Vol. 14, Part I · pages 311–315

DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL 293 Shrimati Renuka Ray : In view of the Speaker’s ruling, it is out of order. It goes against the Speaker’s ruling. Mr. Deputy Speaker : The re-circulation motion is before the House. Why should the House not consider this motion also after all ? Shrimati Renuka Ray : It goes against the Speaker’s ruling of the other day. Mr. Deputy Speaker : May I ask the Lady Member how it goes against the Speaker’s rulling ? Shrimati Renuka Ray : The Speaker ruled that the Bill is the same as committed to the Select Committee and therefore there cannot be a motion for recommittal to the Select Committee. There has been no substantial change in the Bill. Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : There are many substantial changes as I shall show. Mr. Deputy Speaker : No speeches across the benches please. So far as the arguments advanced by the Lady Member are concerned, what I feel is this. The Speaker certainly said that the Bill considered by the Select Committee is not different from the one committed to it. But recommittal may be on various other grounds. Therefore, unless any objection is taken on other grounds Shrimati Renuka Ray : The words “original Bill” are there. Mr. Deputy Speaker : Original Bill is the same as the other Bill. Therefore, he has said “original Bill”. We will drop the word “original”. Shrimati Renuka Ray : I would humbly submit that the word “original” is there. Therefore, we cannot drop it now from the motion, Mr. Deputy Speaker : The Speaker ruled that the Bill that came out of the Select Committee was the original Bill and therefore there is no harm in using the word “original”. The objection taken was that the original Bill was not considered by the Select Committee. Hon’ble the Speaker ruled that it was the original Bill itself that was considered by the select Committee. Therefore, the honourable Member has stated in his amendment that the original Bill be recommitted to the Select Committee. The argument advanced by the Lady Member is against her own objection. I find there is nothing wrong in this motion. Shri R. K. Sidhva : The Mover’s intention is quite different. He does not consider this Bill as the original Bill and therefore he wants this to be sent to the same Select Committee.

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES294 Shri H. V. Kamath : Though the intention of the Mover is clear, I think my honourable friend Pandit Naziruddin Ahmad, in drafting the amendment has slightly over-reached himself. I would suggest to him that he may reconsider the whole matter and bring it up again sometime later. Mr. Deputy Speaker : I do not consider that the use of the word ‘original’ affects the position at all. On the other hand, the Speaker’s ruling was that it was the original Bill that was referred to the Select Committee and that it was that Bill that came back in a modified form. I cannot accept that as an objection. There is no good, spending more time over this matter. Amendment No. 13 may be moved. Pandit Mukut Bihari Lal Bhargava : My amendment is substantially the same as the one moved by Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad. I will speak in support of it and not move mine. Mr. Deputy Speaker : The honourable Member will then have to take his turn after that of the Movers of the other amendments. Amendment No. 14 is not moved. Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : I intend moving my next amendment if my amendment No. 10 is passed. Shrimati Renuka Ray : I rise to a point of order. Amendment No. 15 goes against the Speaker’s ruling. Mr. Deputy Speaker : The Speaker’s ruling does not cover this point. This House may not be satisfied with the re-arrangement made by the Select Committee. Therefore the original motion that it be referred to the Select Committee can stand. There is no point of order so far as this matter is concerned. Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : Then, Sir I move: “That the Bill be re-committed to the Select Committee with instructions for report on the original Bill as presented to the House restoring the original arrangement of self-contained separate Parts and Chapters for enactment separately”. Mr. Deputy Speaker : I am afraid, I must disallow this amendment. As there can be no objection to the re-arrangement of Parts and Chapters, I rule this amendment out of order. Shri B. Das : Sir, before the next amendment is moved, I want your ruling as to whether one member can move five amendments ? Mr. Deputy Speaker : Alternative amendments can be given notice of. The honourable Member has been sufficiently long in this house to know this.

DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL 295 In the next amendment of Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad, the only adddition is of the words “31st December 1949”. I do not think he need move amendment No. 16. Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : The Select Committee referred to there is a separate select committee. Mr. Deputy Speaker : I do not think I can allow this amendment to be moved. The honourable Member must have given the names of the Members for the Select Committee at the time of giving notice of the motion. Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : I have divided it into two parts. First of all there is the idea of the Select Committee. If it is acceptable . . . Mr. Deputy Speaker : The house cannot be asked to give its opinion first in a matter of this kind. As the honourable member has not given the names of the Members for the select committee to the Chair earlier, his amendment is ruled out of order. Discussion on the general motion may now be resumed. I call upon Seth Govind Das to speak now. Seth Govind Das : Sabhapathiji . . . . . Shri L. Krishnaswami Bharathi : During general discussion the honourable Member who has moved an amendment has the first right to speak. Mr. Deputy Speaker : The honourable Member will leave it to the Chair. The Chair knows the procedure. Mr. Tajamul Husain : I have been trying to raise a point of order for a long time. Sir, I shall be very brief. The honourable member Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad who is very keen on punctuation, on commas and full stops etc. has given notice of this amendment that this Bill be circulated. This is absolutely out of order. The honourable member should have worded his amendment thus. This Bill be re-circulated. That is my point of order. This is what the relevant rule says : ‘any member may move as an amendment that the Bill as reported by the Select Committee be re-committed or re-circulated as the case may be for the purpose of obtaining opinion or further opinion thereon’. Therefore, the honourable member who is very keen on commas and full stops etc. should have put the words “re-circulated for further opinion”. My point of order, therefore, is that as the wording of this amendment is not according to the rules, it may be ruled out of order.

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES296 Mr. Deputy Speaker : It is true that the honourable member who has tabled this motion, who is ordinarily careful with reference to punctuations has committed there error of not putting the word ‘re’. I ought not to decide it is a matter of form, but as one of substance and this motion for circulation comes after the report of the Select Committee has been received. Therefore, it means under the circumstances only ‘re-circulation’. I have already given the ruling. The ruling will stand. The debate will be continued by Seth Govind Das. Shri V. S. Sarwate : Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, I want to bring to your notice that I have already given a motion for re-circulation and it is based on those two motions. I do not know, why it was omitted in the consolidated list. These two motions are dated the 21st August 1948. I do not wish to take further time of the house. I will read the motion so that it can be taken up for further discussion. The motion stands thus ; “That the Bill as reported by the Select Committee be re-ciurculated for the purpose of obtaining further opinion thereon” Mr. Deputy Speaker : Have honourable members got copies of this notice ? (An honourable Member: “Yes, Sir”) I will ask the honourable member to read it out. Shri V. S. Sarwate : The motion runs as follows : “That the Bill as reported by the Select Committee be re-ciurculated for the purpose of obtaining further opinion thereon” Mr. Deputy Speaker : When was this notice of amendment given ? Shri V. S. Sarwate : Notice was given on 1st August 1948. The amendment forms part of Supplementary list No. 2. Mr. Deputy Speaker : The motion was made on the 1st August and the 12th of August is the date of the Select Committee’s report and possibly a week later it was presented to the House. Shri L. Krishnaswami Bharathi : The motion was made on 31st of August. Mr. Deputy Speaker : The motion need not be made. It is after the presentation of the report. But all notices lapse after the session is over. A fresh notice should have been given. I do not know if honourable Members have got copies of this. Shri Jaspat Roy Kapoor : I have got a copy of this. It is a consolidated list; Notice of Amendments.................... This was sent from 4 P.M.

DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL 297 the office on the 28th August 1948. There are twenty-four amendments mentioned in this list and Mr. Sarwate’s amendment stands as the fourth on this list. Mr. Deputy Speaker : These notices were all for the last session. These notices have all lapsed at the end of that session. Only those amendments, copies of which have been placed on the table before each honourable Member now, these only will have to be taken for consideration. The other notices have lapsed. Therefore further debate will be continued by Seth Govind Das. * Seth Govind Das : (English translation of the Hindi speech) Mr. Deputy Speaker, I find that the supporters and opponents of this Bill can be divided into four groups. One of the opponent groups consists of those persons who oppose this measure with the same viewpoint as was exhibited by certain antagonists at the time of enactment of law for the abolition of Sati, the law which was got passed by the late Shri Ishwar Chandra Vidyasagar for widow-remarriage and the measure put forth by Mr. Sharda for the prevention of child marriages being brought on the Statute Book. At the time of Sharda Bill, I was a member of the Council of State and I personally know the opposition that was then meted out to this Bill. This group is of the opinion that no change can be made in that what has been prescribed in the text of our Vedas, Shastras and Smritis. I do not belong to that group. It would be noticed even from reference to our Dharmashastras that if one Rishi (Sage) said something from time to time, the other said something else. Had this not been the case, our Rishi would not have written. Smritis numbering more than one hundred. If you go through these Smritis, you will find that the tenets laid down in one Smriti differ those contained in the other. Each of these Smritis enunciates a different principle. Then just as I have stated, I am not one of tliose groups who have opposed almost all the reforms that have been introduced hithertofore. The second opposing group is that which on the one hand believe that there is obviously a necessity for making reforms in these affairs, but on the other hand, it holds that this is not the proper time for the enactment of such a legislation. This should be brought forth only after the new elections have taken place, and when our new representatives have been elected. I would like to say that there will *C.A. (Leg.) D., Vol II, Part II, 24th February 1949, pp. 861-71.