1036 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES
more than one wife is again public morality, I think, we must agree to monogamy. Monogamy in the first attempt at rationing in the social sphere so far. It is necessary in the highest interests of the community, in the highest interests of individual happiness that there must be monogamy and I have not the slightest doubt that the progressive elements in the Muslim community will accept it immediately. If the non-progressive does not accept it, it will equally be the duty of the Government to enforce it. I have no doubt about that, and if I ever am in that government, be assured that I will do my best to enforce it. That is so far as my personal attitude is concerned. My point is, if that is Amrit, because it is not taken by somebody else, does it become poison ? I think this is an insult to the intellectual greatness of this House to argue on these lines.
Coming to the question of divorce, nobody argues that every married couple should go for a divorce. At the same time, if it is the duty of the State to see that there is less of social tension, and efforts are made to create an atmosphere in which every individual will have the right to have maximum satisfaction and happiness, then, it is the duty of the State to create conditions for having judicial institutions or legal institutions of that character. Eighty percent, or more in this country have something like customary divorce. They are not worried. But, in the five per cent, or ten per cent, or whatever the percentage may be, on account of marriage conditions or on account of several other factors,—probably the modern woman is more intellectual—if she for one reason or another finds that it is not possible to live with a man whom she has married, then, marriage should not be a life sentence. It should not be that there will be no happiness unless one of them dies. No doubt, such cases may be few but the exceptions are there. Therefore, there must be some provision made for the same. You may make it strict; you may not make it as cheap as in the West, but speaking for myself, this is the most orthodox and reactionary law that you are laying down. Left to myself. I would have said that incompatibility of temper was enough ground to dissolve the marriage. After all, what is the assumption under the provisions for divorce ? It is that the parties cannot be happy. Should they go through this tortuous process of adultery or alleged adultery or cruelty or desertion ? What is the idea ? Should they always go to a hotel and have evidence of hotel bills, etc.? I think it must be a straight and honest and genuine affair that those who cannot agree, let them part. That will secure maximum happiness. People think