10/29/2016

HinducodebillsWikipedia

Hinducodebills
FromWikipedia,thefreeencyclopedia

TheHinducodebillswereseverallawspassedinthe1950sthataimedtocodifyandreformHindu
personallawinIndia.FollowingIndia'sindependencein1947,theIndianNationalCongressgovernment
ledbyPrimeMinisterJawaharlalNehrucompletedthiscodificationandreform,aprocessstartedbythe
BritishRaj.AccordingtotheBritishpolicyofnoninterference,personallawreformshouldhavearisen
fromademandfromtheHinducommunity.Thatwasnotthecase,astherewassignificantoppositionfrom
variousconservativeHindupoliticians,organisationsanddevoteestheysawthemselvesunjustlysingled
outasthesolereligiouscommunitywhoselawsweretobereformed.[1]However,theNehruadministration
sawsuchcodificationasnecessarytounifytheHinducommunity,whichideallywouldbeafirststep
towardsunifyingthenation.[2]TheysucceededinpassingfourHinducodebillsin195556:theHindu
MarriageAct,HinduSuccessionAct,HinduMinorityandGuardianshipAct,andHinduAdoptionsand
MaintenanceAct.[3]Theycontinuetobecontroversialtothepresentdayamongwomen's,religious,and
nationalistgroups.[4]

Contents
1 Background
2 Uniformcivilcode
3 Beginningofcodification
3.1 Initialdraft
3.2 Ambedkar'sdraft
3.3 Furtherrevisionsandpassing
4 Intentions
5 Supportandopposition
6 Today
7 Notes
8 References

Background
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_code_bills

1/7

10/29/2016

HinducodebillsWikipedia

Whiletheremaybeapermanenceofcertainfundamentalbeliefsaboutthenatureoflifethatispervasive
throughHinduism,Hindusasagrouparehighlynonhomogenous.AsDerrettsaysinhisbookonHindu
law,"WefindtheHindustobeasdiverseinrace,psychology,habitat,employmentandwayoflifeasany
collectionofhumanbeingsthatmightbegatheredfromtheendsoftheearth."TheDharmastrathe
textualauthorityonmattersofmarriage,adoption,thejointfamily,minorities,succession,religious
endowments,andcasteprivilegeshasoftenbeenseenastheprivatelawoftheHindus.However,
whateverisknownandinterpretedaboutthisHindulawisajumbleofrules,ofteninconsistentand
incompatiblewithoneanother,thatarelackinginuniformity.[5]
Hindulaw'scontentandstructurehasultimatelysurvivedasaresultofitsadministrationbyBritishjudges
whogavealotofattentiontoHindureligiouslegaltexts,whilesimultaneouslyinvokingEnglishprocedure,
jurisprudence,andEnglishlawtofillanygaps.Opinionsoftendifferastotheextentofthediscrepancy
betweenthecurrentlawandthepublic'sneeds,butmostagreethatasubstantialinconsistency
exists.[5][6][7][8]TheBritishcolonialgovernmentadministeredIndialargelythroughapolicyof
noninterference,allowingcivilmatterstobedealtwiththroughrespectivereligiouscommunities.Matters
thatfellunderthejurisdictionofthesecommunitieswerecalled"personallaws."TheBritishbeganthe
intensiveprocessofcodifyingHindupersonallawintheearly1940sinanattempttonotateandtherefore
organisetheIndianpoliticalsystem.
In1921,theBritishGovernmenthadalreadygonesofarastowelcomeindividualMembers'effortsat
piecemealcodification,alimitedbutsignificantshiftinpolicy.[9][10]AccordingtoLevy,thatyear,"two
Hindulegislators,onealawyerintheCentralLegislativeAssembly(thelowerHouse),theotheraneminent
scholarofSanskritintheCentralCouncilofStates(theupperHouse),initiatedresolutionsseeking
GovernmentsupportforaHinduCodeoffamilylaw."[11]Inthenexttwodecadesmanysuchfragmentary
measureswereenacted,modifyingtheHindulawofmarriage,inheritance,andjointfamilyproperty.Asa
whole,theenactedbillscarriedfurtheramodesttrendtowardincreasingpropertyalienability,reducingthe
legalimportanceofcaste,sanctioningreligiousheterodoxyandconversionand,mostsignificantly,
improvingthepositionofwomen.[11]However,itwasthepassingoftheHinduWomen'sRightstoProperty
Act(DeshmukhAct)in1937,whichhadgiventhewidowason'sshareinpropertythatwasoneofthemost
substantialstepstowardstheHinduCodeBill.[5]

Uniformcivilcode
InDecember1946,theConstituentAssemblyconvenedtodeviseaConstitutionforthesoontobe
independentIndia.TherewereextensivedebatesovertheplaceofpersonallawsinthenewIndianlegal
system.SomearguedthatIndia'svariouspersonallawsweretoodivisiveandthatauniformcivilcode
shouldbeinstitutedintheirplace.Andoncethenotionofauniformcivilcodewasputforward,itsoon
becameacceptedasanimportantpartoftheefforttoconstructanIndiannationalidentity,overtheseparate
identitiesofcaste,religionandethnicity.[12][13]Someresistancetothecodewasonthegroundsthatits
impositionwoulddestroytheculturalidentityofminorities,theprotectionofwhichiscrucialtodemocracy.
Certainfeministsthusarguethattheuniformcivilcodedebatebalancesonthepolarityofthestateand
community,renderingthegenderbasedaxisuponwhichitturns,invisible.[14]
Acompromisewasreachedintheinclusioninthefirstdraftofanarticlethatcompelledthestate"to
endeavourtosecureforthecitizensauniformcivilcodethroughouttheterritoryofIndia."Theclause,a
goal,notaright,becameArticle44intheConstitution.Itwaswidelycriticisedbyproponentsofauniform
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_code_bills

2/7

10/29/2016

HinducodebillsWikipedia

codebecauseitcontainednomechanismandprovidednotimetableforenforcement.However,Prime
MinisterJawaharlalNehruandothersinsistedonitsinclusion,arguingthatevenifitwasonlysymbolic,it
wasanimportantsteptowardsnationalunity.[15]ThoughNehruhimselflikelywouldhavefavoreda
uniformcode,heknewthatpersonallawswerelinkedwithreligiousidentityinIndiaandthereforecould
notbeeasilyabolished.Recognizingthatwhathewantedwasnotapoliticalreality,hesettledforan
unenforceableclause.[16]

Beginningofcodification
Initialdraft
In1941,thecolonialgovernmenthadappointedafourmemberHinduLawCommittee,knownastheRau
CommitteeafteritschairmanB.N.Rau.ThecommitteewastoresolvedoubtsabouttheDeshmukhAct's
construction,ensurethatitsintroductionofnewfemaleheirswasnotmadeattheexpenseofthedecedent's
owndaughterandconsiderbillsintroducedtoabolishwomen'slimitedestateandtomakepolygamya
groundforseparateresidenceandmaintenance.Laterin1941,theCommitteereportedthatthetimehad
comeforaHinduCode.Socialprogressandmodernizationcouldonlybeachievedbyfundamental
reforms,whichrecognizedgenderequality.Thecodewastobeshapedwiththeaidoforthodox,
conservativeandreformistHindusandbyacomprehensiveblendingofthebestofthecurrentschoolsof
Hindulawandtheancienttexts.[11]
The1941Reportwasaccompaniedbytwodraftbills,eachofwhichwaslaidbeforeaselectcommitteeof
bothhousesofthelegislature.Muchpublicitywasgiventotheproject,andasaresultofthecommittees'
reports,theHinduLawCommitteeitselfwasrevivedin1944andunderitschairman,B.N.Rau,prepareda
DraftCodedealingwithSuccession,Maintenance,MarriageandDivorce,MinorityandGuardianshipand
Adoption.ItwasthatCodethatwaswidelycirculatedanddiscussedandgiventhename"HinduCodeBill".
Afterpublicationintwelveregionallanguagesandawidepublicitycampaign,theRauCommitteetoured
thecountryandexaminedwitnesses.[5]Theresult1947reportofthecommitteeincludedandwentfar
beyondthe1941proposals,recommendingtheabolitionofthejointfamilypropertysystem,the
introductionofthedaughter'ssimultaneoussuccessionwiththesontothefather'sestate,theabolitionofthe
barriertointercastemarriages,theassimilationofcivilandsacramentalmarriages,andtheintroductionof
divorceforthehighercastes.[17]Itwastheintentionofthegovernmentthatthisfirstdraftshouldbecome
lawon1January1948,butthewholeprojectwastemporarilysuspendedwhenindependenceledtothe
prioritiesofthelegislaturetobeconsumedwiththetaskofcreatingthenewregime.[5]
By1943,asignificantoppositiontothecodehadbeguntodevelopinsideandoutsidetheLegislature.Inthe
194344legislativedebate,opponentsandsupportersalikeacceptedasfacttheviewthatthemajorityofthe
legalprofessioncontinuedtosupportthecode.Opponentstriedtoundercuttheperceivedsupportby
arguingthatlawyershadbecomewesternizedorthatthemeritsofthebillwereforthepeopletodecide,not
lawyers.[18]Nehruhadalreadybeenforcedtoretreatfromanoriginalpositionofpassingthebill.However,
hispositiongreatlyimprovedin1951whenhesucceededPurushottamDasTandonasCongresspresident.
Hechosenottotesthiscombinedpowersasprimeministerandpartypresident,inregardtothebillatthat
timeandallowedittolapse.He,however,promisedfellowsupportersthathewouldcampaignonthebill,
withplainargumentsonthemerits.[11]

Ambedkar'sdraft
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_code_bills

3/7

10/29/2016

HinducodebillsWikipedia

TheMinistryofLawrevisedthefirstdraftin1948and
madesomesmallalterationstoit,makingitmoresuitable
fordiscussionintheConstituentAssembly,whereitwas
finallyintroduced.Itwasreferredtoaselectcommittee
underthechairmanshipoflawministerB.R.Ambedkar,
andthecommitteemadeanumberofimportantchanges
intheBill.[5]Thiseditionhadeightsections:partone
delineatedwhowouldbeconsideredaHinduanddid
awaywiththecastesystem.Significantly,itstipulated
thattheHinduCodewouldapplytoanyonewhowasnot
aMuslim,Parsi,ChristianorJew,andassertedthatall
Hinduswouldbegovernedunderauniformlaw.Parttwo
LawministerB.R.Ambedkarin1950
ofthebillconcernedmarriagepartthreeadoptionpart
four,guardianshippartfivethepolicyonjointfamily
property,andwascontroversialasitincludedthenontraditionalallocationofpropertytowomen.Partsix
concernedpoliciesregardingwomen'sproperty,andpartssevenandeightestablishedpolicieson
successionandmaintenance.[19]Byallowingfordivorce,Ambedkar'sversionoftheHinduCodeconflicted
withtraditionalHindupersonallaw,whichdidnotsanctiondivorce(althoughitwaspracticed).Italso
"establishedonejointfamilysystemofpropertyownershipforallHindus"bydoingawaywithregional
rules.Finally,itallottedportionsofinheritancetodaughters,whilegivingwidowscompletepropertyrights
wheretheyhadpreviouslybeenrestricted.[19]
ConflictsalsoarosefromthecategorizationofwhowouldbeconsideredHindu.TheCodeestablished
"Hindu"tobeanegativecategorythatwouldincludeallthosewhodidnotidentifyasaMuslim,Jew,
Christian,orParsi.Suchabroaddesignationignoredthetremendousdiversityofregion,traditionand
custominHinduism.ThosewhopractisedSikhism,Jainism,andBuddhismwereconsideredtobeHindus
underthejurisdictionoftheCodeBill.WhiletheyhadoriginallyincludedaspectsofHinduism,bythen,
theyhadevolvedintouniquereligionswiththeirowncustoms,traditions,andrituals.[19]Therewasalso
significantcontroversyoverwhatwasestablishedtobeHindupersonallaw.SanctionedunderHinduism
wereavarietyofpracticesandperspectives.Therefore,theadministrationhadtoarbitratebetweenthese
variations,legitimatingsomeanddisregardingormarginalisingothers.[20]

Furtherrevisionsandpassing
ThedraftthatAmbedkarsubmittedtotheConstituentAssemblywasopposedbyseveralsectionsof
lawmakers.ThemotiontobegindiscussionontheHinduCodeBillwasdebatedforoverfiftyhours,and
discussionwaspostponedforoverayear.Realizingthathewouldhavetomakesignificantconcessionsto
getthebillpassed,Nehrusuggestedthattheproposedlawbesplitintoseveralsections.Hetoldthe
ConstituentAssemblytheywouldcontendwithonlythefirst55clausesconcerningmarriageanddivorce,
whiletherestwouldbeconsideredbytheParliamentofIndiaafterthefirstgeneralelection.However,the
compromisewaslargelyineffectiveinconvincingconservativestosupportthebill.Whenonly3ofthe55
clausespassedafteranadditionalweekofdebating,NehruhadAmbedkar'scommitteedistributeanew
draftthatcompliedwithmanyofthecritics'demands,includingthereinstitutionoftheMitkarjoint
familysystem,anamendmenttoallowforbrotherstobuyoutdaughters'shareoftheinheritance,anda
stipulationallowingdivorceonlyafterthreeyearsofmarriage.[21]However,afterthebillsweredefeated

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_code_bills

4/7

10/29/2016

HinducodebillsWikipedia

againintheassembly,Ambedkarresigned.Inaletterthathereleasedtothepress,heheldthathisdecision
waslargelybasedonthetreatmentthathadbeenaccordedtotheHinduCodeBillaswellasthe
administration'sinabilitytogetitpassed.[21]
In195152,Indiahelditsfirstgeneralelections.NehrumadetheHinduCodeBilloneofhistopcampaign
initiatives,declaringthatshouldtheIndianNationalCongresswin,hewouldsucceedingettingitpassed
throughparliament.Congresswonsweepingvictories,withNehrureinstatedasprimeminister,andhe
beganacomprehensiveefforttodeviseaBillthatcouldbepassed.[22]NehrusplittheCodeBillintofour
separatebills,includingtheHinduMarriageAct,theHinduSuccessionAct,theHinduMinorityand
GuardianshipAct,andtheHinduAdoptionsandMaintenanceAct.Theseweremetwithsignificantlyless
opposition,andbetweentheyearsof1952and1956,eachwaseffectivelyintroducedinandpassedby
Parliament.[3]

Intentions
AsMansfieldwritesregardingtheneedforpersonallawsinIndia,"Thespectacleoflargepoliticalentities
indifferentpartsoftheworldcollapsingandgivingplacetosmallerentitiesbasedonethnicity,religionor
languageorcombinationsofthesefactors,ratherthanstrengtheningtheideathatapowerfullycentralised,
culturallyhomogenousnationisessentialfororderandprosperity,mayhaveconfirmedforsometheview
thatthepressingtaskforIndiaisnottoincreasecentralpowerandculturalhomogeneity,buttofindan
alternativetothe'nationstate'model,analternativethatwillsustainunitythroughsomeformof
'pluralism'."[23]
Nehru'sprimarypurposeininstitutingtheHinducodebillswastounifytheHinducommunity.soitmade
sensetodefineHinduinthebroadestpossiblesense.Bylegalequity,Nehruintendedto"erasedistinctions
withintheHinducommunityandcreateHindusocialunity....TheintegrationofHindusintoa
homogeneoussocietycouldbestbedonebyenactinganallembracingcodewhichencompasseswithinits
foldeverysect,caste,andreligiousdenomination."[2]ThedebatesoverArticle44intheConstitution
revealedthatmanybelievedvariedlawsandlegaldivisionshelpedcreateoratleastwerereflective
of.socialdivisions.[2]NehruandhissupportersinsistedthattheHinducommunity,whichcomprised80%of
theIndianpopulation,firstneededtobeunitedbeforeanyactionsweretakentounifytherestofIndia.
Therefore,thecodificationofHindupersonallawbecameasymbolicbeginningontheroadtoestablishing
theIndiannationalidentity.[2]NehrualsofeltthatbecausehewasHindu,itwashisprerogativetocodify
specificallyHindulaw,asopposedtoMuslimorJewishlaw.[24]
ThoseinParliamentwhosupportedthebillsalsosawthemasavitalmovetowardsthemodernizationof
Hindusociety,astheywouldclearlydelineatesecularlawsfromreligiouslaw.Manyalsoheraldedthebills'
opportunitytoimplementgreaterrightsforwomen,whichwereestablishedtobenecessary,forIndia's
development.[25]

Supportandopposition
DuringthedebatesovertheHinducodebillsintheGeneralAssembly,largesegmentsoftheHindu
populationprotestedandheldralliesagainstthebills.Numerousorganizationswereformedtolobbyforthe
defeatofthebillsandmassiveamountsofliteratureweredistributedthroughouttheHindupopulation.In
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_code_bills

5/7

10/29/2016

HinducodebillsWikipedia

thefaceofsuchvocalopposition,NehruhadtojustifythepassageoftheHinducodebills.[26]Earlier,he
hadstatedthatinaccordancewiththepolicyofnoninterference,hewasundertakingcodificationin
compliancewithademandfromtheHinducommunity.Whenitbecameclearthatthevastmajorityof
HindusdidnotsupporttheBills,heinsistedthatthoughtheywereaminority,thosewhosupportedtheBills
weremodernandprogressiveandsoheldvitalweightintheHinducommunity,inimportanceifnotin
numbers.Healsoarguedthatbecausethebill'ssupporterswereprogressive,thosewhodissentedwould
eventuallychangetheirpositionwhenconfrontedwiththerealitiesofmodernity.[27]
ProponentsincludedbothmenandwomenwithinandoutsideofParliamentbelongingtovariouspolitical
parties.SignificantsupportforthebillscamefromCongress'women'swing(AllIndiaWomen's
Conference)andseveralotherwomen'sorganizations.Supporterslargelysoughttoconvincethepublicthat
thebillsdidnotstrayfarfromclassicalHindupersonallaw.[28]Essentially,thoseinParliamentwho
opposedthebillsweremen,largelyfromNehru'sownCongressparty.Theybelievedthatthecodebills
wouldinstitutereformthatstrayedtoofarfromtheclassicalHindusocialorderandweretooradical.They
arguedthatpracticessuchasdivorcewereabsolutelynotcondonedbyHinduism."ToaHinduthemarriage
issacramentalandassuchindissoluble."[26]Theyalsofeltthatshouldequalpropertyrightsbegivento
women,theMitkarconceptofajointfamilywouldcrumble,aswouldthefoundationofHindusociety.
Theyalsoinsistedthatifdaughtersandwivesweregiveninheritance,moreconflictswouldarisewithin
families.Theirmainargument,however,wasthatthebillslackedpublicsupport.Therefore,theywerea
directcontradictiontothepolicyofnoninterferenceandwouldmeanthegovernmentwasmeddlingin
personallaw.TheyimpliedthatthesewerebillspropagatedbyasmallminorityofHindusontothemajority
whodidnotwantthem.[26]

Today
TheapplicationoftheHinduCodeBillshavebeencontroversialindeterminingwhoistobecalledaHindu
andwhoisentitledtobeexemptedfromcertainrulesofHindulaw.[5]
Theyarealsostillcontentiousamongmanycommunities,includingwomen's,nationalistandreligious
groups.Atthetimeoftheircreation,manyportrayedthemasaseriousdeviationfromHindulegal
precedent.Feminists,suchasNiveditaMenon,arguethatsincethepersonallawscovermattersofmarriage,
inheritanceandguardianshipofchildren,andsinceallpersonallawsdiscriminateagainstwomen,the
tensionwithinthelawsisacontradictionbetweentherightsofwomenasindividualcitizensandthoseof
religiouscommunitiesascollectiveunitsofthedemocracy.Inher1998article"State,Gender,Community:
CitizenshipinContemporaryIndia",shecallsformoresupportandinitiationforreformwithinallpersonal
lawsandmorelegislationinareasthatarenotcoveredbysecularorpersonallaws,suchasdomestic
violence.Shealsoarguesforagenderequalframeworkofrightsthatcoversthe"public"domainofwork
(maternitybenefits,equalwages)andisavailabletoallIndiancitizens,thusavoidingadirectconfrontation
withcommunitiesandcommunalpolitics.[14]

Notes
1.
2.
3.
4.

Williams,p.18.
Williams,p.107.
Williams,p.106.
Williams,p.28.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_code_bills

6/7

10/29/2016

HinducodebillsWikipedia

5. JohnD.M.Derrett.HinduLawPastandPresent.1957.Calcutta.pp.180.
6. JohnD.M.Derrett.TheAdministrationofHinduLawbytheBritishforComparativeStudiesinSociety&
History.1961.pp.1052.
7. M.Galanter.HinduLawandtheDevelopmentoftheModernIndianLegalSystem.1964.
8. L.I.andS.H.Rudolph.BarristersandBrahmansinIndia.1965.
9. LegislativeAssembly,BritishIndianCentral(1921).1601,1603.
10. CouncilofStates,BritishIndianCentral(1921).DEB620621.
11. HaroldLewisLevy."LawyerScholars,LawyerPoliticiansandtheHinduCodeBill,19211956(http://links.jsto
r.org/sici?sici=00239216%28196811%2F196902%293%3A2%2F3%3C303%3ALLATHC%3E2.0.CO%3B2
5)".LawandSocietyReview.November1968.Vol3,issue2/3.pp.303316.
12. K.C.Markandan.DirectivePrinciplesintheIndianConstitution.1966.Bombay.pp.104110.
13. SyedTahirMahmood.MuslimPersonalLaw:RoleofStateintheSubcontinent.1977.pp.7778.
14. NiveditaMenon."State,Gender,Community:CitizenshipinContemporaryIndia(http://www.epw.in/reviewpoli
ticaleconomy/stategendercommunitycitizenshipcontemporaryindia.html)"[subscriptionneeded].Economic
andPoliticalWeekly.31January1998.Volume33,issue5.ReproducedonJSTOR(http://www.jstor.org/stabl
e/4406347).Retrievedon15April2012.
15. Williams,p.99101.
16. Williams,p.97.
17. RauCommitteeReport(1947).13,3234,156,182.
18. 2ndLegislativeAssembly(1944).819.
19. Williams,p.103.
20. Williams,p.14.
21. Williams,p.104.
22. Williams,p.105.
23. Mansfield,JohnH.RobertD.Baird(1993)."ThePersonalLawsoraUniformCivilCode?".ReligionandLaw
inIndependentIndia.
24. Williams,p.119.
25. Williams,p.108.
26. Williams,p.110.
27. Williams,p.11012.
28. Williams,p.1089.

References
RinaWilliams.PostcolonialPoliticsandPersonalLaws.2006.OxfordUniversityPress,NewDelhi.
Retrievedfrom"https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hindu_code_bills&oldid=733380586"
Categories: LegalhistoryofIndia SocialhistoryofIndia
Thispagewaslastmodifiedon7August2016,at12:00.
TextisavailableundertheCreativeCommonsAttributionShareAlikeLicenseadditionaltermsmay
apply.Byusingthissite,youagreetotheTermsofUseandPrivacyPolicy.Wikipediaisa
registeredtrademarkoftheWikimediaFoundation,Inc.,anonprofitorganization.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_code_bills

7/7