INTRODUCTION
The Hindu code bills were several laws passed in the 1950s that aimed to codify and reform Hindu personal law in India. Following India's independence in 1947, the Indian National Congress government led by Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru completed this codification and reform, a process started by the British Raj. According to the British policy of non-interference, personal-law reform should have arisen from a demand from the Hindu community. That was not the case, as there was significant opposition from various conservative Hindu politicians, organisations and devotees; they saw themselves unjustly singled out as the sole religious community whose laws were to be reformed. However, the Nehru administration saw such codification as necessary to unify the Hindu community, which ideally would be a first step towards unifying the nation. They succeeded in passing four Hindu code bills in 1955–56: the Hindu Marriage Act (HMA), Hindu Succession Act (HAS), Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act (HMGA), and Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act(HAMA).
NEED FOR UNIFORM HINDU LAWS-
While there may be a permanence of certain fundamental beliefs about the nature of life that is pervasive through Hinduism, Hindus as a group are highly non-homogenous. Nehru's primary purpose in instituting the Hindu code bills was to unify the Hindu community. Therefore, it made sense to define Hindu in the broadest possible sense. By legal equity, Nehru intended to-erase distinctions within the Hindu community and create Hindu social unity. The integration of Hindus into a homogeneous society could best be done by enacting an all-embracing code which encompasses within its fold every sect, caste, and religious denomination."
Nehru and his supporters insisted that the Hindu community, which comprised 80% of the Indian population, first needed to be united before any actions were taken to unify the rest of India. Therefore, the codification of Hindu personal law became a symbolic beginning on the road to establishing the Indian national identity. Nehru also felt that because he was Hindu, it was his prerogative to codify specifically Hindu law, as opposed to Muslim or Jewish law. Those in Parliament who supported the bills also saw them as a vital move towards the modernization of Hindu society, as they would clearly delineate secular laws from religious law. Many also heralded the bills' opportunity to implement greater rights for women, which were established to be necessary, for India's development.
PRE-INDEPENDENCE HISTORY OF HINDU CODE BILL-
The first round of debate over the Hindu Code was initiated by the Indian lawyers within the Legislature in 1921 and was spearheaded by Mahamahopadhyaya Ganganath Jha, a member of the Viceroy’s Legislative Council. With the Congress Party members staying away from the Legislature during the civil disobedience movement and the women's movement in India in its infancy , the debate came to be termed as the “lawyer’s debate” with very little political or public participation. The debate failed to make much headway as it was considered too difficult to handle. In the 1930s however, women’s movement in India started to make its presence felt as Hindu women's right to property became the subject of intense dialogue in legal circles. Women's organisations campaigned for a comprehensive Code of Hindu laws rather than the piecemeal legislation done since the early 1930s. In 1934, the All India Women’s Conference passed a resolution demanding that a commission be appointed to enquire into the entire question of eliminating the legal disabilities of women. In 1937, the Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act was passed, giving the Hindu widow, who had previously been excluded from inheritance, a right to succession and same rights of her deceased husband in the Hindu undivided joint families. In January 1941, the Government appointed a Committee to revisit the Hindu Women's Right to Property Act, 1937 and to suggest amendments and clarify rights of the widow; and remove any injustice that may have been by the Act to the daughters.
The Hindu Law Committee, also known as the Rau Committee, was headed by B.N.Rau, a judge of Calcutta High Court. Other three members were Dwaraka Nath Mitter, ex-Judge of Calcutta High Court, R. Gharpure, Principal, Law College, Poona and Rajratna Vasudev Vinayak Joshi, a lawyer of Baroda. The Committee was constituted in January, 1941 and submitted its report on June 19, 1941. Among various intricate legal recommendations in the Report, there was a suggestion to enact a complete Code of Hindu law given that a number of legal hurdles are created in available “piecemeal” legislations. The Report contemplated the preparation of the Hindu Code in stages, beginning with the law of succession, to be followed by the law of marriage and in due course by other topics of the Hindu law .The Committee of 1941 stated that the Code should arise out of agreed public opinion. The preliminary draft of the Hindu Code Bill was debated in the Legislature in March 1943 and March - April, 1944. Subsequently, the Hindu Law Committee was revived on January 20, 1944, for the sole purpose of formulating a Code of Hindu law under the chairmanship of Sir B.N. Rau, with Shri Dwaraka Nath Mitter, J.R. Gharpure and T.R.Venkatarama Sastry an advocate of Madras High Court vi as members. The Committee’s objective was to prepare a progressive Code of Hindu personal law while working towards a social consensus through interactions with opinion leaders, lawyers and organised popular voices. With this objective in mind, the Committee toured a number of cities throughout India, including Bombay, Poona, Delhi, Allahabad, Patna, Calcutta, Madras, Nagpur and Lahore during 1945. The Code was translated into several Indian languages and distributed across the country. It was published in Gujarati, Marathi, Hindi, Bengali, Tamil, Telegu, Malayalam, Kannada, Urdu, Gurmukhi, Sindhi and Oriya. In all, the Rau Committee examined one hundred and twenty one individual witnesses and one hundred and two associations, which were represented by two hundred and fifty seven persons. This apart, they received numerous representations from individuals and social organisations in favour as well as against the Bill. The Bharat Dharma Mahamandal of Benaras protested against the Code in the strongest words:
“These measures of anti-Hindu religion are unwise, unstatesmanlike and unjust and cut into the very root of the sacred religion of the varnashrami sanatani Hindus who are by their inborn nature loyal to the crown”.
On return from an all India tour, when the Committee sat down to compile the Report, serious differences of opinion emerged among members. Dwarkanath Mitter felt that as public opinion was decisively against the Hindu Code, and therefore the time was not ripe to introduce the Code. Other members of the Committee were generally of the opinion that the Code should be introduced, as the progressive element of the Code is in alignment to India’s developmental aspirations.
POST INDEPENDENCE HISTORY OF HINDU CODE BILL-
The Hindu Code Bill was introduced to the Constituent Assembly on April 9, 1948 by BR Ambedkar, a staunch opponent of orthodox Hindus and was debated extensively during 1948-1951. The Hindu Code Bill aroused widespread antagonism from orthodox segments of the Constituent assembly legislature and women legislators. The intensity of the challenge thrown towards the Hindu Code Bill and the cry of ‘religion in danger’ were echoed both within and outside the House. As the discussion on the clauses could not be completed due to lack of time and the session ended, the Bill lapsed. The Bill remained in hibernation for three years. As a result, BR Ambedkar also resigned from the post of Law Minister in 1951. With the beginning of the Nehruvian era in Indian politics in the early 1950s, it became easier to push forth the liberal agenda of the Congress Party. Nehru’s political strength and his ability to implement his vision increased manifold when in 1952, the Congress party swept the first general assembly polls, winning by a vast majority. However, opposition to the Bill in the legislative sphere came from the Hindu Mahasabha, the Bharatiya Jan Sangh and the Ram Rajya Parishad. In the parliament, the Hindu Mahashabha leaders, led by N.C.Chatterjee opposed the Code during 1952-1956, where similar rhetorical devices such as “defamation of Hindu religion”, “religion in danger”, “unfair and unwarranted imposition from above on Hindu Community”, “conspiracy against religion” were raised. An example of such rhetoric can be found in the 1951 Bharatiya Jan Sangh election manifesto, which stated:
“The party holds that social reform should not come as imposition from above. It should work from within the society. Any far-reaching changes as envisaged in the Hindu Code Bill, therefore, should not be made unless there is a strong popular demand for them and a clear verdict is obtained from the electorate”
Prime Minister Nehru and President Rajendra Prasad also clashed over the bill. The brush between the two began even before the bill was formally introduced in Parliament. Taking cognisance of press reports, Prasad wrote to the prime minister on September 15, 1951, saying:
"My right to examine it (the bill) on its merits, when it is passed by the Parliament, before giving assent to it is there. But if any action of mine at a later stage is likely to cause embarrassment to the Government, I may take such appropriate actions as I may be called upon to avoid such embarrassment consistently with the dictates of my own conscience."
Nehru treated the letter as a threat to the Government and wrote a stiff rejoinder to the President the same day. In his communication, Nehru asserted:
"In the last paragraph...you have mentioned that it may be necessary for you to inform the Parliament of your viewpoint. You also refer to your right to examine the bill on its merits when it is passed by the Parliament before giving your assent to it...this might involve a conflict between the President on the one side, and government and Parliament on the other. They would invariably raise the question of the President's authority and powers to challenge the decisions of the Government and the Parliament. The consequences obviously would be serious."
The Hindu Code Bill was brought out of the shelf after the first general elections and debated during 1953-56, and enacted as four separate acts - Hindu Marriage Act of 1955, Hindu Succession Act of 1956, Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act of 1956 and the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance act of 1956. These apart, one part of Hindu Marriage Act relating to civil marriage was carved out and enacted as the Special Marriage Act of 1954. Together, these acts bestowed several legal rights to women and created the base for women’s empowerment in India. The Four Pillars of Hindu family law was considered a partial victory for women’s rights. The Hindu Marriage Act removed the necessity that marriage had to be performed within the same caste. It also introduced monogamy as a rule and created provisions for the dissolution of marriage, all progressive elements within the Hindu Law. Moreover, the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 conferred upon all female heirs absolute ownership of property and not a limited interest on the property (enjoying the property without ownership during lifetime). The Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 made a woman eligible to claim one-third of the joint income of her husband and herself in case of divorce. Moreover, the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, while preserving rights of the father to be the natural guardian of a child, gave mother guardianship rights if the father neglected the child. The mother was also granted the right to be the lawful guardian of illegitimate children. Thus, despite limitations, the Acts together brought several progressive legal provisions that were progressive from the viewpoint of Indian family in general and gender rights in particular.
CONCLUSION-
Thus, in the end BR Ambedkar and Jawahar Lal Nehru prevailed with the passage of the bill. To the latter, the passage of the legislations regarding Hindu social reform had great symbolic significance. In his letter to the Cabinet of Ministers, Nehru wrote-
“They are not in any way revolutionary in the changes they bring about and yet there is something revolutionary about them. They have opened the barrier of ages and cleared the way somewhat for our womenfolk to progress”.
The Hindu Code bill brought about a progressive change in the society. These codified laws were not only uniform but also progressive. They also played a major role in the making of modern day India post-independence. Nehru and Ambedkar’s legacy in creation of a liberal modern Indian society is thus second to none.
BIBLIOGRAPHY-
1- Chitra Sinha, Rhetoric, Reason and Representation: Four Narratives in the Hindu Code Bill Discourse, available at
2- Prabhu Chawla, Nehru and Prasad: Asserting Supremacy (February 28, 1987), available at http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/clash-between-president-dr-prasad-and-pm-nehru-over-hindu-code-bill-most-serious/1/336738.html.
3- John D. M. Derrett, The Administration of Hindu Law by the British for Comparative Studies in Society & History (1961).
4- John D. M. Derrett, Hindu Law Past and Present (1957).
5- Rina Williams. Postcolonial Politics and Personal Laws (2006).
About The Author
Saurabh Kumar is from 2013-2018 batch WBNUJS. He has keen interest in Family Law and Constitutional Law as well as Strategic affairs.
Comments