622 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES
six months, if nothing took place divorce is automatically granted. This provision is simple and from clause 51 of the Bill it is clear that it has attracted the attention of the framers of the Bill because this provision for divorce is found retained in the Bill. But I do not know why the benefit of this provision is not extended to all other Hindus.
The provision for dissolution of marriage has infuriated some of the members of this House. Even though the provision for divorce has been in existence in Malabar since 1932, I believe, not even a dozen divorces would have actually taken place. This proves the truth of the statement made by a learned author—I mean Bertrand Rusel—that “the easiest divorce laws by no means produce the greatest number of divorces ; wherever there is divorce, adultery is scarce and morality is higher”.
Coming to adoption, the provisions contained in this Bill are very unsatisfactory when compared to what prevail in our part of the country.
According to this Bill, adoption is a religious matter, but among the Marumakkattayam people it is a purely secular matter. Under the Hindu Code only a male or his widow could adopt a person, but according to our law any person, whether male or female, could adopt a person. Whereas only a male could be adopted under Hindu Law, males or females could be adopted under our law. Whereas only one person could be adopted under Hindu Law, we can adopt one person, two persons or even one whole family, at the time of extinction of our family or as heirs to our property. So there is a lot of difference between the Hindu Law and the Marumakkattayam Law in this respect. The reason why these things have not been taken into consideration in framing the Bill is, according to me, that the whole perspective has been entirely patriarchal and not matriarchal also. If that point of view also had been taken into consideration then many of these differences could have been resolved or reduced.
In regard to joint family property, the substitution of tenancy-incommon for joint tenancy is one of the most important features in the Bill. I welcome this provision. But this part of the law again has been framed from the patriarchal point of view only. Read any clause under Part V—I am not going to trouble the House but I only wish to bring it to the notice of the Hon. the Law Minister—read any clause in part V and you will find that it is inapplicable to the Marumakkattayam people, though the Hindu Code Bill is intended to apply to them also.