DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL 667
*Dr. B. Pattabhi Sitaramayya (Madras : General) : Sir, the moment I rise before you I hear certain utterances from friends. Some say “Support; others say “Oppose.”
Shri B. L. Sondhi (East Punjab : General) : You will do both.
Dr. B. Pattabhi Sitaramayya : Perhaps I am doing both, because on a matter like this it is our duty not to be dogmatic. Only great men and fools are dogmatic and I disclaim being either. It is much better to string our thoughts with the thoughts of others and try to evolve a G.C.M., a thing which we learnt in our early days of arithmetic,—the greatest common measure of agreement upon such vital questions as the structure and functioning of society, which is a living organism and not a dead joint stock company with its own memoranda, and articles of association which are liable to be changed any day by paying three rupees to the Registrar. This society which we have inherited and of which we are proud to call ourselves members has been in existence for perhaps thousands of years.
Babu Ramnarayan Singh (Bihar : General): Since the creation.
Dr. B. Pattabhi Sitaramayya : Nobody knows when it started. At least I can say from the evidence that we have before us in Kautilya’s Artha Shastra that this had attained its prefection 2300 years ago. The same problems of marriage, of crime, of punishment, of psychological complications, of political puzzles, that were treated by Kautilya in his Artha Shastra are before me to day without one iota of change. I would ask friends who have not read that book to read it. Read the Sukra Nithi Sara : read the other political works of our ancient Hindu law.
Shri L. Krishnaswami Bharathi : Kautilya’s Artha Shastra is not unfortunately available.
Dr. B. Pattabhi Sitaramayya : It is quite available for those who have a mind to get it.
Shri L. Krishnaswami Bharathi : But I have tried my level best.
Dr. B. Pattabhi Sitaramayya : I would therefore, urge the House to look into the antecedents and the conditions of progress and conditions of evolution which have characterised the changes in what we call the “Hindu society”. I do not say that we should be proud of Hindu society and Hindu culture, but after all what is called Indian culture is largely Hindu culture and what is called Indian society is largely Hindu society, and if other people have come and mixed with
*C.A. (Leg.) D., Vol. VI, Part II, 13th December 1949, pp. 543-52.