Vol. 14, Part II · pages 506–510

1286 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES But if she meant this that if there is a brother, who has got two or three children and a wife and he has a brother who is about to die, and he also has got two or three children and his wife, that they are made to live together it would create dificulties and trouble would arise. If she wants to know about that, I am coming to that point also. I confess it and everybody in our society would confess it that nobody resorts to bigamy willingly and that the woman is also helpless, because she loves her children and she cannot leave the two or three orphans, for where could they find shelter. She cannot say that she wants to remarry and the other members of the household also cannot leave the children, then the question arises whether she should take her children with her. But this is a custom in our society and I think, you may enact any law but you cannot change it. This is not a matter of joke. They themselves could change it but you cannot change it today. There is another custom in our society. It is their belief that even the most foolish man belonging to a particular family would not allow his children to go to another family, and if a man tries to do so very severe punishment has been prescribed for him in our community. Even if you say that our community is backward and it is very difficult to improve it, the result of such an action among us is still murder. If you want that the number of murders and assassinations should increase in our society, the Punjab is already notorious for murders and assassinations, for many people are hanged there for such murders etc.—if you want to increase their number you are at liberty to impose any rules and regulations on them immediately. But if you want to decrease the number of murders and assassinations and the sentences of death, I would request you to accept the amendment of Shri Bhatt or of Shri Bhargava. So I was saying that either a woman, if she loves her children, will be forced to live as a widow for the rest of her life, as has never been done in her community before, or, if she does not love her children, she might take them stealthily to some other place at night and if she meets some daring person who says that he would see how others could harm him the result would be that either she would become a widow again or her husband would be hanged. But, in any case, she would not remain a fortunate wife, though this is a big and a terrifying thing, but it is a fact. Then there is the question of sagotra marriage. How many men and women live in the cities ? I want to state my own reactions

1287 DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL about this Hindu Code Bill. In this house the majority of members come from the urban areas. Those who were born and brought up in the cities confine their thoughts to the rules and regulations and manners and customs of the cities. They think there is a vast difference between town life and village life, they have got no experience about it. I give a simple example. For instance, take the case of a city. If a woman there does not want to marry nobody would object. But if in a village a girl attains about the sixteen of age, not ony does distress befall her parent but that girl is persecuted too. Everybody comes to the father and says. “why do you not arrange for the mrriage of your girl ?” The girl might be bitterly opposed to marriage but she cannot avoid marrage. She is forced to do so; this theory might be good or bad but this is a fact. From this very example you can differentiate between the mode of life in a town and that of a village and see how much difference is there between them; and still you want to enact a common law for both. My friend Shir Jangde spoke so forcefully. He spoke for others but I suspect Shri Jangde has become a townsman or has gone to their side. He is coming to appreciate the urban way of life. He wants to tell his own tale and not that of the people of his own place. So I was submitting that when there is so much difference between the two modes of life, there is such a vast difference between their social conditions, and you want to enact a law which will be applicable to all irrespective of their customs and usages, it would be a great injustice to them. There is another point I would like to touch upon in this connection and that is with regard to sagotra marriage. Unlike the customs obtaining among us in Punjab, here we find that most of the girls are usually married locally. Taking the case of Delhi itself, it will be seen that girls from one part of the city are married in the other part of the city. Even in the small towns having a population of say ten thousand they are married likewise. Under the circumstances, they are not conversant with the customs regarding marriage prevailing among us. In keeping with the custom obtaining among us, I cannot get my son married among my own subcaste which is spread over as many as 24 villages situated within a radius of no less than ten miles. It is not that he cannot be married in only those 24 villages, even the villages numbering about 30 to 40 where the families of his mother’s subcaste are settled are ruled out for the purpose of such matrimony. Things do not end here. I cannot get my son married to

1288 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES a girl from any of the thirty to forty villages, where people of my mother’s subcaste live. That is to say, I cannot find a bride for my son from amongst a hundred neighbouring villages or so. Shri A. C. Shukla : Is it a healthy practice or otherwise ? Ch. Ranbir Singh : I never laid any claim to this effect. It is none of my intention to annoy him in the way the Hon. Doctor did. Unlike him I cannot dare utter anything unpleasant things. In contrast with the big personality of the Hon. Dr. Ambedkar I am but an humble Member. Shri Radhelal Vyas (Madhya Bharat) : But you are also Jat. Ch. Ranbir Singh : Of course, I am but not a Sikh Jat like Sardar Bhopinder Singh Man. I do not want to enter into any controversy— and thereby cause offence to anyone—as to whether our custom is better or other’s or whether or not this measure is of any use. What I want is simply to apprise you of our customs which; for instance, prevent me from getting my son married in about as many as one hundred to one hundred twenty villages. How under such a state of affairs, can those women residing in small towns or even in big cities, be supposed to have any real estimate of the extent of hardships and difficulties which we are subjected to while facing such issues, because for them marriage is no more than a mere routine affair that could be performed from one mohalla to the other ? Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava : There is no difference between Hindu Law and your law in so far as this matter is concerned. Ch. Ranbir Singh : There may not be any difference in the laws but the developments do vary. According to our customs we cannot establish matrimonial connections among some certain gotras. None can dare go against such a custom. Even the most backward person— under the present social structure such a man is bound to be treated as such, although in future he may be called progressive—cannot possibly take such a step. In fact none has got so much courage, so to say. But what you are doing today is, if I may say so, simply enabling such a man, by law, to take such a step. Shri A. C. Shukla : What is it that the hon. Member wants ? Ch. Ranbir Singh : I am not going to say what I want. I would, on the other hand, only want to apprise the House of the various customs prevailing. That is why I am pleading for Shri Bhatt’s amendment to be accepted. Let developments be closely watched during the next ten years, the truth will express itself in the right manner. If our course of action would be correct you would, I am sure, change over to our side or, otherwise, we would do the same thing.

1289 DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL So I was referring to the fact that even in the present days sagotra marriages are not being performed. But there is no denying the fact that rules and regulations have great force on their back. Supposing a man with the help of this law seeks to get married in the same village or among the same gotra, what would be the possible consequences ? He is likely to meet the same fate as I have described earlier. It is not that I want to exaggerate things in any way, but, all the same, let me point out what I consider to be a serious drawback in our present day society. Supposing any member of my family gets married in such a manner, nobody would care to ascertain my view in the matter. If my brother commits any wrong of this type, it may be that I may also be murdered simply because I happen to be his brother, regardless of the fact whether my views are in his favour or otherwise. None is going to ask me to explain my view point. Such is the sorry state of affairs in our community. Indeed how strange it looks that they judge the doings of one brother from those of the others ! Here, in your society, three brothers can hold three different views— one can be a Communist, the second a Socialist and the third Congressite. To be more precise, if a man here is a member of the Bharatiya Jan Sangh, it is open to his brother to join any other party. But things at our end are quite the reverse. If any one member of a certain family there joins Congress, the entire family would be automatically deemed to be Congress site regardless of the fact whether it be so or not. Such is the condition of our community. Now, it is for you to call it whatever you like— progress or otherwise. I, for one, under such circumstances, stand for monogamy in our society. In a country like ours; especially in a community which I belong to namely Jats, monogamy is particularly essential, for among us the number of boys is more than girls. A man have two wives only by encroaching upon the share of any one of his fellow beings. Under the practice of monogamy, comparatively larger number of men would be provided with wives which is otherwise not possible. It is just possible there may be such regions in this country where the number of women is more than men. ( English translation concluded ). Sardar B. S. Man (Punjab): In Madras they have. Ch. Ranbir Singh: But the difficulty is that a Hindu Jat of our side is not so broad-minded as to go as far as Madras ; a Sikh Jat may go. I for one consider monogamy to be a step in the right direction ; but the difficulty is that our society has not yet so advanced, or shall

1290 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES I say, degenerated, so as to agree to the practice of sagotra marriage. Let it be postponed for ten years, after that this issue may be taken afresh for consideration, if by that time the society succeeds in reaching that height of advancement, which would clear the field for such steps, we would accept it; otherwise it would keep on pending. We do not, of course, approve of the practice of what we call forced bigamy, but, all the same, the practice continues in our society, though it is not so common. Give us ten years’ time during which we may make efforts to do away with such a practice. In the end once again I take this opportunity to submit to the Hon. Dr. Ambedkar that although, I am a whole-hearted supporter of this measure. I would like him to accept either Shri Bhatt’s amendment or amendment No. 420 moved by Shri Bhargava. Shri Sivan Pillay (Travancore-Cochin): Sir, let the question be now put. Captain A. P. Singh (Vindhya Pradesh) : No, Sir. At least those who have moved amendment may be given an opportunity to speak. Sardar B. S. Man : Yes, Sir. This is a very important point. Mr. Deputy Speaker : I shall call Mr. Jhunjhunwala and after him Shri Bhatt. They have tabled amendments. Shri Syamnandan Sahaya: Sir, I have also tabled amendments. Mr. Deputy Speaker: I shall call them in this order, and then I shall consider any other name. *Shri Jhunjhunwala (Bihar): (English translation of the Hindi speech). All my three amendments are in consonance with the Constitution. My first amendment provides that if this Code contains anything against any religion, no clause of this Bill shall override the provisions of the existing law; the second amendment provides that if this Code contains anything against morality, the Bill shall not override the provisions of any existing law, or any custom or usage in force ; and the third provides that if this Code contains anything against the culture of any section of the people, the Bill shall not override the existing law. Sir, when I had moved the third amendment, you had asked as to what would be the form and definition of the word ‘culture’. Yesterday, in this connection, I had wrongly quoted Article 129 of *P.D., Vol. 15, Part II, 22nd September 1951, pp. 3168-88. 12 NooN