Vol. 14, Part I · pages 41–45

DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL 23 Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : It was not kept in the Library for a very long time. It has been placed in the Library very recently. I had to buy it from the market. It is only recently that some copies were kept in the Liberary. Prof. N. G. Ranga (Madras : General): What is it? Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : When an Honourable Member like Professor Ranga asks ‘what is this?’ it only shows. . . Prof. N. G. Ranga : I asked what is it you are referring to. Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad: The Report of the Hindu Law Committee. Prof. N. G. Ranga: That is, the Rao Committee. Its Report has been before the public for a year. Mr. Speaker: Whatever it be, the Honourable Member may proceed. Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad: The Report has been published only recently. I submit that in this Report there is a dissentient minute of the late Justice D. N. Mitter. He has collected a large number of opinions against the Bill. I do not wish to read them. He has classified them province by province and subject by subject. There is no time to deal with them, but he has said that the principles of the Bill are opposed by the entire Hindu community, that is the orthodox section of the community. I have studied as carefully as it was possible for me within the short time available, the recent opinions on the Bill obtained by the Government and circulated to us. I find there is a volume of opinion against the Bill. In fact, at the time when the Committee was hearing evidence the evidence in Bengal was also all one way. Now in the opinions circulated I find the opinion in West Bengal is all one way. It is clearly against the Bill. What is remarkable is that there is an opinion by the Secretary of the Government of Bengal in the Ministry of Law. That opinion is to be found in paper No. 4, opinion No. 17. That opinion is against the Bill. It says that this is not a proper time to take the Bill. ( An Honourable Member : ‘When was that ’?) It bears no date. It has been circulated only recently—five or six days ago. In fact it says that the Bill is of far-reaching importance and enough consideration has not been given to the opinions expressed. The House will be pleased to consider the different categories of

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES24 objections. One is that, this Bill should not be considered by a mixed Legislature consisting of members of various communities. It is for this reason that I am particularly anxious to speak as it was feared that men of different communities will rather support the Bill and spoil the cause of orthodox Hinduism. It is for this reason that I hasten to declare that I am not supporting the Bill as the Hindu community is much against it. One of the objections is that the introduction of women’s shares would introduce litigation. There are many opinions that this would lead to excessive fragmentation that it will lead ultimately to the destruction of that joint family system amongst the Hindus which has saved the community from the destructive effects of fragmentation from which the Muslims most terribly suffer. It is said also that the Hindu law—the Vedic literature and the post Vedic literature known as the “ Srutis” and the “ Smritis” have a divine origin. But the present Bill goes, it is said, against the very structure, the very religious basis and the very religious structure of the Hindus. It is on this ground that is seriously opposed. It is argued that you cannot regard all this religious law, all this sacred literature as so much nonsensical superstition. They have kept the Hindu society alive for ages though it is quite true that society cannot remain stagnant. It must move. But it must move cautiously and with experience. The present Bill makes a change with a sweeping stroke. Another point that has been made apparent in these objections is that the present Legislature was elected on one issue, namely the attainment of independence. The present Bill, which is really of a very sweeping and complicated character, and its principles have not been before the public and it would therefore, be better to wait to digest opinions and to pass a constitution and hold elections making this a definite issue before the public. It will then be seen whether the public at large really desire it. In fact it is said that the Bill was not properly circulated. Many associations got only a few days’ time or even a few hours time to consider and give their opinions. In these circumstances it is argued that the Bill should not be taken into consideration at this stage. Then there is another important aspect of the question. The Bill attempts to make the law applicable to Hindus uniformly throughout

DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL 25 India, but it has been pointed out that the effect of uniformity will not be attained in view of the shortness of time. It is well known that agricultural land is beyond the purview of this House. It is a provincial subject. Whatever law we may pass will affect only non-agricultural land, whatever that expression may mean. That expression is also vague. It has been defined in the Income Tax Act for the purpose of taxation and this Bill as well as many other Acts have taken that as the basis. There may be lands which lie midway between agricultural and non-agricultural lands. In fact, apart from this distinction, a large proportion of our property—about 80 per cent—consists of culturable land. Thus it is perfectly clear that the Provinces will have to deal with them and they may deal with them in a different manner and some provinces may not deal with them at all. And then again we have the acceded States. Though Hindu Law is to be the same—and it is attempted to make it uniform—the States people may legislate or may not legislate, and in case they legislate they may make different provisions. In fact the Provincial Governments and the States will be largely guided by local custom and local opinion and I believe it will be extremely difficult for the West Bengal Legislature to pass a law which is so much against the opinion of that Province. It will therefore come to this that if we pass this law the result would be that in the case of a man having two classes of properties—a house or building and certain agricultural land—one set of law will apply to non-agricultural land and another set of law will apply to agricultural land. Whatever law you pass, it should be uniform and it would be far better to collect opinions from the Provincial Governments and to ask for their consent to give jurisdiction to this House to pass a comprehensive legislation as we have done in some cases. If comprehensiveness and completeness is the objective, it is better that the Central Legislature should be armed with their consent and deal with it on an all-India basis, and it would also be a proper tiling to ask the States to co-operate in this matter. These are some of the difficulties. As we are working against time, it is impossible, as the Honourable the Law Minister has pointed out, to deal with even some of the salient features of the Bill. It is also impossible to deal with some of the objections except from the border point of view. One thing that strikes me is that the opinions have not been very carefully

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES26 studied. We have not got any analysis of these opinions collected point by point and supplied to the members to enable them to deal with them. It is very difficult for private Members to read the opinions at a high speed and to analyse them, store them in different compartments of their brains and use them in a classified form. On a matter of such great importance as this, it would have been extremely desirable for the Honourable Minister’s Department to classify the opinions, as was done before in such cases, and circulate them to enable members to consider each point in the light of the objections or support in respect of each of them. Shri L. Krishnaswami Bharati (Madras : General): It is there in the Report of the Law Committee, classified, analysed and all that. Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : I am grateful for the remark, but the opinions of which I am speaking have been received and circulated after the report. In fact the opinions which have been circulated by the Department were received only recently and they are on the Bill as it is. But the opinions collected in the Report of the Hindu Law Committee were collected before the drafting of the Bill, that is during the enquiry stage. The Honourable Member has missed the point that the opinions I am speaking of are not those publised in the Report. They were separately printed and circulated. These are the opinions which I talk of. I think these should have been carefully analysed and printed along with the various points. Sir, I do not wish to labour the matter. Personally I am in favour of the Bill, but these are some of the objections which I have been asked to put forward by certain of my friends. That is the reason why I have put them before the House. There are a large number of other points, but they are of a minor nature. In view of the shortness of the time at our disposal I think I should cut short my speech. Then again legislation should rather follow public opinion. It should follow rather than create or override public opinion, and I am giving a quotation from a famous authority, the father of modern politics, Edmond Burke. He said on a famous occasion: “To follow, not to force the public inclinations, to give direction, a form and technical dress and a specific sanction to the general sense of the community is the true end of legislation.”

DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL 27 But it has been pointed in the objections that there is no public opinion behind this Bill. It is pointed out in some of the objections that only some of the educated section and some of the ultra-modern section are behind it, but the masses, most of whom are ignorant, are indifferent to it and it has not been fully circulated in the way a subject of this importance should have been. In these circumstances, I submit this for the consideration of the House that it would have been better if the House gave directions to the Select Committee in matters of a disputed nature, but in this case we are sending the Bill without any directions. I should seek a little clarification from the Honourable Minister for Law. With these few words, Sir, I hope the points raised in the objections would be carefully considered and due decisions would be reached. With regard to the personnel of the Select Committee, nothing could be said. The ablest, the most authorititave and most well-informed of the Members have been taken in it and I hope and believe that they will do full justice to the objections raised against the Bill. * Shrimati Hansa Mehta (Bombay : General): Mr. Speaker, Sir, I congratulate the Honourable Minister for bringing this Bill even at this late hour of the Session. I also congratulate or rather I express my sense of gratitude to Sir B. N. Rau and his colleagues for the great labour they have bestowed on the Report on which these recommendations are based. This Bill to codify the Hindu Law is a revolutionary Bill and though we are not quite satisfied with it, it will be a great landmark in the social history of the Hindus. But since this Bill was drafted many things have happened and one of the biggest things that has happened is the achievement of our political freedom. Our new Constitution is in the making; we have already agreed upon the fundamental principles on which this new Constitution is to be drafted. The new State is going to be a democratic State and democracy is based on the equality of individuals. It is from this point of view that we have now to approach the problems of inheritance and marriage etc. that are before us. The Select Committee will therefore, have to see that the new Bill is drafted on these principles. 6-00 P.M. *C.A. (Leg.) D., Vol. IV, 9th April 1948, pp. 3642-44.