets ruled out and another Sutra aut, comes into play and it becomes pati plus au. Then by the Sutra Ikoyanachi the ‘ i’ gets transformed into ya and Patyau is formed. That is in the case of the ordinary meaning of the word Pati, that is husband. The rule is quite clearly laid down Patih Samasa Eva. Now, Sir, the question arises why instead of Patyau the word Patau has been used. It is such an obvious thing that even a blind man can see, that there is some difference, there is some purpose. The Hon. Law Minister will bear me out that the normal form (rup) of Pati in Saptami is Patyau. But in this text Patau is used. (Interruption) An hon. Member says that he is extremely doubtful. I do not claim for myself his wisdom in this. But, Panini’s Ashta Dhyayi is there and if any hon. Member can point out anything to the contrary. I will do whatever he will say. Shri Amolakh Chand : Will the hon. Member quote the shloka also? Pandit Malaviya : I am coming to that. Therefore, the word used is different from the normal word Patyau. Here the word is Patau. Now according to the rules of Sanskrit grammer...

1139 DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL Mr. Deputy Speaker : It is not necessary. The hon. Member means that it is incorrect. Pandit Malaviya : No, no. It is not incorrect. What I was going to point out was that in this case the word Pati is used not in the sense of Pati meaning husband but according to the rules of grammar— I am not saying it on my own but according to the rules of grammar irkS can only be used where the Achararthe sense comes in. Then, not being in the sense of ifr i.e. husband, the sutra ‘ ifr% lekl ,o ’ which applies normally and results in iR;kS does not apply and ‘Ghi’ Sangya (‘ f?k laKk ) takes place etc. and when ‘Ghi’ Sangya ( f?k laKk ) comes in then the sutra Accha Gheh ( vPp ?ks%A ) applies and the word Pati plus ‘i’ becomes Pata plus ‘Au’; and by the rule Vriddhi it becomes Patau ( irkS ). It is a recognized word in the Sanskrit Grammar of Panini; it is not mistake that it has been used here in that form ; it is not by thoughtlessness that it has come in. But the word Patau ( irkSS ) instead of Patyau iR;kS has a meaning and the meaning of that word irkS is one who is going to be a Pati and not one who is a Pati. That is the meaning of that word. Let anybody challenge what I am stating. For thousands of years that grammar has been there and nobody has questioned it; the word Patau means not a husband but who is on the point of becoming a husband. This correct meaning of this shloka completely changes... Prof. K. T. Shah (Bihar): Anayu comes in there. Mr. Deputy Speaker : Patranyo Vidheeyate comes in. It must have been a husband. Pandit Malaviya : I am coming to that. I am very glad you raised that question. In the Prathama there are only one set of sutras but in Saptami there are these two sets of sutras mentioned by me, one forming patyau and another forming Patau and secondly the difference had to be shown at the first place only, to clearly indicate that only where there had been a talk of marriage but no marriage in fact, that this question arose, while in the second place, it is a husband who is to be indicated. It is not merely a candidate for husbandship which has to be provided. Therefore, the second Patiranyo Vidheeyate is perfectly correct. Mr. Deputy Speaker: Anyo must mean what preceded also. Pandit Malaviya : Anyo is again Prathama. Mr. Deputy Speaker : Prathamanyah also must be the husband. Pandit Malaviya: If it had been both the same then in the first place it would have Patyau.

1140 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES Mr. Deputy Speaker : Whatever is intended by the provisions one must correspond with the other one. Pandit Malaviya : How can it, Sir, when the very purpose is different. The beauty of Sanskrit language is that it expresses in a word what it takes a sentence to say in another language. That is the beauty of Sanskrit language. If a sentence says “If mango is not available, then guavas may be taken” we cannot say that mango and guava must be one and the same. Mr. Deputy Speaker : There cannot be a comparison between two absolutely uncorrelated matters. If Anyo is used that word or the other must relate to the same category. If in the one case it is not marriage, in the other case also it is not marriage. If it is marriage in one case, it is marriage in another case. Both of them are understood to be the marriage of the husband. Pandit Malaviya : We cannot change the meaning of words ......... Shri B. K. P. Sinha (Bihar): On a point of order, Sir, I find that all these discussions are academic. The words Pati and Patyau are used in this shloka and not Patau. Pandit Malaviya: That must be a wrong print. I am not saying it lightheartedly. The original test is Patau. The very chauda ......... Mr. Deputy Speaker : Patite Patyau must be wrong because it should be guru. The prosody will come in the way of this Pati and Patau are different. Apparently it is wrong. Pandit Malaviya: It is obvious that it cannot be Patyau. What I wished to submit was that this rock upon which that edifice stands does not exist at all and the meaning of the word used is not husband ; it is not Patyau but it is only one who is on the point of becoming a husband, Patau. There is thus nothing in the Shastras to suggest that a married Hindu woman could marry again. I do not want to take much time of the House. I had many things to say. But, in view of what I referred to, I do not wish to go against the wishes of those whose wishes and words are law for us. I, therefore, do not wish to take much more time, much though I would have liked to say many things. By these two examples I have tried to show how completely fallacious are the grounds on which the Hindu Code is proceeding. I will conclude by mentioning one thing more. In Hindu society from time immemorial, laws have prevailed without the authority of