Vol. 14, Part I · pages 476–480

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES458 is all that I can do, and I shall to the best of my ability, avoid all irrelevant matters being brought in Subject to this. I would like to give as much freedom as possible. *Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad (West Bengal: Muslim) : Mr. Deputy Speaker, it is a strange irony of fate that apart from the interrupted nature of the debates on this Bill, it has been decided by Government that the chequered career, of this Bill and the intermittent debate should, after an interval be seriously resumed on the All-Fools’ Day. On the last occasion, when I pointed out that the Bill was sent to the Select Committee in a great hurry on the 9th of April last, some honourable member reminded us that 9th April was very near the 1st of April. Somehow or other this Bill is associated with the 1st of April. On this day, we are accustomed from time immemorial to deal with each other in a playful spirit. We issue bogus invitations, bogus marriages are announced and various other bogus things are done. Shrimati Ammu Swaminadhan (Madras : General) : Sir, has this got anything to do with the Hindu Code ? Just now you said that no irrelevant matter will be allowed. Has all-fools’ day anything to do with the Hindu Code Mr. Deputy Speaker : I have not heard the honourable Member sufficiently to come to a conclusion as to whether it is irrelevant or not. Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : Sir, I was merely emphasizing the unsatisfactory manner in which the Bill is being brought up from time to time. A Bill of this importance and magnitude requires that it should be sat over continuously by honourable Members. Pandit Lakshmi Kanta Maitra : Spat over ? Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : Sat over. Pandit Maitra thought “spat over”. I did not mean that. I submit, Sir, a Bill of this magnitude requires that Members should sit over it continuously for a long time. The disadvantage of considering this matter at long intervals is that Members lose the thread of argument and it is very difficult for them to appreciate what has already been said so as to connect with what is said on each occasion. I submit, therefore, that this is not dealing seriously with the Bill or with the House. On the last occasion when I was dealing with the history of this important legislation, I pointed out that the first mistake was committed in 1937 with the passage of the Hindu Married Women ‘s Rights to Property Act, 1937. *C.A. (Leg.) D., Vol. IE, Part II, 1st April 1949. pp. 2213-43.

DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL 459 The mistake was to have rushed to the legislature and without sufficient consideration to have passed a Bill of that complicated nature. In fact, an honourable Member of that House at that time, Mr. Deshmukh, had a happy idea and without giving sufficient consideration to the subject, he came to the House and the House in a generous mood passed the Bill. By that Act, certain women were given the right of direct inheritance along with the sons, grandsons and great-grand sons. They were given independent right. They were not merely Hindu women’s rights, but absolute, transferable and inheritable rights. Soon after that, a distinguished lawyer from Bengal—Mr. Rishindranath Sircar—drew attention to certain difficulties which would arise in connection with the Act. Mr. Rishindranath Sircar is a distinguished lawyer and author of a text book on the Hindu Married Women’s Right to Property Act, and connected Acts. He pointed out certain inherent difficulties which would arise in connection with the Bill, and in 1938, the Act had to be amended by Act, XVI of 1938. The trouble, however, did not cease there and difficulties arose afresh. A further difficulty arose by the Act as itwas amended in 1938. By the Act even as amended, right was given to the widow of the deceased, the son’s widow, grand-son’s widow and the great-grandson’s widow and considerable difficulties arose as to the position of the daughter. In fact, there was a great deal of controversy and Mr. Sircar again pointed out the difficulties of the situation created so far as the daughter was concerned. This question was agitated throughout the country, and we find about half a dozen Bills were submitted to the Legislative Assembly to clarify the position of the daughter, to give her also that right, along with the son, grandson, and the widows of the various persons. Those Bills were presented to the House and they were on the agenda. I believe experienced Members of this House, like Pandit Lakshmi Kanta Maitra will be able,to recall the situation with which the Government was faced, when it had a large number of Bills before it—about six Bills. Sir Reginald Maxwell, the Home Member, at that time pointed out in the House that it was always a bad thing to rush legislation on social matters, without adequate consideration. And the difficulty was more and more increased as there were more and more legislations. He was, therefore, in full sympathy with the position taken by those members, and he agreed to have the matter examined properly, from every point of view, before legislation was undertaken. This led to the birth of

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES460 the Rau Committee. That Committee prepared a Draft Bill and sent questionnaires to various people, and considered and analysed the answers and they prepared another Bill. But before proceeding any further with their work, they were met with an initial difficulty. They found that there was another blunder in connection with the Acts of 1937 and 1938. They were of opinion that the Act of 1937, as it was amended by the Act of 1938 did not apply to agricultural land. the difficulty arose in this way that the first Act of 1937 was passed by the Legislative Assembly when agricultural land was a subject no longer cognizable by the Centre. Mr. Deputy Speaker : The House stands adjourned to 2-30 p.m. The Assembly then adjourned for Lunch till Half-Past Two of the Clock. The Assembly re-assembled after Lunch at Half-Past Two of the Clock, Mr. Speaker (The Honourable Mr. G. V. Mavalankar) in the Chair. Sreematty Annie Mascarene (Travancore State): I wish to raise a point of order. May I know whether it is the duty of a Member of this House to attend the session of the legislature throughout ? Mr. Speaker : It is hardly a point of order. A member need not attend any discussion if he does not like to do so. But I will make one observation. If a member makes a speech in support of or in opposition to a Bill, it is his duty to remain present in the House to hear the reply. Sreematty Annie Mascarene : If he is absent for a few days and then comes back and complains that he is not aware of the agenda of the House, can that be excused, Sir ? Mr. Speaker : He will be judged by his statement before the House. Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : Before we parted for Lunch today I was dealing with the first part of the history of this legislation. The Act of 1937 and the amending Act of 1938 led to difficulties with regard to the daughter and a large number of Bills were brought forward to clarify her position. At that stage the government agreed to have the matter examined and appointed the Rau Committee. The Rau Committee soon found that the legislature had no jurisdiction to pass the Acts so far as agricultural land was concerned. The point arose

DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL 461 in this way : Agricultural land was in the Legislative List of the Centre under the previous constitution. The Bill was passed by the Lower House in March 1937 when it was functioning under the old Constitution. The Upper House passed it sometime in April when the new constitution of 1935 had come into force. So, when the Bill was passed by the Upper House, it had no jurisdiction to legislate for agricultural land. The amending Act of 1938 was passed when none of the Houses had this jurisdiction. These were capital blunders committed by the Legislature of the time. The Rau Committee referred the matter for opinion to the Federal court. The Federal court gave a ruling that the House had……… The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar (Minister of Law): The history is wholly wrong. Shri L. Krishnaswami Bharathi (Madras : General): How could the Rau Committee refer to the Federal Court ? Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : It is wholly wrong ? The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Yes, wholly wrong. Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : In what respect ? The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : I will deal with it in my reply. Pandit Lakshmi Kanta Maitra : He is substantially correct Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : The Rau Committee reported to Government and the Governor General referred the matter to the Federal Court. I was wrong only in a minute technical detail. I repeat: The Rau Committee referred the matter to the Federal Court through the appropriate channel—the Governor General. Is that wrong ? I was absolutely right and never wholly wrong. (Interruption). Mr. Speaker : The honourable Member may proceed. Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : The point was thus referred by the Rau Committee to the Federal Court and they gave the ruling that the Legislature acted ultra vires so far as agricultural land was concerned. That was a capital blunder which was revealed at the time. As soon as the ruling of the Federal Court was known I come upon the scene My connection with the Hindu Code is not casual or recent. I am in a position to show to the House that I took legal steps in connection with this legislation as far back as 1941. I was then a Member of the Bengal Legislature and I submitted a Bill even before the first report of the Rau Committee was out. As soon as the judgment of

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES462 the Federal Court was known I introduced a Bill in the Bengal Legislature to apply the Act to Bengal so far as agricultural land was concerned. That was the first attempted legislation of the time in this connection in India. Mr. Tajamul Husain (Bihar: Muslim): May I know from my honourable friend if at that time he was in favour of the Hindu Code Bill from what time did he change his mind? Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : The Hindu Code Bill was not even born at the time. At that time, like many others—many more famous men as far even as the topic was concerned, it turned out later that I had taken a wrong step. In fact I wanted to extend the Act to agricultural land in Bengal. That was the object of the Bill which I submitted to the Bengal Legislature. It was circulated for opinion throughout Bengal and a large body of public opinion was in favour of the Bill. Everybody at the time like me thought that that Bill was right. Mr. Tajamul Husain : Sir, the honourable Member has not given his reasons why he changed his mind. Mr. Speaker : That is not relevant at all. He may change his .mind any number of times. Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : The honourable Member should try to wait. The House will be pleased to note that the Bill was submitted by me in 1941, 14th July, and that a very large section of Hindu public opinion in Bengal was then in favour of it. Then the Bill was placed on the agenda for a Select Committee. I have got a copy of the agenda paper with me, dated 25th September 1942. I was then in a position to get it passed by the Bengal Legislature where the Hindu Muslim Coalition party had a large majority. The Party by a majority had decided in favour of the Bill and it was going to be sent to a Select Committee. By that time, however, Hindu opinion had been sufficiently crystallised against the Bill. I was told that serious difficulties would arise if the Bill was passed. Many people, including myself, then realised that if the Bill was passed, the position of daughters and others would lead to chaos. In the meantime the Rau Committee report had been published and the Bill drafted by them was before the country. A large number of meetings were held in connection with it in 1941 and 1942. There was a meeting held in my native place of Burdwan and many similar meetings were held throughout Bengal condemning the main Bill. Though I had the requisite majority in favour of my Bill, I did not proceed with it as