Vol. 14, Part I · pages 501–505

DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL 483 Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : There is my friend Mr. Bharathi. Is he right in telling the House what took place in the Select Committee ? If so, I have equally strong authority, also from the Members of the Select Committee themselves to the contrary. It would be very wrong to compare one Member’s statement with that of another and I would rather draw a veil on what happened in the Select Committee. The honourable Member need not assure us that the Select Committee has considered everything. If he is so sure, I am equally sure that for many reasons, adequate consideration could not be given. Shri L. Krishnaswami Bharathi : I was talking only about myself. Pandit Lakshmi KantaMaitra : You could not understand things. Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : In fact, it is not the case of one man. It is the whole Select Committee and not a one-man affair. If one man has followed, it does not mean that others also have followed it. Pandit Lakshmi Kanta Maitra : Yes, one swallow does not make a summer. Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : Exactly, “One swallow does not make a summer”. If there is one man of the Select Committee who believed that no change was made, that would be enough to make out a case for recommittal of the Bill to the Select Committee. And I again submit that these are very serious changes. And then how many of them ? My friends wonder how many changes there are. I can show them many, many such changes. Take the... Shrimati G.Durgabai : In the meantime, on a point of information, may I ask whether the changes made by the Select Committee are absolutely binding on this House. Cannot the House accept the changes or reject them ? Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : I submit with all respect that it is irrelevant to ask if the Select Committee’s changes should be accepted or rejected by the House. The Select Committee can make any change and the House can make further changes too. The House can make changes. There is no doubt about it. But the point is that the Select Committee for some reason did not or could not or failed or omitted to discharge its duties fully. If that is so, the right to go fully into the question rests with the House and it is for this reason that I appeal from the Select Committee to the larger House. There is of course the still larger house, the entire electorate of India. I now come to clause 7 of the original Bill. ( Interruption). I think some Members have lost their heads.

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES484 Mr. Tajamul Husain : I must strongly protest against the statement that the Members have lost their heads. I raise this point of order seriously. He must withdraw it unconditionally. Mr. Deputy Speaker : I think it was not necessary for the honourable Member to say all that. Mr. Tajamul Husain : Let him withdraw it. Was he in order in making that statement ? He has all along been making violent gestures against honourable Members. Mr. Deputy Speaker : I do not think it is proper for the honourable Member to say that the Members have lost their heads. It detracts from the dignity of the house. At the time I must say this: I have been noticing one member or other using language which may not be liked by the person addressed. There must be some amount of patience shown. There should not be interruptions either by the spoken word or by signs. Therefore when the honourable Member is turning over the pages of some of his papers, if they interrupt him he will miss it and their interruptions are likely to ginger him up. Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : Sir, I was told across the table that I had lost my head. Mr. Deputy Speaker : The honourable Member has lost his thread— the thread of his argument. Mr. Tajamul Husain : May I know whether he has lost his sacred thread ? Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : I will proceed with my arguments, Sir. Clause 2 of the original Bill gives the definition of ‘son’ thus ‘son’ includes a dattaka kritrima or godha son, etc, but not a dasiputra and others. This has been entirely committed in the Departmental Bill. Shri L. Krishnaswami Bharathi : When an honourable Member reads out something, should he not do so correctly ? Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : I find that this has been omitted. If it is anywhere the definition or in any other part of the Bill, my attention may kindly be drawn to it. Mr. Deputy Speaker : The honourable Member who just now interrupted the speaker has been again and again giving advice. Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad may be a bit slow in making the references he desires to make. He need not be interrupted. Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : I submit that the definition of ‘son’ has been omitted. If I am wrong, the mistake may be pointed out to me.

DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL 485 Dr. P. S. Deshmukh (C. P. and Berar : General): I think the honourable Member is wrong. Mr. Deputy Speaker : If honourable Members go on interrupting in this way it will be impossible to conduct the business of the House in an orderly manner. Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad may go on without putting questions to other honourable Members. Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : As I said the definition of son has been omitted as also the illustrations found in Part II, sub-clause (3) of clause 2 in regard to intestate succession. Four illustrations have been omitted. These are substantial changes. I am only trying to draw attention to the nature of the changes made. According to me these are omissions of a very serious nature. They are not omissions of a drafting nature. I am not questioning the right of the Select Committee to improve the Bill, or to make these omissions. These changes, however, were made not by the Select Committee but by the Drafting Committee and the attention of the Select Committee was not particularly drawn to these omissions. Then I come to another important part of the Bill to show the very serious changes introduced by the Drafting Committee. In Part II, clause 4 of the original Bill, the list of heirs has been given. It says that the inheritable property of a male intestate shall devolve according to the rules laid down in this part: (a) upon the enumerated heirs referred to in section 5, if any; (b) if mere is no enumerated heir, upon his agnates, if any ;(c) if there is no agnate, upon his cognates, if any; and (d) if there is no cognate, upon the heirs referred to in section 10, if any. Mr. Deputy Speaker : I do not know if the honourable Member has not a copy of the Hindu Code Comparative Tables, which was circulated to all honourable Members. The original Hindu Code as drafted by the Rau Committee has been revised in the Ministry of Law and the changes made have been indicated there. I would therefore suggest that the honourable 4 P.M. Member need not labour this point. I think he has spent sufficient time over the first point. I personally think that the point is sufficiently clear and of course illustrations can always be multiplied. If it is a point here and there, the House will take it into consideration. There are certain points which when made are sufficient in number. I agree they can be made clearer, but the changes made in the tables, are sufficient.

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES486 Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : Sir, the list is neither complete nor accurate and does not indicate the changes made. In fact the remarks against the original clauses of the original Bill and as to the changes are extremely meagre. I have now come to a very important change, namely the inheritance. It has been so changed as to make it impossible to recognise with the new Bill or the departmental draft nor is it a substitute for the original Bill at all. I submit that with regard to the inheritance a larger number of changes had been made. I shall show first of all that in clause 4 of the Bill in Part II (a) regarding the enumerated heirs ; I am in a position to show that serious changes have been made in the enumerated list. In the original Bill was one and in the revised draft by the Departmental Committee they are completely different. The original arrangement has been made entirely topsy-turvey and then it is said that if there are no enumerated heirs the property devolves upon agnates. The definition of agnates is well-known. That was in the original Bill, but in the Bill as revised by the Departmental Committee the word ‘agnate’ is now very much restricted. So in case of the numerated heirs failing the agnates, even the distant agnates would be entitled to be heirs according to the Hindu law, according to the Muslim law and every other law and that was according to the original Bill. But in the revised draft by the Departmental Committee the word ‘agnate’ has been seriously modified to be within certain degrees. So agnates which are beyond those degrees would have been entitled to inheritance under the old Bill, but under the Departmental Bill, they would be shut out. Similarly, cognates are also restricted in the Departmental Bill and this is a substantial change as it eliminates the distant Agnates and distant cognates. Then, Sir, in clause (d) of 4, the words preceptor and others are entirely eliminated. The scheme of inheritance in clause 4 of Part II of the original Bill is changed at every step and very serious changes have been made and the enumerated heirs have been changed. The agnates have been restricted; the cognates have been restricted and the other clauses have been entirely eliminated. I can quite understand that these changes may be legitimately made on a full consideration by the Select Committee, but these were changes not by the Select Committee, but by the Departmental Committee and Members asked me “Tell us what are the changes made ?” Mr. Deputy Speaker : Am I to understand from the honourable Member that if the Select Committee Members all got up and they

DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL 487 address themselves to that, will the honourable Member be thoroughly satisfied with what has been done by the Select Committee. Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : The point is that the Select Committee Member were not made aware of the changes. Mr. Deputy Speaker : It serves no useful purpose. It is not a question of law whether this House has got jurisdiction over the Select Committee’s piece of handiwork. It has been decided and sufficiently discussed to show that the Select Committee has looked into every one of the clauses to come to a conclusion. But on matters of substance, the old law has been widely changed. There is some substanse in that. Those are the matters on which the honourable Member should address the House. I do not say that all that has been said is out of place, but sufficient has been said. Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : To many honourable Members sufficient has not been said. It is said that these are not substantial changes and I shall take care to point them out. The difficulty is that the changes are too numerous to ensure the attention of the House. In fact the changes are very serious and very various and very substantial and my point is that they were introduced not by the Select Committee and whether they accepted them or not is a different matter. My thesis is that they were presented with a ready-made Bill with the assurance that no substantial changes had been made and so the attention of the Select Committee was not sufficiently drawn to that matter. Now let us consider the actual changes in the list of inheritance. In fact in the original Bill the list of inheritance is to be found on pages 4, 5 and 6 in the body of the Bill. This has been bodily lifted from this place in the departmental Bill and transported to the Seventh Schedule. While the other parts remain in the body of the text, the list of inheritance, strangely and for unaccountable reasons, removed. It is not very easy to compare the original list with the new list as it appears in the Seventh Schedule; there have been serious and substantial changes. The Honourable Minister wanted to know what are the changes made. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : I am quite aware of them. So far as I am concerned, you need not spend your labour in enlightening me at all. Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : If these are intentional changes, then what is the point in saying that no changes were made by the Drafting Committee, and that all the changes were made by the Select