DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL 35
*** Shri Rohini Kumar Chaudhuri** (Assam : General): Sir, I think I must congratulate the Honourable Minister-in-charge of this Bill. He must have greatly liked this hour of the day when he has received so much ovation from certain sections of the House. But, I think, I should not be considered to be criticising in a wrong spirit when I say that the title of this Bill is a misnomer; it is not a Hindu Code but it should more appropriately have been called a Hindu Women’s Code. Sir, I do not understand why only three or four days after we passed the Resolution about having a secular Government and stopping of communal organisations we should have gone out of our way to legislate in such a hasty manner only for a particular community. After having decided to eschew all communal organisations I should like to know why we should not have been given time to think out and draw up a piece of legislation which would include all subjects of the State, Hindu, Muslim, Christian, etc. If the Honourable Minister is not led away by fair influences in this House, I think it is not yet too late to withdraw this Bill and if he withdraws it with a promise to bring in a more comprehensive Bill at a later date, his action in so withdrawing would have greater merit than the withdrawal which he made a few minutes ago. I know that some women of our country are very anxious to snatch away a portion of inheritance from their brothers; I know some influential women of this country are anxious to put an end to marriages to which they were unwillingly led and which they have found unbearable. It is also perhaps a fact that some educated and progressive ladies of our country who cannot think of polygamy of any kind are now anxious to have legislation for the removal of these things. By enacting this Hindu Code you are revolutionising the whole structure of Hindu life and law and custom. But for whom are you doing it and who is going to be benefited by it? The large mass of people who depend on agriculture and agricultral property are outside the pale of this legislation. Are the poorer Hindus in our villages clamouring for divorce? Are they clamouring for properties to be got from their parents? Not at all. You want this legislation for what you call the enlightened section of our people, men and women. It is for the rich man who gave his daughter in marriage to a poor man who hoped to give his wife some
- C.A. (Leg.) D., Vol. IV, 9th April 1948, pp. 3648-50.