Vol. 14, Part II · pages 381–385

1161 DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL Any one who reads this book will find that women had an equal share in property with men. She was entitled to hold property. Even in Manu you find this statement. Today, what do we find as a result of the changes that have taken place in the Hindu society? Women are completely deprived of property. Do you call this change progress or do you call it deterioration ? Therefore, it is time, I think that we consider this question in a different light, the point on which I wish to proceed is the fact that unless law makes society move, this 1society will not move. Another argument which was presented to the House was this : that we have no policy ; we have no principle ; we have nothing on which we are proceeding; the only thing on which we are proceeding is a kind of imitation of the western nations. It is said that because the western nations have monogamy, because the western nations have divorce or because the Chinese are trying to do something along that direction, we, in order to put ourselves in the good books of the world at large, are trying to do something along the lines which they have been doing. They have said that our ideal should be, what ? Somebody said Ram ; somebody said Dasaratha; somebody said Krishna ;somebody said this, that and the other. I do not wish to comment upon any of the ideals which have been presented to the House, and I do not ... Shri Syamnandan Sahaya : You will be well advised not to do so. Mr. Chairman : Order, order. Dr. Ambedkar : My ideals are derived from the Constitution that we have laid down. The preamble of the Constitution speaks of liberty, equality and fraternity. We are therefore bound to examine every social institution that exists in the country and see whether it satisfies the principles laid down in the Constitution. Now, so far as your sacramental marriage is concerned, forgive me, I am quite convinced in my own mind that no man who examines mat institution in a fair, honest and liberal spirit can come to the conclusion that our sacramental marriage satisfies either the ideal of liberty or of equality. What is the sacramental ideal of marriage ? Sacramental ideal of marriage described in as few words as possible, is polygamy for the man and perpetual slavery for the woman. An Hon. Member : Wonderful description. Dr. Ambedkar : That is so because under no circumstances can a woman get her liberty from her husband, however bad he may be,

1162 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES however undesirable a person he may be. I want to put one question to the House. Are we for slavery or are we for free labour ? What are we for ? Now, in all economic matters, we have all along been insisting that there must be free labour. Slavery we shall not tolerate. An hon. Member : Is this slavery ? Dr. Ambedkar : Now, what is the difference between slavery and free labour ? I think if you examine it carefully, you will come to the conclusion that free labour means the ability and the capacity to break the contract when the necessity for breaking the contract arises. Shri R. K. Chaudhari (Assam) : And is this a contract ? Dr. Ambedkar : Yes, I shall come to that. Therefore, if the woman under the sacramental marriage is to get her freedom, then circumscribe as you may, the conditions for her getting her freedom, and as I said, I shall be quite prepared to consider any proposal that may be made by any Member from any side of the House to narrow down the conditions of divorce that have been prescribed in the Bill as it stands. But if you mean to give liberty— and you cannot deny that liberty in view of the fact that you have placed it in your Constitution and praised the Constitution which guarantees liberty and equality to every citizen—then you cannot allow this institution to stand as it is. That is the reason why we are proceeding with this Bill and not because we want to imitate any other people or we want to go in for our ancient ideals which are to my judgement, most archaic and impossible for anybody to practice. Dr. C. D. Pande (Uttar Pradesh) : We are ready to support the Bill, but we do not want these invectives. How far the Hon. Minister is justified in dealing with this subject and resorting to such invectives. I do not know ? An hon. Member : Why vilify the Hindu religion ? Dr. Ambedkar : Now, I come to the specific amendments that have been tabled by various Members to clause 2. Shri Krishnanand Rai (Uttar Pradesh) : The House is for divorce and monogamy, but not for this kind of abuse. Dr. C. D. Pande : We are for these provisions, but we do not want these abuses and invectives. Dr. Ambedkar : If you had said that before, I would not have made this speech at all and not spent seven days over this Bill. The Prime Minister (Shri Jawaharlal Nehru) : I am rather surprised at the tender skin of some of the hon. Members. We have had to put up with a series of speeches and things have been said

1163 DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL which have hurt us very much. If that has not been objected to, then I think it is expected that those who disagree with Dr. Ambedkar should 1 not object now. Pandit Maitra : We have been listening with rapt attention to Dr. Ambedkar, but what we do not want is these invectives and reflections on some of the best ideals which we cherish. The provisions can be defended without injuring the religious susceptibilities of Members. Mr. Chairman : I do not think there is any need for excitement. As the Prime Minister has said, many Hon. Members who had spoken had said so many things, and naturally when the Hon. Law Minister is replying, he has to make certain statements, and he deserves to be heard. Dr. Ambedkar : Now, I come to the specific amendments that have been tabled to this clause. As you will observe ( Interruptions). Mr. Chairman : I do not want side conversations to go on across the benches. Dr. Ambedkar : There is one general amdendment, that this Bill should be made optional. This amendment has taken various shapes and forms. In one shape it means that the Hindus to which this Bill is made applicable, should be allowed option either to have it applied to them or not be applied to them. Another shape in which the same amendment has come is that if any other people, such as for instance the Muslims, to whom this Bill does not apply, desire that the Bill should be applied to them, there should be provision in it to that effect. The other shape which this amendment takes is that it should be left to the States to apply or not to apply this Bill. Now, I will deal with the general amendment in all the three shapes in which it has been presented to us. With regard to the first aspect of the matter, that its application even to the Hindus should be optional. Last time, the Deputy Speaker came to the rescue of many Members by pointing out that there was a precedent for a thing like this. I think hon. Members will remember that he referred to the Shariat Act and the Khoja Momin or Khoja Act, and therefore, he said there was no danger or anything strange in making a similar provision so far as the application of the Bill to the Hindus is concerned. Since that time, I have spent much time in examining whether the statment made by the Hon. Deputy Speaker—I am sorry he is not here—is true in fact. And I find that this has been a sort of lapse of memory on his part.

1164 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES Shri Syamnandan Sahaya : Are you criticising the Deputy Speaker’s ruling or are you criticising the remarks of Shri Ananthasayanam Ayyangar ? Dr. Ambedkar : I am dealing with the statement of Shri Ananthasayanam Ayyangar. I am glad the hon. Member is so technical today. Shri Syamanandan Sahaya : I am, so all the time. But the Hon. Minister is taking advantage of his position as a member of the Cabinet. Dr. Ambedkar : I find that in the course of the debate on the Bill which took place in the year 1937, my Hon. friend Shri Ananthasayanam Ayyangar himself raised this question about the applicability of the Bill and I find that his speech is spread over practically to two pages here. As I said, he raised this very question whether that Bill was going to take away the option that was given to the Khojas. He put this question direct to Mr. Jinnah, because as the House will remember, the Shariat Bill was not a Government Bill. It was a private Member’s Bill which was brought in and practically Mr. Jinnah was in charge of that Bill. And Mr. Jinnah had given an absolutely categorical answer to Shri Aanthasayanam Ayyangar that not only was that Bill complusory, but even the option given to the Khojas would be taken away by that Bill. Pandit Maitra : Why not inform the House of the background of that Bill also ? I was there when the Bill was being discussed and I know that Mr. Jinnah wanted the Muslims not to be governed by any Hindu law at all. Dr. Ambedkar : I can give the book, it is here, and anyone who wants to read the whole debate can do so. I cannot spend any more time on this because I have to deal with the amendments. Shri J. R. Kapoor : That debate is of which year ? Dr. Ambedkar : 1937. The only difficulty that ... Shri Bhatt : Was that Shariat Bill passed, or referred to a Select Committee or dropped ? Dr. Ambedkar : The Bill was passed and it was decided that no option was to be given. The only difficulty that arose was that when they introduced clause 3, it was introduced in the House without the assistance of the draftsman and what happened was that they introduced the word “Act” instead of referring to it as “clause”. That defect was cured by my friend Mr. Kazmi, who brought in a Bill in 1943 and substituted the word

1165 DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL “clause” for the word “Act”. Therefore, the ground that there is a precedent, I submit, falls through. [12 Noon] Shri J. R. Kapoor : May I bring to the notice of the Law Minister that this Act of 1937, I suppose, repeals the previous Kutchi Memon Act, according to which option was given and what the Deputy Speaker as a Member of this House brought to notice was that there was, in fact, in force for a number of years a legislation which gave option. Dr. Ambedkar : That was before, that was taken away. Shri J. R. Kapoor : All the same for a number of years that sort of legislation did hold good. That was the point made by him. Dr. Ambedkar : We are discussing the question whether the 1937 Act gave an option. That is the point. Shri J. R. Kapoor : Mr. Ayyangar’s point was that the 1923 Act gave the option. Dr. Ambedkar : I am sorry I cannot give way. Mr. Chairman : If there is any inconsistency in the speech hon. Members may bring it up at a later stage, when there will be a good deal of opportunity. Shri Amolakh Chand : What is the latest position now ? Dr. Ambedkar : No option. Shri Naziruddin Ahmad : There was option for a long time. Dr. Ambedkar : For Cutchies. I will take the proposal to grant option. Apart from precedents what would be the consequences ? Suppose we adopt this proposal of giving option. Hon. Members will remember that there are certain States like Bombay and Madras, where the legislature has enacted laws regulating marriage and divorce. In those two Acts there is no option whatsoever given. They are compulsory on every body who resides or is domiciled there. If we adopt this law, it being a central law, it will supersede the laws of the provincial legislature in so far as it is inconsistent with those laws, by reason of the fact that this is legislation in the concurrent field. The one consequence will be that whatever progress the States of Bombay and Madras have achieved in the matter of monogamy and divorce will be completely destroyed. Shri Gautam (Uttar Pradesh) : What will be the position of the Muslims in Bombay ?