힌두법안(Hindu Code Bill) 논쟁과 여성의 권리 = Hindu Code Bill Controversy and Women's Right

국문 초록 (Abstract)

본 논문에서는 힌두법안 논쟁의 배경과 제헌의회에서의 논쟁 과정에서 드러난 여성에 대한 인식을 검토해보았다.
영국 식민지정부는 기본적으로 인도의 관습에 관여하지 않는 정책을 취했지만 필요에 따라 여성 관련법을 제정했다. 부분적인 민법 제정의 문제점들이 대두되자, 식민지정부는 포괄적인 민법 제정을 위해 라우 위원회를 구성하여 기초 작업에 착수했다. 그러나 1947년에 인도가 독립하면서 이 작업은 중단되었고 독립 후 특별위원회에서는 라우 위원회 안을 수정한 힌두법안을 제헌의회에 상정했고, 1951년까지 힌두법안에 대한 논쟁이 전개되었다. 제헌의회에서는 보수파와 개혁파의 견해가 충돌했고, 한편으로는 불가촉천민인 암베드까르가 힌두법안 개혁을 주도함으로써 논쟁이 더욱 격렬해졌다.
여성의 재산권 부분에서는 딸의 상속권 문제가 논쟁의 핵심이 되었다. 보수주의자들은, 결혼한 딸은 친정의 일원이 아니라 시집의 일원이므로, 여성의 재산 상속권은 시집의 재산으로 한정해야 한다고 주장했다. 개혁주의자들은 여성의 권리는 후천적으로 취득한 자격이 아니라 생득적 권리를 바탕으로 규정하는 것이 합당하다고 주장했다. 보수주의자들은 혼인이 단순한 사회적 계약이 아니라 성사이기에 이것을 붕괴시키는 것은 용인할 수 없다고 주장했으며 일부일처제를 법제화하는 것 역시 반대했다. 일부일처제를 강요하면 아들을 낳지 못하는 경우와 같은 예외적 상황에서 문제를 일으킬 수 있다는 것이다. 그러나 개혁주의자들과 여성의원들은 일부다처제로 고통 받는 여성들을 구제하기 위해서는 일부일처제를 반드시 법제화해야 하고, 이혼을 요구할 권리 역시 부여해야 한다고 주장했다.
보수주의자들은 힌두법안이 스므리띠를 비롯한 관습법에 위배되는 법이며, 혁명적 변화를 일으킬 법이어서 힌두 사회를 분열시킬 것이라고 주장했다. 그러나 개혁주의자들은 힌두법안은 경직되어 있는 전통을 개정하는 것이며, 이러한 개정에는 혼란이 동반되는 것이지만, 그런 혼란을 두려워하면 어떤 개혁도 할 수 없을 것이라고 반박했다.
요컨대 보수주의자들은 여성 차별은 불평등이 아니라 남자와 여자의 다른 역할에 대한 다른 대우에 불과하다고 생각했고, 여성을 개인으로서가 아니라 아내와 어머니라는 존재로 이해하고 있었으나 개혁주의자들은, 여성은 딸·아내·어머니이기 이전에 한 ‘개인’으로 인식되어야 하며, 여성에게 개인으로서의 행복 추구권을 부여해야 한다고 주장한 것이다. 그러므로 개혁주의자들과 보수주의자들의 대립하게 된 것은 관습법과 여성 차별에 대한 인식이 달랐고, 남녀평등에 대한 인식 또한 달랐기 때문이라 할 수 있다. 또한 보수주의자들과 개혁주의자들의 여성의 권리에 대한 인식 차이는 과거를 기준으로 현재를 판단하려는 의식과 미래를 준비하는 현재가 되어야 한다는 의식의 대립이었다고도 할 수 있을 것이다.

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

In this paper, the background of discussions on Hindu Code Bill and the recognition about the women exposed at the discussions on Constituent Assembly are reviewed.
After been independent, Select Committee sent Hindu Code Bill up into the constituent assembly. Up to 1951 from that time, discussions on Hindu Code Bill were developed at the constituent assembly. Opinions by the conservatives and the liberals came into conflict at the constituent assembly but, on the other hands, as Ambedkar who is Dalits led to reform Hindu Code Bill, discussions became more heated.
For the women’s property right, the issues on daughter’s inheritance right were at the core of the discussions. The conservatives insisted that, as a married daughter was no longer a member of her birth family but she was the one of the family at her married side, the women’s inheritance right for property had to be limited to the one from the family at her married side. The liberals insisted that, as the women’s right was not an acquired one, it was reasonable that the women’s right had to be regulated based on an innate right.
The conservatives insisted that, as marriage was not just a social agreement but sacrament, it couldn’t be acceptable to destroy it and they opposed monogamy being legalized as well. They insisted that some problems might occur under exceptional situations, such as the case that a married woman couldn’t have a son under monogamy when monogamy was insisted. But the liberals and female members of the constituent assembly insisted that, in order to save the women who were suffering from polygamy, monogamy had to be legalized and, besides, they had to be granted for the right to ask to divorce.
The conservatives insisted that Hindu Code Bill was against the traditional laws including Smrtis and, as it was enough to start revolutionary changes, it would cause the Hindu society to be divided. But the liberals contradicted them and insisted that Hindu Code Bill could revise the tradition which was too inflexible and some confusion would be accompanied by this kind of revisions but, if these confusions had been worried, any reformation wouldn’t have been made.
In a few words, the conservatives thought that discrimination against women was not inequality but it was just a kind of treatment to women whose role was different from the men’s one. They understood women are as wife and mother not as an individual. On the other hands, the liberals insisted that women had to be understood as ‘an individual’ rather than as daughter, wife or mother. They also insisted that women had to be granted for the right to pursue happiness as an individual. Therefore, why the conservatives and the liberals confronted seems because customary laws were understood differently and discrimination against women was recognized differently as well. Besides, gender equality was recognized in a different way. Also, different recognitions between the conservatives and the liberals could be understood as confrontation of recognitions; the one is to judge the present based on the past and the other one is the present should be a preparation for the future.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• 〈국문요약〉
• Ⅰ. 서론
• Ⅱ. 힌두법안 논쟁의 배경
• Ⅲ. 힌두법안의 여성의 권리에 대한 논쟁
• Ⅳ. 결론
• 참고문헌
• 〈Abstract〉

참고문헌 (Reference)

• 1 이옥순, "여성적인 동양이 남성적인 서양을 만났을 때" 푸른역사 1999
• 2 Ray, Bharati, "Women of India : Colonial and Post-colonial Periods" Sage Publications India 2005
• 3 Deogirikar, T. R., "Twelve years in Parliament : democracy in action" Chitrashala Prakashan 1964
• 4 Robinson, C. A., "Tradition and Liberation : The Hindu Tradition in the Indian Women's Movement" Curzon Press 1999
• 5 Sitaramayya, B. P., "The history of the Indian National Congress Vol. 1 : 1885-1935" Padma Publications Ltd 1946
• 6 Kumar, R., "The History of Doing : An Illustrated Account of Movements for Women's Rights and Feminism in India 1800-1990" Kali for Women 1993
• 7 Newbigin, E., "The Hindu Family and the Emergence of Modern India : Law, Citizenship and Community" Cambridge University Press 2013
• 8 Brekke, Torke, "The Concept Of Religion And The Debate On The Rights Of Women In The Constitutional Debates Of India" 22 (22): 71-85, 2009
• 9 SWJN : Nehru, J., "Selected Works of Jawaharlal Nehru, Vol. 1-15" Orient Longman 1982
• 10 Nehru, J., "Presidential Address [before] the Indian National Congress, 57th Session" All India Congress Committee 1951
• 11 Williams, R. V., "Postcolonial Politics and Personal Laws : Colonial Legal Legacies and the Indian State" Oxford University Press 2006
• 12 Agnes, Flavia, "Politicization of Personal Laws: A Study of Colonial India" Ray 3-25, 2005
• 13 Chavan, Nandini, "Personal Law Reforms and Gender Empowerment : A Debate on Uniform Civil Code" Hope India Publications 2006
• 14 Nehru, J., "Nehru, The Tirst Sixty Years, Vol. 2" Bodley Head 1965
• 15 Nehru, J., "Jawaharlal Nehru's Speeches, Vol. 1-4" Publications Division, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting 1964
• 16 Som, Reba, "Jawaharlal Nehru and the Hindu Code : A Victory of Symbol over Substance?" 28 (28): 164-194, 1994
• 17 Arya, A., "Indian Women : Society And Law" Gyan Publishing House 2000
• 18 Chandra, B., "India Since Independence" Penguin Books 2008
• 19 Prasad, Rajendra, "Dr. Rajendra Prasad, Correspondence and Select Documents, Vol. 1-20" Allied Publishers 1995
• 20 Ambedkar, B. R., "Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar, Writings and Speeches, Vol. 14" Education Department Government of Maharashtra 1979
• 21 Sinha, Chitra, "Debating Patriarchy : The Hindu Code Bill Controversy in India(1941-1956)" Oxford University Press 2012