DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL 1137
five and seven and the second saying that it may be three and five, must be reconciled and an interpretation—an infallible, unquestionable interpretation must be there. An interpretation has to be found which is unquestionable and incontroverible. Otherwise the Smriti does not remain a Smriti. Paithinisi is among the Smritis. If we will only look for it we will find that we have in the Smriti Sangrah, we have in the Nibandhakaras a clear interpretation of this difference which lays down, and not only lays down but proves—it will take me time if I went into it, therefore I will not—but it is proved that this provision in the Paithinisi is not applicable to all people, it is not applicable to the aurasa and the others. In their case the seven and the five apply, and this variant of five and three can only apply to Dattaka putras or to Sapatni matas. That is how the Mimamsa Shastra reconciles these two.
I took this instance to show that there is a clear way of interpreting the Shastras. If we want to go according to the Shastras we must go accordingly and we will find no sanction for deviating from the seven and the five degrees of Sapinda prohibition for marriage.
Similarly, I will take another question. A member read out with a certain amount of righteous satisfaction and vehemence that in the Smritis themselves we have provisions for the marriage of once-married women. The well-known Narada Smriti and Parashara text was read out by an hon. friend of mine—here he is—and he said that the Smritis themselves have said that a woman may be married a second time. I can see some friends feeling satisfied about it. This is a tragic matter, for this reason that the meaning of that sloka becomes perverted if it is interpreted to mean that it relates to a married couple. I hope Members will not think that I am talking in the air. ( An Hon. Member : No, no ). The line is very simple:
नष्टे मृते प्रव्रजिने, क्लीबे च पतिते पतौ।
प=चस्वापत्सु नारीणां, पतिरन्यो विधीयते।
It is allowed at disappearance, demise, reclusion, impotency and sinfulness of the husband.
As it looks it is very simple. In the case of these and these and these ‘husbands’, these friends think, another husband is provided. But I wish Members of the House kindly to devote their mind to this. The simple rules of Vyakarana come into this question.
An hon. friend says Vyakarna Padhao and one may feel tempted to play the pedagogue to so distinguished a class, but I shall resist