Vol. 14, Part II · pages 81–85

861 DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL the other principles are concerned, we are still being governed by them and as I submitted they are principles which would be a better basis for a Civil Code rather than for a Hindu Code. This is not discrimination on grounds of sex at all but due to certain conditions of life. Suppose you pass a law to-day that all males should cook food and that females should not; will that be right ? That will be entirely wrong. Pandit Krishna Chandra Sharma (Uttar Prades) : What is the clause on which the hon. Member is speaking ? Is all this relevant to the clause under discussion ? Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava : You have maternity legislations referred to in the Factories Act. Should all that legislation apply to males also ? Shrimati Renuka Ray : How is all this relevant to clause 2 ? Mr. Chairman : Too many Members speaking at the same time leads to nothing but confusion. I think the hon. Member now speaking may be allowed to go on. Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava : Those who raise the question of relevancy, I submit, do not seem to know what is relevant and what is not. They have all heard my friend Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad and he covered a very wide ground and in the reply also one has to deal with all those points touched upon. You cannot say that, that was relevant and this is not. If what he said then was relevant, what I say now is also relevant. Moreover, so far as clause 2 is concerned, it is a very wide one and so the question of relevancy cannot arise in connection with this clause. The question whether the Hindu Code applies to Muslims or not was dealt with by Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad, and in views of that, I find it impossible to understand how my friend Shri Krishna Chandra Sharma—the able lawyer that he is,—can say that what I now say is not relevant. Shri Raj Bahadur (Rajasthan) : Sir, on a point of order, can an hon. Member of the House take the seat of the Leader of the House ? Mr. Chairman : The hon. Member may proceed to his own seat. Shri Tyagi : What is the matter ? I would like to know why I am made the target of this laughter. These seats are, after all for being occupied by someone. I found that one was vacant and I occupied it. Mr. Chairman : The hon. Member might have exercised his right of freedom of movement in this ; but there is no more to be said on this matter.

862 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava: The question of equality before the law has been raised. And various other matters have also been raised. Articles 25 and 15 were referred to and it was stated that the provisions of those articles are being violated, that in view of those articles, we cannot enact a measure of the nature of the Hindu Code. But as a matter of fact, that is not the case. I would submit that even with the amendments now suggested by Dr. Ambedkar, this section will not read quite well. That is why I have suggested my amendments. Some complaint was made by my Friend Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad that there is an attempt to apply the Hindu Code to persons who are not Hindus. But my humble submission is that my friend is not correct in saying that because if my friend takes the trouble to see to whom it applies now, he will find that it applies even now to many persons who are not Hindus in the sense in which the word is popularly understood even to-day. If you look into Gour’s Commentary—I think it is page 165—you will find that a good many persons who do not call themselves Hindus are still governed by the Hindu law. It governs many who are geographically Hindus, if I may say so. The Hindu system is not a creed. The term “ Hindu” has a geographical significance also. Therefore, all those who are not bound by any other special law like those of Muslims, Christians, Parsis or Jews, they are all bound by the Hindu Law. This is no innovation brought in by Dr. Ambedkar. He does not want that those who are not Hindus should come under the Hindu Law. This argument raised by my friend Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad is a wrong one. It is not a question of conversion at all. If the Hindu law applies to a person, he does not thereby become a Hindu. If he adopts some of the rules of succession, of divorce or marriage of the Hindu Law, he does not become a Hindu. And I may also say that this kind of thing does not help us either. What is the use of increasing the number of Hindus or Muslims ? The days of proportionate representation or special representation are all gone. I don’t care if a man is a Hindu or a Muslim or Parsi or Jew, as long as he is a good citizen. I do not want anyone to give up his religion. The argument of my Friend Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad is based on the old psychology that the proportion of Hindu must be more, or that of Muslims must be less or that Parsis should be more and so on and so forth. As a matter of fact the subject matter of clause 2 is taken from the old Hindu Law. The first part of it says that this Code shall apply to all Hindus, that is to say, to all persons professing the Hindu religion in any of its forms or

863 DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL developments, including Virashaivas etc, But my humble submission is that this part of the clause is redundant. If it applies to Hindus, that is quite sufficient, and there is no point in saying that it applies to all forms of the Hindu religion or developments of the Hindu religion. Therefore, in my amendment. I have suggested that this Code applies “(a) to all persons who are Hindus, Buddhists, Jains or Sikhs by religion.” And the next amendment is in the nature of a negative proposition. It defines those persons who are not bound by this Code. There is the customary law and the special law. For instance the Muslim of the Punjab can say, that he is governed by the customary law and not by the Shariat. Those laws which apply to Muslims are not at all touched by this Code. Those customs are all quite safe. My amendment says that it applies : (b) “ to any other person who is not a Muslim, Christian, Parsi or a Jew by religion ;” (c) to every woman who married any person who was not a Muslim, Christian, Parsi or a Jew by religion; (d) “ to any child, legitimate or illegitimate, both of whose parents are Hindus within the meaning of this section ;” Part (d) I submit is redundant, When there is a child, legitimate or illegitimate to parents who are Hindus, then there is no question. The child is a Hindu. Not that it is wrong to say that the child is a Hindu, but that is quite superfluous. The child of Hindus is ipso facto a Hindu. I have, on the contrary, omitted this part and proposed that it should apply even to any child legitimate or illegitimate, one of whose parents was a person who was not a Muslim, Christian, Parsee or a Jew by religion. There is a proviso to the clause, May I humbly submit in regard to this proviso that it was probably introduced for some other purpose. If taken literally it would exclude those persons whom you do not want to exclude. It would exclude all the Punjabees. The wording of the proviso is very wide. If it is allowed to remain as it is, section 5 of the Punjab Succession Act will come into conflict. The proviso reads: “ Provided that if it is proved that such person would not have been governed by the Hindu law or by any custom or usage as part of that law in respect of any of the matters dealt with herein if this Code had not been passed, then, this Code shall not apply to that person in respect of those matters.”

864 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES It means that the Hindus of the Punjab will not be governed by this Code. An Hon. Member : What is the harm ? Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava : The harm is this. I want the whole of the Punjab and India to come under the Code. There should be some uniformity in regard to our laws. I have given an amendment that so far as our customs are concerned they should be preserved. I have even suggested that the sections of the Code should be relaxed in such a manner that if our Provincial Assembly wants certain portions of the Code to be applied they should be applied. I have gone further and said that in regard to our customs, such as relating to succession, we should be allowed to own our law. At the same time I do not want to be cut off from the rest of India. In fact that is the basis of the Hindu Code. If I had heard the speech of Dr. Ambedkar, which he made moving for the consideration of the Bill, he said clearly that he wanted the whole of India to be governed by this Code and that such things as had crept into Hindu practices in their pristine glory should be repaired. If I remember his words he said that those damages should be repaired. I am one with him and I do not want that the whole of the Punjab should be taken away from the operation of the Hindu Code. I would rather like to be governed by the Code which applies to the whole of India rather than plough my own lonely furrow. Therefore I am anxious that this provision should either be taken away or amended in such a manner so that these persons may not be excluded. If my amendment is accepted sub-clauses (3) and (4) need not be there at all. According to me all those persons to whom the present law applies do come under these five categories which I have mentioned in my amendment. My amendment really seeks to attain the very same object which the Mover of the Bill has in his view. Only the wording is different. But I agree with him that so far as the scope of the Bill is concerned it should be extended to all those persons to whom the Hindu Law at present applies and only Muslims, Christians and Jews should be excluded. It is not that I want their exclusion for any purpose but for the purpose that those people themselves would not like to be governed by the Code. If they think that they would like to be bound by the Code let them pass a resolution or make a proposal to that effect. I want that the Hindu Code should

865 DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL be the real basis of the Civil Code. I do not want that such principles should be introduced in the Code which will not accord with the principles of the future Civil Code. In regard to adoption I submitted then and I submit now too that the customary adoption in the Punjab is based on the Civil Code. It does not have any real significance. Mr. Chairman : Would the hon. member like to continue his speech after lunch or finish now in another five minutes ? Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava : I would like to continue after lunch. The House then adjourned for Lunch till half-Past Two of the Clock. The house re-assembled after Lunch at half-Past Two of the Clock [mr. Deputy-Speaker in the Chair ] Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava : Sir, when we adjourned I was speaking on the provisions of adoption contained in this Code. I was submitting that in view of the fact that many Members of the House desired it there should be a Civil Code instead of a Hindu Code, I was submitting that certain provisions relating to adoption under the Hindu Law have been modified by custom. The present position is that this old system of adoption has to a very great extent been modified and now many notions of a character, not strictly religious, have crept into the very idea of adoption. The old idea that by adoption an adopted person becomes the son of a person adopting, has to an extent faded away. In the Punjab, so far as adoption is concerned, according to custom any person can be adopted without any ceremonies. It is in the nature of the old Roman nominees system that an heir is appointed in the Punjab for carrying on the name of the family so that a person older than oneself can be appointed an heir and so such ceremonies are required as are required under the Hindu system of adoption. Moreover, even the incidents of that relationship are a bit different from the incidents which we find in regard to the system of adoption under the Hindu Law. Shri Tyagi : In the Punjab your son can be elder to you in age ? Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava : In fact, the question which my friend is asking is really not germane. As a matter of fact, when I gave the conditions under which a person could be appointed an heir,