Hindu Code Bill And Ambedkar
"I measure the progress of a community by the degree of progress which women have achieved." ~ Dr B.R Ambedkar.
The Hindu code bill was introduced in the Constituent Assembly on 11 April 1947 and was referred by a select committee on 9 April 1948, after 4 years of deliberations, it remained inconclusive. This was probably the longest debate on any single bill in the independent Indian Parliament.
The Congress was not eager to clarify the Hindu Code bill and because of this Ambedkar resigned from the cabinet on 27 September 1951
What was the need of a codified bill?
The bill itself was an immense exodus from Hinduism and its humiliating set of gender laws. Until then, "Hindu law" was also casually interpreted through the oral reading of various contents from the Vedas, Smritis and Puranas. There was no real codification or uniformity, and women's lives were often in the hands of Hindu male interpreters. It can be said that in Hinduism there were two laws regarding inheritance, marriage, adoption etc. which are "Mitakshra" and "Dayabhaga".
In the Mitakshra legal state, a man's property is not individual property, while it belongs to the co-owners (shared ownership of the male line), in other words as father, son, grandson and great-grandson, only from their birth. Whereas in the Dayabhaga set of law, ownership of property has its individual character - that is, whoever inherits property from his ancestors has an absolute right to that property. This last element of the laws was adopted in the Hindu Code Bill by Ambedkar, and efforts were made to make it common law by adapting it to the needs of modern times.
Even in Dayabhaga , there was discrimination between female heirs based on their status, whether they were married or unmarried and whether they had children or not. The Hindu Code Bill further proposed to remove this discrimination. Ambedkar placed the widow, daughter and widow of the deceased son in the same place. To restore the equality of the sexes, a daughter's share, like that of a son, was prescribed both in her father's property and in her husband's property.
She became an equal heir as son, widow, widow of a deceased son, son of a deceased son of a deceased son and widow of a deceased son of a deceased son. Notably, Ambedkar brought absolute equality between son and daughter when he said that "the son also gets an equal share of the mother's property, even in Stridhana (defined in Hindu law as wealth women receive as gifts from relatives)".
Fight for equality
Ambedkar's main concern for the status of women is reflected in the Hindu Code Bill. He even noted that his work on the Hindu Code Bill would be as important as his work on the Constitution itself.
The overall mission reflects strategic move to fight against the 'graded inequality. Dr. Ambedkar had assured that campaign would be effective by inclusion and from within than isolation or from outside, provided it would lead to respectable reformation .
"To leave inequality between class and class , between sex and sex , which is the soul of Hindu society untouched and to go on passing legislation relating to economic problems is to make a farce of our constitution and to build a palace on a dung heap" ~ Ambedkar.
Objectives of Hindu Code Bill.
Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, the chairman of the Hindu Code Bill, had several key objectives in mind when advocating for and drafting the Hindu Code Bills in the 1950s.
1) Gender Equality: One of the primary objectives of the Hindu Code Bill was to promote gender equality within Hindu society. Ambedkar sought to eliminate discriminatory practices against women, such as unequal inheritance rights, limited property rights, and restrictions on marriage and divorce.
2) Social Justice: Another important goal was to ensure social justice by reforming laws related to marriage, inheritance, adoption, and guardianship. The Hindu Code Bills aimed to provide equal rights and opportunities for all individuals within the Hindu community, irrespective of their gender or social status.
3) Modernization of Laws: Ambedkar envisioned modernizing Hindu personal laws to align them with contemporary principles of justice, equality, and individual rights. By introducing reforms through the Hindu Code Bills, he aimed to bring about a more progressive legal framework that reflected the changing societal norms and values
4) Elimination of Caste Discrimination: The Hindu Code Bills also aimed at reducing caste-based discrimination by promoting uniformity in personal laws across different caste groups. By standardizing legal provisions related to marriage, inheritance, and other aspects, Ambedkar sought to diminish the influence of caste distinctions in matters of law.
Opposition to Hindu Code bill
The Hindu Code Bill, a series of laws aimed at reforming and modernizing Hindu personal law in India, faced opposition from various quarters during its introduction and passage in the 1950s. The bill was a significant step towards gender equality and social reform in post-independence India, but it encountered resistance from conservative religious and political groups.
Opponents of the Hindu Code Bill included:
1) Hindu Mahasabha: The Hindu Mahasabha, a right-wing Hindu nationalist organization, strongly opposed the Hindu Code Bill. They viewed the proposed reforms as interference in Hindu religious practices and traditions.
2) Authorities within the Hindu Community: Some traditional authorities within the Hindu community, including religious leaders and conservative scholars, were against the changes brought about by the bill. They believed that the reforms went against established customs and norms.
3) Left-Wing Movements: Certain left-wing movements also expressed opposition to the bill for various reasons, including concerns about the impact of the reforms on societal structures and power dynamics.
4) Congress Party Communal Politics: Within the Congress party itself, there were factions that opposed certain aspects of the bill due to communal politics or concerns about alienating specific voter bases.
5) All India Depressed Classes Women’s Conference: While this conference passed resolutions supporting aspects of gender equality in relation to polygamy and divorce
legislation, there may have been differing opinions within this group regarding other provisions of the bill.
The opposition to the Hindu Code Bill reflected deep-seated societal divisions and ideological differences prevalent in post-independence India. The resistance came from both conservative religious groups seeking to preserve traditional practices and political factions wary of potential backlash from their constituents.
Conclusion:~
We need a uniform civil code because religion should not control the law and its implementation. Religion comes with a pre-defined set of rules and norms which are fixed and can never be changed according to the need of the hour. Religious laws cannot be modified when future generations think it would be illogical to have a certain set of laws.
If religion-based laws continue, the community of homosexual would have no place in the world, sati will be allowed, widows cannot remarry, a thief's hand may be cut off and he cannot atone for his crime and lead a better life in the future, a man can marry more than one wife and men and women's would be forced to remain in abusive marriages.
A democratic and a liberal society must ensure that citizens are protected by laws that can be changed by consent if found incompatible with the times.
Prachi Golait
MGU Bhopal
Comments