Vol. 14, Part I · pages 301–305

DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL 283 occasions find it very difficult to touch me even with a barge pole. He is so conservative. My friend Mr. T. R. Venkatarama Sastri is no doubt a liberal but he is certainly not a radical so far as I know. If these people conservative in their attitude have signed the report I think we can take it for granted that the measure to which they have put their signature could not be revolutionary and certainly could not be destructive of the foundations of the Hindu Society. So far as I am concerned I am a very conservative person : Although some people may not accept that fact, I am indeed very conservative. All I say is that I am a progressive conservative and I should like to tell the House one important fact which I think every one of us must bear in mind, particularly the conservative members of this House. The great political philosopher Edmund Burke who wrote a big book against the French revolution because of its radicalism and revolutionism did not forget to tell his own countrymen who were very conservative, one very important truth. He said that those who want to conserve must be ready to repair and all I am asking of this house is this : that if you want to maintain the Hindu system, the Hindu culture, the Hindu society, do not hesitate to repair where repair is necessary. This Bill asks for nothing more than repairing those parts of the Hindu system which are almost become dilapidated. Shri H. V. Kamath : Sir, on a point of reminder, the Honourable Dr. Ambedkar promised some citations from the Smrities. Will he keep promise ? The Honourable Dr. B. R, Ambedkar : I shall do so at the end. Fortunately for me I have secured a copy of Mr. Dwarkanath Mitter’s own book “Rights of Hindu Women”. I was going to cite certain text, which show that the rights which the Vedas had given to women were taken by the Smrities in the meantime and some other smrities tried to restore those rights. I shall cite them in the course of my speech. Shri Deshbandhu Gupta : Could the Honourable Minister enlighten the House as to the evidence which was produced before the Select Committee? The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : As Honourable Members know two bodies came to us and asked for evidence to be taken. The Committee decided that their evidence be taken. One body came and one body sent in a written reply. That body was the Dharma Nirnaya Mandal. In general they are absolutely in agreement with the provisions contained in the Bill. The other gentleman who came obviously was not.

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES284 Mr. Deputy Speaker : Motion moved: “That the Bill to amend and codify certain branches of the Hindu Law, as reported by the Select Committee, be taken into consideration”. Two amendments were not pressed. What about the next amend ment ? Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava : Sir, I am not in a position to move any of my amendments. Mr. Deputy Speaker : As I have already stated in answer to the suggestion made by the Honourable the Mover of the Bill I shall allow those motions to be made without any speeches at the time of moving the motion. After all the amendments are moved whichever are relevant and are admitted, there will be discussion on them as also on the original motion. Shri Deshbandhu Gupta : On a point of order, Sir, is it open to an honourable Member to say that he is not in a position to move his amendments ? Mr. Deputy Speaker : It is. Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : Sir, I am directed ...... An Honourable Member : By whom ? Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : I am directed to move my amendment without a speech at the first instance. (An honourable Member; “Who has directed you?”) I am directed by the Honourable Deputy Speaker. I find that honourable members are extremely impatient. Shri R. K. Sidhva (C. P. and Berar: General): No, we are not. Proceed. Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : I have been directed, I repeat, to move my amendment without a speech. On account of the eloquence of my honourable friend the Law Minister I was already speech less .............. Shri L. Krishnaswami Bharathi : You are already disobeying your mandate. Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : There are the bright ladies who have also created a profound impression upon me and just before I stood up Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava, a very powerful member, said that he was not in a position to move. Mr. Deputy Speaker : Is this preamble necessary for moving his amendment ? Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : I was already rendered speechless and that is why I was expressing my gratitude for suggesting that I should not make any speech.

DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL 285 Mr. Deputy Speaker: The honourable Member will speak later. Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad: Sir, I beg to move with considerable amount of nervousness : “That the Bill be circulated for the purpose of obtaining further opinion thereon by the end of 1949.” Mr. Deputy Speaker: Amendment moved : “That the Bill be circulated for the purpose of obtaining further opinion thereon by the end of 1949.” Shri B. Das: Sir, as this is a dilatory motion I suggest it may be ruled out of order. Shri Mahavir Tyagi: On a point of order; in the morning also there was some ruling about dilatory motions. I submit, Sir, that they are the privilege of a Member. Although I stand by Dr. Ambedkar in many respects with regard to this Bill, I submit that dilatory motions are the privilege of those Members who are not in power—of individual Members as well as parties. Let it not be tabooed. It is a democratic right of Members to delay business if they choose to do so. Therefore a motion should not be disallowed because it is considered to be diatory. Dilatory motions are the privilege of a House of democracy. Mr. Deputy Speaker: I do not see any point of order in what Mr. Tyagi has said. He wants full discussion to be allowed on this. As regards the point raised by Mr. B. Das I am not able to understand it. Does he mean to say that under any of the Rules such a motion is not allowable ? If so when Report is presented, the procedure is this. ( An honourable Member: “What Rules are they ?”) The rules that we adopted last session. The Rule says : “If the member in-charge moves that the Bill be taken into consideration, any member may move as an amendment that the Bill be re-committed or be circulated or re-circulated for the purpose of obtaining opinion or further opinion thereon.” Therefore under the Rules this kind of motion is allowed. I want to know how I am expected to disallow this motion. Shri B. Das : I am aware of that Rule. But I was guided by the ruling of this morning that no dilatory motions would be allowed. I therefore raised the point of order. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: May I be permitted to say something ? I think the point raised by my friend Mr. B. Das is a perfectly correct point of order, because of this . . . . . Honourable Members : No. Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava: When the Deputy Speaker has given a ruling it cannot be questioned.

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES286 Mr. Deputy Speaker: The honourable Members will not speak all together. They will rise in their seats and speak one at a time. Let me hear the Honourable the Law Member. I will allow an opportunity to every Member to speak on this point provided he is able to make a proper contribution to the debate. Nobody need be impatient. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Sir, as you will recall the motions which are permissible under the Rules of Business fall into two categories : One set of motions are such that the Speaker must put them to the House; the other set of motions are such that the Speaker must first be satisfied that they are proper motions before he can put them to the House. Let me illustrate this by reference to a motion for adjournment. Under the Rules every honourable Member is permitted to move an adjournment motion. But merely because a certain member has tabled an adjournment motion that in itself does not authorise, enable or empower the Speaker to put it to the House, because it is laid down that unless the motion is held to be admissible by the Speaker the motion shall not be put. I can give various other illustrations. With regard to a motion like this, namely, the adjournment of the consideration of the Bill and circulations for further opinion, my submission is that such a motion falls within that category of motions where the Speaker is required to be satisfied before he can put the motion to the House. It has been the universal practice in this House that any such motion for the postponement of the consideration of the Bill or for circulation, made after the Select Committee has made its Report, is prima facie dilatory. Unless the member who makes the motion advances substantial reasons for such a motion and the Speaker is satisfied that the reasons advanced are substantial such a motion will not be admissible. There are many rulings in these books but I should like to draw attention to ruling No. 1 in book No. 1. In regard to this motion no substantial reasons have been given. An Honourable Member: But he has not spoken at all. Mr. Deputy Speaker: Let the honourable the Law Member conclude. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : I was only drawing your attention to a ruling (No. 1) in this book. There are various others also. It says: “During the discussion on the Cotton Excise Duty Abolition Resolution a motion was moved to adjourn the debates on the Resolution. ( Which practically means sending it away for circulation or to leave it up. )

DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL 287 “The President while accepting the motion on this particular occasion without creating a Precedent remarked : “The Chair cannot allow a motion to adjourn consideration of a proposition to be moved merely in order to enable another item of business to come forward. It must be supported on substantial grounds.” Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava: The ruling says it is not a precedent but you want to make a precedent of it. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: The President says ‘I am ruling but I am not creating a precedent.’ Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava : In this matter I would call your attention to page 81 of ‘ Decisions of the Chair ’ which says that there are certain motions which can be stated to be of a dilatory nature. The question of circulation is not certainly one of such nature. But there are motions of a dilatory nature and it is in the discretion and power of the Chair to allow them or not to allow them. One page 81 of this book in regard to re-committal of motions it has been held that though to start with, it may be regarded as a dilatory motion, if something happened in the Select Committee or some events have transpired since, the Chair is perfectly authorised to say that it is not a dilatory motion. Now the honourable Member has not been asked what the reasons are and before that my honourable friend gets up and says that it is a dilatory motion. It is absolutely wrong for him to suggest at the very outset that it is a dilatory motion. A circulation motion is not a dilatory motion. Unless the Speaker comes to the conclusion that nothing has transpired in the Select Committee or no further events have taken place which justify him to retard that motion I think the Speaker is not entitled to say that any of the motions are also dilatory. Ordinary motions countenanced by the rules cannot be regarded as dilatory motions. Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad: Sir, I think matters can be cut short in a minute. The precedent relied upon by the Honourable the Minister of Law does not apply to this situation at all. The heading is, “Adjournment of Debate”, . . . . The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: This is an adjournment of debate, if the motion is carried. Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : No, it is entirely different as I shall show. The sub-heading is “Adjournment of Debate: Motion when allowed to be moved:”. I do not move for an adjournment of this debate, which certainly could be done under amendment No. 2, that is: “That the consideration of the Bill, as reported by the Select Committee be postponed.”