Vol. 14, Part II · pages 86–90

866 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES an heir is appointed—a son is not created by the Act of appointment of an heir. That is the difference. Under adoption the adopted son carries on the name of the family, perpetuates the name of the father and that is the way in which the family continues. In Punjab the family continues in another way. An heir is appointed and he carries on the name of the family, so that it is not true to say that in the Punjab the customary appointment or adoption of an heir is tantament to creation of a son. Whether that is not there, under the Hindu Law the underlying idea was that a son was created by adoption, so much so there was a rule in the Hindu Law that the son of a lady who could not be married to the father could not be adopted and therefore there was some sort of ban against a daughter’s son so far as adoption was concerned. Now, under the provision of the Hindu Code it is necessary that for adpotion a man should not be married, that he must be less than fifteen years of age. These incident will not find favour in the Punjab, this provision will be too much to tamper with the custom of the Punjab which does not contemplate any restriction as regards age or ceremonies or other restrictions which are irksome. Shri Tyagi : Because the son is a man to the father in the Punjab. Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava : The child is the father of man in the whole world. So even now in the Punjab there is the custom of appointment of an heir which is akin to adoption. My subcription is that Dr. Ambedkar has been kind enough to those systems of law which have been prevalent in the South, for instance, the marumakkathayam. Arrange the Code in such a way that there is no violent conflict for those who follow different customary laws in the matter of marriage, adoption etc. and see that their systems are allowed to continue. This Code goes to the root of the Hindu Law in certain matters. So far as they are wholesome we are prepared to accept them but in so far as there are violent changes which conflict with the notions of the people, I would very humbly submit to Dr. Ambedkar that where he considers the provisions of the Code at a later date he will be indulgent enough to see that there will be to violent conduct. I know when he introduced this Bill he was pleased to say that he would try to see his way to accommodate and would be prepared to accept certain amendments which partake of the character I have narrated above. In regard to two matters—the question of adoption and the question of inheritance of married women—I must submit there will be such a violent conflict with the notions of the Punjabis in these two matters

867 DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL that they will not be prepared to accept the provisions of the Hindu Code. Even if it is forced down their throats, I submit there will be such a revolution in the society—I said on the last occasion that there will be revolt; there will not be revolt because we are too strong. There will be revolt in our minds and we will certainly not accept a custom to be forced down our throats that we cannot digest. One effect of such a step will be that when the father dies, since you are giving the father the power to make his will in any manner be pleases, the result will be that there will be forced wills by virtue of which the daughter will be disinherited. I am not against the inheritance of the daughter as such. Where you can have it, where it is in consonance with the ideas of the people, have it by all means. There is nothing objectionable in it. But the only point is that it is not expedient to have it in some places where it is not wanted. In the Punjab the daughters do not enjoy such a position that you can say that they do not get anything. I know that in Madras and other places the daughters are not treated so favourably, perhaps, as in the Punjab. In the Punjab at the time of marriage so much is given to the daughter in dowry. If you go to any wedding function in the Punjab—to the rich man’s place—you will find the dowry consists of thousands of rupees. So far as self-acquired property of the father is concerned, since the last 50 years our High Courts have made a change. Before 1909 the daughter did not even get a share in the self-acquired property of her parents. Now if there is no son, the daughter succeeds to the self-acquired property among all the people. But I do regard that this is not sufficient justice with the women of our country. I want that so far as the unmarried girls are concerned they may get as good a share as the son does—I do not want to give her just a half. So far as the married daughter is concerned I want that she should be entitled to inheritance, along with her husband, to her father-in-law’s property. That is to say, as soon as a marriage is performed, the husband and wife must unite their properties also and you can frame rules by virtue of which a married lady gets full rights of property. I do not want that the ladies of this country should not get full rights, but I do not understand why a lady should get a right in her father-in-law’s property as well as in her father’s property. To that I object. I want that our notions of society and family should not be rudely shaken. At present, the son is the pivot of the family. He continues the family. The woman goes to another family and becomes

868 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES the nucleus of that family. Let this contiune. Unless and until our whole notion of society changes, my humble submission is that we should not change it abruptly, because this change will be great that ultimately the ladies will lose on both sides. At the time of marriage, the sons will say, “Why give her so much dowry ? She is going to get inheritance”. At the time of the inheritance, the father will fall on the lap of the sons and they will get some deed or will by which the daughter will be deprived. Both ways, the woman will get nothing. This will not be a fair way of treating women. When you ask us, the people to whom this Bill will apply, I would certainly submit that if you want to have this Code in such a manner that you do not respect our wishes and our customs which have been in existence for the last several centuries, if you want to create such a conflict, then ultimately we shall have to say, “ You kindly leave us to our own fate”. This is my humble submission. Though I am in favour of the good provisions of this Bill, I would very humbly request Dr. Ambedkar and those others who are very much in favour of it to kindly see that our wishes in this matter are respected and we are allowed to have such customs or such provisions of the law as the majority of the people in our particular province want. This is, in essence, what we have given an amendment about in regard to Part I of the Bill. Shri Tyagi : How will the majority view be obtained ? Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava : In the Punjab, the majority view is clear. You go to any village or town and ask any person who will be affected by the Bill; he will tell you exactly what I am submitting today. There is absolutely no difference of opinion, so far as Punjab is concerned. Therefore, my humble submission is that while you apply this law to Punjab—and I wish this law to be applied to Punjab— you apply it with these reservations. This law is not bad, it is entirely wrong to suggest that there is anything inherently wrong about it. There is nothing wrong about it. We have lived for so many centuries and we must repair the damage done to our nation. Therefore. I am entirely in support of this Bill, but if the notions and customs which are widely prevalent among the people and which are very delicate are upset, there will be such a great amount of litigation in the Hindu society. Every family in Punjab will be affected. There will be nothing but litigation. You are, in deference to public opinion bringing in a provision of the Partition Act. What will be the result ? On every

869 DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL death, the question will be : “ Let us see how we evaluate the property of the father”. The property will be evaluated and the sons will not have sufficient funds to buy off the daughter’s share and trouble will ensue. I am speaking from my experience as a lawyer for more than forty years. Pandit Krishna Chandra Sharma : You have been working in the criminal courts. Mr. Deputy Speaker : Hon. Members will address the Chair. Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava : I for one have very great regard for my friend, who is also a criminal lawyer. All the same, my notions of a criminal lawyer are quite different from his. I have been practising on the criminal side as well as the civil side, but I take pride in the fact that I am a criminal lawyer. At the same time, I do not go about with my eyes shut. If a criminal lawyer is true to the description which my friend has in mind, he should know what is passing on in society. As a criminal lawyer, my friend should know what is passing on in and around Meerut, and when I am speaking about Meerut—I do not know what my friend’s personal notions are—I know the conditions in Meerut and I know also that they are not very different from the conditions in Hissar and Rohtak. Therefore, when I speak for Punjab, I also speak for my Friend and Meerut side, because in olden times Meerut was a part of this side of the Punjab. Pandit Krishna Chandra Sharma : For my friend’s information, I may say that Hissar is famous for bulls while Meerut is famous for cows. Shri Tyagi : May I know what have bulls and cows to do with the Hindu Code ? Mr. Deputy Speaker : Hindu Code relates to marriage, you see. Shri Raj Bahadur : May I know whether cock and bull story is permitted in the House ? Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order please. Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava : When you refer to the question of marriage, I must submit that the introduction of the principles of civil marriage in this Hindu Code is another point which must be considered specially by this House. If this is a Hindu Code, why bring in the civil marriage ? I want that the provisions in regard to marriage may remain as they are. There is no use repeating them here. If you want to make a Hindu Code which will not apply to other people

870 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES like Musalmans etc. then do not bring in civil marriage here. If any Hindu wants to marry in that manner, he will marry according to the civil contract to which the Muslims, Christians and everybody has recourse. That is our joint Civil Code. Therefore, my humble opinion is that this affair of the civil marriage should not be included here. I do not want to refer to all the provisions of this Bill. I have spoken because I thought that we should at this stage define our attitude and tell Dr. Ambedkar what we feel about this Bill and what is perhaps the general feeling in the country. This Bill is not bad, and since we have decided that we should proceed with it, we may pass such provisions of the Bill as are good. In regard to those provisions. I do not want to stand in the way or adopt an attitude which smacks of dilatory tactics or which shows that we do not want the Bill to be passed. I want to make this point clear because it may be in the minds of many people that those persons who make long speeches do not, as a matter of fact, want this Bill to be passed. That is entirely wrong. So far as I am concerned. I want the Bill to be passed but I want those who are very much in favour of it to kindly see that such provisions are not passed as are in very great conflict with the notions and customs of the people. *Sardar Hukam Singh (Punjab) : Sir, I sympathise with the attitude of my hon. Friend Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava. What I understood him to say was that he wishes the Code to be passed but he does not wish that it should apply to him and the other people in his part of the country, Really, I have the same thing to say. I also wish that the Bill be passed, but that it should not be applied to me. I wish I could have made a similar motion and it should not have smacked of a particular community but what I found was that the application of the Code was not to certain territories but to certain communities. Therefore, I thought it fit to move this amendment that it should not apply to the Sikhs. Sir, I am not one of those who wish the society to stagnate. I believe in progress and I want to move with the times. I can claim that the Sikhs are a progressive section of the society. But why I do submit to the House that the Sikhs should be excluded from the application of this Code is because it contains certain provisions which are offensive to the customs and usages that we have been following for so many centuries. *P.D. Vol. VIII, Part II, 6th February 1951, pp. 2452-62.