RSS opposed reforms that outlawed Hindu polygamy and gave women inheritance rights

This is a continuation of a discussion on a different thread: https://such.forumotion.com/t11703-tribal-justice-in-pakistan#90371

I think this topic deserves its own thread, because it has little to do with the horrible tribal justice in Pakistan.

Here are some extracts from Ramachandra Guha's book India after Gandhi. As you can see, RSS, Hindu Mahasabha and other right-wing organizations staunchly opposed reforms which gave Hindu women basic rights like equal inheritance, ability to divorce an abusive spouse, etc.

-----------------------
Pages 230-233.

A doughty opponent of the bill was the Constituent Assembly's own president, Rajendra Prasad. In June 1948, shortly after the Select Committee [on Hindu Code Bill] had been set up, Prasad warned the prime minister that to introduce "basic changes" in personal law to impose the "progressive ideas" of a "microscopic minority" of the Hindu community as a whole. Nehru answered that the Cabinet had declared itself in favor of the bill, that "personally, I am entirely in favor of the general principles embodied in it." To scrap the legislation now would give rise to the suspicion that the Congress was "a reactionary and a very conservative body;" nor would it go down well "in the mind of foreigners outside India." Prasad shot back that the opinions of the "vast bulk of the Hindu public" were more important than the views of foreigners.

Within the Assembly there were other opponents as well. They stalled and thwarted the proceedings until Nehru, in high dudgeon, told them that to him the passing of the bill had become a matter of prestige. Prasad, in response, drafted a letter warning the prime minister that this would be "unjust and undemocratic," as this "fundamental and controversial legislation" had never been considered by the Indian electorate...

Already, in March 1949, an All-India Anti-Hind-Code-Bill Committee had been formed. This held that the Constituent Assembly had "no right to interfere with the personal laws of Hindus which are based on Dharma Shastras."

The Anti-Hindu-Code-Bill Committee was supported by conservative lawyers as well as conservative clerics. [It] held hundreds of meetings throughout India, where sundry swamis denounced the proposed legislation. The participants in this movement presented themselves as religious warriors (dharmaveer) fighting a religious war (dharmayuddh)...

[Trofimov's note: compare dharmayuddh to jihad and dharmaveer to mujahid]


The Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh threw its weight behind the agitation. On 11 December 1949, the RSS organized a public meeting at the Ram Lila grounds in Delhi, where speaker after speaker condemned the bill. One called it "an atom bomb on Hindu society." ...

Through 1950 and 1951, Nehru and Ambedkar made several attempts to get the Hindu Code Bill passed into law. But the opposition was considerable, both within Parliament and outside it. To quote JDM Derrett, "every argument that could be mustered against the project was garnered, including many that cancelled each other out." The "offer of divorce to all oppressed spouses became the chief target of attack, and the cry that religion was in danger was raised by many whose real objection to the Bill was that daughters were to have equal shares with sons."

The reservations of the orthodox, as expressed in Parliament, were carried forward in the streets by the cadres of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh. They brought batches of volunteers into New Delhi, to should slogans against hte Hindu Code Bill and court arrest.

-----------------------
Page 236

Keeping the earlier protests in mind, the original bill was now broken up into several parts. There were separate bills dealing with Hindu marriage and divorce, Hindu minority and guardianship, Hindu succession, and Hindu adoptions and maintenance.

Nehru worked hard to convince his colleagues of the importance of these measures.

-----------------------
Page 237

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.

In the Lok Sabha the opposition to the reforms was led by the brilliant Hindu Mahasabha lawyer NC Chatterjee.

-----------------------
Page 239

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.

[In the view of a dissenting MP] the new bills constituted a "direct attack on the Hindu shastras and Hindu customs." 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.

-----------------------
Page 240

[In 1951], 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.

Why is this relevant now?

nenu wrote:Why is this relevant now?

Why is it not relevant now? Just today, Rishi posted a comment about how Christians can't thump their chests because they are "15 minutes ahead of Muslims" in the historical sense when it comes to treatment of women. I am pointing out the irony of that, because Hindus have an even smaller lead over Muslims on that count.

Also, the intellectual forefathers of today's BJP and RSS were busy fighting the very reforms in Hinduism that their descendants now bash Muslims for not undertaking.

nenu wrote:Why is this relevant now?

Chronologically, this came after Akbar and Aurangzeg on whom we have written reams on this board. So we're getting closer to "now" than in any of those threads.

Second, it is always useful to be reminded how backward our own society was just a few decades ago. And how the very same buffoons who get their kicks going haw-haw at some tribal society's primitiveness fought hard to keep Hindu society just as backward just a few years back.

Merlot Daruwala wrote:

nenu wrote:Why is this relevant now?

Chronologically, this came after Akbar and Aurangzeg on whom we have written reams on this board. So we're getting closer to "now" than in any of those threads.

hmm....
I agree. The shortcomings in any society are the headaches of only that society. As long as they do not affect the outsiders, it's none of anyone's business.

trofimov wrote:

Merlot Daruwala wrote:

nenu wrote:Why is this relevant now?

Chronologically, this came after Akbar and Aurangzeg on whom we have written reams on this board. So we're getting closer to "now" than in any of those threads.

I'll join you too

trofimov wrote:

Also, the intellectual forefathers of today's BJP and RSS were busy fighting the very reforms in Hinduism that their descendants now bash Muslims for not undertaking.

Today's BJP wants a uniform civil code. Are you criticizing that too?

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:

trofimov wrote:

Also, the intellectual forefathers of today's BJP and RSS were busy fighting the very reforms in Hinduism that their descendants now bash Muslims for not undertaking.

Today's BJP wants a uniform civil code. Are you criticizing that too?

I am not criticizing UCC. I am criticizing the BJP for its duplicity. When Hindu code was reformed, Shyama Prasad Mukherjee -- whose contributions Advani and Vajpayee talk up now -- was staunchly against the reform. Reform of Hindu family law happened despite the opposition of Mukherjee and his party. But BJP is now eager to advocate the same reform to other religious groups!

Keep in mind this was just after the bloody partition.

Raja Ramohun Roy proposed reforms and was able to get Hindu society to accept changes. Congress was not really trusted by the BJP and even today for its attitude towards Hindus (more so now).

if the same laws had been proposed by Someone from the Hindu Right it would have been accepted.

Today the congress wants to reduce the age of consent from 18 to 16 to placate the muslims. A Delhi High Court suddenly applies Sharia to allow a Muslim woman to marry before 18 years India is paying the price due to disunity among Hindus.

Today the congress wants to reduce the age of consent from 18 to 16 to placate the muslims.


Really a dumb idea.

There is going to be a lot of unwed mothers in India.

Rishi wrote:There is going to be a lot of unwed mothers in India.

True Unkil. All those hormone-buzzed kids out there were just waiting for the UPA government to lower the age of consent to go out and have sex.

nenu wrote:Why is this relevant now?

It is highly relevant because the same forces now want a uniform civil code and SU-CH brilliant atheistic scholars are not different from those who follow the 7th century book when it comes to paying attention to old stuff even if was abandoned by modern society. Even when the world is on the verge of its end, brilliant scholars dedicate themselves to comBleDly understanding how it came into being. They are also fascinated by "tiger bones". LOL.

rawemotions wrote:Raja Ramohun Roy proposed reforms and was able to get Hindu society to accept changes.

Ram Mohan Roy faced much opposition and ridicule from the Hindu orthodoxy. He was not able to get polygamy outlawed. He was not able to get women equal inheritance rights. He was able to get sati abolished, and that because he obtained support from the British government, specifically Governor General Bentinck. When Bentinck banned sati in Bengal, the Hindu orthodoxy challenged the ban. The matter went all the way up to the Privy Council in London.

rawemotions wrote:if the same laws had been proposed by Someone from the Hindu Right it would have been accepted.

The fact remains that far from proposing such laws, the "Hindu Right" of the day firmly opposed any change at all. They wanted no meddling with the sanatana dharma.

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:the same forces now want a uniform civil code

Guruvu-gaaru, a dharma sandeham. Is it "uniform" if someone stands for polygamy for both Muslim and Hindu men? I ask, because that is what RSS and its politicians stood for back then. Now that they can't have polygamy, they oppose polygamy for Muslims. Yes, no?

trofimov wrote:This is a continuation of a discussion on a different thread: https://such.forumotion.com/t11703-tribal-justice-in-pakistan#90371

I think this topic deserves its own thread, because it has little to do with the horrible tribal justice in Pakistan.

Here are some extracts from Ramachandra Guha's book India after Gandhi. As you can see, RSS, Hindu Mahasabha and other right-wing organizations staunchly opposed reforms which gave Hindu women basic rights like equal inheritance, ability to divorce an abusive spouse, etc.

-----------------------
Pages 230-233.

A doughty opponent of the bill was the Constituent Assembly's own president, Rajendra Prasad. In June 1948, shortly after the Select Committee [on Hindu Code Bill] had been set up, Prasad warned the prime minister that to introduce "basic changes" in personal law to impose the "progressive ideas" of a "microscopic minority" of the Hindu community as a whole. Nehru answered that the Cabinet had declared itself in favor of the bill, that "personally, I am entirely in favor of the general principles embodied in it." To scrap the legislation now would give rise to the suspicion that the Congress was "a reactionary and a very conservative body;" nor would it go down well "in the mind of foreigners outside India." Prasad shot back that the opinions of the "vast bulk of the Hindu public" were more important than the views of foreigners.

Within the Assembly there were other opponents as well. They stalled and thwarted the proceedings until Nehru, in high dudgeon, told them that to him the passing of the bill had become a matter of prestige. Prasad, in response, drafted a letter warning the prime minister that this would be "unjust and undemocratic," as this "fundamental and controversial legislation" had never been considered by the Indian electorate...

Already, in March 1949, an All-India Anti-Hind-Code-Bill Committee had been formed. This held that the Constituent Assembly had "no right to interfere with the personal laws of Hindus which are based on Dharma Shastras."

The Anti-Hindu-Code-Bill Committee was supported by conservative lawyers as well as conservative clerics. [It] held hundreds of meetings throughout India, where sundry swamis denounced the proposed legislation. The participants in this movement presented themselves as religious warriors (dharmaveer) fighting a religious war (dharmayuddh)...

[Trofimov's note: compare dharmayuddh to jihad and dharmaveer to mujahid]


The Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh threw its weight behind the agitation. On 11 December 1949, the RSS organized a public meeting at the Ram Lila grounds in Delhi, where speaker after speaker condemned the bill. One called it "an atom bomb on Hindu society." ...

Through 1950 and 1951, Nehru and Ambedkar made several attempts to get the Hindu Code Bill passed into law. But the opposition was considerable, both within Parliament and outside it. To quote JDM Derrett, "every argument that could be mustered against the project was garnered, including many that cancelled each other out." The "offer of divorce to all oppressed spouses became the chief target of attack, and the cry that religion was in danger was raised by many whose real objection to the Bill was that daughters were to have equal shares with sons."

The reservations of the orthodox, as expressed in Parliament, were carried forward in the streets by the cadres of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh. They brought batches of volunteers into New Delhi, to should slogans against hte Hindu Code Bill and court arrest.

-----------------------
Page 236

Keeping the earlier protests in mind, the original bill was now broken up into several parts. There were separate bills dealing with Hindu marriage and divorce, Hindu minority and guardianship, Hindu succession, and Hindu adoptions and maintenance.

Nehru worked hard to convince his colleagues of the importance of these measures.

-----------------------
Page 237

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.

In the Lok Sabha the opposition to the reforms was led by the brilliant Hindu Mahasabha lawyer NC Chatterjee.

-----------------------
Page 239

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.

[In the view of a dissenting MP] the new bills constituted a "direct attack on the Hindu shastras and Hindu customs." 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.

-----------------------
Page 240

[In 1951], 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.

The problem was with Nehru and his Congress Govt. and not with Prasad and others. The latter (Prasad et al.) insisted in favor of having a "strong" Hindu oriented law applicable to Hindu majority after the Govt. (led by Nehru) chose to forego UCC and instead put in place the separate religious laws for non-Hindu communities (Muslims etc.) for the sake of appeasing them. Nehru probably thought that this would impress the international community and please the people (minorities) at home, right after the Kashmir fiasco (basically his choice to take the Kashmir issue to the U.N.).

Seva Lamberdar wrote:The latter (Prasad et al.) insisted in favor of having a "strong" Hindu oriented law applicable to Hindu majority .....

Unkil, the "strong" Hindu oriented law demanded by Prasad et al was based on the Manusmriti. Have you forgotten your own very strong denunciation of the Manusmriti as a spurious text which could not stand the Mimamsa test??

Merlot Daruwala wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:The latter (Prasad et al.) insisted in favor of having a "strong" Hindu oriented law applicable to Hindu majority .....

Unkil, the "strong" Hindu oriented law demanded by Prasad et al was based on the Manusmriti. Have you forgotten your own very strong denunciation of the Manusmriti as a spurious text which could not stand the Mimamsa test??

To be "fair" to Rajendra Prasad, he was also interested in preserving other famous Bihari customs - chewing paan and wearing chappals to formal ceremonies. Nehru, who claimed to be the "last European" to rule India, was unhappy with this behavior. He would have been more upset if he knew that Mr. Prasad was happily following other "lingering daily morning" activities!

Merlot Daruwala wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:The latter (Prasad et al.) insisted in favor of having a "strong" Hindu oriented law applicable to Hindu majority .....

Unkil, the "strong" Hindu oriented law demanded by Prasad et al was based on the Manusmriti. Have you forgotten your own very strong denunciation of the Manusmriti as a spurious text which could not stand the Mimamsa test??

I used the word strong between quotes for the law meant for Hindus, in relation to the Govt. granting / allowing separate religious laws to other communities. Prasad wouldn't have insisted on such things if India (under Nehru) had already opted for the UCC (one law for everyone, irrespective of religion, race, caste and gender).

Seva Lamberdar wrote:I used the word strong between quotes for the law meant for Hindus, in relation to the Govt. granting / allowing separate religious laws to other communities. Prasad wouldn't have insisted on such things if India (under Nehru) had already opted for the UCC (one law for everyone, irrespective of religion, race, caste and gender).

I see. In other words, Prasad and the chaddis fought for Hindu men's right to polygamy, right to subjugate women etc only because Muslim men got to have all that fun. Yeah, I agree with you. Nehru was one heck of a party-pooper.

Merlot Daruwala wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:I used the word strong between quotes for the law meant for Hindus, in relation to the Govt. granting / allowing separate religious laws to other communities. Prasad wouldn't have insisted on such things if India (under Nehru) had already opted for the UCC (one law for everyone, irrespective of religion, race, caste and gender).

I see. In other words, Prasad and the chaddis fought for Hindu men's right to polygamy, right to subjugate women etc only because Muslim men got to have all that fun. Yeah, I agree with you. Nehru was one heck of a party-pooper.

Govt. created the situation to start with, by allowing the separate religious laws for different communities. You can't blame people for reacting that way after Govt. had already put in place a very bad, discriminatory and divisive system of multiple religious laws.

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

Merlot Daruwala wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:I used the word strong between quotes for the law meant for Hindus, in relation to the Govt. granting / allowing separate religious laws to other communities. Prasad wouldn't have insisted on such things if India (under Nehru) had already opted for the UCC (one law for everyone, irrespective of religion, race, caste and gender).

I see. In other words, Prasad and the chaddis fought for Hindu men's right to polygamy, right to subjugate women etc only because Muslim men got to have all that fun. Yeah, I agree with you. Nehru was one heck of a party-pooper.

Govt. created the situation to start with, by allowing the separate religious laws for different communities. You can't blame people for reacting that way after Govt. had already put in place a very bad, discriminatory and divisive system of multiple religious laws.

Not true Unkil. Both Hindus and Muslims could marry multiple women, not allow them to divorce etc before the 50s. So it WAS a Uniformly Uncivil code.

The party was spoiled only because Nehru wanted Hindu women to get a better deal. And Prasad and the chaddis hated that only Hindu men were deprived of all the good stuff while the Muslims could continue to abuse their women. Terrible injustice it was indeed.

Merlot Daruwala wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

Merlot Daruwala wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:I used the word strong between quotes for the law meant for Hindus, in relation to the Govt. granting / allowing separate religious laws to other communities. Prasad wouldn't have insisted on such things if India (under Nehru) had already opted for the UCC (one law for everyone, irrespective of religion, race, caste and gender).

I see. In other words, Prasad and the chaddis fought for Hindu men's right to polygamy, right to subjugate women etc only because Muslim men got to have all that fun. Yeah, I agree with you. Nehru was one heck of a party-pooper.

Govt. created the situation to start with, by allowing the separate religious laws for different communities. You can't blame people for reacting that way after Govt. had already put in place a very bad, discriminatory and divisive system of multiple religious laws.

Not true Unkil. Both Hindus and Muslims could marry multiple women, not allow them to divorce etc before the 50s. So it WAS a Uniformly Uncivil code.

The party was spoiled only because Nehru wanted Hindu women to get a better deal. And Prasad and the chaddis hated that only Hindu men were deprived of all the good stuff while the Muslims could continue to abuse their women. Terrible injustice it was indeed.

>>> Merlot, as I said earlier, the question of Prasad and others fighting over the Hindu Marriage Act would not arise if Nehru and Congress Govt. had already implemented the UCC. The allowing of divisive and discriminatory religious laws for different communities by Govt. officially led to the whole chaos and mess.

Seva Lamberdar wrote:The problem was with Nehru and his Congress Govt. and not with Prasad and others. The latter (Prasad et al.) insisted in favor of having a "strong" Hindu oriented law applicable to Hindu majority after the Govt. (led by Nehru) chose to forego UCC and instead put in place the separate religious laws for non-Hindu communities (Muslims etc.) for the sake of appeasing them. Nehru probably thought that this would impress the international community and please the people (minorities) at home, right after the Kashmir fiasco (basically his choice to take the Kashmir issue to the U.N.).

Sevaji, given your mindset, it is possible that you have a direct hotline to Prasad and your views may benefit from access that no other human being has ever had. However, it is much more likely that you do not know what you are talking about. Prasad explicitly opposed reforming Hindu law because it was "progressive." He was opposed to such "progressive" moves as banning polygamy, giving women equal inheritance rights, etc. As a justification, he cited Hindu orthodoxy which was opposed to reform. UCC is neither here nor there when it comes to Prasad's views.

Seva Lamberdar wrote:>>> Merlot, as I said earlier, the question of Prasad and others fighting over the Hindu Marriage Act would not arise if Nehru and Congress Govt. had already implemented the UCC. The allowing of divisive and discriminatory religious laws for different communities by Govt. officially led to the whole chaos and mess.

Sevaji, different religious laws existed even before independence. The new government of India is not responsible for those. The government tried to make some progress by fixing those laws. Prasad and other right-wingers opposed such "progressive" ideas, arguing that sanatana dharma was already pretty damn perfect. You should be able to empathize with that position.

trofimov wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:>>> Merlot, as I said earlier, the question of Prasad and others fighting over the Hindu Marriage Act would not arise if Nehru and Congress Govt. had already implemented the UCC. The allowing of divisive and discriminatory religious laws for different communities by Govt. officially led to the whole chaos and mess.

Sevaji, different religious laws existed even before independence. The new government of India is not responsible for those. The government tried to make some progress by fixing those laws. Prasad and other right-wingers opposed such "progressive" ideas, arguing that sanatana dharma was already pretty damn perfect. You should be able to empathize with that position.

As I indicated earlier, the question about Prasad and others talking about Sanatana Dharma on this issue would not arise if Nehru / Congress had straight away, just after the Independence (irrespective of religious laws in India before), implemented the UCC.

As I indicated earlier, it is quite possible that you are speaking based on special knowledge you have gained by having direct access to the mind of the long-dead Prasad. But the probability of that is rather low. It is more likely that you are just making stuff up. In his own words, Prasad opposed Hindu code reform because it was "progressive" -- not because it was not uniform.

trofimov wrote:As I indicated earlier, it is quite possible that you are speaking based on special knowledge you have gained by having direct access to the mind of the long-dead Prasad. But the probability of that is rather low. It is more likely that you are just making stuff up. In his own words, Prasad opposed Hindu code reform because it was "progressive" -- not because it was not uniform.

Prasad et al. came into the picture much after the UCC had been declined by Govt. and the separate religious laws for different communities were in place (continuing as before the Independence).

The objections raised by Prasad et al. (as members of Hindu community) to the changes proposed by Govt. in Hindu Marriage Act (for Hindus, Buddhists etc.) were mostly as a reaction to Govt.’s decision to change the Hindu Marriage Act only while leaving the laws for other religious communities (Christians and Muslims etc.) untouched. There were several clauses in other communities’ laws (in Muslim law etc.) about which Govt. did nothing, whereas the Govt. tried to bring changes immediately in similar clauses in the Hindu law. Naturally, it was seen as a discriminatory and divisive act on the part of Govt. against which many Hindus and others (including Prasad et al.) objected. There was also chatter among public on this issue during 1950s. I still remember some grown up men in my village talking about it and giving credit to Prasad for standing up to Nehru.

Needless to say, Govt. (Nehru) could have easily avoided this confusion and chaos by getting rid of the discriminatory and divisive religious laws altogether and instead implement the UCC (one law for everyone, no matter what the religion, race, caste and gender).

For some reason (probably to appease the Kashmiris and Kashmir’s chief minister Mr. Abdulla at that time), Nehru / Govt. during 1950s also decided that Kashmir’s chief minister would in future be called Pradhan Mantri (prime minister, as that of India and like Nehru) and not Mukhya Mantri (chief minister, the head of Govt. in any other state).

This caused quite a confusion among students (grades seven and eight) in the Govt. Middle School I attended, because the mother tongue of most students was Pahadi and they did not see much difference between Hindi words Pradhan and Mukhya. Some of them got beat up in front of the entire school (right during the morning general assembly, after prarthana / prayer) for getting mixed up between Pradhan Mantri and Mukhya Mantri and answering wrongly (as “Mukhya Mantri”) in response to the question from school headmaster, “what is the head of Govt. in the state of Kashmir called?”

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

trofimov wrote:As I indicated earlier, it is quite possible that you are speaking based on special knowledge you have gained by having direct access to the mind of the long-dead Prasad. But the probability of that is rather low. It is more likely that you are just making stuff up. In his own words, Prasad opposed Hindu code reform because it was "progressive" -- not because it was not uniform.

Prasad et al. came into the picture much after the UCC had been declined by Govt. and the separate religious laws for different communities were in place (continuing as before the Independence).

The objections raised by Prasad et al. (as members of Hindu community) to the changes proposed by Govt. in Hindu Marriage Act (for Hindus, Buddhists etc.) were mostly as a reaction to Govt.’s decision to change the Hindu Marriage Act only while leaving the laws for other religious communities (Christians and Muslims etc.) untouched. There were several clauses in other communities’ laws (in Muslim law etc.) about which Govt. did nothing, whereas the Govt. tried to bring changes immediately in similar clauses in the Hindu law. Naturally, it was seen as a discriminatory and divisive act on the part of Govt. against which many Hindus and others (including Prasad et al.) objected. There was also chatter among public on this issue during 1950s. I still remember some grown up men in my village talking about it and giving credit to Prasad for standing up to Nehru.

Needless to say, Govt. (Nehru) could have easily avoided this confusion and chaos by getting rid of the discriminatory and divisive religious laws altogether and instead implement the UCC (one law for everyone, no matter what the religion, race, caste and gender).

For some reason (probably to appease the Kashmiris and Kashmir’s chief minister Mr. Abdulla at that time), Nehru / Govt. during 1950s also decided that Kashmir’s chief minister would in future be called Pradhan Mantri (prime minister, as that of India and like Nehru) and not Mukhya Mantri (chief minister, the head of Govt. in any other state).

This caused quite a confusion among students (grades seven and eight) in the Govt. Middle School I attended, because the mother tongue of most students was Pahadi and they did not see much difference between Hindi words Pradhan and Mukhya. Some of them got beat up in front of the entire school (right during the morning general assembly, after prarthana / prayer) for getting mixed up between Pradhan Mantri and Mukhya Mantri and answering wrongly (as “Mukhya Mantri”) in response to the question from school headmaster, “what is the head of Govt. in the state of Kashmir called?”

Entertaining story, Sevaji. Are you still in communication with Prasadji? If so, ask him why he said he opposed the "progressive" aspects of the reform.

trofimov wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

trofimov wrote:As I indicated earlier, it is quite possible that you are speaking based on special knowledge you have gained by having direct access to the mind of the long-dead Prasad. But the probability of that is rather low. It is more likely that you are just making stuff up. In his own words, Prasad opposed Hindu code reform because it was "progressive" -- not because it was not uniform.

Prasad et al. came into the picture much after the UCC had been declined by Govt. and the separate religious laws for different communities were in place (continuing as before the Independence).

The objections raised by Prasad et al. (as members of Hindu community) to the changes proposed by Govt. in Hindu Marriage Act (for Hindus, Buddhists etc.) were mostly as a reaction to Govt.’s decision to change the Hindu Marriage Act only while leaving the laws for other religious communities (Christians and Muslims etc.) untouched. There were several clauses in other communities’ laws (in Muslim law etc.) about which Govt. did nothing, whereas the Govt. tried to bring changes immediately in similar clauses in the Hindu law. Naturally, it was seen as a discriminatory and divisive act on the part of Govt. against which many Hindus and others (including Prasad et al.) objected. There was also chatter among public on this issue during 1950s. I still remember some grown up men in my village talking about it and giving credit to Prasad for standing up to Nehru.

Needless to say, Govt. (Nehru) could have easily avoided this confusion and chaos by getting rid of the discriminatory and divisive religious laws altogether and instead implement the UCC (one law for everyone, no matter what the religion, race, caste and gender).

For some reason (probably to appease the Kashmiris and Kashmir’s chief minister Mr. Abdulla at that time), Nehru / Govt. during 1950s also decided that Kashmir’s chief minister would in future be called Pradhan Mantri (prime minister, as that of India and like Nehru) and not Mukhya Mantri (chief minister, the head of Govt. in any other state).

This caused quite a confusion among students (grades seven and eight) in the Govt. Middle School I attended, because the mother tongue of most students was Pahadi and they did not see much difference between Hindi words Pradhan and Mukhya. Some of them got beat up in front of the entire school (right during the morning general assembly, after prarthana / prayer) for getting mixed up between Pradhan Mantri and Mukhya Mantri and answering wrongly (as “Mukhya Mantri”) in response to the question from school headmaster, “what is the head of Govt. in the state of Kashmir called?”

Entertaining story, Sevaji. Are you still in communication with Prasadji? If so, ask him why he said he opposed the "progressive" aspects of the reform.

I have more entertaining stories than this.
Btw Prasad only came into picture on this issue later, after the Govt. had already implemented / continued with separate religious laws for different communities instead of a common UCC.

We have a creative forum here. You should consider posting your entertaining stories there.