DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL 1035
he decided that his sons should have only one. That only shows how things progress.
An hon. Member : Was there divorce ?
Shri Gadgil : There was that custom.
नष्टे मृते प्रव्रजिने क्लीबेच पतिते पतौ । पतिरन्यत् विधीयते ।
[When the husband is lost, dies, goes to another land, becomes impotent or morally degenerate, another one is allowed.]
This proves it.
Dr. Syama Prasad Mookerjee’s argument was that if it is good, let it be made applicable also to the Muslim community. I have no doubt that the Government either this or the Government that will come in . power after the General Elections will not shirk to bring in a measure of that kind in which this particular law will be applicable to every one irrespective of religion.
Some hon. Members : Why not now ?
Shri Gadgil : As a matter of fact, I know that in Bombay, when the bill for Monogamy was under discussion, the same line of criticism which was adopted by Dr. Mookerjee yesterday, was taken by many a Member in the Bombay Legislative Assembly. I remember that the Government of Bombay stated through their Minister that a Bill of that character would be welcome. Dr. Syama Prasad Mookerjee somehow or other thinks that this Government is nervous and may not bring some thing which may offend the Muslim community. I ask him just to consider if 90 per cent, of the people in this country, who are Hindus, agree to this measure, will it or will it not strengthen the hands of the Government to pass a legislation for the remaining ten per cent ? By accepting this, you will strengthen the hands of Government. I might here mention one instance which I am sure you will recall: not you particularly. In 1930, when the first Child Marriage Restraint Bill was under consideration, to which subsequent amendments were moved by my hon. friend Mr. B. Das in 1936, when the original Bill was under discussion in this very Hall. Mr. Jinnah supported it, although the rest of the Mohammedan leaders who were Members here opposed it, on the ground that it was interference with the personal law of the Muslim community. His words are, if there is a conflict between religion and public morality, the latter shall prevail, Mullahas or no Mullahas. You can find this out from the reports of the Legislative Assembly proceedings that this was his stand. If we are convinced that to have