Vol. 14, Part I · pages 481–485

DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL 463 it was a Matter affecting the Hindu community alone and it was opposed by them. I felt that it was no good passing a measure by sheer majority of persons who were not affected by it. I was never in favour of the Hindu Code Bill, though I was for a time in favour of my own Bill. This will I hope satisfy my honourable friend Mr. Tajamul Husain. I asked the Hindu members to let me know what to do and they were against my Bill and so the Bill was dropped. I am not afraid in the least to make this admission that everybody thought and even the Rau Committee thought that a Bill foreshadowed by my Bill should be introduced to extend the Act of 1937 in every local legislature to Agricultural land. I also fell in line, but then I found this volume of Hindu opinion against my Bill. No province has ever applied the Act of 1937 to agricultural land. Thence forward, Sir, a large number of meetings have been held in Bengal and the Rau Committee Bill has been uniformly condemned. Now with regard to this Rau Committee’s report, they prepared a Bill, that is the “Hindu Code Bill—Part I intestate Succession” and that was introduced in the Central Legislative Assembly and that was sent to a very strong joint Select Committee of both. Chambers of the Central Legislature. I have got a report of the Select Committee with me. It was very strongly supported on one side, but equally strongly opposed on the other, and this Bill as reported by the Select Committee came to the Legislature once again. the Rau Committee had in 1941 reported that the Hindu Code Bill should be taken up by compartments. It is a very important joint and I wish to draw special attention to the fact that the Rau Committee actually reported that the Hindu law should be taken up by compartments, succession marriage, guardianship and others. They said at page 23 of their report of 1941. “The recommendation which we should like to stress most strongly is that relating to the preparation, in gradual stages of a complete code of Hindu beginning, as we have said, with the law of succession, to be followed by the law of marriage and in due course by the other topics of Hindu law. It is true that even these large groups are to some extent interconnected; but it will be easier for the draftsman to see what he is doing if he deals, for example, with the whole law of succession than with isolated rules relating to the property rights of widows. This plan would also offer a better chance of agreed solutions on disputed points, for the larger the field, the more room there is for compromise. The aim should be, as far as possible, to arrive at agreed solutions and to avoid anything likely to arouse acrimonious controversy. This need not mean any real slowing down of the pace of reform; for true reform proceeds by persuasion rather than coercion.”

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES464 At page 11, they say : “We do not suggest that all parts of the law should be taken in hand at once. The.............law of succession...........may be taken up first, then the law of marriage; and so on. After the law relating to each part has thus been reduced to statutory form the various Acts may be consolidated into a single Code.” That was the report and in pursuance of their report they submitted their Bill relating to the Hindu Code Part I, intestate succession. Before the Bill relating to succession as settled by the Joint Select Committee came up before the Assembly, the Joint Select Committee had itself recommended that it is no good passing this part alone, but that they should have a true picture of the entire Hindu Code as it will stand, as the different parts are inter-dependent and in this way, they recommended that this Bill should not be passed and a truer and a more comprehensive view of the Hindu law should be taken. In their report the Select Committee say: “We think that steps should be taken to resuscitate the Hindu Law Committee and to encourage the formulation and enactment of the remaining parts of the proposed Code in the interval which is to lapse between the present Bill when passed comes into force. It may well be found that the present Bill will require before it is allowed to come into operation, readjustment and amendment in the light of the decisions taken in connection with the other branches of the Hindu Law.” So they recommended that the House and the country should have a fuller picture. The Hindu Law Committee which had been dissolved was thus revived and they were asked to give us a picture of the other branches of the Hindu Law. The first thing which they did was to produce another Bill, the “Hindu Code Part II—Marriage.” The second Bill was produced by them and later on they produced the other parts. The point which I am trying to emphasise is that these were separate self-contained Bills. The law of Inheritence was absolutely self-contained and separate and was capable of being enacted separately. The law of Marriage also could be enacted separately. There are three other parts which were in separate parts though printed in one volume was circulated. Then after obtaining opinion, they introduced some changes also by way of supplement. The House will, therefore, be pleased to note the real meaning and purpose of completely separate Bills printed in the same book as separate self-contained subjects with separate numbering. The Law Ministry, however, it seems mistook the purpose of the separate parts with separate numbering. In fact in the report of the Select Committee on the present Bill, the members of the majority say that separate

DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL 465 numbering and separate parts was a thing unknown and purposeless, and therefore, they wanted to blend the different parts into one complete whole with consecutive numbering. That is clearly mentioned in the report. That is the reason why they produced a Hindu Code which they thought was self-contained and more logically arranged. The purpose of the Rau Committee of separate enactments and their subsequent consolidation was entirely missed. The first point, which I should like to take in this connection is that the changes made by the Departmental Committee set up by the Ministry of Law went beyond the purpose of the original Bill, or rather the different Bills. In fact the blending of the different parts of the original Bill into one is the thing which has created a lot of difficulties and has made confusion worse confounded. As was suggested by the Rau Committee, the better thing would have been to pass separate parts separately, so that there will be the least objection and the attention of the House as well as of the country could be focussed upon individual subjects, though they may have a comprehensive view of the entire Hindu Law. Now the blending of the different parts or Bills into one whole with running numbers has placed us in this difficulty that we find in the House that there is hardly any Member who has spoken; who is completely in favour of the consoclidated Bill as it has emerged from the Select Committee. Some are in favour of the marriage provisions; others are in favour of the inheritance; with regard to guardianship and other things, there is the least objection. Separate Bills as in the original scheme would have simplified matters and reduced our troubles. Pandit Lakshmi Kanta Maitra : Maintenance portion is the best; all the rest is rubbish. Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : Maintenance portion, as Pandit Maitra reminds us, is the least objected to. So if the parts were kept separate, then the House would have been in a position to deal more easily with individual subjects. The subject of maintenance is not controversial. It does not affect the religious structure of the society. It does not wound the religious feelings and age-long beliefs of the Hindus and it could have been passed at once. That was the reason for the separate treatment. But the Departmental Committee rather, missed the purpose of the separate treatment and blended the whole thing into one. Sir, I would point out that in the second Rau Committee report also, the Bill was prepared in different compartments, they repeated

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES466 their advice that it should be taken up separately. The Bill was intended to be taken up in parts separately and should be dealt with individually. Mr. Tajamul Husain : Why don’t you bring amendments to this effect ? Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : My honourable friend by the interruption means to say “I shall mix up things in any way I like, and it is for you to bring suitable amendments to separate them.”. It is impossible. If you cook meat, fish and vegetables together and ask a vegetarian to separate them by means of an amendment and then take the vegetables alone, that would be to putting the cart before the horse. The Bill has mixed up distinct and separate categories of law into one complete whole. Shri L. Krishnaswami Bharathi : No, no. There are separate chapters. Mr. Speaker : The honourable Member is expressing his own view and other honourable Members will have an opportunity of expressing their own views. What is the good of interrupting ? It will only prolong his speech. Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : The sections of one part have been lifted . from that and placed in another part. Shri L. Krishnaswami Bharathi : On a point of order, Sir. Am I not entitled to correct, when his statement that it has mixed up different chapters is open to correction? Mr. Speaker : That way he will be entiteld to correct again. There - should be no interruptions. I think, we are unnecessarily impatient. Whatever our views in respect of the Bill for or against, we must give a patient hearing to the opponent and try to meet his points I am going to give the fullest opportunity to every one. So let there be no interruptions. Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : I am very grateful for this direction. The point is that the definitions and other clauses in each part were absolutely separate. It is easy for any one who has the patience to compare the original Bill presented by Mr. Jogendranath Mandal to the House with the revised Bill to see the difference. An Honourable Member : Who was Jogendarnath Mandal ? Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : He was the previous Law Member. If any one compares the old Bill presented by him and the present Bill, it would be easy to see that portions from different parts have been

DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL 467 transplanted to other parts. The act seems to be absolutely bona fide, but it was not based upon a full appreciation of the purpose of the separate treatment of the subjects. In fact, the Select Committee was presented with a re-drafted Bill by the Ministry of Law. That I submit would be likely absolutely to mislead the Select Committee. It is this document which was printed on the 17th July 1948. It was prepared ready-made for the handy use of the Select Committee before it ever met and the Select Committee was presented with this Departmental Bill. I have already dealt with one point, that in this intermediate Departmental Bill is a serious departure has been made, namely, different parts have been mixed up into one whole so to make it impossible to put separate parts back to their original shape. It can be done by a research student, not by Members of the House without any such tendencies or inclinations. I submit therefore, that the first mistake was committed by the Departmental Committee in mixing up entirely separate subjects. This introduces a serious and unprecedented constitutional innovation. Then, Sir, the Departmental Committee has introduced very serious changes in their Departmental Bill. It will be extremely important when we consider the bearing and the effect of this Departmental Bill on the proceedings of the Select Committee. The Departmental Bill, as I shall attempt to show introduced many very important changes, though I must point out that neither the Honourable Minister for Law nor the Members of the Select Committee nor the Members of the House seem to be aware of the seriousness of the changes effected. In fact, the Minister for Law on the last occasion when he spoke in the present session in support of the motion for consideration pointed out the substantial changes made in the Bill. But he was careful to insist that all the changes had been made by the Select Committee. I took careful notes of his speech and this can be verified from the official reports. He pointed out with commendable thoroughness the departures made in the final Bill from the original Jogendranath Mandals’s Bill. That show that the Honourable Minister was totally unaware of the serious changes made by his Department in the so called Bill submitted to the Select Committee. In fact, I asked a Short Notice Question of the Honourable Minister as to whether the Departmental Committee had been authorised to make any substantial changes in the original Bill. The answer was that they had no such authority. On the other hand, the Minister for Law took the entire