Vol. 14, Part II · pages 76–80

856 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES So far as custom and other things are concerned, if my hon. Friend has just studied the amendments which I have already given, he would see that I want good customs in all places should remain as they are, because I am not in favour of violently changing the law of the people of this land in this manner in which this Hindu Code seeks to do ( Hear, hear). At the same time, I do not want some portions of this Hindu Code to be enacted for the whole of India. Since I got an applause with a view to pin me to something which I do not myself like, I want to make it absolutely clear that I am not against this Hindu Code. I want that certain portions of it should be enacted, but there are certain portions which I do not like, ( Interruption). So far as certain principles in this Hindu Code are concerned, which are of a universal nature which will improve the society, I want that those provisions should apply to the Punjab and it is for this reason I am supporting this amendment. Hon. Members have not read the amendments which I have already given. The amendment runs thus:— That for clause 2, the following be substituted, namely : “ 2. Subject to the provisions of section 1 this Code applies— (a) to all persons who are Hindus, Buddhists, Jains or Sikhs by religion ; (b) to any other person who is not a Muslim, Christian, Parsee or a Jew by religion ; (c) to every woman who married any person was not a Muslim, Christian, Parsee or a Jew by religion ; (d) to any child, legitimate or illegitimate, one of whose parents was a person who was not a Muslim, Christian, Parsee or Jew by religion ; (e) to a convert to any religion except the Muslim, Christian, Parsee or Jew by religion.” I want that this Hindu Code Bill as it is amended by this House and according to my wishes should apply to the Punjab. I do not want that so far as the Punjab is concerned the customs that we have got there should be violently changed by this Hindu Code but consistently with this I want to adopt such of the provisions of the Hindu Code as are acceptable. As for bigamy it should no longer exist in the Punjab. We want to have a monogamous Punjab. Shri R. K. Chaudhuri : Then I withdraw my applause. Shri J. R. Kapoor : Do I understand the hon. Member to suggest that different portions of the country and different sections of the

857 DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL community should be permitted to pick and choose particular portions of the Code wich are acceptable to them ? Mr. Chairman : The hon. Member must address the Chair and he should put the question through the Chair. Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava : I am very glad that Mr. Kapoor should have put this question to me. Since I also put a question to Mr. Kapoor when he was speaking yesterday, this is tit for tat. I then asked Mr. Kapoor when he was speaking whether he wanted that every person should have liberty of choosing a particular clause and whether he shall be bound or not. His proposition was that out of the Hindu Code consisting of so many sections every individual be he a Hindu, Muslim, Christian or Parsee or whoever he may be able to choose a particular section to bind him and not others. Shri J. R. Kapoor : On a point of personal explanation, I never said that. What I said that of all portions in the Code one should be at liberty to pick and choose any particular portion. There are different parts relating to marriage, adoption and inheritance etc. It should be open to one to pick and choose the part relating to marriage and say : “I want to be governed by this chapter.” I never said that one particular section should be accepted by one and another section by another. Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava : I am very sorry that my hon. Friend controverted the statement that I made. I put this question in those very words and he replied to that question and his reply was that he would rather like that even a particular section could be chosen. Unfortunately, he does not remember that. Shri J. R. Kapoor : I will refer him to the speech which I delivered yesterday. Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava : After reading the section I found the very thing that I am submitting. Shri J. R. Kapoor : I suppose it is not so. Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava : I take it that what my friend says is the true version. May I humbly ask my Friend whether he wants that a person can choose out of the Hindu Code and say that so far as marriage is concerned he shall be found by the Hindu Law and so far as succession is concerned, he shall be bound by some other law ? That would be an impossible proposition for a person to say that he would be bound only by one Chapter of the Hindu Code and not by others. The whole

858 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES law is so interwoven and interconnected that a person cannot say that he would be bound by one provision and not by the other provisions in another Chapter. That is entirely a wrong proposition. Succession, maintenance, guardianship, all these provisions are, as a matter of fact, so inter-connected that it would be impossible to have a proposition like that. Yesterday also when I put my question, it was with a view to bring into relief the wrong proposition that my hon. friend was wanting to lay down for the whole of India. According to him, a Muslim may be able to say that he likes a certain Chapter and would be governed by that and in respect of the rest, he would be governed by the Muslim Law. I ask, is it possible, is it practicable, is it a proposition which can be laid before the House ? I submit, not, I submit that that would be a wrong approach to the question at issue. In fact, that is not the question at issue. The question of even a Civil Code, as I have submitted, is not germane to the subject. While I admire those who want to have one Civil Code for the whole of India, I cannot agree, and I do not think that it would be a practical proposition to have one Civil Code for Muslims, Christians, Jews, etc. What was the reaction of our friend Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad ? He never agreed to that. He raised the question of fundamental rights under the Constitution, and said that you cannot have this Hindu Code. When it came to asking a question of him whether he would like to be governed by the Hindu Code, he said, “ It is bad enough for the Hindus ; you want to give it to the Muslims, Christians, etc.”. That was his attitude. I very humbly submit that as a matter of fact, the provisions of the Constitution Act have not been fully understood by my hon. friends who propose that this Hindu Code should apply to Muslims, Christians, etc. I can understand that in a light-hearted spirit. If they want to throw away the Hindu Code Bill they may say anything in order to show the absurdity of the provisions. But, I do not think that it is a feasible proposition to suggest that the Hindu Code should apply to Muslims, Christians, Parsis, Jews, etc. Shri R. K. Chaudhuri: The principles. Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava : My hon. Friend Mr. Chaudhuri says, and I think he will again applaud me when I say that the principles do apply. I quite agree that some of the principles even of the old Hindu Law are of such a universal nature that they apply to people of all religions, in all circumstances. So far as that is concerned, that would be the basis of the common Civil Code. Even

859 DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL now, we have certain principles in our present law which are the basis of the common Civil Code, like the Sarda Act, Majority Act, etc. Reference was made to articles 25 and 15 of the Constitution Act and some of the provisions in article 25 were even ridiculed. My hon. friend Mr. Nazuriddin Ahmad said that he cannot make anything out of the words “Subject to public order, morality and health” and that they were meaningless. They are not meaningless. They have not full meaning; not only full meaning, but are of very great significance. He seems to have failed to realise the significance of articles 25 and 15. It was said that under article 15, there shall be no discrimination, and that therefore, we cannot have a Hindu Code, a Muslim Code and other Codes. My humble submission is this. Although I would very much like to have one Civil Code for the whole country. I submit that it is not inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution Act to have a Hindu Code, a Muslim Code and other Codes. I am very sorry to say that I have heard my hon. friends who are in favour of the Hindu Code Bill say that so far as the provisions of Articles 15 and 25 of the Constitution Act are concerned the provisions of the Hindu Code Bill are not consistent. For instance. I am very sorry to submit that I have heard even from the author of the Hindu Code Bill to say that so far as the Constitution is concerned, there can be no discrimination between brothers and sisters, between a male and a female so far as the Hindu Code is concerned. Dr. Ambedkar : Only on grounds of sex. Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava : I am coming to that. That is one proposition that has been put forward that on grounds of sex there cannot be any discrimination and article 15 of the Constitution will stand in our way. The other gentlemen, who are opposed to the Hindu Code, also rely on articles 15 and 25 and say that there can be no discrimination. May I humbly ask the Hon. Dr. Ambedkar, if there could be no discrimination on the ground of sex, why he has got so many provosions in the Hindu Code itself which discriminate between the sexes…….. Dr. Ambedkar : There is no provision which discriminates only on the ground of sex. Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava : This provision of one-fourth for a married daughter and one-half for the unmarried daughter ; why is there a different succession if a man dies and a different one if a woman dies ?

860 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES Dr. Ambedkar : That is not anything based on sex only. Shri Tyagi : On death also. Mr. Chairman : I think the Select Committee report has made no such discrimination. Mr. K. C. Sharma (Uttar Pradesh) : That article is not under discussion now. He may come to his amendments. Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava : As a matter of fact, even this discrimination that the married daughter may not have a share in the father’s property is not based on ground of sex alone, as my hon. friend says. My submission is that it is consistent to provide in this Hindu Code that a married daughter shall not succeed to her father’s property. I was just now on the argument propounded by the Hon. Dr. Ambedkar. On the question of maintenance, a wife is entitled to be maintained by the husband. Is the husband also entitled to be maintained by the wife ? Shrimati Renuka Ray (West Bengal) : Why not ? An Hon. Member : There are many such instances. Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava : My hon. Friend asks ; ‘ why not’, I am very glad that she has adopted this gallant attitude. Has she consulted her sisters ? Our Chairman does not say so. I submit that it is a very wrong principle to suggest that on the basis of sex, equality should be enforced in such a manner which is not consistent with certain conditions of life. I maintain that the Hindu Code would not violate any provision if we maintain that a married daughter does not succeed to the father’s estate. She succeeds her husband or father-inlaw. I am dead certain that unless and until we recognise the rights of women, unless we give them full rights, we shall be losing very much in certain strength of character which arises only if women are economically independent. I submitted when I was speaking at the consideration stage, and I maintain it now that we are all committed to that and we cannot but give rights to our sisters; we must see that we give them full rights. The only thing that I am opposing is the manner in which those rights are given. So far as the Punjab is concerned, as I submitted, we are wedded to this theory that a married daughter when she goes to her husband’s family, she becomes a part of that family, and is the pivot of that family. Therefore, the trouble with the Punjab is that they cannot possibly accept that a married daughter should succeed to her father’s estate. So far as