DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL 393
not get votes. That question does not arise. We must be true to ourselves and to the constituency and people who have sent us.
So, I oppose this measure with all the emphasis at my command, and support the motion of my friend ‘Pandit’ Naziruddin Ahmad that the Bill may be circulated for public opinion.
- Shri H. Siddaveerappa (Mysore State) : I congratulate the Honourable the Law Minister for the very lucid expression of the speech he gave while moving this Motion. Sir, a lot has been said that this measure vitally affects the Hindu society. I come from a part of this country, namely Mysore, where some of the fundamental things, this measure wants to introduce, are already in force. We have, for instance, got the law of adoption as also the law regarding the daughter’s share, and several other things, though they are not on all fours with the present measure. But the principle is there. We have enacted a Bill as early as 1934, called the Hindu Women’s Rights Regulation and for the last fourteen years that Bill is law in Mysore, but we have not found there any general upheaval. There is not much litigation nor is there any disruption of the Hindu society as has been feared by some of the honourable Members here. As a matter of fact, by our experience we have come to understand that the measure which is now in force is not of the extent that is needed and another Committee has been formed with a view to see that there is further improvement in the existing measure.
It was said that the measure before the House affects the caste system or some other fundamental beliefs or principles of the Hindu society. Well, Sir, my reading of some of the Hindu literature is that if we study the Vidic period, that is from 2000-1400 B.C., and study the Hindu society then in existence, we do not see any of these four castes in the Hindu society then in existence. Every man born, according to his gitna or karma had to go through all the vamas or ashramas in his life time. A boy, until he attained the age of twenty, had to perform the household duties and obey his guru and do all the other acts that were assigned to him, and he was called a shudra. After the age of twenty he was allowed to be married and he had to take the responsibility of maintaining the family, then, according to the duty that was imposed on him he was called a vaishya. After he enjoyed life for some time and after he reached the age of 40 or so, when there was need for every man to defend the State, he had to do the duty of a kshatriya. After he attained a particular age, say 60, when
- C.A. (Leg.) D., Vol. II, Part II, 28th February 1949, pp. 953-56.