Vol. 14, Part II · pages 511–515

1291 DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL the Constitution empowering every section of people to have a culture of its own and to conserve the same. In fact it is Article 29 and not Article 129—which reads :— “29. (1) Any section of the citizens residing in the territory of India or any part thereof having a distinct language, script or culture of its own shall have the right to conserve the same.” That is why I have put in the word ‘culture’ here. The Hindu code, in keeping with the Constitution, cannot contain anything whatsoever that would deprive any section of people, or any community of its right to preserve its own religion or culture. I shall deal with my amendments later on. It will be recalled here that you had given a ruling to the effect that one should take the opportunity to deal with any other amendment or clause while speaking on his own amendment, or otherwise he would not be allowed to do so afterwards. It is because of this that I purpose to take this clause first and the amendments later on. Moreover, that would be more convenient to me. Sir, when the Hindu Code Bill, which is now sought to be passed under another title, namely ‘Marriage and Divorce Bill’, was placed before the House, it was said to have contained two main things. It is argued in this behalf that this Hindu Code Bill, or say, Marriage and Divorce Amendment Bill, is sought to be passed in view of the two main objectives which it aims at. In the first place, the measure is stated to be progressive ; and secondly, it is described as a legislation that would go a long way to provide women with their due rights hitherto denied to them. Men have so far been very unjust to women and it is with a view to eradicating this evil that this legislation is sought to be enacted. Now, let us see whether or not this measure is progressive. The Hon. Minister of Law did not give any definition of the word ‘progressive’ that might distinguish between things which are progressive and those which are not. It was stated from this side that the Hindu religion was one of a very long standing and was based on true scientific principles which alone are responsible for its survival so far despite so may atrocities commiteed on it. Replying to this suggestion the Hon. Law Minister was please to state that it was Lord Buddha who had disclosed the true path of the religion. The Buddha, Dr. Ambedkar said, could not tolerate to see women being subjected to men’s continuous oppression and having no rights whatsoever. It made Buddha’s heart bleed to see men having more rights than women and committing all sorts of atrocities on them.

1292 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES It was this treatment of discrimination against one sex, the Hon. Law Minister went on to say, that led Lord Buddha to preach equality among men and women. By quoting the Hon. Doctor here I simply want to impress that the Bill in question is stated to have been brought forward in accordance with the Buddha’s teachings. Lord Buddha, a great figure as he was, was undoubtedly religious-minded. Let us, therefore, closely study as to what was the real object which he aimed at. Here I am reminded Sir, of a couplet of Sant Jnaneshwar, a renowned Maharashtriyan poet, the actual words of which I do not quite recollect at the moment but it means something like this : A frog accompanied by a bee entered a tank where there were lotus flowers blooming on the water. The bee sat on the lotus and sucked its honey; it carried away with it honey and fine smell. But the frog which had accompanied the bee to the tank could only bring some mud and durt. Sardar Hukam SiNgH in the Chair Sir, the Buddha preached that the more we are able to subdue our evil desires, the better it is, for it would only help us to serve the society and then humanity as a whole in a better way. This was the highlight of his teachings. But, Sir, it is something extremely astonishing and painful too, that our Law Minister could not find any such suggestion in his teachings. What he could make out was that since men had had right of polygamy, women too must have the right to divorce in order that the effects of the former could be neutralised. I would request you sir, as also the hon. Members here, just to see what type of equality is sought to be given by this Bill. Dr. Ambedkar : Is this all relevant on clause 4 ? Let us have some regard for relevancy. We could not altogether abandon the rule of relevancy. Pandit M. B. Bhargava : Relevancy is not the sole monopoly of the Law Minister. Mr. Chairman : I would request hon. Members to leave this question to me. The Hon. Minister has asked me to decide it. Pandit M. B. Bhargava : But he himself pronounced the judgement— he did not refer it to you. Dr. Ambedkar: Relevancy ought to be also your monopoly— not only mine. Pandit M. B. Bhargava: It is yours ………

1293 DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL Mr. Chairman: There should not be any cross-questions and answers. I would again request Hon. Members to have greater restraint on themselves. I would ask the Hon. member who is speaking that he should be more relevant in his speech. Shri Jhunjhunwala: I was quite relevant in pointing out on to where the equality exists and where it is that we should give equal right to the women. My friend Shri Thakur Das Bhargava observed ………… Mr. Chairman : I must tell him that that is not the real issue at the moment, that is whether equality should exist or not. He may refer to customs and other things, but equality is not the direct issue at this moment. We should have regard to that. Shri Jhunjhunwala: May I explain to you sir, as to how these things relate to the real issue. I had in the beginning submitted that the Hon. Minister of Law had advocated two main points in support of this measure. Firstly, he described this Bill as a progressive measure, and secondly, he stated that this Bill sought to put women, who had not got equal rights, on equal footing with men. And now this clause 4 provides that the provisions of the Bill shall override all other things. As I said before, I shall first deal with this clause. In my opinion the measure itself is of no use when it does not go to fulfil either of the two things that are advocated in its support. Hence I am just trying to convince the Law Minister that the measure he has put before the House is absurd altogether and does not conform with the two main points which he has advocated. As a matter of fact, the measure ought not to have come at all. That is the point which I wanted the House to take note of. I may, with your permission Sir, make a few more observations in this connection and they would clear the whole thing, for otherwise the argument itself would become meaningless. I would, therefore, like you to appreciate the fact that this measure is neither progressive nor does it seek to provide women with their due rights as was advocated when the Bill was brought forward. If the clause relating to property had been taken. I could understand it because so far as property is concerned, our women have not got equal rights, they are suffering great hardships on this account and are subjected to innumerable atrocities. I am sorry Shrimati Durgabai is not here at the moment; she was kind enough to narrate some heart-rending tales with regard to women in Madras thereby causing much pain to all of us here. The question will be dealt with at length

1294 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES while taking up the property clause. If in reality the Law Minister was very serious about our women’s betterment, he should have taken up property clause first, because we cannot possibly help women take their proper place in society unless their economic condition is well improved and they are made absoultely free in that sphere. Hence, I cannot understand why that clause is not taken first. It is none of my intention to criticise his motives, but, all the same, I cannot but say that his real object is apparently different from what he is advocating. By bringing forward this measure he seems to be intending to exterminate the Hindu religion, Hindu society and the Hindu customs and usage, thereby bringing moral degradation of the Hindu society. His aim seems to be no other than this. By taking the property clause first and thereby seeing that women’s economic conditions are improved, we could have given them some solid relief. Many an Hon. Members pleaded for this but there was our Law Minister constantly nodding his head in disapproval. He perhaps does not like us to take the credit of doing something for our women which would help them and redress their grievances. I was just referring to my friend Shri Bhargava’s view that divorce was a thing which he did not like and as a matter of fact very few persons have supported it. The reason is that it is not a good thing. I may just give you an idea as to what would happen if divorce is enforced. Daily the youths of our country would read in the papers that so many cases of divorce took place that day and that such and such person divorced his or her partner. The newspaper published in my friend Shri Brij Kishore’s village in Bihar and also that which Shri Syamnandan Sahaya is going to bring out, would report such cases and they would read them. Out of all persons, Shri Brij Kishore seems to have seen greatest advantages in divorce. He would read these reports very enthusiastically. I am rather sorry that he is not here at this time otherwise he could know what madness he was indulging in while talking like that. Sir, I was submitting what my friend Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava said that divorce was not a good thing. But he stated the reasons why he favoured the idea. He said that in the clause relating to divorce a provision was being made to make it optional. According to him it was a very important provison. He said that it was only an enabling clause. But I would submit that a number of enabling clauses have been passed here. The Hon. Minister of Industry and the Hon. Minister

1295 DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL of Commerce have often taken refuge under this ‘enabling clause’. They have said the same thing about Coca-Cola. They say if it is being manufactured, let it be ; it is only an enabling clause. Similarly there is this enabling clause related to divorce. I would like to ask one thing from Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava. Suppose there are two sons of a father and one of them has married three wives. Now the other fellow goes and tell his father that if his brother could marry three and spend so much, then what should he do. Dr. Ambedkar: He may marry four. Shri Jhunjhunwala : The father replied that he could marry five. So, according to Pandit Thakur Das’s theory, if a son marries three wives, the other should marry five. Why after all he should lag behind ? This is the right he wants to give. But our friend Shri Syamnandan Sahaya is a staunch baniya. What would he say ? He would say that if he has married three wives, he should immediately be turned out. Mr. Chairman : I would request the hon. Member to discuss the subject of marriages when the question of monogamy is taken up. We are now discussing customs and rules and it would be better if he confines himself on matters relating to this subject only. Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava : He means to suggest that one son would divorce three wives and the other five. Shri Jhunjhunwala : Sir, I would abide by your ruling and strictly follow it, but as I submitted in the beginning …….. Mr. Chairman: He can certainly speak on this clause. Shri Jhunjhunwala: I was speaking on the marriage clause. Mr. Chairman : Not on the marriage clause. Clause 4 is under discussion. Sardar B. S. Man : On a point of information. While discussing the present clause and while moving certain amendments to the effect that from its effect certain customs may be excluded, we have to place our case by showing that those customs should be excluded for valid reasons. In that case, I suppose we are entitled to refer to the customs that are at variance with the Hindu Code and thus base our case that customs which have a long history, which have been recognised as such and which are not repugnant to public policy and thus which have the force of law should be permitted. In that respect, I beg to say that it is perfectly within the rights of Members to refer to the customs even in detail.