The Great Speeches of Modern India

by Rudrangshu Mukherjee

  Now I come to this governing clause which I just referred to, with regard to the second Five-Year Plan, namely, that the second Five-Year Plan should be based on the physical needs of the people. You will remember that yesterday the President also emphasized the necessity for basing planning on the people’s physical needs. Our first Five-Year Plan was based on the data and the material we had at our disposal as well as on things that were actually being done at the time. Take these big river valley schemes. All these things were being done at the time and we had no choice but to continue them. We had to accept what had been done. Of course, we added one or two new schemes and rearranged the priorities. That is to say, our Plan was largely based on the finance available and consisted in taking up those schemes which were most useful. But it was limited planning, not planning in the real sense of the word. The conception of planning today is not to think of the money we have and then to divide it up in the various schemes but to measure the physical needs, that is to say, how much of food the people want, how much of clothes they want, how much of housing they want, how much of education they want, how much of health services they want, how much of work and employment they want, and so on. We calculate all these and then decide what everyone in India should have of these things. Once we do that, we can set about increasing production and fulfilling these needs. It is not a simple matter because in calculating the needs of the people, we have to calculate on the basis not only of an increasing population but of increasing needs. I shall give you an instance. Let us take sugar. Our people now consume much more sugar than they used to, with the result that our calculations about sugar production went wrong. Now, why do they eat more sugar? Evidently because they are better off. If a man getting a hundred rupees finds his income increased to a hundred and fifty, he will eat more sugar, buy more cloth, and so on. Therefore, in making calculations, we have to keep in mind that the extra money that goes into circulation because of the higher salaries and wages, affects consumption.

  So we find out what in five years’ time will be the needs of our people, including even items needed by our Defence Services. Then we decide how to produce those things in India. In order to meet a particular variety of needs we have now to put up a factory which will produce the goods that we need five years hence. Thus, planning is a much more complicated process than merely drawing up some schemes and fixing a system of priorities.

  Behind all this is another factor—finance. Finance is important but not so important as people think. What is really important is drawing up the physical needs of the people and then working to produce things which will fulfil such needs. If you are producing wealth, it does not matter very much if you have some deficit financing because you are actually putting money back through goods and services. Therefore, it does not matter how you manipulate your currency so long as your production is also keeping pace with it. Of course there is the fear of inflation. We must avoid it. But there is no such fear at present in India. On the other hand, there is deflation. Nevertheless, we have to guard against inflation. We have to produce the equivalent of the money pumped in. Sometimes there is a gap between investment and production, when inflation sets in. For example, let us say we put in a hundred crores of rupees in a river valley scheme which takes seven or eight years to build. During the years it is being built we get nothing out of it but expenditure. This can be balanced in cottage industries, in which the gap in time is not large. The additional money that you have put in, is not locked up for long. Therefore in planning we have to balance heavy industry, light industry, village industry and cottage industry. We want heavy industry because without it we can never really be an independent country. Light industry too has become essential for us. So has cottage industry. I am putting forward this argument not from the Gandhian ideal, but because it is essential in order to balance heavy industry and to prevent the big gap between the pumping in of money and production.

  But production is not all. A man works and produces something because he expects others to consume what he produces. If there is no consumption, he stops production. Therefore whether it is a factory or a cottage unit, consumption of what is produced should be taken care of. Mass production inevitably involves mass consumption, which in turn involves many other factors, chiefly the purchasing power of the consumer. Therefore planning must take note of the need to provide more purchasing power by way of wages, salaries and so on. Enough money should be thrown in to provide this purchasing power and to complete the circle of production and consumption. You will then produce more and consume more, and as a result your standard of living will go up.

  I have ventured to take up your time in order to give you some idea of the approach that is intended in this resolution when we say that the second Five-Year Plan should be based on the physical needs of the people. I hope it has helped you to understand the way we are thinking. I myself do not see any other way of rapid progress. The financial approach to planning is not rapid enough. I should like you to explain this to people when you go home to your respective towns and districts. We are responsible for giving effect to this resolution. We have to fulfil our promise.

  The Hindu Code Bill (New Delhi, May 1955)

  J.B. KRIPALANI (1888–1982)

  Despite the promise of a uniform civil code in Article 44 of the Indian Constitution, Nehru began his project of reforming Indian society by trying to codify only Hindu rituals and customs. The process had already begun in the Constituent Assembly and a select committee had been formed to draft a new Hindu code as it was felt that its social practices needed to be systematized. However, the recommendations of the committee could not be made into law because of opposition to it from Hindu orthodox elements. The debate began again in the Lok Sabha when the Hindu Code Bill was introduced. J.B. Kripalani, the socialist leader, was critical of Nehru for bringing only Hindu society within the ambit of reform. He did not buy Nehru’s argument that Muslims were not ready for reform. In this speech, Kripalani chose to raise another fundamental point—he objected to the fact that the bill’s reforms were based on scriptures rather than on sociological analysis. The speech is also striking for its eccentricity—Kripalani made the point that Indian women were not oppressed by their husbands but by their mothers-in-law and the joint family system, and the even more bizarre point that the right of divorce should only be given to women. But for all its irrationality the speech remains a lively one, evidence of the range of ideas that were thrown up in Parliament in the first years of its existence. More importantly Kripalani’s point still holds. Even today India does not have a uniform civil code.

  I know that the Bill will be passed and whatever I say will have no effect, because, as I have listened to the discussion, I have felt that people are guided in this matter more by passion than by reason. On one side it is said that those who are in favour of the Bill are not good Hindus; on the other side, those who support the Bill, say that those who are against it are orthodox. Both sides quote scriptures against each other. Not only that, those who are in favour of the Bill are supposed to be very advanced, modern and those who are against are supposed to be reactionaries, as if the whole of the Catholic world was reactionary and was not advanced enough.

  I am sorry that the Law Minister did not throw much light upon the question. He talked of scriptures and because scriptures are conflicting, nothing could be deduced from them. Can anything be deduced from psychological and sociological studies in the West? He said, no—that cannot be done. You cannot follow America, where investigations in this matter have been carefully carried on, because America is not India. I have very great respect for the Law Minister; but I am sorry he styled the sociological studies in America about divorce to be as good as Miss Mayo’s description of India.

  (Shri Pataskar: I referred to only one particular pamphlet).

  I have read that pamphlet and I think it contains sociological investigation which cannot be compared with Miss Mayo’s book. This is doing a great injustice to scientific in
vestigation. What I contend is that social change through legislation in our country cannot be based on the scriptures, nor can it be based on custom, nor on sociological studies in other countries. On what should it then be based? I submit, Sir, that it must be based on sociological studies carried out here, in our country. What are the existing conditions in the country? I am afraid the Law Minister did not throw any light upon the conditions as they exist in our villages; because the majority of the population lives in the villages. We may not think of conditions as they exist in the eyes of a few highly educated women.

  (Shri N.C. Chatterjee [Hooghly]: The house is divided).

  Whether the house is divided or not, it is a question of observation. The question is not whether Mr Chatterjee’s house is divided or united; the question is about sociological facts and studies. What are the facts? What does its law provide for? It provides for equality of women. That women are treated unequally and tyrannically by men, I submit, is not a fact, so far as Hindu society in the higher castes is concerned. So far as the lower castes are concerned, sometimes the husband beats the wife and sometimes the wife beats the husband. But in the higher castes, I submit that our marriage system, our social system has not worked any great hardship on women.

  (Shri N.C. Chatterjee: We are the oppressed).

  I do not know whether we are the oppressed or depressed. But what I know is that compared with other countries in the world, our women have not fared worse. This is very clear from the fact that as soon as Mahatma Gandhi gave the call, our women came forth in large numbers and fought for freedom. Slaves, I submit, do not fight for freedom. It is the free people who fight for freedom. Our women had freedom at home. They managed the household affairs without anybody interfering with them. Women from very orthodox families, from very reactionary families and from families of jo-hukums who were afraid of the foreign government freely responded to the call of the independence movement. Were these women slaves? They did not care for their husbands; they did not care for their fathers; they did not care for their brothers. Their relatives were in government service and yet they came out to take part in the freedom movement. Therefore to consider that Hindu society has always suppressed women is not correct. It is to the credit of Hindu society that it has treated women with great consideration.

  Some people think that woman means only the wife, as if mother is not a woman, as if sister is not a woman. I say that there is no country in the world where there is greater respect today for the mother. There is no country in the world where more love is shown to the sister than in India. To concentrate our attention only on young ladies is not really very sociological. If you are talking of women in general, then I think we respect women as much as people in any other country, if not more.

  There is yet another thing. In society you cannot make a law which would do equal justice to everybody. I realize that in many cases our women have suffered very great injustice. Where from does this injustice come? I tell you in ninety cases out of hundred, it comes from the mother-in-law. It does not come from the young husband. Sometimes a young husband has to suffer because he sees his wife being ill-treated by the mother-in-law. The mother-in-law is a terror not only to the daughter-in-law, but also to the son-in-law. I do not know any son-in-law who is not afraid of his mother in-law. Even when the husband proves to be tyrannical, if you investigate into the case properly, you will find that it is the mother-in-law who has excited the young man. So, woman is the greatest enemy of woman. Again if there is a scandal against a woman, women will advertise it more than men. Woman’s judgment will be harsher than the man’s judgment.

  (Shri N.C. Chatterjee: Long live Acharyaji!)

  However the tyranny over woman is really the tyranny of the joint family. Hindu society is based on the joint family. Some people think they have left the joint family. I affirm that they have not yet got rid of the joint family. The nepotism of which we have heard so much is a proof of the vitality of the joint family. It is practised by people who do not live in the joint family; yet the joint family sticks to them, and that joint family is not only the paternal family but includes the sala and the sala’s cousins. If you examine cases of nepotism, the sala and the other such in-laws have got a more privileged position than even the paternal relations. This shows the subtle influence of women.

  Let us see if this joint family system has certain advantages which it gives to the young bride. I believe that for all its tyranny, it gives to the young lady certain advantages. What are these advantages? Supposing the young man is not earning? Who supports the family? Who supports the children? It is the joint family. Not only that. Supposing the young woman goes astray? The mother-in-law may give her pin-pricks at home, but outside the home the mother-in-law stands by the young lady. Why does she stand by the young lady even if she goes wrong? Because it is the izzat of the family; the family honour is involved. The mother-in-law would not allow anybody to say anything against her daughter-in-law, because that would involve the reputation of the whole family. So, the young lady is protected; she is supported; the children are supported. And we have experience of it in our life—I do not know why the Congress people have forgotten this. When we went to jail who took care of our wives and children? The family took care of them. We take pride that we sacrificed for the country. It was in fact the family that sacrificed. Our fathers did not agree with us; our mothers did not agree with us. Some of our relatives were government servants. They had no sympathy with our ideal of freedom. Yet when we went to jail, they supported our families. In 1942 when there was an underground movement, to whom did we go for shelter? We went to our relations. They were trembling; they were afraid; they did not want to protect us. But because we belonged to the family, they came to our help. If we had not belonged to the family, they would never have allowed us to conceal ourselves in their houses. Because we belonged to the family they gave us refuge.

  Therefore, let us not forget that here where the state does not protect the individual it is the joint family that comes to his help. It is insurance against unemployment. Read the figures given in the census report. How many unemployed are there in India? How few people are employed in the villages? But what do we find? If in any other country there was such colossal unemployment as here, people would die of starvation. But what happens here? People do not die of starvation, even though there is no unemployment dole because the joint family comes to their rescue.

  You have not provided for any social insurance for the people and you want to take away the joint family system. The joint family is insurance against sickness, against unemployment, against old age and even against the badmashi of the young, whether male or female. Nobody is going to repudiate a member of a joint family, even if he is anti-social. In India we judge a man who is a member of the family by one standard; and our standard is quite different when we judge a man outside the family. Let us recognize facts. You may have divorce if you like. But as long as you want to enjoy the benefits of the joint family, you must be prepared for the curtailment of your liberties by the joint family. You cannot have the cake and eat it too. Here we find people who want the cake and eat it too. Here is a government which refuses to provide facilities to individual men and women and yet wants to talk of equality. There can be no equality in a joint family. The joint family is a hierarchy; there is the father of the family; there is the mother; afterwards the elder brother. When the father dies the elder brother takes care of the children in the family. He feeds them, he sees to their education, he thinks they are his own children. How can you do things thoughtlessly, without taking into consideration social facts? I am no advocate of the joint family system. I have never lived in a joint family; I would hate to live in a joint family. But the fact is that the majority of our people live in the joint family. I would hate to indulge in nepotism because my brother-in-law, cousin-in-law, neighbour-in-law or villager-in-law, wants a job. I would not do it. It is hateful. But it is there; you cannot help it. It is created by the joint
family tie.

  Then again, we are a democracy. Let us judge this measure from the point of view of democracy. What is democracy? Is this measure democratic? Can we honestly say it is? What is the meaning of democracy? It contemplates two fundamental conditions. Democracy means the will of the majority, not only the will of the majority, but the proposed measure must be discussed by the masses of the people.

  Democracy does not mean only majority but you must have canvassed the opinion of the masses also. There is another condition. Democracy means that a measure is not considered as immoral by a large section of the people. I do not say that this measure is immoral. But the psychological effect upon the people would be bad if they consider a measure to be immoral; it would create a wrong mentality. Considering it from this point of view, it is my opinion—my sisters may disagreee with me—that the majority of Hindu women even are not in favour of divorce. That is my view—I may be mistaken. I have gone about the country and I think that mine is the proper assessment of the situation.

  Even so, I suppose a government has a right to reform society by enacting legislation ahead of the times, ahead of public opinion. Such a right may not be quite democratic, but it is a moral right. This Bill consists of three main principles. First is monogamy; then inter-caste marriage; the third is divorce. So far as monogamy is concerned, the measure is perfectly democratic, because public opinion is for it. It has been trained through centuries in that direction. So far as inter-caste marriage is concerned, I think public opinion is that today there should be no bar to inter-caste marriages among the Hindus. Both these propositions are approved even by those who are called reactionaries, the Hindu Mahasabhites.