The Hindu Code Bill (New Delhi, May 1955) J.B. KRIPALANI (1888–1982)

The Hindu Code Bill (New Delhi, May 1955)
J.B. KRIPALANI (1888–1982)

Despite the promise of a uniform civil code in Article 44 of the Indian
Constitution, Nehru began his project of reforming Indian society by trying
to codify only Hindu rituals and customs. e process had already begun in
the Constituent Assembly and a select committee had been formed to draft
a new Hindu code as it was felt that its social practices needed to be
systematized. However, the recommendations of the committee could not
be made into law because of opposition to it from Hindu orthodox
elements. e debate began again in the Lok Sabha when the Hindu Code
Bill was introduced. J.B. Kripalani, the socialist leader, was critical of Nehru
for bringing only Hindu society within the ambit of reform. He did not buy
Nehru’s argument that Muslims were not ready for reform. In this speech,
Kripalani chose to raise another fundamental point—he objected to the fact
that the bill’s reforms were based on scriptures rather than on sociological
analysis. e speech is also striking for its eccentricity—Kripalani made the
point that Indian women were not oppressed by their husbands but by their
mothers-in-law and the joint family system, and the even more bizarre
point that the right of divorce should only be given to women. But for all its
irrationality the speech remains a lively one, evidence of the range of ideas
that were thrown up in Parliament in the first years of its existence. More
importantly Kripalani’s point still holds. Even today India does not have a
uniform civil code.

MAIN SPEECH

I know that the Bill will be passed and whatever I say will have no effect,

because, as I have listened to the discussion, I have felt that people are

guided in this matter more by passion than by reason. On one side it is said

h h h f f h B ll d H d h h

that those who are in favour of the Bill are not good Hindus; on the other

side, those who support the Bill, say that those who are against it are

orthodox. Both sides quote scriptures against each other. Not only that,

those who are in favour of the Bill are supposed to be very advanced,

modern and those who are against are supposed to be reactionaries, as if the

whole of the Catholic world was reactionary and was not advanced enough.

I am sorry that the Law Minister did not throw much light upon the

question. He talked of scriptures and because scriptures are conflicting,

nothing could be deduced from them. Can anything be deduced from

psychological and sociological studies in the West? He said, no—that

cannot be done. You cannot follow America, where investigations in this

matter have been carefully carried on, because America is not India. I have

very great respect for the Law Minister; but I am sorry he styled the

sociological studies in America about divorce to be as good as Miss Mayo’s

description of India.

(Shri Pataskar: I referred to only one particular pamphlet).

I have read that pamphlet and I think it contains sociological investigation

which cannot be compared with Miss Mayo’s book. is is doing a great

injustice to scientific investigation. What I contend is that social change

through legislation in our country cannot be based on the scriptures, nor

can it be based on custom, nor on sociological studies in other countries.

On what should it then be based? I submit, Sir, that it must be based on

sociological studies carried out here, in our country. What are the existing

conditions in the country? I am afraid the Law Minister did not throw any

light upon the conditions as they exist in our villages; because the majority

of the population lives in the villages. We may not think of conditions as

they exist in the eyes of a few highly educated women.

(Shri N.C. Chatterjee [Hooghly]: e house is divided).

Whether the house is divided or not, it is a question of observation. e

question is not whether Mr Chatterjee’s house is divided or united; the

question is about sociological facts and studies. What are the facts? What

does its law provide for? It provides for equality of women. at women are

treated unequally and tyrannically by men, I submit, is not a fact, so far as

Hindu society in the higher castes is concerned. So far as the lower castes

are concerned, sometimes the husband beats the wife and sometimes the

f b h h b d B h h h I b h

wife beats the husband. But in the higher castes, I submit that our marriage

system, our social system has not worked any great hardship on women.

(Shri N.C. Chatterjee: We are the oppressed).

I do not know whether we are the oppressed or depressed. But what I know

is that compared with other countries in the world, our women have not

fared worse. is is very clear from the fact that as soon as Mahatma

Gandhi gave the call, our women came forth in large numbers and fought

for freedom. Slaves, I submit, do not fight for freedom. It is the free people

who fight for freedom. Our women had freedom at home. ey managed

the household affairs without anybody interfering with them. Women from

very orthodox families, from very reactionary families and from families of

jo-hukums who were afraid of the foreign government freely responded to

the call of the independence movement. Were these women slaves? ey

did not care for their husbands; they did not care for their fathers; they did

not care for their brothers. eir relatives were in government service and

yet they came out to take part in the freedom movement. erefore to

consider that Hindu society has always suppressed women is not correct. It

is to the credit of Hindu society that it has treated women with great

consideration.

Some people think that woman means only the wife, as if mother is not a

woman, as if sister is not a woman. I say that there is no country in the

world where there is greater respect today for the mother. ere is no

country in the world where more love is shown to the sister than in India.

To concentrate our attention only on young ladies is not really very

sociological. If you are talking of women in general, then I think we respect

women as much as people in any other country, if not more.

ere is yet another thing. In society you cannot make a law which would

do equal justice to everybody. I realize that in many cases our women have

suffered very great injustice. Where from does this injustice come? I tell you

in ninety cases out of hundred, it comes from the mother-in-law. It does

not come from the young husband. Sometimes a young husband has to

suffer because he sees his wife being ill-treated by the mother-in-law. e

mother-in-law is a terror not only to the daughter-in-law, but also to the

son-in-law. I do not know any son-in-law who is not afraid of his mother

in-law. Even when the husband proves to be tyrannical, if you investigate

into the case properly, you will find that it is the mother-in-law who has

d h S h f A

excited the young man. So, woman is the greatest enemy of woman. Again

if there is a scandal against a woman, women will advertise it more than

men. Woman’s judgment will be harsher than the man’s judgment.

(Shri N.C. Chatterjee: Long live Acharyaji!)

However the tyranny over woman is really the tyranny of the joint family.

Hindu society is based on the joint family. Some people think they have left

the joint family. I affirm that they have not yet got rid of the joint family.

e nepotism of which we have heard so much is a proof of the vitality of

the joint family. It is practised by people who do not live in the joint family;

yet the joint family sticks to them, and that joint family is not only the

paternal family but includes the sala and the sala’s cousins. If you examine

cases of nepotism, the sala and the other such in-laws have got a more

privileged position than even the paternal relations. is shows the subtle

influence of women.

Let us see if this joint family system has certain advantages which it gives to

the young bride. I believe that for all its tyranny, it gives to the young lady

certain advantages. What are these advantages? Supposing the young man

is not earning? Who supports the family? Who supports the children? It is

the joint family. Not only that. Supposing the young woman goes astray?

e mother-in-law may give her pin-pricks at home, but outside the home

the mother-in-law stands by the young lady. Why does she stand by the

young lady even if she goes wrong? Because it is the izzat of the family; the

family honour is involved. e mother-in-law would not allow anybody to

say anything against her daughter-in-law, because that would involve the

reputation of the whole family. So, the young lady is protected; she is

supported; the children are supported. And we have experience of it in our

life—I do not know why the Congress people have forgotten this. When we

went to jail who took care of our wives and children? e family took care

of them. We take pride that we sacrificed for the country. It was in fact the

family that sacrificed. Our fathers did not agree with us; our mothers did

not agree with us. Some of our relatives were government servants. ey

had no sympathy with our ideal of freedom. Yet when we went to jail, they

supported our families. In 1942 when there was an underground movement,

to whom did we go for shelter? We went to our relations. ey were

trembling; they were afraid; they did not want to protect us. But because we

belonged to the family, they came to our help. If we had not belonged to the

f l h ld h ll d l l h

family, they would never have allowed us to conceal ourselves in their

houses. Because we belonged to the family they gave us refuge.

erefore, let us not forget that here where the state does not protect the

individual it is the joint family that comes to his help. It is insurance against

unemployment. Read the figures given in the census report. How many

unemployed are there in India? How few people are employed in the

villages? But what do we find? If in any other country there was such

colossal unemployment as here, people would die of starvation. But what

happens here? People do not die of starvation, even though there is no

unemployment dole because the joint family comes to their rescue.

You have not provided for any social insurance for the people and you want

to take away the joint family system. e joint family is insurance against

sickness, against unemployment, against old age and even against the

badmashi of the young, whether male or female. Nobody is going to

repudiate a member of a joint family, even if he is anti-social. In India we

judge a man who is a member of the family by one standard; and our

standard is quite different when we judge a man outside the family. Let us

recognize facts. You may have divorce if you like. But as long as you want to

enjoy the benefits of the joint family, you must be prepared for the

curtailment of your liberties by the joint family. You cannot have the cake

and eat it too. Here we find people who want the cake and eat it too. Here

is a government which refuses to provide facilities to individual men and

women and yet wants to talk of equality. ere can be no equality in a joint

family. e joint family is a hierarchy; there is the father of the family; there

is the mother; afterwards the elder brother. When the father dies the elder

brother takes care of the children in the family. He feeds them, he sees to

their education, he thinks they are his own children. How can you do things

thoughtlessly, without taking into consideration social facts? I am no

advocate of the joint family system. I have never lived in a joint family; I

would hate to live in a joint family. But the fact is that the majority of our

people live in the joint family. I would hate to indulge in nepotism because

my brother-in-law, cousin-in-law, neighbour-in-law or villager-in-law,

wants a job. I would not do it. It is hateful. But it is there; you cannot help

it. It is created by the joint family tie.

en again, we are a democracy. Let us judge this measure from the point

of view of democracy. What is democracy? Is this measure democratic? Can

h l Wh h f d I l

we honestly say it is? What is the meaning of democracy? It contemplates

two fundamental conditions. Democracy means the will of the majority, not

only the will of the majority, but the proposed measure must be discussed by

the masses of the people.

Democracy does not mean only majority but you must have canvassed the

opinion of the masses also. ere is another condition. Democracy means

that a measure is not considered as immoral by a large section of the people.

I do not say that this measure is immoral. But the psychological effect upon

the people would be bad if they consider a measure to be immoral; it would

create a wrong mentality. Considering it from this point of view, it is my

opinion—my sisters may disagreee with me—that the majority of Hindu

women even are not in favour of divorce. at is my view—I may be

mistaken. I have gone about the country and I think that mine is the proper

assessment of the situation.

Even so, I suppose a government has a right to reform society by enacting

legislation ahead of the times, ahead of public opinion. Such a right may

not be quite democratic, but it is a moral right. is Bill consists of three

main principles. First is monogamy; then inter-caste marriage; the third is

divorce. So far as monogamy is concerned, the measure is perfectly

democratic, because public opinion is for it. It has been trained through

centuries in that direction. So far as inter-caste marriage is concerned, I

think public opinion is that today there should be no bar to inter-caste

marriages among the Hindus. Both these propositions are approved even by

those who are called reactionaries, the Hindu Mahasabhites.

(Shri N.C. Chatterjee: We are not reactionaries).

You may not be reactionaries; but I take you to be reactionaries. We call our

state a secular state. A secular state goes neither by scriptures nor by custom.

It must work on sociological and political grounds. If we are a democratic

state, I submit we must make laws not for one community alone. Today the

Hindu community is not as much prepared for divorce as the Muslim

community is for monogamy. You see what has happened in Pakistan. e

Prime Minister of that country has married again. It is not the Hindu

women or the Indian women but the Pakistani Muslim women who have

condemned this. Will our government introduce a Bill for monogamy for

the Muslim community? Will my dear Law Minister apply the part about

monogamy to every community in India?

(A H M b H bl h )

(An Hon. Member: He is blushing).

I tell you this is the democratic way; the other is the communal way. It is

not the Mahasabhites who alone are communal; it is the government also

that is communal, whatever it may say. It is passing a communal measure.

You shall be known from your acts, not from your profession. You have

deluded the world so often with words. I charge you with communalism

because you are bringing forward a law about monogamy only for the

Hindu community. You must bring it also for the Muslim community. Take

it from me that the Muslim community is prepared to have it but you are

not brave enough to do it. It is not the Hindu voice that is being raised but

it is the Muslim voice that is being raised against the Prime Minister of

Pakistan for having married a second wife. If you want to have for the

Hindu community divorce, have it; but have it for the Catholic community

also. You can call the Catholic community reactionary because it does not

believe in divorce. But it is, throughout the world, a very progressive

community; I believe that Catholicism has shown more vigour and vitality

than Protestantism. Unfortunately, we were ruled by the English people and

our ideas of progress are Protestant ideas of progress. Protestant society is

not the only progressive society in the world! One thing more and I will

have done. Is the divorce law going to benefit our women? I have read the

notes of Mrs Renuka Ray…

(Shrimati Renu Chakravartty: Not Renuka Ray).

(An Hon. Member: Renu Chakravartty)

I am sorry. I have read the notes of Mrs Renu Chakravartty and another

lady from the Upper House, with regard to the question of restitution of

conjugal rights. When it is a question of restitution of conjugal rights, when

it is a question of alimony, they tell us that our women are not advanced,

they will be cheated by men and that they will be put at a disadvantage. e

men will have the advantage because, they are more clever and resourceful

than women.

en let us not forget that in all the higher castes there is the system of

dowry; and, sometimes, this dowry goes up to Rs. 50,000 or Rs. 60,000.

e husband will bring about such conditions and he will bring about such

evidence that he can get divorce from his wife and swallow the money that

he got as dowry, and marry again and get fresh dowry. Our women are not

economically independent. Where will they go, especially if they have a

h ld Wh ll h h Al ll l l d

child or two? What will happen to them? Alimony will not last long and

will not support them for ever. Do you think that a divorced woman will get

a husband in India? It may be that some Doctor of Science or Literature or

some highly educated woman may get a second husband. But, the average

Indian woman will not get a second husband. If she is divorced she will

have to wander from pillar to post before she can get a second husband.

(Shrimati Renu Chakravartty: Is it absolutely necessary?)

Even khana here becomes jhuta if you touch it. Who is going to have a

marriage with a non-maiden? Our society is like that, not that I like it. I do

not believe in these things and I believe I have been progressive enough. My

marriage is a civil marriage and not a ‘criminal’ marriage. But, I am not

thinking of myself. If I were thinking of myself, it would be all right. We

are legislating for the country. I would want everybody to go in for civil

marriage and not go in for a ‘criminal’ marriage. But what can I do? Society

won’t move. ese so-called idiots, our countrymen won’t move; what can

one do? I do not think in terms of caste; I do not think in terms of province;

I think in terms of men and women. In our marriage the two of us agreed

and we had the civil marriage. We paid Rs. 5 as fee and everything was

done. I want marriage to be like that. But, under present conditions, I say, if

you want to pass a divorce law, give the right of divorce to woman only but

never to men. I have no objection to our women getting this right. Let

them be superior to us; they have always been superior to us. I am not

ashamed that I am mismanaged by my wife. It is a fact; why should I be

afraid of telling the truth?

(Shri A.M. omas [Ernakulam]: May I enquire whether there can be any

personal aspersion like this?)

It is a personal aspersion on myself. Let us have a divorce law. Let only

women have the right to divorce till there is economic equality, till we have

provided social security for people and have destroyed the joint family

system. Unless we do this, I am afraid, women will be the greatest sufferers.

I say this because I believe that I am a friend of women and not their

opponent. I do not want them to be suppressed.

(Pandit Balkrishna Sharma [Kanpur Distt.—South cum Etawah Distt.—

East]: A lady’s man.)

Whatever you may call me, there are in this respect better men in the

Congress than myself, and unfortunately, they are supporting this Bill.