Vol. 14, Part II · pages 481–485

1261 DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL such a custom is antagonistic to the Hindu Shastras and to our principles. There are, of course, differences on the application of divorce provision but I for one support it for I want justice for women who are meted out gross injustice these days. Poet Tulsidas had said through the mouth of Sitaji: Mitam dadati hi pita mitam bhrata mitam sutah, Amitasya to dataram Bharatram ka no pujyet. It means that the poor woman is economically dependent upon the husband and for that reason she worships him. This is, however, not in the interest of the society and is not in accordance with the principles of justice. Tulsidasji should better not have said that Whatever respect we may show towards Shri Ram Chandraji, or Shri Tulsidasji, I am not prepared to keep the women in bondage any longer. This principle of divorce is based upon one’s desire and upon the sense of equality and justice. I cannot close my eyes to the injustice that is being done to women. It is a daily occurrence now that young men leave their wives. I would ask them where are these sisters to go ? So I believe that divorce is a right provision. People refer to Satis. But has a man ever been a Sata ? Indeed, the prinicple of depriving the women of their rights prevailed in a gone-by age all over the world. The Married Women’s Property Act was passed in England in 1883. Shri T. N. Singh (Uttar Pradesh): What is meant by Sata ? Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava : Do you not understand even the meaning of Sata ? All women know what is Sati but no man knows what Sati is. So my submission is that we should not make provisions on the basis of customs—bad customs surely. We should, on the other hand, take courage to abrogate customs—those old customs that have now beocme out-of-date. The Government should make legislation that should be based upon justice and equality. Shri Bhatt: Sir, an amendment of mine was left out due to my mistake. If you permit, I may move it now. Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is it already in the list ? What is the number ? Shri Bhatt: No. 288 in List No. 5. Mr. Deputy Speaker: Why was this not moved yesterday ? Shri Bhatt: I was not present at the right time. When I entered the House, the speech had begun.

1262 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES Mr. Deputy Speaker: He may move it. Shri Bhatt: I beg to move. In the amendment proposed by the hon. Dr. Ambedkar, in the proposed new clause 4,— (i) in part (a), after “dealt with in this Code” insert “after ten years from the commencement of this Code” ; and (ii) after part (b) add the Explanation: “Explanation. —Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (a), for a period of ten years from the commencement of this Code, any text, rule or any custom to usage in force, shall have effect. *Babu Ramnarayan Singh (Bihar): (English translation of the Hindi speech). Sir, today you have given me quite early the opportunity to speak on this dangerous subject and for this I thank you. Yesterday and the day before I tried to catch your eye several times and important as the subject was, I failed to get an opportunity to speak. May I make an observation in this connection that there is no doubt that you do full justice in your position about which nobody should have any misgiving…….. Shri Syamnandan Sahaya (Bihar): Nor anybody has. Babu Ramnarayan Singh : And, indeed, nobody has, But you have to give your rulings with an even hand. Yesterday you were pleased to say that there was some feeling prevalent against you and you wanted that no such feelings be created so that there may be general satisfaction about the working. It is but meet Sir, that thing should be done judiciously. But if somebody worries with the thought that people should regard him infallible on all occasions, he is likely to commit some mistakes. Therefore, I beg of you to do your part justly as you have been doing so far. You should not labour under the apprehension that people might think that you are not doing things rightly. Shri Jangde (Madhya Pradesh) : Please come to the subject. Babu Ramnarayan Singh: I should also like to say one thing more. When I stood to speak, you in spite of the fact that no Member had expressed that desire declared that sufficient discussion had taken place on the subject and that the question be now put to decide upon the matter. However, I should draw your attention to the fact that the matter is very important. *P.D., Vol. XV, Part II, 22nd September 1951, pp. 3095-3112.

1263 DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL Shri Jangde: The hon. Member must now come to the subject. Mr. Deputy Speaker: What I would say is it must be left to somebody to deicde whether the debate has been sufficient or not, and the Chair takes the responsibility. I called upon the Hon. the Law Minister to reply. It is no good referring to all those rulings when it is left to the Speaker to decide. I have now given an opportunity to the hon. Member. That was on the definition clause. This is clause 4. If he wants to say anything let him say now. What is the good of saying: “You did not give me any opportunity then” ? All that is not relevant. Babu Ramnarayan Singh: Sir, whatever your ruling it is acceptable. But I am not saying anything unreasonable. Mr. Deputy Speaker : What is the good of wasting time over that matter ? Babu Ramnarayan Singh : That is not the thing. All the Members here have the right to speak, and the subject in discussion here is such that it should not have been brought up at all. To me indeed any punishment given to the Government, who have brought this measure here, and their supporters in this regard would be reasonable. Sir, you Probably do not know that hundreds of persons are daily arrested here outside and released ten or twenty miles away. It is said to be a secular State. Does a secular State give liberty to do all sorts of unreasonable things under the cover of secularism ? This Parliament is meant to protect the rights of the people and you are its presiding officer. These things must come to your knowledge and you should give due consideration to them. What is it after all that police has been posted all round and none can pass that way ? This is very bad and absolutely unjustifiable. This Bill abrogates all the previous texts of the Hindu Law and all rules and interpretations given in respect of them. I am not talking of customs. (I am simply speaking of text). Sir, you are a scholar and are very well aware that the Vedas of our country came to be revealed at the beginning of the world and the establishment of the social organisation. The rules of conduct and duties of men in our country are determined by the Vedas. Today we have Pandit Nehru’s administration whose representative. Dr. Ambedkar wants to abrogate with a single stroke all those rules which have existed since the beginning of the world. I would say that all the Hon. Members should oppose such a measure. Firstly, the Hindu Code Bill should not pass

1264 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES at all. But if it has to pass, at least this portion of it, clause 4, must not pass in any case. You know, Sir, and Dr. Ambedkar also knows very well, that Buddhism was preached by Lord Buddha to undo the hold of the Vedas. But the Vedic religion did not perish. Hardly a few years have passed since the advent of Pandit Nehru’s rule and Dr. Ambedkar’s coming into office and the Vedic principles are sought to be repudiated. Do they not think that such laws should not be passed ? Nobody in the country would accept this law. Shri Syamnandan Sahaya : Babu Ramnarayan Singh is perfectly right. Babu Ramnarayan Singh : How could they dare to say that things that have been in existence since times immemorial, since the beginning of the earth and the creation of the Sun and the Moon should now no more be followed ? Wherefrom did they get this right ? Buddhism was preached to overthrow the Vedic religion. Other religions including Islam also came. All came and fell, but Vedic religion is still there and would remain as such. No one can destroy it and it is an improper and absolutely misguided effort that is being made to efface it. It gives me pain that such things are brought in our Parliament. As our friend Thakur Das Bhargava just said religion and the rules of good conduct were determined by the Veda and the Smriti: Veda, Smriti, sadacharah Atmanstushtireva cha, Etachchaturvidhah prahusSakshaddharmasya Lakshanam. The definition of Religion is four-fold ; Veda, Smriti, Sadacharah (good conduct) and Atmatushti (self-satisfaction). Rules of good conduct were thus fixed in accordance with the Vedas. But simply that was not enough. It was also to be seen that what the Vedas prescribe, what they command, should also be there in the shastras, Vedas set down the path of religion and the Shastras supplemented them. But that was not the end all. The rules incorporated in the Vedas and supported by Shastras should be observed in the conduct, manners and actions of the good people. That is what was meant by the rules of good conduct. But nobody was bound as to their observance simply for the reason that they were laid down by the Vedas and Dharma Shastras and also followed by good people. In the last, he was to see how far his conscience, his knowledge of good and bad, agreed with them. After consideration of all these factors, his duty was to be finally determined.

1265 DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL Not to speak of the Vedas , the Shastras and good conduct; not even was the conscience spared ; the Hon. Minister and this Government mean that our conscience be left out and this Bill be passed : and work be done according to it. Just think, what an injustice it means. Need I submit more, you just look up the meaning of the word ‘Law’ in the dictionary. What does it mean, after all ? You can look up the word in the dictionary, and some of you must have seen it already. Dr. Ambedkar is a scholar no doubt; he must have looked it up in the dictionary. Dr. Ambedkar: No; I don’t look it up. Babu Ramnarayan Singh : But he puts his scholarships aside and is behaving in a strange way. What is Law after all ? Law today means a supremacy, or a predominant society making a regulation with the help of a military or police and thrusting it on the society as a whole. Sir, Law does not mean this. Law, according to the lexicon, means :— “Law is nothing but the will of the people expressed in terms of Law”—which, in other words, means—whatsoever is the will of the society, is placed in the form of a law and is called a law. These people have now gained supremacy : Police and military are at their command, and with the help of police and military and in the name and with the help of party discipline, they may get anything passed. Shrimati Dixit (Madhya Pradesh): There is no party discipline. Babu Ramnarayan Singh : There is party discipline and you will pass it. Shrimati Dixit: No ; it is not so. Babu Ramnarayan Singh: Well, what will come out of ‘yes’ and ‘no’ ? I know the position. Sir, I mean to say that a lot of injustice is caused by such a law. It is not in the interests of this country, nor do the people of this country want it, and, therefore, this should not be passed as law. As I told you a number of revolutions took place, great religious revolutions, but the fundamental of the Vedas were not changed. With one stroke of pen Dr. Ambedkar now wants the vedas an offence, and this Bill should, in no case, be passed. As there are different texts and rules, the interpretations follow them. A number of sages (Rishis) were born in our land. Shri Thakur Das made a mention of them. It has been said : Vedah vibhinnah Smritiyo vibhinnah, Naiko muniryasaya vachah Pramanam, Dharmasya tatvam nihitam guhyam, Mahajano, Yena gatah Sa Pantha.” 10-15 a.m.