India After Gandhi (43 page)

The prime minister was in the vanguard of the pro-reform movement, telling Parliament that ‘real progress of the country means progress not only on the political plane, not only on the economic plane, but also on the social plane’. The British had allied themselves with ‘the most conservative sections of the community they could find’. The conjoining of tradition and colonialism meant that ‘our laws, our customs fall heavily on the womenfolk’. Thus ‘different standards of morality are applied to men and women’. Men were allowed more than one wife, but when a woman wished for a divorce she was challenged by men, only ‘because men happen to be in a dominant position. I hope they will not continue in that dominant position for all time.’

Hindu customs and laws were hypocritical as well as unjust. Women were urged to model themselves on mythic figures of devotion and fidelity but, said Nehru, ‘I do not seem to remember men being reminded in the same manner of Ramachandra and Satyavan, and urged to behave like them. It is only the women who have to behave like Sita and Savitri; the men may behave as they like.’
²⁰

Nehru worked hard to convince his colleagues of the importance of these measures. He wrote to one of his senior ministers, a Brahmin who tended towards the orthodox, that ‘we have to remember that in the acknowledged social code and practice of India, as it has existed thus far, there was no lack of moral delinquency as well as extreme unhappiness. There were two codes, one for the man and the other for the woman. The woman got the worst of it always.’ To a young first-time MP Nehru wrote that ‘we should concentrate on the passage through Parliament of the Marriage and Divorce Bills and the Succession Bill. These are the really important ones. The bills dealing with adoption and guardianship, etc. are relatively unimportant.’
²¹

By now the Anti-Hindu-Code-Bill Committee had lost its momentum. After the 1952 election the names of Swami Karpatriji Maharaj and Prabhu Dutt Brahamachari do not appear in the newspapers or police records. There were no longer any protests on the streets, but there were still criticisms aplenty in Parliament. The orthodox MPs saw the new bills as designed to destroy Hindu culture. For them, the laws of Manu and Yagnavalkya were immutable and unchangeable, as relevant in 950
BC
as in
AD
1950.
²²

But there was also an opposition that was less vulgar and more considered; representing what we might call Hindu conservatives rather than Hindu reactionaries. Consider thus the views of the distinguished historian Radha Kumud Mookerji. He felt that the new proposals, particularly the provisions allowing divorce, were

against the very spirit of Hindu civilization . . . The Bill is inspired by the western view of life which attaches more value to the romance of marital relations and married life than to parenthood in which marriage attains its fruition. The Hindu system conceives of parenthood as something that is permanent, unchangeable, and inviolable . . . The Bill seeks to change popular psychology as to the sanctity of marriage and family and loosen the ties of family as the very foundations of society. It thinks more of husband and wife than the father and mother in whom they are to be permanently merged to protect the child and the future of the race.
²³

This argument did not go uncontested. A woman member felt that ‘the effect of a broken home is less injurious than that of a disharmonious home. Children are of a very receptive mind and the scenes that they may see of neglect and quarrel between the parents . . . are bound to leave their mark. If ‘the home has lost peace’, remarked another member, there was no point ‘forcing [husband and wife] to live together’; it was better to allow ‘separation in a respectable fashion’.
²⁴

In the Lok Sabha the opposition to the reforms was led by the brilliant Hindu Mahasabha lawyer N. C. Chatterjee. If this was indeed a secular state, argued Chatterjee, what was the need for a ‘Hindu’ Marriage and Divorce Act? Why not make the same law apply for all citizens? Thus, if the government honestly believed in the virtues of monogamy, that ‘this is a blessing and polygamy is a curse, then why not rescue our Muslim sisters from that curse and from that plight?
‘You have not the courage’, Chatterjee told the law minister, ‘to be logical and to be consistent.’
²⁵

The socialist J. B. Kripalani likewise felt that by prescribing monogamy only for the Hindus, the government was being hypocritical. ‘You must bring it also for the Muslim community,’ said Kripalani. ‘Take it from me that the Muslim community is prepared to have it but you are not brave enough to do it.’ But his own wife, the Congress MP Sucheta Kripalani, thought that the Muslims were not yet ready. For ‘we know the recent past history of our country. We know what trouble we have had over our minority problem. That is why I think the Government today is not prepared to bring one Uniform Civil Code. But I hope the day will soon come in the future when we shall be able to have one.’
²⁶

The election of 1952 had returned to Parliament an array of articulate and confident women Congress MPs. These, naturally, saw the opposition to the legislation as the work of reactionaries. Subhadra Joshi, speaking in Hindi, launched abroad side against the custom of arranged marriages, which virtually sold women into
sharm ki zindagi
, a life of shame and degradation. Shivrajvati Nehru noted that, while male politicians talked grandly of economic and political reform, they were not willing to make a single change in the sphere of social life and custom. In Hindu society the man was free and sovereign (
purn swatantra
); but the woman was bonded – to him. Even now, the husband was prone to treat his wife as a pair of slippers on his feet, to be discarded at will.
²⁷

In support of the reforms were several Scheduled Caste members, who knew better than anyone else how Hindu ‘custom’ masked a multitude of sins. One MP said that if the orthodox had their way, they would

start amending the Constitution so as to do away with all the mischief done by this Congress Government, and certain new fundamental rights will be added. The first of them will be that all Hindu women will have the wonderful and glorious right of burning themselves on the funeral pyres of their husbands. The second fundamental right would be that the cow will be declared a divine being, . . . and all Indians, including Muslims, Christians and so on will be compelled to worship the cow.
²⁸

The communists, for their part, thought the new laws were not radical enough. In the Lok Sabha, B. C. Das termed them ‘a mild, moderate
attempt at social reform with all the hesitancy and timidity characteristic of all social measures sponsored by this Government’. Still, those who opposed this ‘moderate measure’ had ‘seventeenth-century minds’. In the Rajya Sabha, Bhupesh Gupta noted the delay in introducing the legislation owing to the fact that ‘the Congress Party . . . functions on many occasions like a Rip Van Winkle’.
²⁹

Finally, one must take account of those Muslim members who were effusive in their thanks to government. One, speaking in Hindustani, praised it for keeping their laws intact and not allowing the slightest change in it. Another thanked the government ‘for showing their great consideration to the views and the feelings of the Muslim community, and for having exempted them from the operations of this [Marriage] Bill, because there is the personal law for them, based on, and part of, their religion, and they hold religion as the most sacred and valuable thing in their life’.
³⁰

After a bruising battle extending over nearly ten years, B. R. Ambedkar’s Hindu Code Bill was passed into law; not, as he had hoped, in one fell swoop, but in several instalments: the Hindu Marriage Act of 1955 and the Hindu Succession, Minority and Guardianship, and Adoptions and Maintenance Acts of 1956.

These acts were piloted through Parliament by the new law minister, H. V. Pataskar. He lacked both the stature of his predecessor and his scholarship. Once, when he suggested that the Hindu sacramental marriage permitted divorce, N. C. Chatterjee remarked that there was no basis for that statement, adding: ‘If Shri Pataskar had sat for a Hindu Law examination in any University he would have been ploughed and he would have got zero.’
³¹

This might have been accurate, but was anyway irrelevant. For, as one dissenter recognized, the new bills constituted a ‘direct attack on the Hindu
shastras
and Hinducustoms’.
³²
The right of a woman to choose her partner or to inherit property were ‘un-Hindu’; but not undemocratic, since the men had those rights all along. As Pataskar observed, the new laws were based on the constitutional recognition of ‘the dignity of person, irrespective of any distinction of sex’.
³³

Another member of the Congress Party put it more eloquently.
Women must have the right to choose (and discard) their husbands, he said, because ‘we [Indians] were fighting for freedom. After liberating our country, our motherland, it is our responsibility to liberate our mothers, our sisters, and our wives. That will be the greatest culmination of the freedom that we have attained.’
³⁴

Towards that end the new laws were indeed a notable contribution. Sixty million Hindu women came under its purview. But the changes were significant in moral as well as numerical terms. As a leading American expert on Indian law has written, this was a ‘wholesale and drastic reform’ which ‘entirely supplants the
shastra
as the source of Hindu law’. A leading British scholar of the subject goes further: ‘For width of scope and boldness of innovation’, he says, the series of acts considered here ‘can be compared only with the Code Napoléon.’
³⁵

The radical changes in the Hindu law pertaining to marriage and property were principally the work of two men: Jawaharlal Nehru and B. R. Ambedkar. Sadly, in the last, crucial stages of the struggle Ambedkar was a bystander. Having failed to win his seat in the direct elections to Parliament in 1952, he then entered the Upper House. There he observed, silent, as the bills were discussed and passed between 1954 and 1956.
³⁶
He was already a very sick man, with chronic diabetes and complications thereof, and in December 1956 he passed away. His sometime colleague Jawaharlal Nehru spoke in tribute in Parliament. Ambedkar, said the prime minister, 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.’
³⁷

This was a generous tribute, especially when we consider the bitterness that lay behind Ambedkar’s resignation in 1951. Then, Ambedkar thought that Nehru was too weak to fight the opposition within and outside his party. From his point of view the prime minister was going too slowly, but, of course, from the point of view of the orthodox Hindu he was going too fast. In 1949 and 1950, when the bill was first introduced, Nehru was not even in effective control of the Congress. It was only after Vallabhbhai Patel’s death that he really took charge, overcoming the conservatives in the Congress and leading his party to a convincing victory in the general election. With the party, and country,
now behind him, he was prepared to introduce, and steer through, the legislation once proposed by Ambedkar.
³⁸

Nehru was determined to effect changes in the laws of his fellow Hindus, yet prepared to wait before dealing likewise with the Muslims. The aftermath of Partition had left the Muslims who remained in India vulnerable and confused. At this stage, to tamper with what they considered hallowed tradition – the word of Allah himself – would make them even less secure. Thus, when he was asked in Parliament why he had not brought in a uniform civil code immediately, Nehru answered that, while such a code had his ‘extreme sympathy’, he did not think that ‘at the present moment the time is ripe in India for me to try to push it through. I want to prepare the ground for it and this kind of thing is one method of preparing the ground.’
³⁹

Others viewed this caution more cynically. As Dr Shyama Prasad Mookerjee pointed out in the provisional Parliament, ‘it is nobody’s case that monogamy is good for Hindus alone or for Buddhists alone or for Sikhs alone’. Why not then have a separate bill prescribing monogamy for all citizens? Having asked the question, Dr Mookerjee supplied this answer: ‘I am not going to tread on this question because I know the weaknesses of the promoters of the bill. They dare not touch the Muslim minority. There will be so much opposition coming from throughout India that government will not dare to proceed with it. But of course you can proceed with the Hindu community in any way you like and whatever the consequences may be.’

At this point C. Rajagopalachari interjected: ‘Because we are the community’.
⁴⁰
‘We’ were the Congress, particularly its reformist wing, represented by Nehru and rather ably by Rajagopalachari as well. One can appreciate their hesitancy to take on people of faiths other than their own. For it had taken them the better part of ten years to ‘proceed with the Hindu community in any way they liked; that is in away that would help bring their personal laws somewhat in line with modern notions of gender justice.
⁴¹