708 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES
provisions of Hindu law, because it is a matter of a time honoured religion which has come to us through centuries and that it is only a Pandit Parishad which will be competent to effect any change. I submit with great humility that is a position which cannot be accepted for a single minute. Hindu law, as has been pointed out by Sir Alladi Krishanaswami Ayyar and others, has never been static. It has changed from time to time. Each time when the structure of society changed a smritikar appeared—a sage, a rishi, a muni—and he made such modifications as were suited to the times. This process went on for centuries until the country came under British rule. During this period, the only changes that could be made in the law were either by judges who were to interpret the law or by the legislature. No new sage could appear with the authority of a Manu or a Yagnavalkya or a Viswamitra. Either the judges who were duty bound to interpret the law as they found it in the smritis or nibandas could interpret it or the legislature had to intervene. It is idle therefore to contend in the year 1949 that the legislature is not competent because it consists of all types of people who are not learned in the smritis. That is a argument which I submit, should be rejected forthwith. If you see the course of events that the legislatures of this country have followed for more than a century, you will find that whenever it was found that the Hindu law or any branch of it was found to be defective, legislation was introduced. It began with the Removal of Sati Act in 1829 under the guidance of late Ram Mohan Roy The custom of sati which was considered to be a part of Hindu religion, but which was not really a part of it and which was an abuse, if I may say so, of the principles of religion, had to be done away with and for that purpose legislation was introduced as far back as 1829.
Mr. Deputy Speaker : There is too much of whispering going on. The reporters are unable to take notes. I am also not able to hear.
Sjt. Rohini Kumar Chaudhari : The Speaker’s voice is indistinct. He has got two mikes close to each other. We do not hear him properly either.
Mr. Deputy Speaker : He is speaking before the phone. Each seat has been converted into a small phone. What am I to do?
The Honourable Member will kindly resume after Lunch. The House is adjourned till 2.30 p.m.
Shri A. Thanu Pillai (United State of Travancore and Cochin): May I make a suggestion ? (Interruption). My point is this.