Vol. 14, Part I · pages 496–500

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES478 Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : This is one substantial change. Sir, I thought I was treading on very solid ground. If any offence is meant to the Members of the Select Committee by pointing out obvious matters, I am very sorry. Shri L. Krishnaswamy Bharathi : You cannot insinuate against Members. Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : What insinuation ? That they made mistakes ? To err is human. I was only suggesting that the Members of the Select Committee were human beings. Shri B. Das : On a point of order. Sir, Can the honourable Member go on pointing out the defects of the Select Committee for three months continuously. The point was raised and settled. Whether I accept his words or not is a different question, but the honourable Member cannot go on talking in the filibustering attitude which my friend Mr. Baijnath Bajoria took some years ago on my Bill to amend the Child Marriage Act. He quoted shastras and read from the Mahabharata and other books. Here the poor Select Committee is being hammered by my friend Mr. Nazirudin Ahmed for the last three months. This is not a law court. Sir, you ought to ask him to produce his views that the Hindu Code Bill should not be passed. Why should we go on interminably talking against the Select Committee? As the oldest Member of this House, I cannot understand it. Mr. Speaker : The honouable Member may indicate only the substantial changes. Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : Yes, Sir. Sir, I object to my speech being called a filibustering speech. I think the honourable Member goes a bit too far. It seems that he has locked up his mind absolutely and he is not in a mood to hear. Sir, may I ask you to consider this and see if I am in the least irrelevant or wrong ? Unless the change is substantial, palpably, obviously it rules out texts of the Hindu Law and rule of interpretation by the highest Courts. The original Bill did not contain anything of the sort and the change was introduced to the Departmental Committee. Is it not, in all fairness, a substantial change ? Mr. Das cannot listen to legal matters. He is good in financial matters but in legal matters he is rapidly approaching his second childhood.

DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL 479 Shri B. Das : We are here to legislate. We are not here to understand the interpretation of lawyers or High Court Judges. (Interruption). Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : Sir, much depends on the substantial changes. Have not these been introduced by the Departmental Committee ? On that issue the whole case depends. If it was introduced by the Departmental Committee and if it is a substantial change, then the Select Committee was not informed of it. It has been repeatedly made clear that the Select Committee considered the Departmental Bill and not the original Bill. If this is insinuation, I am sorry I shall have to discharge my duty faithfully but absolutely fearlessly though very respectfully. I submit the Select Committee was absolutely cajoled into believing that the Departmental Bill was a substantial reproduction of the original Bill, and even the Honourable the Law Minister is persuaded to believe that there was no change. It is not insinuation, it is a fact. Who has made the changes ? If it were the Law Minister, then he would have been aware of it. Is it somebody else ? Then is it improper for me to point out that somebody else has made the change ? I say he has done it by mistake or bona fide. Would it be proper for me to suggest that these changes were made fraudulently ? I do not suggest anything of the sort. The only thing I could do is to assume that these things were done bona fide—just a little flourish of the pen to improve upon it. “Why merely rule out customary law ? Let us abolish all the rulings of the Privy Council.” Sir, criticism is proper. If any language I have used is improper, I withdraw it. But what about the criticism ? Shri L. Krishnaswami Bharathi : Let us hear the other points. Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : Why be anxious? Why not listen to this? Mr. Speaker : Order, order. We cannot carry on the discussion of the Bill in this manner. There are Members who want to support the Bill and others who want to oppose it. Let everyone have his say in any manner he likes, without being offensive or speaking unparliamentary language. That is the only objection. Otherwise, at every stage there will be interruption and those who want to support the Bill will be the sufferers in the long run, because time will be spent in unnecessarily carrying on this kind of discussion. The Member honourable will have his say and if he says that the Select Committee did not give attention to this or that or that these points were not examined by the Select Committee, where is the ground

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES480 for taking insult in that ? He is perfectly entitled to say so. But he should not insinuate something else; that is what I have to guard against. But I believe he is entitled to express his views. There is another point also to which I was going to invite the attention of the honourable Member. He says that because the Law Minister is unaware of a substantial change, therefore somebody else introduced the change. There is another aspect to it. If the point which he considers substantial is not considered by the Law Minister as substantial, then the Honourable Law Minister is perfectly entitled to say that he is not aware of any substantial change. Therefore, it does not necessarily mean that some other party in ignorance or behind the back of the minister, introduced it in the Select Committee. Let the points be substantial and let the controversy be limited to the question as to whether the points are substantial or not. That I believe is the chief point in dispute. Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : I stand subject to correction. It may have been done by the Law Minister without realising or without believing this to be a substantial change. But the matter is exactly where it was. These are substantial matters, whether introduced by the Law Minister consciously or by anyone else unconsciously, in any manner. It is not proper for us to argue on that. But by one stroke of the pen all texts, rules and interpretations of the Hindu Law have been abolished. The effect of this will be that all learned rulings of the Privy Council, the Federal Court and the High Courts are all gone, by one stroke of the pen. In fact, if this is not seriously interfering the original Bill, I do not know what is. There may be difference of opinions. But to one approaching the question absolutely impartially, and with a free mind, there would be no difficulty in agreeing with me that this is very serious interference with the Original Bill. Shrimati G. Durgabai : Please speak of other substantial changes. Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : This is dealing very lightly with a very serious matter. But I say these are very serious changes which verge on interpolations, bona fide or mala fide, it does not matter. Then Sir, the next cage made by the Departmental Committee is to remove the definition of ‘caste’ in Part I clause 5 sub-clause (b) which contained a definition of caste. This has been entirely omitted. Mr. Speaker : What clause does the honourable Member refer to ? Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : I am referring to Part I, clause 5, subclause (b) which has the definition of ‘caste’.

DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL 481 Mr. Speaker : Is he referring to the original Bill ? Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : Yes. And that definition has been entirely omitted in the Departmental Bill without any indication being given anywhere about this omission. There is a mere reference in the margin to the original clause. This sub-clause has been omitted, and there is no indication to be found of it. I submit, Sir, that the Select Committee’s attention was not specifically drawn to this omission, and whether these are substantial matters or not, there cannot be much difference of opinion. At any rate the Select Committee was entitled to be told that these changes were made ; whether these are substantial changes or not may vary from individual to individual. But the Select Committee was entitled to know that these changes were made. But they were not told. And then we come to sub-clause (f) of the same clause and here we find that the definitions of Gotra and Pravara have been omitted. And then in sub-clause (j) the definition of Stridhan has also been omitted. Therefore the definition of Caste, the definition of Gotra, the definition of Pravara, and the definition of Stridhan are entirely omitted. What effect this would produce on the Bill, cannot be explained shortly on the floor of the House. Shri A. Thanu Pillai (Travancore State) : May I know from the honourable Member whether even if the definition is not of a term required in the law, it should be defined ? Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : I think the honourable Member is not proceeding as cautiously as he should. In fact, whether a definition is wanted or not wanted is not the question. A definition was in the Bill and that was removed by somebody, without any authority. The Departmental Committee removed it, and the attention of the Select Committee, who was alone competent to remove it, was not drawn to this fact. Shrimati G. Durgabai : The Select Committee takes full respon sibility for it. Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : This was not considered by the Select Committee. Shri M. Tirumala Rao (Madras : General): Are you sure that the compositor did not omit it ? Mr. Speaker : Those who interrupt can also be called obstructionists. If interrupted he will take longer time over it.

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES482 Shri L. Krishnaswami Bharati : I may cut short further arguments by saying that the Select Committee’s attention was actually drawn to all these things. The honourable Member is unnecessarily harping on this point, that the attention of the Select Committee was not drawn. But as a Member of the Select Committee I may say that all these points were fully considered, all aspects of the matter were considered by the Select Committee. Therefore the honourable Member need not go over this matter over and over again. Mr. Speaker : I will say that even if the question has been fully considered, the honourable Member is perfectly within his right in giving his views. Honourable Members will see that he is making a case for re-committal of the Bill to the Select Committee, and for this he has been putting forth his arguments. The Select Committee might have given full, adequate, proper, reasonable attention, but in his opinion, it has been inadequate. Therefore, he is insisting that the attention given has been inadequate and the Bill should be re-committed to the Select Committee. That is the line of argument he is following ; and if he is following that particular line of argument, he must maintain that stand. As regards the fact of adequacy just as the Select Committee Members cannot be absolute judges of the fact, as to whether the Bill was given proper or adequate attention, similarly, his judgment also is not final. But he is placing his opinion. Let us proceed on that basis. Otherwise there will be no end to this discussion. Shri L. Krishnaswami Bharathi : I was only referring to the question of fact. Mr. Speaker : It is a question of opinion. What the honourable Member supposes to be a question of fact, is actually a question of opinion. Adequacy of attention of not is a question of opinion and to merely a question of fact. Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : The question is the adequacy of consideration. [At this stage Mr. Speaker vacated the Chair, which was then occupied by Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Shri M. Ananthasayanam Ayyyangar ] Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : Sir, I have been interrupted almost continuously the other day, and again a series of interruptions are made to-day. Mr. Pandit Lakshmi Kanta Maitra : I am supporting you all along.