Vol. 14, Part II · pages 486–490

1266 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES Vedas differ and smritis also differ. There is no sage whose word can be taken as final. The secret of Dharma is very deep, follow the path traversed by the great. Which means—One Veda gives one dictum, while the other shows a difference of opinion. In Vedas there are certain things where people can have doubts. Likewise, there are smritis and Dharmashastras. All of them are of the same opinion, it cannot be said so. Some Dharmashastra gives one thing, while the other gives something else. There also is difference of opinion—“ Naiko Muniyarasya Vachah Pramanam” —“There is not a single sage whose word can be taken as final” ; No such sage has born, whose dictum could be authoritative and, hence, to be taken as complete truth, and the rest to be discarded. Not even so. But after this those of us who make of a mention of Manu Maharaj—some amongst them say likewise, that Dr. Ambedkar is Manu of the day……… Dr. Ambedkar : I have not accepted that title. Babu Ramnarayan Singh : do not accept, please. They say it wrongly, as you, in fact, do not deserve it: this is not a thing to be accepted. Those who confer this title upon you do it by way of flattery. It you are called ‘Manu’, all of us, too, would like to be called so ; why you alone. And whatever were the dictates of Manu, whatever were his orders, were automatically followed by everybody. They were not propagated at the point of sword. Whenever he were to sit to make a law no police and military were kept on guard. I go to the extent and say that we should feel ashamed that when such a subject is being discussed we are encircled and guraded by police and military lest somebody should come and interrupt us. Furthermore, it has been said :” Dharamsya Tatvam nihitam guhayam” —The secret of Dharma is very deep it is hidden in the caves. Sir, everybody does know that these people must have thought at times that the subject of Dharma was so difficult that it could not be understood. Its secret, which is said to be lying in some cave, is very difficult to find out. How beautifully has, therefore, been said : “Mahajano yena gatah sa panthah”—“That, indeed, is the path which was followed by great men.” In such circumstances, when Vedas say something, Shastras uphold something else, conduct rules ordain something else and it may become difficult to make a right choice then what should be done ? It is, therefore, said : “ Mahajano yena gatah Sa panthah ”

1267 DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL —i.e., whatever is done by the great should be followed. Those, who are called great in our country today, are doing and out to do such things as are not acceptable to anybody even today. Who will accept them in the days to come ? I beg to submit that this subject should be considered in a definite light, and in such a way that everybody may get an opportunity to think and have his say. Sir, about usages and customs they say that custom should not exist. These people are prepared to do away with customs and will surely do away with them. They should know that the Scriptures, Vedas, Puranas were not introduced at the point of the sword or by any kind of coercion. Those were such regulations as were be acceptable to any body when formulated. Some give the name ‘customs’ ‘family-customs’ some name it as ‘family conduct’ while others call them ‘customs and traditions. At a certain place in Ramayana it is said: “Raghukul riti sada chali ayi, Pran jahin par vachan na jayi.” (Raghu Dynasty has its ever-present custom. Life it will give, but not discard the word.) It was a trait of the Raghu Family, yes—a tradition, a custom : Life should not be cared for, it should even be sacrificed, but the words given by them should in no case, go futile. What need I say today ? Cheers to the talent of Dr. Ambedkar or the talent of this Government which tells us not to talk of customs and to do away with truth and customs. They say, all the customs and traditions should be done away with. This is just a thing to be understood as to how important the customs were “Raghukul riti sada chali Ayi, Pran Jahin par Vachan Na Jayi” Just look to it that the man who seeks to become our Manu today, says that there should not be any custom nor traditions whatsoever; we should do away with all of them. Shrimati Dixit: But what is happening today ? Babu Ramnarayan Singh : If your will were to carry the day, the words could happen. Now comes to question of divorce. In our country, there are some five or six such communities which we know are not more than two to four crores in number. For them they are making this laws so that the right of divorce for them may be secured. In the rest 90 per cent of the society, we know that divorce is a thing of daily routine. And, sir, how is this divorce given ? Two, four or

1268 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES five of them sit together, both the contending parties come and they break some stalk of grass ; and their mutual realtions are broken— this completed the “divorce”. Not a panny as to be incurred on this, nor any botheration. Our Hon. Dr. Ambedkar is a well-wisher of the Untouchables and they too should know that such well-wishers should be shunned. Now all of them will have to go to the district judge for divorce, what a lot of expenditure arid botheration will this procedure mean ? Then alone will divorce be granted. Shri Naziruddin Ahmad (West Bengal) :……. A decent work for lawyer ! Babu Ramnarayan Singh: Lawyers giving maintenance to lawyers ! Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava : The Panchayat is being empowered to register the divorce. Babu Ramnarayan Singh : Well, even if it is in the hands of the Panch, it is right to some extent, but that too will be a Government Post. I assert that the Bill be scheduled. Let this law go to hell and then you will see how easily the entire system work. We have panchayats and panchas; and in our country customs and usages are pliable they will continue to hold good and people would accept them automatically. If any law is formulated or any decision taken, it should be so clear and precise as may be amiably accepted by people, and they may not think of going against it. But the law that is being passed here, is such that people in our country will take pride in breaking it, and will not act upon it. This is nothing but a whim of those who today have gained power. They are obstinacyridden and say that the Bill must be passed somehow. What the country thinks, and what she needs, the Government never worry about it. What is being spent for it here, and what, after all, is its necessity, nobody cares for it: the Government go on spending money lavishly and thus ruin the country ; go on passing baseless and futile laws against the will of the public. I insist upon our Rajaji and Dr. Ambedkar that the Bill be withdrawn : the country does not want it, and the good of the country, good of us all, lies in its being withdrawn. This simply astonishes me that such an injustice is being here where personages like Rajaji are present. There can be nothing more shameful and sorrowful than this. Sir, I do not want to take more time but I want to request you that the subject is so serious that it needs a proper debate ; and if

1269 DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL any hon. Member wants to speak on it, he should be permitted to do so. This Bill has created a stir in the entire country as also in the City, and hold that the Bill should not be proceeded with. The Government should withdraw it, and if it is not withdrawn, but proceeded with instead discussion in a proper way be conducted and the hon. Members be not stopped from speaking on it. I would request all the hon. Members to understand all the pros and cons and pass it, then. They may also bear in mind that the good of the country and the society be not impaired in any way by this self-willed piece of legislation, and I again submit with respect to all the hon. Members, that this clause at least be omitted. Shri Sarwate (Madhya Bharat) : I rise to oppose the amendment of Dr. Ambedkar because I consider part (b) of the amendment as unnecessary and superfluous while part (a) is quite undesirable. Dr. Ambedkar : You may abuse me as much as possible, provided you do not take much time. I am concerned more with the time than with the abuse. * Shri Sarwate: Sir, I am not abusing him. I am only opposing his amendment. If not interrupted, I shall take very little time. I submit that by virtue of article 254 of the Constitution, all laws made by the State which are repugnant to or are inconsistent with the laws made by Parliament stand ipso facto, to that extent, inoperative. The other laws which may possibly be referred to in this connection are laws made before this code by the Centre. In their case the later law will precede the previous law. Therefore, in both the cases, that is, in the case of laws made by the Centre, they would, to that extent, to which they are inconsistent to the code be ipso facto inoperative. Therefore, I say part (b) is unnecessary and superfluous. As regards part (a), the effect of this amendment would be that all customs and all texts or rules or interpretation of Hindu law and customs would be made inoperative, subject to the saving clause at the beginning, namely, all such customs as would be saved by being included in any of the later provisions. My submission is that this is entirely undesirable. The Hindu religion has been living and progresssing. It has been said that it is dying and decadent. It has been compared to the shameful life of a coward who flies away from the field of battle. I would only submit that it is often ignored that one who fled *P.D., Vol. XV, Part II, 22nd September 1951, pp. 3103-7.

1270 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES from the battle field may return only to vanquish those who erstwhile were the victors. It must be remembered that the Hinuds have reppelled those who were for a time, and only for a temporary time, able to overcome them. In the last century the Marathas in Maharashtra from where Dr. Ambedkar himself comes, and then the Sikhs in the north were successful in achieving their independence and establishing their kingdoms. But I need not go into past history either ancient or modern. In our own day and before our own eyes, we have seen this accomplished. Have we forgotten that the present Parliament of which Dr. Ambedkar is an illustrious Member is the result of ………. Dr. Ambedkar: I have no right to be here. I have sneaked in. Shri Sarwate : I wish he makes no confession of that nature. This very Parliament is an illustration that the Hindus repelled the foreigners who had dominated over them temporarily. And what was the element or factor which gave this like or this rejuvenating characteristic to the Hindu religion ? In my opinion, it is custom and by custom I mean such custom as is defined and accepted by this House in clause 3—custom, which is a rule that is certain and not unreasonable or opposed to public policy. It is said that custom might be of a bad nature and therefore it requires to be mentioned here. But to say so is contradiction in terms : just as contradictory as today oaè;klqr For custom is defined here as that which is not opposed to public policy. Therefore, such customs as are opposed to public policy or morality, they will stand, ipso facto repealed. Those customs alone will be saved as would be good customs. The House will realise that the sources of Hindu law have been described as: Jqfr Le`fr% lnkpkj LoL; p fiz;ekReu% A First of all the Srutis and Smritis lay down the fundamental common background. And then lnkpkj and LoL; fiz;e~ provide for variety, that is to say the element which would suit the various regions of the country. It has to be borne in mind that India is a continent in extent and its population is equal almost to the population of the U.S.S.R. in the East and to the U.S.A. in the West put together. So unless there is variety of the law, the law would be absolutely oppressive and it would be difficult to make it suit the various requirements of the different regions.