1140 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES
Mr. Deputy Speaker : Whatever is intended by the provisions one must correspond with the other one.
Pandit Malaviya : How can it, Sir, when the very purpose is different. The beauty of Sanskrit language is that it expresses in a word what it takes a sentence to say in another language. That is the beauty of Sanskrit language. If a sentence says “If mango is not available, then guavas may be taken” we cannot say that mango and guava must be one and the same.
Mr. Deputy Speaker : There cannot be a comparison between two absolutely uncorrelated matters. If Anyo is used that word or the other must relate to the same category. If in the one case it is not marriage, in the other case also it is not marriage. If it is marriage in one case, it is marriage in another case. Both of them are understood to be the marriage of the husband.
Pandit Malaviya : We cannot change the meaning of words .........
Shri B. K. P. Sinha (Bihar) : On a point of order, Sir, I find that all these discussions are academic. The words Pati and Patyau are used in this shloka and not Patau.
Pandit Malaviya: That must be a wrong print. I am not saying it lightheartedly. The original test is Patau. The very chauda .........
Mr. Deputy Speaker : Patite Patyau must be wrong because it should be guru. The prosody will come in the way of this Pati and Patau are different. Apparently it is wrong.
Pandit Malaviya: It is obvious that it cannot be Patyau. What I wished to submit was that this rock upon which that edifice stands does not exist at all and the meaning of the word used is not husband ; it is not Patyau but it is only one who is on the point of becoming a husband, Patau. There is thus nothing in the Shastras to suggest that a married Hindu woman could marry again.
I do not want to take much time of the House. I had many things to say. But, in view of what I referred to, I do not wish to go against the wishes of those whose wishes and words are law for us. I, therefore, do not wish to take much more time, much though I would have liked to say many things. By these two examples I have tried to show how completely fallacious are the grounds on which the Hindu Code is proceeding.
I will conclude by mentioning one thing more. In Hindu society from time immemorial, laws have prevailed without the authority of