Unpacking the negative role played by communal forces during the Hindu Code Bill episode of 1940s-50s | Bhavuk

The recent fracas in the Parliament over the remarks made by Home Minister Amit Shah, on Nehru’s reaction to Ambedkar’s resignation over the Hindu code bill has sparked a debate in the public sphere. However, the entire issue remains shrouded in layers which form the basis of any truth. Apart from the fact that Ambedkar believed Nehru to be the most sincere among all Congressmen on the question of Hindu Code Bill, the fact also remains that the RSS opposed it tooth and nail. The home minister has portrayed how Ambedkar was not accorded the respect and honour that he deserved, by Nehru who, in his opinion, was not the least bit remorseful on his resignation. Let us closely investigate this charge and with it also bring out in public domain the negative role played by communal forces during the Hindu Code Bill episode.

History Of The Hindu Code Bill

Talks about a Hindu Code Bill had emerged since the 1920s itself. Congress seriously took up the issue after the historic Karachi session. The first efforts at reform came when Har Bilas Sarda (the author of the Sardar Child Marriage Restraint Act) introduced another legislation to establish the right of Hindu widows to a share of their husband’s property. However, this bill was comprehensively defeated in 1932. Thereafter, the AIWC (All India Women’s Conference) demanded a revision of the Hindu Code to overcome the deficits in women’s rights especially in matters of marriage and inheritance. This was the crucial difference between the reforms of the 19th century which were piloted from above whereas these reforms were actively sought by the women themselves. This aspect gets further elucidated with the AIWC’s declaration of a Women’s Legal Disabilities Day in 1934 at the instigation of Renuka Ray. (Rachel Sturman, The Government of Social Life in Colonial India: Liberalism, Religious Law, and Women’s Rights, CUP, 2012, p.211 ) The catch lies in the fact that both Hindus and Muslims used the passing of the bill for the women of the two communities as a pretext for forging an electoral community. The Hindu Women’s Right To Property Act was tabled by its author G.V. Deshmukh in the Central Legislature. The Act secured for the widowed daughter-in-law’s legal rights equal to those of her son, to enjoy her husband’s share in the joint family property, but it did not give her absolute and alienable rights of ownership. It also did not mention the rights of the daughter.

The same year Shariat Application Bill tabled by H.M. Abdullah was passed which gave the daughter a share in property. However, in both the Hindu and Muslim case agricultural land was exempted from the application of the respective bills. This was because agricultural property fell in the ‘jurisdiction of provincial legislation’ while the Hindu Women’s Right to Property Act of 1937 was a central legislation[ (a similar argument was made by Jinnah during the debate on Shariat Application Bill) Chitra Sinha, Debating Patriarchy:The Hindu Code Bill Controversy in India (1941–1956), OUP, 2012, p.49]. Why was this the case? Probably, the vote-influencing elite class couldn’t be infuriated!

However, the demand for codification on the Hindu women’s part became legitimized with the 1937 “Deshmukh Act.” The government appointed a Hindu Law Committee on January 25, 1941 headed by B.N. Rao (who went to be the constitutional advisor of the Constitution’s drafting committee). Three other lawyers were members, Shri Dwaraka Nath Mitter, ex-Judge of the Calcutta High Court, Shri R. Gharpure, Principal, Law College, Poona and Rajratna Vasudev Vinayak Joshi, a lawyer from Baroda.(Chitra Sinha, Debating Patriarchy: The Hindu Code Bill Controversy in India(1941–1956), OUP, 2012, p. 51) The report of this committee appreciated the role of Women’s associations across the country. The committee suggested two measures in its final report submitted in June 1941. These were — (a) an enlargement of the term of reference of the Committee and (b) the need for provincial legislative changes to facilitate the applicability of the Hindu Women’s Right to Property Act in agricultural landed property.

With these suggestions in mind two draft bills on the law of marriage and inheritance were prepared and presented before a joint committee of both the houses. The two bills together came to be known as the draft Hindu Code Bill and were presented before the Legislature to be debated in 1943-44. The Committee was invoked again and began working from 1945 onwards. Dwarkanath Mitter presented a dissenting opinion stating with facts and figures that of the total number of people interviewed for the bill, only 33.4% supported the codification drive[the percentage being even smaller in the “Hindu Heartland” (coined by Gyanesh Kudasia)]. (Report Of The Hindu Law Committee, 1947, pp.112-113)

Two most contentious issues as per Mitter were the introduction of divorce in sacramental marriages and the giving away of property to daughter or to the widow. Maharashtra offered the most amount of support in favour of the Code Bill with a major role being played by Dharma Nirnay Mandal(formed at Lonavala in 1936). This Mandal went to as many as 28 places in Maharashtra raising awareness on the codification issue. It brought out several publications, the place of honour among whom rests with Why Hindu Code, co-authored by T.K. Tope, Professor of Hindu Law, Government Law College, Bombay and H.S. Ursekar. Prof. P.V. Kane also enthusiastically supported the Code Bill.

The Hindu Code Bill was thereafter referred to the Select Committee in April 1948. Now comes into picture the supporters and opponents of the Bill with the ball now in Ambedkar’s court.

Views Of Ambedkar And Nehru Over The Bill

Ambedkar believed the Code Bill to be a vehicle for reforming the Hindu society. He therefore considered the Hindu Code Bill as historic as the Constitution-making process. He spoke of the aims and objectives of the bill in the simplest of terms to make it legible for all. He stated that - “in order to reduce the confusions surrounding Hindu laws and also to make it more equitable and relevant to the contemporary Indian society, the Bill seeks to codify the law relating to certain aspects covering marriage, property, succession etc.”(Chitra Sinha, Debating Patriarchy: The Hindu Code Bill Controversy in India (1941–1956), OUP, 2012, p.168)

With these essential points in mind, let us now move to see the people who opposed the Bill who have been grouped into six categories by Reba Som (Reba Som, Jawaharlal Nehru And The Hindu Code: A Victory Of Symbol Over Substance?, Modern Asian Studies, Vol.28 No.1, February 1994, pp.172-173). We shall simultaneously accentuate the contradictions and paradoxes of these people on the issue which exposes their hesitance for reforms and their unwavering will to not want the women being treated at par with men. These were:

1 Those stalwarts within the Congress who had been arrayed against the likes of Nehru from 1930s onwards. These were represented by Rajendra Prasad. Rajendra Prasad had been unhappy over the issue since the start when the Select Committee had been set up. Prasad believed that the progressive idea of introducing basic changes in personal law was only the view of a microscopic minority and its imposition on the Hindu community as a whole would have disastrous consequences. When frustrated by Prasad and others in the assembly over the issue of the bill, Nehru told them that the passing of the bill had become a matter of prestige for him. Prasad had drafted a letter in response to this on which he consulted (luckily for him) Vallabhbhai Patel before sending it. Patel counselled him about the benefit of remaining quiet as it would brighten his chances of being elected the first President of India. Prasad thus, kept quiet and got elected the first President. However, once he assumed this constitutional role, his obduracy over the bill continued, sometimes citing procedural lapses on Nehru’s part (for which there was no provision but only convention) and sometimes by terming the efforts at getting the bill passed as anti-democratic. He in fact, even threatened to withhold Presidential assent to the Bill even if it was passed from both the houses. Surprisingly, Prasad was the President when in five parts the Hindu Code Bill was largely passed. His paradoxes and inconsistency is therefore vivid for all to see.

2 Hindu fundamentalists within the Congress like the Deputy Speaker, Ananthasayanam Aiyyangar who was convinced of the soundness of polygamy. This group too, enjoyed the power it got from association with the Congress but never made an earnest effort to carry through the reformist agenda it propagated. Some among those who were not so much opposed to the contents of the Bill were at sixes and sevens because of the fact that the Bill was piloted by Ambedkar, an untouchable. Pattabhi Sitaramayya, a liberal member of the Congress too criticised Ambedkar for his “professional, pedagogic and pontifical attitudes” which will “only alienate attitudes that have almost been reconciled.” ( Reba Som, Jawaharlal Nehru And The Hindu Code: A Victory Of Symbol Over Substance?, Modern Asian Studies, Vol.28 No.1, February 1994, p.187)

3 Hindu Mahasabha with people like N.C. Chatterjee and Shyama Prasad Mukherjee who opposed the Bill based on the fact that it threatened the foundation of Hindu religion. The Mahasabha tried to argue that the “Hindu” Code Bill was a communal legislation(only for the Hindus) and instead Uniform Civil Code should be introduced in its place. Thus, it becomes clear that it was not out of a progressive reformist zeal that the Mahasabha wanted a Uniform Civil Code but only so that the state power interferes in Muslim affairs as well. Mukherjee argued that the Hindu Code be made optional, an argument similar to what Jinnah made during the passage of the Shariat Application Bill 1937. Mukherjee had been in Nehru’s cabinet and wholeheartedly supported the Code which he was now opposing and therefore, Ambedkar dismissed his remarks as non-worthy of consideration.

Within this third category let us add a subcategory of Hindu reactionaries outside the Parliament represented by the RSS. In March 1949 was formed the All-India Anti-Hindu-Code Bill Committee with Swami Karpatriji Maharaj at its head which opposed the Constituent Assembly’s interference in personal laws of Hindus based on Dharma Shastras.(Ramchandra Guha, India After Gandhi: The Story Of The World’s Largest Democracy, McGill Publication, 2008, p.230) Alongside this Committee was also the battery of lawyers from various Bar Councils across the country who absolutely condemned the Code Bill. The Committee held several hundred meetings throughout the country opposing the Bill and raising support for their position. The All India Hindu Code Bill Virodha Samiti published a book , Hindu Code Bill: Praman Ki Kasauti Par in Hindi by Swami Karpatriji Maharaj, condemning the government propaganda about the Bill and presenting the Bill in complete opposition to the ideology of Sanatan Dharma.(Chitra Sinha, Debating Patriarchy:The Hindu Code Bill Controversy in India(1941–1956), OUP, 2012, pp.105-106) This Committee even marched on to the Parliament raising derogatory slogans like “Down With The Code Bill” and “May Nehru Perish.” (Ramchandra Guha, India After Gandhi: The Story Of The World’s Largest Democracy, McGill Publication, 2008, p.231)

4 The Sikh group was represented by men like Sardar Mann and Sardar Hukum Singh inside the Parliament and Master Tara Singh outside it, who resented being clubbed with the Hindus in the broad framework of reform. On 13th December, Tara Singh denounced the introduction of the Hindu Code Bill in the Parliament. (G.Parthasarathy ed. Letters To Chief Ministers Vol.2 1950-1952, OUP, p.290 footnote no.6) The interesting part is that after Ambedkar had resigned and not much alteration had been made to the Bill, Sardar Hukum Singh stated that the Bill could now be passed as the objectionable parts had been removed.

5 Muslims represented by Naziruddin Ahmad from Bengal who argued that the Hindu Code Bill was a bid to end the Mitakshara joint family. This would lead to families vivisecting and irritants over property issues. The most baffling part here is that despite hailing from Bengal which was the epicentre of Dayabhaga school, Naziruddin Ahmad chose to speak about Mitakshara and not Dayabhaga. What makes it even more fascinating is the fact that provincialism, evoked by Jinnah during the debate on the Shariat Application Bill 1937, was ensured among Bengali legislators by the very same Naziruddin Ahmad. Amidst the scant information about him on the Internet, his appointment as the chief whip by A.K. Fazlul Haq, the premier of Bengal, is surely unmissable. The same provincialism is found lacking in Naziruddin Ahmad while speaking on the issue of the Hindu Code Bill. He was also given a shut up call by Renuka Ray who asked why he was not ready to let the Hindus enjoy the same advantages that the Muslim society enjoys. [(over his remarks of Hindu families suffering the same fate as Muslims) Reba Som, Jawaharlal Nehru And The Hindu Code: A Victory Of Symbol Over Substance?, Modern Asian Studies, Vol.28 No.1, February 1994, p.173)

6 The Women Parliamentarians, were largely the ones who were consistent in their approach and most fully committed to get the Code Bill passed. Even their criticism, expressed through Sucheta Kriplani and Hansa Mehta, was sound and logical based on the fact that the reforms did not go as far as they should have and that they were half-hearted.

Ambedkar’s Resignation And His Assessment Of Nehru

Correspondence between Ambedkar and Nehru on the topic brings out the differences in views as well as approach to the Hindu Code Bill. On 10th August 1951, Ambedkar wrote to Nehru:

“My health is causing a great deal of anxiety to me and to my doctors. They have been pressing that I must allow them a longer period of about a month for continuous treatment and that such treatment cannot now be postponed without giving rise to further complications. I am most anxious that the Hindu Code Bill should be disposed of before I put myself in the hands of my doctors. I would, therefore, like to give the Hindu Code Bill a higher priority by taking it up on the 16th of August and finish it by the 1st of September if opponents do not practice obstructive tactics. You know I attach the greatest importance to this measure and would be prepared to undergo any strain on my health to get the Bill through.” (Resignation Speech of Dr. Ambedkar in Selected Writings of Dr. Ambedkar , Volume XIV, Part II, p. 1132)

Nehru however, knew that the conservatives were too many and quite vehement in their opposition to the Hindu Code Bill. There was now no Patel to ensure the whip in support of the measure. However, Ambedkar did not pay attention to it and he felt extremely frustrated that Nehru wasn’t able to get the Bill passed. The fact remains that with the active support of the then President, many members including the chief whip were all firm in their disapproval of the Hindu Code Bill. Nehru could not hurry it through since elections were also round the corner. As Ambedkar sarcastically put it, ’I have never seen a case of chief whip so disloyal to the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister so loyal to a disloyal whip.’(Reba Som Jawaharlal Nehru: The Victory Of Symbol Over Substance, South Asian Studies, p.184) Ambedkar was however, convinced of Nehru’s sincerity, it was only about his lack of determination that he criticised. There were a few more issues over which he resigned. Nehru’s sincerity is reflected in a letter he wrote to the Chief Ministers on 4th October 1951. He stated—

“it was obviously a controversial measure and it was not our desire to suppress debate or even to treat this as a strictly party measure necessitating a Whip.” He cites this as the reason for failure to get even parts of the Bill through. He goes on to say - “I have no doubt that a considerable majority in Parliament desired the passage of this bill with minor alterations. But that majority was helpless before a determined minority and we had to confess defeat. For the moment at least I do not think, however, that all this time on the Hindu code bill has been wasted. It has kept this important subject before the public and made people think about it. It had made it one of the major issues in India and I have little doubt that it will have to be taken up and passed sometime or the other. For my part I am convinced that progress in India must be on all fronts- political, economic and social. Unless this happens we shall get held up.” ( G. Parthasarthi ed. Letters To The Chief Ministers Vol.2 1950-1952, OUP, pp.501-502)

Nehru’s Reaction To Ambedkar’s Resignation

Frustrated and flabbergasted over the stoicism of conservative elements within the Congress, Dr. Ambedkar rendered his resignation on 25th September 1951. On his resignation, Nehru spoke in the Parliament with a sense of loss that — “it is a matter of regret for me, if for no other reason, for the fact that an old colleague should part company in the way he has done today.” (S.Gopal ed. Selected Works Of Jawaharlal Nehru, Series 2, Vol.16, 1 July 1951-31 October 1951, Part 2, Jawaharlal Nehru Memorial Fund, Teen Murti House, p.395)

Moreover, Nehru wrote to Ambedkar on 27th September 1951 with mixed feelings of appreciation for Ambedkar’s efforts and determination on his part to get the Bill through sooner or later. He wrote —

“I can quite understand your great disappointment at the fact that the Hindu Code Bill could not be passed in this session and that even the marriage and divorce part of it had ultimately to be postponed. I know very well how hard you have laboured at it and how keenly you have felt about it. Although I have not been intimately connected with this Bill, I have been long convinced of its necessity and I was anxious that it should be passed. I tried my utmost, but the fates and the rules of Parliament were against us. It seemed clear to me that nothing that we could do could get it through during this session. Personally, I shall not give up this fight because I think it is intimately connected with any progress on any front that we desire to make.” (S.Gopal ed. Selected Works Of Jawaharlal Nehru, Series 2, Vol.16, 1 July 1951-31 October 1951, Part 2, Jawaharlal Nehru Memorial Fund, Teen Murti House, p.393)

Conclusion

When in various parts the Code Bill was passed in 1956, Nehru offered his tribute to Ambedkar. He stated that Ambedkar would be remembered above all ’as a symbol of the revolt against all the oppressive features of Hindu society’. But he “will be remembered also for the great interest he took and the trouble he took over the question of Hindu law reform. I am happy that he saw that reform in a very large measure carried out, perhaps not in the form of that monumental tome that he had himself drafted, but in separate bits.” (Ramchandra Guha, India After Gandhi: The Story Of The World’s Largest Democracy, McGill Publication, 2008, p.240)

The glowing tribute by Nehru to Ambedkar and Ambedkar’s admission of Nehru’s sincerity of efforts says it all. It was not these two but rather “the orthodox of all religions united”(from the title of Jawaharlal Nehru’s Essay) who were pitted against them on the issue of Hindu Code Bill. What’s more concerning is the remark heard from certain quarters of the Parliament after the passage of the Hindu Code Bill. During 1955 and 1956, when the Hindu Code Bill was enacted in fragments, Ambedkar’s absence was cited as a reason for the smooth passage of the Bill. (Chitra Sinha, Debating Patriarchy: The Hindu Code Bill Controversy in India (1941–1956), OUP, 2012, p.144) Throughout the trajectory of the Hindu Code Bill, Nehru and Ambedkar remained consistent in pushing for reforms. Therefore, this struggle for the Hindu Code Bill and those who opposed it and actually disrespected Ambedkar should be clearly identified. Lest History Forget!

(Bhavuk, PhD Candidate at The Department of History, AMU, Aligarh, India )