Vol. 14, Part I · pages 506–510

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES488 Committee, and for the Select Committee say: “We confined our attention to the Departmental Bill”. Therefore, it follows that their attention was not drawn to this. It is a very simple conclusion. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Give it in your own way. Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : It seems to me that the Honourable the Law Minister found himself in an inconvenient position and somehow or other, though the mistake is admitted, it is not done pointedly. In fact changes of a substantial nature were made. I was asked on the last day by the Honourable Law Minister himself: “Let us know what are the changes made by the Drafting Committee”, and now he says : “I know everything”. Of course he must have studied them later on, but these changes are of a serious nature. They were introduced not by the Select Committee, but by the Departmental Committee and the question is how far the Select Committee did actually notice them. At least in the note of dissent Dr. Bakshi Tek Chand says: “We confined our attention to the Departmental Committee Bill and not to the original Bill” because they were assured that in the Departmental Bill they did not introduce any substantial changes at all. So taking this into account, I do not know where to go. In fact, if that is not a serious irregularity and a matter requiring attention of the House. I do not know, what is. When the Department has committed an error of judgment, I think it is better and proper to admit it than to say: “I know all this but no changes were made; every change was made by the Select Committee” and when I say that the Select Committee did not make the changes and they were made by the Departments Committee then it is said: “I know it”. Then we ought to know where does the Department stand ? If the Department makes a change....... Shri B. Das : This is not a law court for us to hear point by point. The honourable Member should make a speech and sit down. Mr. Deputy Speaker : The honourable Member, Mr. Das made this statement when the Speaker was in the Chair. It is a law court in some sense and not a law court when he wants to impress upon honourable Members as if he is arguing a case in a court of law. In any case we ought not to interrupt him. That kind of talk ought to be avoided as far as possible. Shri B. Das : We are talking among ourselves. Mr. Deputy Speaker : The honourable Member has no right to talk when another honourable Member is on his legs and he ought not to disturb. Shri B. Das : He is talking at us.

DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL 489 Mr. Deputy Speaker : You ought not to talk. No honourable Member has the right to talk while another honourable Member is speaking. He ought to listen and not cause noise in the House. Shri B. Das : You understand the exasperation. I am ready to get out, but the honourable Member’s speech should not exasperate Members of this House. Mr. Deputy Speaker : This is wrong. No honourable Member’s speech ought to be called exasperating, unless he uses bad language or unparliamentary language. We may or may not agree, but the honourable Member is putting his case before the House. Nobody has a right to dub an honourable Member’s speech as exasperating. Shri B. Das : I accept your verdict. But he used terms such as “fraudulent” about the Law Minister. Mr. Deputy Speaker : The Honourable Law Minister is sufficiently strong to take care of himself. Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : I beg to submit that the honourable Members should compare the original clause. Mr. Deputy Speaker : Are there any matters of substance by which the honourable Member can induce the House to change its mind ? Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : There are substantial changes. I shall have to point out these things. In fact, I shall have to go on enumerating a large number. The best thing is to admit the mistakes or listen patiently. I must enumerate all the points and if I repeat my argument or be irrelevant, I can be called to order. In Part II, clause 5, there is Class I. Sons, widows, daughters and so forth. A change has been effected in this by the Departmental Committee. Son of a predeceased son of predeceased son has been newly introduced in the corresponding part of Class I in the 7th Schedule in the Department Bill. In fact, the Schedule has been so far removed from its place in the original Bill that it is not easy to notice it unless the two Classes are placed side by side, to find out the change. In act, the son of a predeceased son of a predeceased son did not find a place in the original, but it has been introduced in the Seventh Schedule of the revised Bill by the Departmental Committee. Then we come in the other lists. The first in the list in the original Bill after the enumerated heirs in item No. 2 is daughter’s son. In the Departmental Bill, the daughter’s son has been brought further down. Then comes the father and the mother. According to the original

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES490 Bill, the mother would have been entitled to inherit in preference to the father. Here the father and the mother have been placed together in the Departmental Bill and their order has been changed and whereas under the Departmental Bill they inherit together under the original Bill the mother would have inherited first to the exclusion of the father, and in the absence of the mother the father would have inherited. The daughter’s son as has already been pointed out, has been brought down further in the Departmental list. It should be obvious to any one who cares to consider this matter that these are substantial changes. Then we come to Class III of the original Bill. The brother’s son’s son who was first in the list of Class III in the original Bill has been entirely lost sight of in the Departmental Bill. If this was deliberate an intentional, then we would have got some indication of it in the report of the Select Committee or in the speeches. I want to know if this is a substantial change. It may not be substantial to a man who is not the brother’s son’s son, but to the brother’s son’s son, it is a substantial change, because in the absence of, other heirs he would have been entitled to property. Next in the list comes the sister. We have now the brother and the sister inheriting together in the Departmental Bill. The brother who was very high up in the list in the original Bill has now been transferred and brought down to of Class III and is inheriting with the sister ( Interruption). Am I to stop my argument ? Mr. Tajamul Husain : The honourable Member has no right to speak to another honourable Member. I object to it very strongly, Sir. Shri Lakshminararan Sahu (Orissa: General): There is no quorum it seems. Mr. Deputy Speaker : There is quorum. Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : Supposing a man dies leaving a brother and a sister. Under the original Bill the brother would have inherited, the sister would have been postponed; but under the Departmental Bill the brother and the sister inherit equally. The brother is now brought down on a line with the sister having been superseded by 11 others in the list. I submit this is introducing very substantial changes. Then we come to brother’s son. He was very high up, in Class I. He is by the Department brought down to Class III along with sister’s

DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL 491 son. If a man died leaving a brother’s son and a sister’s son, under the original Bill, the brother’s son would have inherited, but under the Departmental Bill the brother’s son and the sister’s son inherit together. I submit these are very substantial changes. Then I come to Class IV of the original Bill. In Class IV of the original Bill, a man dying leaving a father’s mother and a father’s father have been treated differently in the original Bill and the Departmental Bill. Between the father’s mother and a father’s father being the heirs under the original Bill, the father’s mother would have been preferred; the father’s father would have been postponed. But under the Departmental Bill both have been put together and they inherit together. I ask whether this is not a substantial change. Then, Sir, we have a certain class of heirs in Class IV, items (1A), (1B), (1C) and (1D). These were introduced by an amendment of the original report by the Rau Committee. In the original Bill, if there was a father’s widow and a brother’s widow, the father’s widow would have been preferred to the brother’s widow. In the Departmental Bill the father’s widow and the brother’s widow inherit together. I submit this is a very substantial change— whether good or bad, it is not the point. Then coming to two other heirs in the supplementary list introduced by way of amendment of the Rau Committee brother’s son’s widow and brother’s son’s son’s widow are entirely omitted in the Departmental Bill. In the original Bill they would have inherited one after the other. In the Departmental Bill they are omitted. There is nothing corresponding to this in the Departmental Bill. Then coming to item 2, Class IV, the father’s father is very low in the original Bill but he has been brought up very much higher in the list prepared by the Departmental Committee. Then Sir, we come to the father’s brother and also to father’s sister. Father’s brother is No. 3 in the list. Father’s sister is sixth in the list. So in the original Bill, if there was the father’s father and the others, the father’s father would be preferred. Then comes the father’s brother, father’s brother’s son, father’s brother’s son’s son and then the father’s sister. In the Departmental Bill the father’s father and the father’s sister have been brought together, the latter being brought higher up. Then there is a large list of heirs which has been entirely omitted. Nos. (4), (5), (7), (8) and (9) are heirs in the original Bill. They are nowhere in the Departmental Bill. They are entirely eliminated.

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES492 I know, Sir, that it is a tedious business to refer to this but I am discharging a duty and I undertook to supply every Member with a copy of the comparative statement which is in course of preparation. I shall ask the Members to verify each change and I shall be most glad if I am proved to be wrong. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : I hope it shall be supplied free of cost. Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : If the Government thinks I am a charitable institution then I shall be glad to deserve the hope. Mr. Deputy Speaker : Had it been supplied earlier all this time would have been saved ! Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : The pity is that my printing press is worse than the Government Printing Press. Mr. Deputy Speaker : If the suggestion had been made to the Honourable the Law Minister, he would have had it printed. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Certainly, I would have had it printed. The Naziruddin Ahmad : I have the manuscript ready. I shall be glad if the Honourable the Law Minister would publish it. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Now it would be of no use because you have said the same thing on the floor of the House. Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : Now we come to Class V of the original Bill. By strange accident—I should be afraid to insinuate anything— everything in it has been omitted in the Departmental Bill. It contains nine classes of heirs and four other supplementary heirs. Thirteen heirs in Class V of the original Bill have been entirely omitted, whether by mistake... The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Very deliberately ! Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : But then why did the report of the Select Committee say that no substantial changes were made ? If these were omitted deliberately, then the only point is whether these are substantial changes. The House has been assured by the Honourable the Law Minister that no substantial changes were made. That these changes were made deliberately is now admitted. The question now therefore is whether these are substantial changes. But we have been assured that no substantial changes have been made. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : That is a matter of opinion.