The Hindu Marriage Bill gets House nod
HT’s report on parliamentary assent to a law providing for intercaste unions and divorce
The Lok Sabha on May 5, 1955, passed, amid acclamation, the Hindu Marriage Bill after it was cleared by the Rajya Sabha. A solitary “no” — that of VG Deshpande (Hindu Mahasabha) — was heard in the House.
This was the first instalment of the lapsed Hindu Code Bill to emerge from Parliament — the Bill provided “inter alia” for the registration of Hindu marriages, intercaste marriages, and divorce among Hindus.
Immediately after the voting, the House began consideration of the motion to refer to a joint select committee the Hindu Succession Bill. The Rajya Sabha has already adopted the motion.
Another instalment of the Hindu Code Bill and a vital socioeconomic legislation, this is the first recognition of a daughter’s right to a share of the father’s property. It seeks to codify the law relating to intestate succession to property among Hindus.
Hari Vinayak Pataskar, minister for law, won special applause for his assurance that the provision for payment of alimony by the wife would be reviewed later. This was a sore point, particularly with women members, who argued that as long as there was no economic equality between man and woman there was no room for such a provision.
Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru spoke during the third reading of the Bill. It was a brilliant performance even for Nehru — for its sentiment, delivery and also for the punches.
The Hindu Marriage Bill, he said, was to restore to the Hindu approach its dynamism, which was its basic greatness, by breaking the rigidities which had crept into social practices among the Hindus. It was, Nehru added, to make the Hindu law, which had this dynamic changing quality, fit into the changing times and conditions. Freedom in the social and economic spheres was as essential as political freedom for progress, he said.
Nehru touched on almost all the points raised by the critics during the debate. Not only marriage but all forms of social relationships should have an element of sacrament, he agreed, and asked how was it a sanskara to tie up two people who hit each other, hated each other or who would hate each other.
“I have reverence for Sita and Savitri but I am often surprised why men are not reminded of Ramchandra and Satyavan, and asked to behave like them,” he said, remarking: “Surely, all men are not like them.” Members apprehended that as a result of the legislation there would be no Sitas and Savitris who would be the beacons to the women of the day.
Nehru described as “fantastic” the argument that “looseness and laxity among women” would result from the measure. The divorce clause, he said, was harsh. “I have faith in the sense of duty of Indian womanhood.”
In this vein, he also deprecated the habit of running down the peoples of other countries. One had to know about the conditions and the histories of those countries. Otherwise it would be like a foreigner, for instance, finding only the dirty streets of Banaras. “In me Banaras will evoke a thousand pictures of India’s history. I will also see the dirt and say it is there if it is there.”
During discussion of the motion regarding the Hindu Succession Bill, Tek Chand (Independent) made an effective contribution. “Sometimes the best intentions might be couched in clumsy language resulting in confusion and bewilderment. One had not to be swept away by sentiment,” he said.
He was referring to certain “negations of logic” contained in clauses 28 and 29 and hoped that the select committee would show sufficient circumspection He l omed the provision for property rights to the daughter.
Nandlal Sharma (Ram Rajya Parishad) began his polemics with a prayer in Sanskrit and apprehended grave dangers to Hindu society as a result of some clauses of the Bill.