DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL 807
By my amendment I want to reform what is Hindu religion. I want to reform Hinduism by widening its scope to all those persons who are citizens of India, including Christians, Parsis, Jews, etc.
Now, Sir, what is Hindu law ? Hindu law is said to be based on Shruti and Smriti, that is Vedas. Further it is said that that is not the only source. The other source is the enactment by proper legislature or proper authority. So, let us say that enactment plus Vedas is equal to Hindu law. If X represents Shruti and Smriti and Y represents enactment, Hindu law is equal to X plus Y. The value of X in the beginning was 100 and that of Y zero. But as time went on encroachments were made by enactments one by one with the result that the position was completely changed.
The very basis of the Hindu religion is the caste system and secondly the particular way in which marriage is held. It is held to be sacred ; it is held to be sacramental and therefore it is said to be indissoluble. It cannot be dissolved. There cannot be a divorce according to the strict Sanatana Vedic Dharma as practised by orthodox Hindus. But one by one these fundamentals are being removed. For instance, divorce is allowed . In certain cases castes have been totally ignored and in this Bill it has been said that there will be no caste. So this Bill takes away the whole basis of ‘Hinduism’ according to the Sanatana Vedic Dharma. What this Bill seeks to do is that whereas previously X was hundred and Y was zero and the total was hundred, X is sought to be reduced to zero and Y raised to hundred. They are exactly reversing the position. While once the Shruti and Smriti was the whole source and enactment nil, now the enactment would be the whole source and Shruti and Smriti nil. Therefore, what I am now saying is that instead of giving this benefit only to those who are Sanatana Vedic Dharmas it should be extended to all. That would be doing on the professed lines of the Bill. My object is to give equality to all persons who are inside the limits of India. I am neither partial to the Hindus, nor to Sikhs, nor to anybody else.
It may perhaps be pointed out that I am trying to extend the scope of the Bill to persons who were not examined; for instance, Christians and Parsis were not examined, and that it would be unfair. My answer is that it would be unfair to include the Sikhs either because they were not examined. So, in point of fairness there is not much to choose between the provisions of the original Bill and the amendment which I am seeking to move. The logical course would be to examine those