Vol. 14, Part I · pages 256–260

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES238 evil. Thus politically we have put ourselves on the right track. And as my friend Mr. Hanumanthaiya has just now said, the credit goes to the Honourable Sardar Patel for giving us political consolidation in the country. After this political consolidation, our next immediate need is to have social consolidation. This Bill will provide this need I am sure, if this Bill is passed into law, marriages will be free. I am a believer in free marriages. Now that India is free marriages must also be free and there should be no restrictions. I am sorry that the Bill has come at a very late stage in our lives: but let us pass this bill for our future generations to practice it. I hope that the country will enjoy the freedom given by this Act. I wholeheartedly support the motion. Shri Upendranath Barman (West Bengal: General): I also beg to accord my whole hearted support to the Bill and its reference to the Select Committee. In my mind, I am convinced of one thing. The circumstance that stands in the way of our national sense is the caste barrier. So long as it lasts, the different sections of the Hindu community and other non-Muslim communities cannot unite together and imbibe a sense of nationality in its true sense. So long as one knows that he cannot marry his son or daughter with the son or daughter of his neighbour, the true sense that they are one cannot come. I think that by passing this measure that barrier will be won. It is the sense of kinship that is the real basis of national sense and I wholeheartedly support this Bill and I hope that it will be passed into law as soon as possible. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar (Minister for Law): With regard to this Bill, there cannot be any difference of opinion between myself and my honourable friend the mover for the simple reason that the Bill is merely a part of the Hindu Code which I am sponsoring. My only objection to the Bill is that the Legislature having accepted the principle that the Hindu Law ought to be codified, it is wrong now to proceed piece-meal with the legislation. I have no objection, as I said, to the principles underlying the Bill. In fact those are the very principles which are embodied in the Hindu Code and therefore what I will suggest to my honourable friend is that either he should withdraw this Bill or postpone the consideration of the Bill so that we may know exactly what happens to the Hindu Code. I am afraid having regard to the fact that, I am sponsoring the Hindu Code and having regard to the fact that there being the motion

DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL 239 before the house for consideration of the Bill as reported by the Select Committee, I am afraid I cannot take any other attitude than the one I have taken. Ch. Ranbir Singh rose— Shri L. Krishnaswami Bharathi (Madras: General) : How can he be allowed to speak ? The closure motion has been put. Mr. Deputy Speaker: I allowed Dr. Ambedkar to speak and he is not the sponsor. The question was not put. Ch. Ranbir Singh (East Punjab : General): ( English translation of the Hindi Speech ) Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, I have great pleasure in supporting this measure because I belong to that community amongst the Hindus who have always believed in the principle of mis Bill from the very outset. If there was any community amongst the Hindus which ever established relations outside its own sphere and that there existed no differences, it was the Jat community. It is true that there did exist some such element of difference and social ostracism but that was negligible. The very fact that this Bill will go a long way to establish throughout our country a principle in which we have believed since centuries past, affords me great pleasure to support this. Secondly, just as my honourable friend Mr. Tyagi has stated, this will banish our mutual differences wliich were responsible for our slavery. By the integration of small states our leader the Honourable Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel has consolidated our country into one and that problem has been well solved. This Bill is a very good measure for solving our social problems. So far as the Hindu Code Bill is concerned that is a big thing, It is not yet known whether or not the country or this House accepts it. It contaias some provisions over wliich our leaders have expressed some sort of difference. I, therefore, fail to understand how far it is correct to shelve or reject this Bill simply for the reason mat it forms part and parcel of that Bill, because if the Hindu Code Bill is passed, this measure will naturally be incorporated in it. If that is not passed, this Bill will at least have chances of being passed. With these words I whole-heartedly support this. Shri K. M. Munshi : Is it permissible for me to answer a point made by Dr. Ambedkar ?

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES240 An Honourable Member: Pandit Bhargava can deal with it. Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava : Sir, I am very glad that all sections of the House have supported this measure. It is a measure of such a kind that I could not foresee with the highest flight of imagination that any sort of objection could be raised and I am very glad that this measure is liked by everybody. One objection has been raised and that is that since the Hindu Code Bill is on the anvil therefore, we should not proceed with this Bill. If the principles of this Bill and the principles which are the subject matter of the Hindu Code were antagonistic to each other, I could understand the objection, but where this measure proceeds on the same basis as the Hindu Code Bill, if we pass it in advance, it will really pave the way for the passing of the Hindu Code. I cannot understand how the passing of this will obstruct the passing of the Hindu Code—really it will accelerate its passage. May I enquire where is the law or rule or convention that if a Bill like the comprehensive Hindu code Bill is on the anvil therefore another Bill cannot be passed. There is no such convention. I cannot understand that if a measure is there which covers one of the points covered by another measure, therefore the second measure should not be passed. Bakshi Tek Chand has pointed out that this measure was a subject matter of a Bill in 1919 and this measure is associated with the name of our revered President V. J. Patel. Now in point of time I think so far as Hindu Code is concerned, this kind of measure is much anterior. In a matter of this kind, these technicalities even if they be valid, should not be allowed to stand. What would happen to those thousands of men and women if this Hindu Code Bill is not passed and I think it is not going to be taken clause by clause this session and it may go on to September or October and not passed in this Session because it is a controversial measure and it may take a year; what would happen to those young men and women who desire to marry according to the provisions of this Bill and our activities which certainly conduce to the formation and consolidation of one nation ? Sir, it is not a matter of joke. I am only helping Dr. Ambedkar whose marriage also will be legalised by this Bill. Why should he laugh at this ? This may or may not be applicable to him yet the disabilities if any will be removed. I know hundreds of people want to marry under this and is it wrong to marry under this rule ? I for one deprecate that anyone should place any obstacle to this Bill being

DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL 241 passed in this session. If this measure is not passed in this Session all our efforts and Gandhiji’s efforts will be futile. So my submission is this and I beg Dr. Ambedkar to kindly withdraw his objection and agree to the passage of this Bill as soon as possible because this would also help him in getting this relevant portion of the Hindu code passed. Shri K. Hanumanthiya: Has the honourable member accepted the name of Shrimati Annie Mascarene which I have suggested ? Mr. Deputy Speaker: Yes, I suppose the honourable the Law minister wants to know the number of men on the waiting list. The question is : “That the Bill to provide that marriages between Hindus, Sikhs, Jains and their different castes and sub-castes are valid, be referred to a Select Committee consisting of Giani Gurmukh Singh Musafir, Sardur Hukum Singh, Shri M. Ananthasayanam Ayyangar, Shri Deshbandhu Gupta, Shrimati G. Durgabai, Shrimati Renuka Ray, Shri Ramnath Goenka, Dr. Bakhshi Tek Chand, Lala Achint Ram, Ch. Ranbir Singh, Shri Mahavir Tyagi, Shrimati Annie Mascarene, and the Mover, with instructions to report by the 28th February 1949, and that the number of members whose presence shall be necessary to constitute a meeting of the Committee shall be five.” The motion was adopted. *HINDU CODE—contd. Mr. Speaker : The honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar. Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava —rose. Shri Jaspat Rai Kapoor (U. P. : General): Mr. Speaker, Sir, I have to raise a point of order which, if accepted, will bar any further discussion on the point of order raised in the previous session by my honourable friend Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad. I therefore, submit that I be permitted to place my point of order for your consideration. Mr. Speaker : As Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava was on his legs, I think I ought to hear him first. I do not anticipate what he is going to say; I have my own views on the point of order raised but I will consider what Pandit Thakur Das has to say, Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava (East Punjab : General): Sir, on the last occasion when the motion was made by the Honourable Dr. Ambedkar, Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad took a point of order on the point that the Bill considered by the Select Committee was not the * C.A. (Leg.) D., Vol. I, Part II, 17th February 1949, pp. 614-21.

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES242 Bill referred to it by the House. While that point was being considered. I was submitting for your consideration some grounds why the point of order was of great substance. While that was being done, you were pleased to stop the discussion and shorten the matter, as would appear on page 778 of me Proceedings, dated 31st August 1948. At that time, Sir, you were pleased to tell us what was passing in your mind and you told us that you will consider at the proper time two or three questions which are given on page 779 of this report. The two questions which seemed to agitate your mind were, firstly, whether the Select Committee went out of its way and went beyond the scope, and secondly, whether the Select Committee has gone beyond the scope of the reference. These were the two questions. The debate was taking place when ultimately you decided as given on page 780, that you would study all the facts and then give a ruling. With regard to that, I beg to lay some points for your consideration in regard to the point of order raised by Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad. Mr. Speaker: As I see from the report, what I stated there was this— I have not got the printed report but I have got the proof-sheets here. After the Honourable member Shri Biswanath Das had raised a point, I stated as follows :— “As I said, I am not deciding this matter at all. I am keeping open the whole thing including the point of order, because it will be seen that it involves large questions of fact and I must study all these things myself, which I have not yet done. Shall I leave the matter as it is ? Therefore, I left it for me to study it and I can now say that I have studied it. Whatever may have been said by honourable members with reference to the point of order, I have studied the report of the Select Committee, I have studied the first Bill and I have studied, of course, the other draft which was alleged to have come before the Select Committee. If the honourable member has to say anything with reference to that he may. Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava : It is only with reference to that that I propose to speak just now. As a matter of fact, I also raised this very point of order, but Mr. Naziruddin was more fortunate in catching your eye. Therefore, I have something to say on this point. Shri Mohan Lal Gautam (U. P. : General): On a point of order to this point of order, Sir, according to the Rules of Procedure, I do not find any provision for any point of order after a report has been presented to this House. I would request the honourable member to