Vol. 14, Part I · pages 461–465

DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL 443 The bill was lastly rushed through the Legislature on the 9th of April last. We were asked by our fair sisters not to oppose the Bill at that stage; it was considered to be so important that no detailed attention need be paid to it—it should be passed. So, at the last hour of the last day we agreed to allow it to be considered. I raised my feeble objection from the Hindu point of view. Am I raising any objection from the Muslim point of view? Certainly not. So, my declaration that the objection was from the Hindu point of view should not have elicited any surprise or any laughter. It is from the Hindu point of view that I am speaking. My learned sister the other day asked me, “Why is it that you are denying to your Hindu sisters rights which you are giving to your own sisters”? That is a very cardinal question. May I reply? My reply is this, that you cannot give the same kind of food to different kinds of persons. You have got to judge the position of a Hindu woman as the Hindu law conceives of it. You have got to consider the position of a Muslim woman as the Muslim law conceives it. We are not here to question the wisdom of one system or the other. I find there are two kinds of Members here: some vegetarians and some non-vegetarians. Would you give meat food to a vegetarian and if anybody gives vegetable food to a vegetarian would you accuse him of partiality? ( An honourable Member: ‘Is it logic? Very strange logic.’). The argument is as logical as the question put to me by my sister Shrimati Renuka Ray—it was not logical. You cannot give the same kind of food to two different kinds of persons ; they were indeed born and bred differently. The Bill was rushed through the House on the 9th of April. The Honourable the Law Minister has given us a revealing passage in the Report of the Select Committee. He has made a plain admission that the Bill had not received any consideration on its merits before it was taken to the Select Committee. That was very wonderful statement to make. Originally the Bill was supposed to be well-drafted—a good Bill—it passed through the Legislature on the 9th of April and was taken to the Select committee and then comes the realisation that it had not received technical or departmental consideration. Why is it, may I ask, that although it had not received technical or serious departmental consideration at the hands of the Law Ministry, it was rushed through at that stage? ( An honourable Member: ‘We were very near 1st April’). That may be; it was very near the 1st of April and that probably has something to do with the rush. Probably no serious business was meant, some sentimental piece of literature had

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES444 to be passed through in order to satisfy our fair sisters. The Bill is driven more by “lady sentiment” than by a consideration of the necessities of the case. The Department then undertook a most unprecedented task. They came to the conclusion that the Bill was not properly drafted, that it had some defects, that it had to be recast. The Bill was composed of several individual chapters with separate numbering and separate definitions, entirely separate from each other. The Legislative Department thought that this was a blemish and that the Bill should be recast with continuous numbering and the whole blended into one complete whole. I submit that the moment the Legislative Department came to that conclusion, then was the time to withdraw the Bill and to frame a new Bill which the Ministry was able to accept; and present that as a new Bill. Instead of that the department went through a process of legislative drafting with which I was never familiar. The whole constitutional history of India and abroad will never offer an example of a Departmental Bill being prepared after a Bill is presented and after sending it to the Select Committee. Shri Ramnarayan Singh yesterday asked as to what authority the Drafting Committee had to make a new Bill altogether. (An honourable Member: ‘It is not a new Bill.’) I shall be in the unfortunate position of being able to show that very substantial changes have been made. Although the Honourable the Law Minister yesterday tried to avoid answering the question, still he had to admit in the end that he did not make any changes, that it was the Select Committee that made the changes. I am in a position to demonstrate before the House that the changes were very serious, very radical, and not unsubstantial changes. Shri L. Krishnaswami Bharathi : Sir, on a point of order. If the honourable member wants to base his argument for re-committing the bill to the Select committee on the fact that it was some other Bill that was considered and not the Bill sent to it, that point has been covered by Mr. Speaker’s ruling ; he need not emphasise on that point. If he has other reasons, he is welcome to do so; he is speaking on his amendment for re-committing the Bill to the Select Committee. But if he stresses his argument, namely, that the Bill considered by the Select Committee was not the bill sent to it by this House, then that has been covered by the ruling of the Chair which declared that it is the same Bill. Shri T. T. Krishnamachari (Madras: General) : That might be an argument for rejecting consideration.

DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL 445 Shri L. Krishnaswami Bharathi : If that is so, then that point has been thrashed out so much that if he were to argue it again it will merely be taking the time of the House. That aspect has been so thrashed out and arguments have been advanced. He is merely repeating them. I would submit to you, Sir, that we can hear any new arguments but we are not prepared to hear the same arguments being repeated by him. Pandit Lakshmi Kanta Maitra : May I put in a few words in connection with the point of order raised by my friend Mr. Bharathi? He said that the honourable member Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad in his amendment for re-committal to the Select Committee had been raising the grounds which had been covered by Mr. Speaker’s ruling. I do emphatically maintain and the House would also agree that every honourable member is entitled, without disrespecting the ruling of the Chair to give the reasons which lead him to recommend the Bill for recommittal to the Select Committee. There is no point of order as such involved in it. It is a member’s legitimate right to place all arguments which he can for making a motion for recommittal to Select Committee. Mr. Chairman : I think there is no point of order in this, because he is speaking for his amendment that the Bill be re-circulated for purposes of obtaining further opinion thereon and he is just advancing arguments how the Bill has changed ; how the original Bill has been altered in the Select Committee. Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : I submit, the real difficulty of my honourable friend is not there. I believe that an intelligent man as he is, Mr. Bharathi of all persons, is well aware of the real difficulties of the situation. That is why, I submit, he most intelligently wants to intercept me by Mr. Speaker’s ruling. I must make a declaration at once here that of all persons in the House I have the greatest respect for the decision of the Chair. Pandit Lakshmi Kanta Maitra : Why do you go into that ? Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : I am merely saying that I accept the decision of the chair. I am not going into that. Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava (East Punjab : General): You must go into that. Why not ? Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : But what was the ruling ? The ruling was that the consideration of the Bill was not out of order; in fact, the ruling was that the members of the Select Committee had the

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES446 old Bill and the Departmental Bill and they must have taken the whole thing into consideration and on that basis the technical objection which I had raised that the Departmental Bill above was taken into consideration and not the original Bill was well founded. That is the effect of the ruling, and that is the ruling. My present purpose would be now to show that although the members of the Select Committee had the original Bill before them, although they had the Departmental Bill before them, although they had both, although they had the opportunity of comparing the two and seeing what glaring interpolations were made in the Departmental Bill, they did not do so. They discharged their duties, I should say with respect in consideration of the importance of the subject, in a somewhat hasty manner and imperfectly and rather perfunctorily. This was the point of view that I was emphasizing. An Honourable Member : You are inciting the Law Minister to violence ! The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : I would not do any such thing, because I have plenty of arguments to meet Mr. Ahmad. Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : I submit the Honourable the Law Member is fully conscious of the situation, I have a little suspicion, that he knows by this time without any doubt what serious changes have been made in the Departmental Bill. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : I do not know. I am waiting to hear, though. Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : The Honourable the Law Member said, “There have been certain serious changes, but I did nothing. It is the Select Committee that did so. The Departmental Committee did not make any changes.” In fact yesterday I put a pointed question which he kindly answered, namely, whether the Departmental Committee that was set up was instructed not to make any substantial changes. That was due to the fact that I find in the report of the Select Committee a definite declaralion by the majority of the Select Committee : “This revised draft does not make any substantial changes in the body of the original Bill.” It was this declaration which I understand was also given to the Select Committee by him that no substantial changes have been made; it was on this basis that, although they had the original Bill with them, they did not look very carefully and compare them with a view to finding out whether any substantial changes have been made.

DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL 447 Shrimati Renuka Ray : On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. Are matters which happened in the Select Committee, are those details allowed to be brought up in this manner? Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : With regard to this point of order, I have already to submit that. . . . Shrimati Renuka Ray : It is a point of order which I would like you, Sir, to decide. Mr. Chairman : I think there is no point of order. It is only Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad’s inference that the Select Committee did or did not do such and such a thing. I think the honurable member will not cast any aspersious on either the Select Committee or the members of the Select Committee. He may advance his arguments. Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava : The manner in which the Select Committee behaved is certainly open to the criticism of the House. Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : I submit. .... Pandit Lakshmi Kanta Maitra : You are right, Mr. Chairman. Without casting aspersions he may advance agruments. Shrimati Renuka Ray : But he is casting aspersions. Mr. Chairman : They are at best inferences. Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : Sir, my inference is that members of the Select Committee were definitely assured by the Honourable Minister Shrimati Renuka Ray : I object to this Sir. This is casting aspersions. These inferences are casting aspersions. Mr. Chairman : Every honourable member is at liberty to draw his own inference. Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : I submit, Sir, it can be contradicted at once by any member of the Select Committee. Shri L. Krishnaswami Bharathi: No; certainly we cannot con tradict. But since you are inviting a contradiction, I as a member of the Select Committee, do contradict. I say that we went through the whole thing and we were satisfied that Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : You are making a statement Shri L. Krishnaswami Bharathi : You wanted a contradiction. And I contradict. Shrimati Renuka Ray : Mr. Chairman, I would like to say that because inferences are made and aspersions are cast, the members