1032 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES
Shri Gadgil : I take a better view of my sisters than my hon. friend is prepared to concede. However, as my hon. friend said, the thing will be evident a few months hence. The point is that the legislature has pressed a number of statutes affecting Hindu life, Hindu marriage, divorce, in fact every aspect of the law. Therefore, we cannot say now that this Parliament has no right. The question whether this Parliament has a right or not. I have already answered. So far this Parliament has been considered to be competent enough to make a constitution for this country and it passes my comprehension to accept a proposition that this Parliament is incompetent to pass an ordinary law.
Pandit Maitra : The House was elected for giving a constitution.
Shri Gadgil : This very House passed the Constitution in which they passed the Chapter relating to transitory provisions. I do not think that my hon. friend Pandit Maitra objected then and said that this Parliament should have no right to govern from now till the new House comes into existence after the general elections.
Pandit Maitra : That is nobody’s case.
Shri Gadgil : I am glad. What is after all that is attempted to be done ? As I said 80 per cent, is merely a collection of the existing statutes either passed by the Central Legislature or passed by the State Legislature. Dr. Syama Prasad was very eloquent over Dharmic marriage. I do not think that the Code prevents it. There is free scope from the Dhushyanta Shakuntala type of marriage to Prithviraj Samyugita type of marriage, namely from Gandharva to the Rakshasa type and all the eight forms can be practised by any Member of this House or by the public outside. This Code does not prevent love-making, it does not prevent eloping with bride’s consent even against the consent of the parents. So far as eight forms of Hindu sacramental marriage are concerned, they are not affected in the least. What is the grievance ? Is it because the word ‘sacramental’ has been changed into Dharmic ? It was changed because all of us wished it; it conveys no meaning and therefore we said : let us take the word Dharmic which will fit in and convey some meaning, and that is why ‘ Dharmic’ was used.
An Hon. Member : It is a misnomer.
Shri Gadgil : My hon. friend Dr. Syama Prasad was very eloquent over the conception of Hindu ‘marriage’. Those noble sentiments I personally share. Marriage is something more than mere union of bodies, it is a co-partnership ; it is joint endeavour for spiritual uplift;